Totally unsurprising »« [Thunderdome]

So…do they stamp a symbol on the side of the cockpit for each one?

A while back, one of the assholes claimed that it was people like me and Ed Brayton who were dividing the atheist community — that we were creating deep rifts over irrelevant issues. Wait, scratch that…it wasn’t one of the assholes, but all of them. But what I’ve seen instead is that they are the people driving others out of the movement.

The latest? We’re losing Natalie Reed.

The reasons for this are complex and numerous, but most of them relate to feeling a lot of alienation from the Atheist Community, a lot of fear about the increasingly hostile attacks on women within that community, and the fact that my efforts to distance myself from all that while keeping my blog here haven’t really worked out. I’m still a target, and some of the stuff that Jen, Ophelia and Greta have had to deal with lately have been outright scary. Skepticism and Atheist just aren’t important enough to me to feel comfortable putting myself in the way of that for their sake.

I really can’t blame her, either. Why fight for a movement rife with people who despise your kind, and who are probably now capering with glee at having silenced one more woman?

Comments

  1. Rodney Nelson says

    Why fight for a movement rife with people who despise your kind, and who are probably now capering with glee at having silenced one more woman?

    There’ll be celebrations in the slymepit tonight.

  2. says

    I entirely understand her choice, and TBH was pretty certain this was going to happen, since she hasn’t feeling that the Atheist community was anything for her for quite a while.

    I’m very glad she was at FTB for as long as she was, and I hope to see her writing about Transfeminism elsewhere in the future.

  3. Maureen Brian says

    Well, they are celebrating too soon then for we are legion.

    I’m sad to lose Natalie but if the jerks are planning to pick off 3.5 billion of us one woman at at time then they are on a hiding to nothing. I think they are running scared – the only vaguely rational excuse for their vitriol.

    (I realise I am too drunk to write at length. If there are typos, forgive me.)

  4. Bjarni says

    Fuck Fuck Fuck. Whatapackofdouchebags.

    I’ve enjoyed reading Natalie’s work and think she really contributed to FTB. I understand and respect her decision, but damn I wish it wasn’t like this. Why (and how?) are people so horrible?

  5. shouldbeworking says

    What a tough decision for her. She is a good writer and she helped me understand (at least a little) a topic I never encountered before.

    I hate it when the slime wins.

  6. David Marjanović says

    I think they are running scared – the only vaguely rational excuse for their vitriol.

    Well, yes; I’m immediately reminded of fundamentalism, which happens when religions run scared. But that doesn’t mean they’re really on the way out. Around the 13th century or something, the fundies took over pretty much the entire Islamic world… and kept much of it till the late 19th century and the rest till now.

    Ignoring the trolls doesn’t work.

  7. says

    A while back, one of the assholes claimed that it was people like me and Ed Brayton who were dividing the atheist community — that we were creating deep rifts over irrelevant issues. Wait, scratch that…it wasn’t one of the assholes, but all of them. But what I’ve seen instead is that they are the people driving others out of the movement.

    The latest? We’re losing Natalie Reed.

    The very first post I read fron Natalie Reed rubbed me up the wrong way. Why? It was this post http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/08/10/all-in/ the one where she says that right from the off she didn’t give two craps about atheism but she DID give a crap about skepticism. Problem is, and I quote from her:

    The skepticism I believed in wasn’t about some little club for people to get together and tell each other how smart they all are for not believing in incredibly silly things like UFOs, Bigfoot, psychics, ghosts and the Loch Ness Monster…

    The ban on gendered slurs somewhat mitigates my putting into words exactly how i felt about that piece when i read it, but it partly made me feel like going to a gender politics asociated convention and announcing that rather than talking about their subjects (you know, like erm, ***gender politics***), as I have little interest in them, we should have a few speakers talk on poltergeists and ESP instead.

    It is for that reason that she will be sadly missed here on Freethought Blogs. This place absolutely suited her down to the ground.

  8. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    Wait, I thought it was our ‘side’ who was keen on purges? If that’s the case, why isn’t the slymepit or the blogs of any of its contributors being so overrun by bullies that the owners are being forced to shut it down?

  9. The Mellow Monkey says

    She had said that this was coming soon on Twitter, so I’m not surprised. Just sad to see her go. Her voice on FtB was an important, eloquent one and she made me question and learn things that I had thought I already knew. I hope to follow her writing wherever she goes from here.

  10. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    The ban on gendered slurs somewhat mitigates my putting into words exactly how i felt about that piece when i read it…

    My black and empty heart cracks and bleeds for your plight.

  11. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    noelplum99, did it ever occur to you that people should be able to write about whatever the fuck they want to write about on their blogs, even if it doesn’t please you personally? I know that’s a pretty radical philosophy, but it seems to work pretty well for all of us who abide by it.

    I, for example, am aware of a great many blogs that don’t cater to what I consider explicitly relevant to me and my interests. But instead of being offended by that – brace yourself for this; it’s pretty confronting – I simply don’t read them.

  12. Tethys says

    Fuck off Noelplum. The most important thing you are missing is a sense of decency, you miserable excuse for a human being.

  13. says

    Somewhere there exists a topic on which one could write a blogpost for which noelplum99 would not be a sociopathic shit-heel in the comments. Researchers are scouring the fields of knitting, LOLcats and traditional Thai poetry for this topic, so far to no avail.

  14. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    This is very sad. I am trying to understand how the the jizzbags think atheism and skepticism can prosper if it remains hostile to 50% of humanity. I wish Natalie the best. All I can say is the rest of us will keep up the fight.

  15. says

    Noelplum99: could you please stop trying so hard to be a moron? You’re ignoring the context.

    Skepticism is a good thing. The gripe many of us have with the skeptics movement is that they’ve constrained skepticism, restricting it to only stuff like bigfoot and UFOs, and absolutely freaking out if you try to apply skepticism to social issues and religion.

    You want a better analogy? You go to a feminist conference to talk about real concerns of women, and discover that they only subjects they will allow you to discuss are shoes and cosmetics. Jobs, careers, rape, and violence are off the table. That’s what many of us have objected to about some modern skeptics.

  16. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    noelplum99 is a perfect illustration of the problem in the atheist community. He sees someone writing about something that doesn’t interest him and he’s horrified. How dare someone think differently from him? How can someone have the temerity, the audacity to publish those heretical thoughts?

    I don’t get this. I really don’t.

  17. says

    Chris:

    Somewhere there exists a topic on which one could write a blogpost for which noelplum99 would not be a sociopathic shit-heel in the comments. Researchers are scouring the fields of knitting, LOLcats and traditional Thai poetry for this topic, so far to no avail.

    I don’t think that would help, Chris. Noeltheplumidiot99 only bothers to show up here to do his standard derail of “let’s make this all the the plum idiot” when the subject has something to do with feminism or sexism. Why, he’s a self-styled expert on all things female! He certainly knows better than some silly creature walking about with the wrong bits.

  18. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Why, he’s a self-styled expert on all things female!

    Just ask his wife.

  19. weatherwax says

    noelplum99: So we should just continue to circle jerk about the same, stupid, already de-bunked subjects, and not attempt to shine skepticism into other subjects. Gotcha.

  20. rjlangley says

    Fuck you, noelplum99. Seriously. Fuck you.

    PZ – sorry to say that out of the Thunderdome, but my rage at noelplum99 and his ilk is boiling over right now.

    Natalie is an excellent writer, and I am a better, less judgemental person for having read her work.

  21. says

    PZ @20

    Skepticism is a good thing. The gripe many of us have with the skeptics movement is that they’ve constrained skepticism, restricting it to only stuff like bigfoot and UFOs, and absolutely freaking out if you try to apply skepticism to social issues and religion.

    But ‘skepticism’ has never meant simply thinking skeptically about anything whatsoever. A talk on macro economic policy would be totally out of place no matter how skeptical the speaker was being. Plainly your gripe is that a well established movement is not about your pet socio-political concerns: so why not move on? Does EVERYTHING have to be about your interests?

    Personally, I have never had very much interest in skeptics movements or their typical interests and never labelled myself a skeptic for that reason. What i have never done is walk onto their manor and insist that they need to stop being quite so interested in what they are interested in, because it bores me, and start being more interested in religion and metaethics. There are other venues for my interests, as there are for Natalie Reeds, without pissing on everyone elses chips in this way..

  22. Gregory Greenwood says

    I completely understand Natalie Reed’s decision to leave given what has happened, but it is a shame that we are going to lose her from FtB. She is a brilliant and thought provoking writer.

    It would be just like the short sighted and willfuly blinkered ‘Pitters to celebrate over what they think is a ‘victory’, when all they have done is help to impoverish the visible, online athest community.

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    noelplum99 @ 11;

    Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, issues pertaining to gender politics – ultimately about whether or not 50% of the species is even viewed as being human at all – might be just a little bit more important than stating the obvious about Bigfoot, Nessie and UFO abduction for the umpteenth time?

  23. No One says

    noelplum99

    The same thing freaked me out when I first read it. But I examined my re-action, then put myself in in Natalie’s shoes. I learned from it. When I read a similar statement from another minority blogger on FTB I recognized that some human beings have issues that might seem alien to me at the onset, but by trying to understand them I have become “more”. Perhaps you might find utility in open minded approach.

  24. throwaway says

    It’s fairly obvious no one gives a shit about what rubs noelplum whichever way, nor should it matter to anyone. The way he puts it sounds like he is totally non-averse to watering down skepticism to the point which natalie was decrying in his cherry-picked quote. Rather than seeing it as an all-encompassing approach, he would limit it to those topics which interested him. All about him, yet again. Never mind that feminism is an application of skepticism in the purist sense, that doesn’t matter because it’s not Big Foot or Nessie or Olympis Mons Face. The analogy sucked, noelplum, really badly.

    I’m not a regular poster here, I am a constant reader, and I’ve grown tired enough of seeing your bullshit, enough to delurk and say fuck you, on top of and in addition to all the times I’ve said it to you mentally.

  25. says

    Noelplum

    Umm exactly why couldn’t you do a talk on the empirical evidence in favor or opposed to different macro economic plans/policies/models?

  26. Rey Fox says

    The ban on gendered slurs somewhat mitigates my putting into words exactly how i felt about that piece when i read it

    So when somebody of a female persuasion writes something that you are not interested in, your unfiltered reaction is misogyny. You’ll have to pardon us for not being surprised in the slightest.

  27. says

    Weatherwax @25

    noelplum99: So we should just continue to circle jerk about the same, stupid, already de-bunked subjects, and not attempt to shine skepticism into other subjects. Gotcha.

    You express similar reasons to my own as to why you find the whole field somewhat dull. However, finding a field dull is no reason to arrogantly decide for those who DO enjoy it that it needs to be about something else.
    By all means shine your beacon of sceptical thinking into what the hell you like. Should you shine it into other subjects? Yes! Absolutely! I can think of no subject whatsoever NOT to shine it in to, but that does not make scepticism about everything whatsoever, because scepticism has never been simply about ‘thinking sceptically’, it has been about a small subset of pretty nerdy things (and as a regular commenter to the UK magazine ‘The Skeptic’ wrote to me recently ‘happily, over here, it still is!’)

  28. says

    I’m glad to see Natalie being given a good send-off, but I would far rather have an on-line community that isn’t fractured by toxic maliciousness or outright vacuous stupidity as exemplified by the YouTube cretin who decided to shit up the thread because he didn’t like the first post of hers he read — and to that, I have to say: GOOD WORK NATALIE. Mission accomplished.

    (This may not be one of Chris’s threads, but can we please have bunnification of this pest’s comments?)

  29. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    weatherwax wrote:

    noelplum99: So we should just continue to circle jerk about the same, stupid, already de-bunked subjects, and not attempt to shine skepticism into other subjects. Gotcha.

    People like noelplum99 and the slymepitters want one thing from atheist bloggers, writers and speakers: to be provided with material that makes them feel better about themselves in comparison to the religious. Funny stories about the dumb things they do or horrifying stories about the evil things they do.

    But the recent shift to turning the same level of analysis of the bad behaviour of the religious onto the behaviour of people within the atheist community has robbed them of that. Worse still it’s undermined their sense of their own superiority. They’re no longer being patted on the head and told how great they are for doing nothing at all; instead, they’re being told they need to grow up and work at being better.

    And they’re so spoiled by having had these desires catered to over the years that their resentment at having that taken away is like that of a spoiled child having their favourite toy taken away.

    One would think the obvious choice would be to simply keep reading the blogs that indulged them and allowed them to live the lie of unearned superiority – but no, that’s not good enough. Their sense of entitlement is so strong they’ve chosen instead to try and force people like PZ and Ophelia and Jen and Rebecca Watson into either falling in line or shutting the hell up.

    What they don’t seem to realise is that this didn’t work for the religious. It didn’t work for the accomodationists. And, as far as I can tell, even though some people are taking much-needed (and understandable) breaks from the onslaught of intimidation, overall, those with an interest in social justice and diversity are going to keep talking about it, whether the frat-boy dude-bros and their token cheerleaders like it or not.

  30. says

    Gregory @28

    noelplum99 @ 11;
    Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, issues pertaining to gender politics – ultimately about whether or not 50% of the species is even viewed as being human at all – might be just a little bit more important than stating the obvious about Bigfoot, Nessie and UFO abduction for the umpteenth time?

    Absolutely. I haven’t just considered it, I actually agree they are more important. They are just clearly (look through several decades of skeptics magazines if you are in any doubt) NOT what these movements have been about.
    Tbh, i was surprised you made this point Gregory, because isn’t this exactly the issue you had with Dawkins ‘Dear Muslima’ (not necessarily you specifically)? Just because your favoured gender politics issues are more important why does that give you the right to marginalise a group of people who want to talk about these other issues?

    No One @29

    When I read a similar statement from another minority blogger on FTB I recognized that some human beings have issues that might seem alien to me at the onset, but by trying to understand them I have become “more”.

    All I can say is that Natalies issues didn’t seem alien to me, they seemed relevant and worthy of discussion. I just couldn’t understand why someone would join movements they don’t give two craps about and then insist they become about things they regard as more important.

    Notwithstanding any of this, I am genuinely sorry that NR has felt the need to stop blogging through abuse. There is no ‘win’ attached to that for anyone.
    Perhaps i should have made that clear on my first post, so sorry for that (not that it would have stopped the torrent of aggression coming my way, i am quite sure).

  31. Rey Fox says

    But ‘skepticism’ has never meant simply thinking skeptically about anything whatsoever.

    Right, I forgot. Skepticism means thinking skeptically on the topics that Noelvonplum is interested in.

    Plainly your gripe is that a well established movement is not about your pet socio-political concerns: so why not move on?

    Maybe because this is PZ and Ed’s blog network.

    What i have never done is walk onto their manor and insist that they need to stop being quite so interested in what they are interested in

    She was invited into their manor, you clueless moron. And encouraged to stay and write about what she wanted to write about.

    There are other venues for my interests

    How about you consider fucking off to one of those venues then and bore those people to death?

  32. Rey Fox says

    Personally, I have never had very much interest in skeptics movements or their typical interests and never labelled myself a skeptic for that reason.

    Then why are you so bent on declaring yourself the arbiter of what skepticism is?

    Seriously, fuck off. Nobody likes you.

  33. mandrellian says

    Noelplum99, I’m wondering honestly why you’re here (on this thread and in general). Can you tell me? I’ve seen a few of your posts on FtB over the last 6 months and I’m wondering why you come here so frequently, given that the tone of most of your comments is (usually lengthy and/or vague) disapproval, (usually followed by tangential back-and-forths between people whom you annoy, frequently including the blogger themselves).

    Because there seems to be little PZ or any FtB writer can write about without earning a noelplum99 scolding, I’d like to know why you’re such a frequent visitor if virtually nothing on this network meets your standards.

  34. Stacy says

    But ‘skepticism’ has never meant simply thinking skeptically about anything whatsoever.

    Bull.Shit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

    Skepticism is a way of thinking, and there is no reason it should not be applied to subjects rather more important than cryptozoology and UFOs.

    On the contrary, the folks who revel in debunking are a subset of a wider philosophical movement. Applying the term only to the debunking of paranormal claims and suchlike is overreach.

    I suspect the late Carl Sagan would have agreed. A Candle in the Dark was about much more than UFOs and psychic tomfoolery. It was a manifesto for clear thinking in every aspect of life.

  35. brianpansky says

    university of planet beat me to what I was going to say.

    this person does not know that evidence based decisions are good places for skepticism?

  36. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    noelplum99 doesn’t seem to grasp that there’s a vast different between someone writing a blog expressing an opinion of what the skeptical movement should focus on, and getting together a bunch of your buddies to swarm that person’s blog and saying to that person “You’re a bitch-cunting ugly whore whose looks would be improved by a vial of acid.”

    It seems pretty simple to me. Someone writes a blog post you disagree with? Write a blog post about how you disagree with them and why. Don’t try to intimidate them on Twitter. Don’t make photsohopped images of them and put them in videos on YouTube. Don’t sign them up for spam snail-mail.

    What the fuck is complicated about that? How can anyone with a fully-functioning brain consider those two things to being even remotely equal?

  37. Tethys says

    What i have never done is walk onto their manor and insist that they need to stop being quite so interested in what they are interested in

    Every post noelplum has made here stands in direct contrast to this statement. In fact, all noelplum ever does is tell us that we are doing skepticism wrong.

  38. says

    Wowbagger @35

    I will make this my last response here.

    Firstly, one thing I have learnt from you guys at FtB and, especially, the atheismplus forum (where I have never posted because I realised that would be inappropriate, but have read) is that you NEVER EVER tell other people how they feel and what they think. Perhaps you could accord me the same treatment?

    One would think the obvious choice would be to simply keep reading the blogs that indulged them and allowed them to live the lie of unearned superiority – but no, that’s not good enough.

    Unlike 99% of the people who post here I prefer to read material that challenges me, rather than stuff that simply confirms my beliefs. Do not get me wrong, there is much value in reading people of similar thoughts to onesself addressing things from slightly different perspectives but how fucking boring is it to keep doing that all the time? I come here and post here preciselt BECAUSE I know I will often agree with people like PZ and the commenters generally won’t agree with me. If that seems really so strange to you then maybe it is YOU that needs to get out more?

    Their sense of entitlement is so strong they’ve chosen instead to try and force people like PZ and Ophelia and Jen and Rebecca Watson into either falling in line or shutting the hell up.

    Well gien that you are including me in this bunch perhaps you could tell me where I have forced any of these individuals to shut up or fall in line?

    Ok, so i will leave it there. now would be a great time to say how I have made this thread all about me and how i have run away under the combined intellectual weight of the response (which with josh and nerd not here has actually been significantly better than normal)

    take care,
    jim

  39. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I will make this my last response here.

    Is this a full flounce or just this thread?

  40. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    What i have never done is walk onto their manor and insist that they need to stop being quite so interested in what they are interested in, because it bores me, and start being more interested in religion and metaethics. There are other venues for my interests, as there are for Natalie Reeds, without pissing on everyone elses chips in this way..

    A little self reflection just might shut you up.

  41. mandrellian says

    Back on topic (I seem to have involved myself in a tangent!), Natalie will be missed. It’s a sad reflection on the state of this loose community of ours that a respected member feels they’ve no option but to stop participating in way that made them feel valuable and appreciated, thanks to a small number of vocal haters dedicated to destroying anyone who challenges them (and the larger number of enablers of all stripes).

  42. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I will make this my last response here.

    Which flounce is this for the egotistical liar and bullshitter. Either quit making pronouncements or just go away Jim, either will show your don’t lie and bullshit. Nobody cares but you and your ego.

  43. says

    Mandrellian:

    Noelplum99, I’m wondering honestly why you’re here (on this thread and in general). Can you tell me? I’ve seen a few of your posts on FtB over the last 6 months and I’m wondering why you come here so frequently

    Because we are infested with mouthy, uppity bitches who really require the genteel, patriarchal gaze of plum the idiot to remind us that all is well with society and we should stop insisting on pursuing this idiotic notion of feminism, because it’s tainting his ideas of what is right and proper and all that terrible moaning is keeping him up at night.

  44. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    noelplum99 wrote:

    Unlike 99% of the people who post here I prefer to read material that challenges me, rather than stuff that simply confirms my beliefs.

    Yeah, funnily enough most of us are pretty secure in knowing that neither gods nor Bigfoot nor aliens who abduct humans for anal probing exist without needing to be constantly ‘challenged’ about it.

    I don’t come here to have my ‘beliefs’ ‘confirmed’ you useless waste of fucking carbon, I come here to talk and listen to people about what the fuck we can do now that we’ve accepted we live in a world without gods. I’m not going to apologise for not wanting to be part of some so-called skeptical circle-jerk that sits around hoping that someone’s going to come up with another piece of ‘evidence’ that I can get excited about being smart enough to reject and then engage in another round of ego-stroking and back-patting.

  45. says

    I will make this my last response here.

    Yes, yes. I’ve last count of all the times you’ve said the exact same thing. I’d dearly like it if you could manage to keep your word.

  46. says

    Okay, let’s open the betting: how long will it be before noelplum99 shows up again?

    Side bets: will it be under a new account, or the same one? Will he ever respond if anyone refers him to his promise never to comment here again? Will he have learned a single thing between now and then?

    Dammit, I was feeling pretty good this evening, and then I see this post. Well, crud.

  47. Suido says

    I’ll put three tenths of fuck all on noelplum sticking his flounce. If I was betting with my feels instead of my thinks, I’d be putting the house on it.

    Fuck off Noel. That you’re still here after Natalie has left is EXACTLY the problem that atheism and skepticism is facing right now.

  48. The Mellow Monkey says

    Caine:

    Because we are infested with mouthy, uppity bitches who really require the genteel, patriarchal gaze of plum the idiot to remind us that all is well with society and we should stop insisting on pursuing this idiotic notion of feminism, because it’s tainting his ideas of what is right and proper and all that terrible moaning is keeping him up at night.

    It must truly, truly be tragic for the poor dears like this. Just knowing that someone, somewhere out there is talking about social issues. It can’t be ignored. It can’t be accepted. It must be wailed against, at every opportunity. How DARE we talk about these things. Simply mentioning them on our own blogs will inspire a burning, festering resentment for years to come.

    Noelplum cannot sleep. Someone on the internet is feminist.

  49. weatherwax says

    noelplum99: “scepticism has never been simply about ‘thinking sceptically’, it has been about a small subset of pretty nerdy things ”

    Wrong. It IS, and always has been, about learning to think skeptically. Bigfoot and UFOs, etc, are just examples of where thinking goes wrong. The people who believe that they’re all the movement is about are the worthless morons who, as Natalie pointed out, hold themselves up as superior to the sheeple because they believe the “right things”.

  50. says

    Just commenting to clarify something: I did not mean I am never commenting on PZ’s blog again (as he has not banned me or privately asked me not to comment, why would I do that?) simply that I was leaving this thread.

  51. Rodney Nelson says

    Noeljim is skeptical about everything but wants Skepticism™ to be restricted to a few, well-worn topics. He thinks gender politics are incredibly important but Skepticism™ should be forbidden to discuss it under penalty of Noeljim’s stern disapproval. Why Skepticism™ shouldn’t shine its light on gender politics and other social justice topics is an exercise left to the reader.

    BTW, Noeljim, congratulations. You’ve managed to turn a thread discussing why an excellent, articulate blogger is leaving FTB into yet another thread devoted to you.

  52. Suido says

    My version of how bad this feels.

    I was supposed to move house this weekend. After the sweat and toil of packing all my stuff up, the removalists never showed up, despite confirming 24 hours earlier. I’m now 600km away from all my stuff, as it sits at my old house under the (hopefully not dubious) care of my renting successors, because I had a plane to catch and new workplace to start at. Feels pretty bad.

    Doesn’t feel as bad as reading that Natalie is silencing herself on atheism and skepticism because some people are fuckbrained arseholes.

  53. Gregory Greenwood says

    noelplum99 @ 36;

    Absolutely. I haven’t just considered it, I actually agree they are more important. They are just clearly (look through several decades of skeptics magazines if you are in any doubt) NOT what these movements have been about.

    Why? Who are these arbiters of skepticism empowered to declare that a sceptical mindset must never be applied to issues of social justice? What makes you think that the field of skepticism is, or should be, so narrow? Why shouldn’t skepticism evolve to deal with issues that are of import to the modern world? If all skepticism ever does is continue to address the glaringly self evident with regard to the non-existence of Bigfoot et al, then it will ultimately die a well deserved death by a thousand irrelevancies.

    Tbh, i was surprised you made this point Gregory, because isn’t this exactly the issue you had with Dawkins ‘Dear Muslima’ (not necessarily you specifically)? Just because your favoured gender politics issues are more important why does that give you the right to marginalise a group of people who want to talk about these other issues?

    This is a false equivalency. Professor Dawkins’ infamous ‘Dear Muslima’ statement was problematic because it discounted the experience of discrimination and sexism by women living in the Western world by means of a fallacious appeal to things being worse in other parts of the world. He tried to minimise the discrimination against women and the toxic character of rape culture in the Western world by appealing to the horrors of such things as the stoning of women in some other parts of the world, thus seeking to set the bar for ‘true’, ‘legitimate’ oppression of women unreasonably high – unless you are being stoned for going out without a male member of your family acting as chaperone, then you just aren’t discriminated against enough to count. Glass ceilings, wage inequality, the pervasive rape culture and misogyny of society – none of this stuff goes far enough to meet the arbitray standards of ‘true’ discrimination put forward by those who buy into the ‘Dear Muslima’ mindset.

    Pointing out that going on about well established and settled issues (like the non-existence of Bigfoot) is of little importance when set against the application of a skeptical, rational perspective to the very real struggle to counter the pervasive misogyny and rape culture in society, is in no way comprable to a ‘Dear Muslima’ claim.

    Skeptics simply do not experience significant discrimination or oppression in society for saying that Bigfoot doesn’t exist, so there is no parallel between the situation of skeptics in society and that of women, making the comparison to ‘Dear Muslima’ inappropriate.

    Those of us who wish to apply skepticism to social justice issues are not playing the ‘oppression olympics’ and comparing one set of discrimination against another – we are choosing to use the tools of skepticism to deal with a pressing issue of social justice, rather than rehash points about such things as alien abduction that are already accepted by the mainstream of most societies.

  54. Tethys says

    This statement could use some clarification too noelplum:

    I come here and post here preciselt BECAUSE I know I will often agree with people like PZ and the commenters generally won’t agree with me.

    The horde is usually in agreement with PZ, with a few notable exceptions. You can’t possibly expect us to believe that you agree with PZ but not the commenters. Poor, poor, misunderstood trolling asshole.

    Take your smarmy opinions, and your patronizing lies, and go associate with the slimey people you defend.

  55. says

    MM:

    Simply mentioning them on our own blogs will inspire a burning, festering resentment for years to come.

    Noelplum cannot sleep. Someone on the internet is feminist.

    Awful, isn’t it? I’ll see if I can conjure some crocodile tears.

  56. omnicrom says

    Noelplum Please leave.

    Like completely. You have proven yourself over and over again to be an arrogant pinhead, it continues to astound me how you haven’t yet been thrown in the dungeon because you are a tremendously self-important asshole. Over and over you have pronounced your opinions on Atheism and Skepticism as though they were divine truths and repeatedly hijacked threads to make them all about YOUR views on everything. No one has ever given a shit about what you had to say, and it really is completely indefensible to pop in a thread about the fallout of shitty people to be a shitty person.

    So again Noelplum: Please leave.

  57. Ogvorbis says

    It really saddens me that people like Noelplum continue to dump their dreck everywhere and voices like Natalie are silenced.

  58. mandrellian says

    Noelplum99 Bingo card (feel free to add your own):

    Enters thread with a tangent/pronouncement/scold/general obtuseness [x]
    Claims moral high ground based on negative responses (that he fully expected to receive) [x]
    Continues derail until thread is about noelfuckingplum [x]
    Pronounces flounce (see “moral high ground”) [x]
    Returns to clarify initial flounce after continuing to read thread after flouncing; flounces again [x]

    Bonus: enters thread elsewhere to begin cycle anew [ ... ]

  59. says

    tethys

    This statement could use some clarification too noelplum:

    Shit sorry, should have read “I know I will often DISagree with people like PZ and the commenters generally won’t agree with me.”
    i can understand your confusion.

  60. omnicrom says

    Best wishes Natalie. Considering how toxic Atheism currently is it’s a feat of courage you stuck it out this long when there are so many shitheads like Noelplum or worse out there making life hell for women.

  61. Tethys says

    i can understand your confusion.

    Well bless your heart for the clarification np, please resume fucking off.

  62. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    Mandrellian,

    I’d add ‘Claims to “prefer to have his beliefs challenged”, with or without reference to echo chamber’ to that bingo card.

  63. mandrellian says

    Wowbagger,

    Yup, good one! Surely someone out there with a modicum of MS Paint skill can mock one of these up! Perhaps it could be broadened to “hyperskeptic(tm) white male Bingo”…

  64. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    simply that I was leaving this thread.

    Which you didn’t do, proving yourself to be nothing but a trolling liar and bullshitter with nothing of honesty and integrity to say. Funny how certain alleged skeptic apologists don’t understand this concept…

  65. says

    Jesus.

    Plainly your gripe is that a well established movement is not about your pet socio-political concerns: so why not move on?

    That’s not the issue. It’s that skepticism, critical thinking, all that are extensible to a great many fields; that the movement is hidebound and refuses to acknowledge this is a great loss.

    But you know what? You’ve done enough damage by hijacking a thread that was about regretting the loss of a valuable contributor, and turning it into your petty whine about how you didn’t like her. It is therefore incredibly ironic that you are complaining that we want to shift a movement to consider our ‘pet concerns’ when you seem to have no compunction about taking a thread and turning it into one all about your pet concern: you, you, you.

    And that’s enough.

    Banned.

    And there was much rejoicing.

  66. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    It is therefore incredibly ironic that you are complaining that we want to shift a movement to consider our ‘pet concerns’ when you seem to have no compunction about taking a thread and turning it into one all about your pet concern: you, you, you.

    And not just this thread. Nearly Every fuckingthread he comments in.

    And there was much rejoicing.

    *party horn

  67. says

    @81 PZ
    thank you

    And there was much rejoicing

    I might be later, but right now I’m still too pissed at the atheo-skeptisphere.

    At least she’ll still be writing even if it isn’t at FTB.

  68. anteprepro says

    This place seems more breathable now that jim the plummer is gone. It’s like we now longer have a surplus of hot air.

    At least she’ll still be writing even if it isn’t at FTB.

    This.

  69. mandrellian says

    Ah. Thanks PZ. I regret I allowed myself to be drawn into plum’s narcissism. You’re right, it’s sad that we can’t even lament the loss of a valued member due to the behaviour of entitled douchebags without the thread being jacked by none other than an entitled douchebag.

    [BTW: cue the Freeze Peach brigade - pretty sure plum has friends in all the low places]

  70. jose says

    I thought the same as Stacy@40, concretely this excerpt from The Demon Haunted World:

    “The idea that critical thinking is the latest western fad is silly. If you’re buying a used car in Singapore or Bangkok, or a used chariot in ancient Susa or Rome, the same precautions will be useful as in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    When you buy a used car, you might very much want to believe what the salesman is saying: ‘So much car for so little money!’ And anyway, it takes work to be sceptical; you have to know something about cars, and it’s unpleasant to make the salesman angry at you. Despite all that, though, you recognize that the salesman might have a motive to shade the truth, and you’ve heard of other people in similar situations being taken. So you kick the tyres, look under the hood, go for a test drive, ask searching questions. You might even bring along a mechanically inclined friend. You know that some scepticism is required and you understand why. There is usually at least a small degree of hostile confrontation involved in the purchase of a used car and nobody claims it’s an especially cheering experience. But if you don’t exercise some minimal scepticism, if you have an absolutely untrammelled gullibility, there’s a price you’ll have to pay later. Then you’ll wish you had made a small investment of scepticism early on.”

    Look at Sagan walking onto the skeptics’ manor and insisting in making skepticism an integral part of people’s lives. He was such a bully, wasn’t he?

  71. says

    noelplum99:

    They are just clearly (look through several decades of skeptics magazines if you are in any doubt) NOT what these movements have been about.

    One thing that these movements have clearly been about (just look through those same several decades of skeptic magazines) is logical fallacies. Like, say, the argument from tradition.

    The fact that the skeptic movement hasn’t traditionally addressed topics like gender essentialism or kyriarchy or sexist claims does not mean that it can’t or shouldn’t. The skeptic movement can and should adapt and change its areas of focus as the world, the claims, the culture, and even the interests, priorities, and areas of expertise of the movement’s members, change. There’s little need to spend time and effort debunking the claims of the Heaven’s Gate cult or the Transcendental Meditators these days. The skeptic movement should not be beholden to some set of spoken or implicit rules about what topics are acceptable that were set down when the newsletters and magazines were focused on the latest episode of “In Search Of” or “Unsolved Mysteries.” Unless, of course, it wishes to relegate itself to the irrelevance and obsolescence of dusty old men lounging in leather chairs and chuckling about how silly Bigfoot and UFOs are.

    Incidentally, this is the exact same argument put forth when said skeptics want to exclude religion from the set of topics that are traditionally acceptable to be skeptical about. It’s silly to see so many “skeptical” people make such obvious arguments from tradition, but it’s sad to see that the response of many skeptics, when confronted with the notion that skepticism could be controversial or uncomfortable, is to resort to fallacious thinking and argumentation to preserve the status quo. Keep that skepticism within safe limits, best not to rock the boat. Wouldn’t want to drive people away by suggesting they may be wrong about things they have an actual investment in, certainly not.

  72. jose says

    It’s all over the book, really.

    “Tobacco is addictive; by many criteria more so than heroin and cocaine. There was a reason people would, as the 1940s ad put it, ‘walk a mile for a Camel’. More people have died of tobacco than in all of World War II. According to the World Health Organization, smoking kills three million people every year worldwide. This will rise to ten million annual deaths by 2020, in part because of a massive advertising campaign to portray smoking as advanced and fashionable to young women in the developing world. Part of the success of the tobacco industry in purveying this brew of addictive poisons can be attributed to widespread unfamiliarity with baloney detection, critical thinking and scientific method. Gullibility kills.”

    Skepticism applied to popular culture and big business. What has the world come to?

  73. says

    Mandrellian:

    I regret I allowed myself to be drawn into plum’s narcissism.

    Don’t. Everyone gets drawn into it simply because you cannot let that shit pass without rebuttal. To do so would give assent. It’s why he’s been repeatedly successful at making threads here all about him. He knows damn well that people won’t give his sexism, bigotry and assorted garbage a pass, he counts on it.

  74. Hekuni Cat, MQG says

    I really understand why Natalie is leaving, and I thank her for what I have learned from her because she was here. Good luck, Natalie.

  75. says

    it partly made me feel like going to a gender politics asociated convention and announcing that rather than talking about their subjects (you know, like erm, ***gender politics***), as I have little interest in them, we should have a few speakers talk on poltergeists and ESP instead.

    Skepticism is a method that you apply to subjects. Natalie cares a bout the method while not caring about most (all?) of the subjects that said method is mostly applied to, prefering instead to apply it to things that she cares about. What’s wrong with that?

    Also your example is not apt as I am not aware of Natalie going to a skeptic convention and saying that rather than talking about those subjects she doesn’t care about they should talk about the stuff she care about.

    What she did was more akin to creating her own convention (blog, actually) where she talked about the things that she cared about, applying the tools of skepticism to them.

    But even if she had argued that skeptic conventions should include more topic and apply skepticism more widely, why would it be a problem? You chose to characterise her by using rather than but there is no reason why it should be rather than instead of in addition to? Or maybe you have evidence of a rather than attitude on her part?

    If anything, it is the anti social justice brigade that wants to talk about anything rather than social justice and the social justice brigade that wants to talk about social justice in addition to the other stuff.

    But there is nothing wrong with offering possible new topics of discussion because you are not interested by those currently available, on the contrary, it can point out to conference organisers the possibility of new, untapped, markets that might be available if they broaden their horizon. Why, you might even have whole conferences* dedicated to some new markets one day.

    * To clarify, I am not claiming that Natalie in particular was responsible for that new conference, only that people broadening the application of skepticism to new topics was instrumental in showing that there was a market for said new conference and that Natalie is simply doing the same with her (overlapping) area of interest. Maybe one day we will have a Trans* People in Secularism conference?

  76. Tethys says

    I learned a lot about privilege from Natalie, and I am saddened that she will no longer be blogging due to harassment.

    *admires the new stain on the floor*

  77. says

    And that’s enough.

    Banned.

    And there was much rejoicing.

    QFT.

    I’ll occasionally seek Natalie’s writing wherever she might write, because it’s interesting and instructional, I shan’t do the same with l’emplumé as his output is neither.

  78. says

    Leaving won’t make the attacks less.

    I hope she finds a safe space, but there’s no place online she can blog to avoid the notoriety she’s already gotten. The only way to avoid it is to turn it all off and walk away.

  79. says

    BTW, Noeljim, congratulations. You’ve managed to turn a thread discussing why an excellent, articulate blogger is leaving FTB into yet another thread devoted to you.

    And yet, I don’t think there has been on comment here that hasn’t had something to say about him. And not very many devoted to Natalie. I am not trying to be so judgmental about things that I frequently engage in, but it is my observation that he has been the topic of almost every comment.

    This sums up the point I’m getting at:

    People are in psychological crisis, and masses of us, steeped in the anxiety of helplessness and futility, are feeling marginalized and victimized. Making it worse, we take our pain out on each other.

    Around the world the complexity of modern life contributes to personal distress, as does the effect on us of misguided leaders and anti-democratic forces in government and corporations. Yet our psyche, like a Model-T Ford sputtering along a superhighway, remains our primary weak spot.

    Psychologically, we operate according to old-fashioned principles. We’re quick to blame others for allegedly causing our pain. We want to attribute our neurotic suffering to the stupid beliefs and rotten behavior of others. The more we blame the other, though, the more we dislike or hate the other and the less clearly we see the essentials of our predicament. We also suffer more acutely from our own unresolved negative emotions.

    Skepticism is a philosophy that we live by, not a transient behavior that is mandated by our emotions. That’s what it means for me, anyways.

    The point is, that I have to question myself relentlessly, because if I don’t, I’m not a skeptic, but a cynic. I’m pretty sure that everyone knows this shit already. I’m not trying to point out the obvious(that we should question our own motivations and behaviors), but just that it is very weak position to take by placing all the blame on someone else, for our behavior.

    It is the only way that I have ever been able to stop being a junkie and a slobbering drunk. The instant I start pointing my fingers at others, in order to not have to look at my responsibility, I am in denial, and for me, it’s a fucking waste of what little time I have to exist.
    Actually that sort of thing scares the shit out of me, how I might start using again if I don’t take responsibility for my attitudes and world view.

    So now I am left with the question: Who am I trying to convince, myself, or others :)

  80. says

    I learned a lot about privilege from Natalie, and I am saddened that she will no longer be blogging due to harassment.

    She’ll still be writing, just not here:

    I haven’t gotten stuff finalized yet for where my new home will be, but I promise I’ll let you all know as soon as it’s all worked out. I can say, though, that I’ll be doing some Guest Contributor type stuff for WeHappyTrans, which will be the home for anything I write that fits with their specific mission.

  81. great1american1satan says

    OK, this is terrible. The two transgender folks running blogs here, to me it seemed like they represented different sides of the trans experience, one sunny and positive (ZJ) and one dark and serious (NR). Dark and serious is what I need, because the life of my favorite transgender person is much more in that vein. Dark is more useful to me.

    But I say, opportunity! We’re losing a transgender FTBlogger, so we should add one, and I say,

    Time to find a trans*man! I don’t know if this guy is available or appropriate, but he fits the sciencey background of the big guns around here: http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2006/july/barres.html

    Or if that technicolor ninja guest blogger on Crommunist is cool with gaining a higher profile, he’s got chops.

    If not a trans*man, some other types of queers and such would be cool. Recruit!

  82. great1american1satan says

    * not to say ZJ is frivolous, just that her experience is too positive to relate to in my grim-ass neighborhood.

  83. great1american1satan says

    crissa @96 –

    I’m betting leaving will make the attacks lessen. FTB is a giant spotlight for the sick fucks of slyme, so anyone in it will probably get worse attention than someone on a totally unrelated blog network. Here’s hoping…

    -

  84. yubal says

    I understand Natalie got disapointed with the community. That is understandable. I ask myself why I keep comming back.

  85. yubal says

    Yes that might be the case. But anyway. She is still going to be arround, she said, just not here on FTB.

  86. Fizzing thru da Fizzics says

    Natalie made me think, higher praise I can not give. I am a better person and skeptic having encountered Natalie’s blog. I will also seek to read more. Best wishes from kiwiland.

  87. says

    Yubal:

    I understand Natalie got disapointed with the community.

    Would you please learn to read? She didn’t leave because she’s upset with us, she’s upset and worried by the fuckwitted idiots at the slymepit and their campaigns of harassment and terrorizing.

  88. yubal says

    Caine,

    I believe I can read English sufficiently well. She chose not to talk on the FTB podium anymore because of some fraction of the audience.

    She will still post a blog. That is what she promised. FTB or not doesn’t matter. Simply add the link to your RSS list as soon she has a new hoster and you will read her as often as you did before.

    And that is the point. She didn’t get silenced, she prefers to talk somewhere else.

  89. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Well, hallelujah. Too bad it comes too late. The Noelplums of the world get to drop their shit all over everyone for months on end until good people wither away. Now we’ll get to watch it with Justin Vacula shitting all over women at Women in Secularism 2.

    Yep. Keep respecting their freeze peach. Don’t boot them out until they’ve choked the air out of every room. Rock on.

  90. unclefrogy says

    No one is expected to stay on the front line indefinitely there is no shame to be had from retiring back from the line it is a healthy thing to do it is how to keep up the fight all together.
    I raise my glass in salute to Natalie give a cheer for the returning warrior for human rights and freedom!
    Rest and regain strength this fight may be long and we may need your experience in the future.
    It is not a defeat for there are many engaged in this fight truth will prevail. For is not the question “what is true?” the essence of of skepticism?

    bozo’s flounce lasted a whole 15 min amazing

    uncle frogy

  91. says

    The world of Atheism and Skepticism will sorely miss Natalie’s many,many,many blogposts about the difficulties of being transgendered and the troubles she faces as a transgendered person.

  92. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Seems to me a whole lot more of ought to be screaming about why the bastards are allowed to run roughshod over everyone for almost two years on end—including being allowed to comment anywhere they please, and attend conferences where they aim to intimidate—until good people leave. Where the FUCK are the leaders of this alleged “community?”

  93. says

    Josh:

    Seems to me a whole lot more of ought to be screaming about why the bastards are allowed to run roughshod over everyone for almost two years on end—including being allowed to comment anywhere they please, and attend conferences where they aim to intimidate—until good people leave.

    A majority of them are banned in all manner of places. What do you suggest here, Josh? Sexist doucheweasels are all over, they are everywhere. For every one banned, another 10 pop up. If it turns out there’s no talking with them, they’re generally banned too. PZ doesn’t allow ‘pitters at all. So what do you want to do?

    Where the FUCK are the leaders of this alleged “community?”

    A whole bunch of them, at least those who organize cons, have had a good look at how they do things, implemented new harassment policies and are dedicated to more diversity in their line ups. Instead of just raging (and you know I understand that), just what, specifically, do you want people to do?

    We’re already fighting the good fight, countering these doucheweasels everywhere we find them, we’ve petitioned those who organize and run secular meetings, we cut them out of spaces on the ‘net, what do you want us to do?

  94. says

    Absolutely. I haven’t just considered it, I actually agree they are more important. They are just clearly (look through several decades of skeptics magazines if you are in any doubt) NOT what these movements have been about.

    We aren’t following the skeptic scriptures! We need to embrace our original doctrine. Fundamentalist Skepticism.

  95. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    I’ve let a specific frustration spill over onto everything. Very sloppy of me, and sorry. I’ll try to make more sense tomorrow.

  96. Crudely Wrott says

    Dammit, folks, I have read only thirty comments into this thread when a grand idea strikes me.

    How about naming the next transuranic element discovered something like noelplumium, in recognition of his great density.

    It seems quite fitting and proper to me; does anyone have alternate forms of honorary nomenclature?

  97. mithrandir says

    @115:

    The world of Atheism and Skepticism will sorely miss Natalie’s many,many,many blogposts about the difficulties of being transgendered and the troubles she faces as a transgendered person.

    Since many of those difficulties have their origin in religiously motivated gender essentialism, yes it will. I’m glad you agree.

  98. says

    Mithrandir:

    Since many of those difficulties have their origin in religiously motivated gender essentialism, yes it will.

    Gender essentialism is by no means restricted to theists or in any way religiously motivated for many, many people. Those who are all about FAAB couldn’t give a shit about religion.

  99. Crudely Wrott says

    The above random ejaculation may have resulted from watching a series of Danny Kaye movies tonight on TCM. I hope it is taken as a comedic response to an obviously dense and insensitive person and not in any way approval of said person.

    Tongue in cheek is not always easy to pull off. It’s just that the notion I expressed above got me to giggling* in much the same manner as Danny does.

    The loss of an eloquent and sincere blogger from this territory is saddening. More saddening is the reasons for the loss. I can only wish that Natalie finds happy trails and fertile grounds for her continued writing and the making of differences, positive differences.

    *just to mention one giggle inducing effect — the movie currently playing features Telly Savalas with hair!

  100. says

    @121:’Since many of those difficulties have their origin in religiously motivated gender essentialism, yes it will. I’m glad you agree.’

    CARR
    Let us take a random entry. Randomised as in the third entry I found on a randomly selected page :-

    ‘I’ve been talking an awful lot about the tension between trans-feminism and certain branches of radical feminism lately. Now I’m going to talk about it some more! It seems like a topic that demands attention at the moment, given the conferences being organized, or attempted to be, in Portland and London, and Sheila Jeffreys upcoming hate screed (available soon from Rutledge University Press!).

    There’s a flip side to this all that I don’t think does get talked about enough, though. Which is that periodically, beneath their burning, biased, clearly irrational hatred and fear, the transphobes organizing themselves into these “radical” cliques occasionally touch on points that do deserve to be addressed. The truth is that the trans community, and certainly it’s main stream, often do espouse anti-feminist principles, and suggest creepy, essentialist things.’

    Ok, all well and good, but what does that have to do with atheism and/or skepticism?

    And there are pages and pages of this stuff.

  101. says

    I should point out that tastes vary and I’m sure a lot of people were avid followers of the blog. As far as I can see, they will still be able to read Natalie, but elsewhere, and we can be assured that Freethought Blogs will soon find another transgendered person to write for them.

  102. says

    stevencarr:

    Ok, all well and good, but what does that have to do with atheism and/or skepticism?

    What do you mean, “all well and good”? “All well and good” but I don’t have to deal with this, so why are you talking about it? “All well and good”, but it doesn’t affect or interest me, so talk about something I find interesting? What?

    I’m not sure if you know what a flaming doucheweasel you sound like. Natalie is an atheist and skeptic. She addresses issues specific to transgender and she applies *gasp* skepticism to those issues! By golly, how radical, eh? How a certain segment of atheists react to such issues and those blogging about them is pertinent to atheoskepticism. At least to those of us who don’t have our heads buried in our rectums.

    If you’re one of those asses who think there’s a specific amount of subjects for holy skepticism and atheism to touch and no others, you’re in the wrong tent. You want the itty bitty, irrevelant tent over there ——->

    As there are many women, GLBT and POCs who are also atheists and skeptics, we kind of like such issues being addressed and written about because that’s inclusive. If you don’t like it, well, I’m sure I wouldn’t have to tell you that you certainly don’t have to read something you don’t care for.

  103. says

    stevencarr:

    we can be assured that Freethought Blogs will soon find another transgendered person to write for them.

    Oh and that makes it okay, does it? <spits>

    By the way, there is another transgendered writer at FTB. Telling you don’t know that.

  104. says

    I’m pleased to hear there is another transgendered writer at FtB.

    I hadn’t thought to look. I tend to classify sites by seeing if they have good writers, not if they have writers of different kinds.

    NATALIE
    ‘I’ve been talking an awful lot about the tension between trans-feminism and certain branches of radical feminism lately. Now I’m going to talk about it some more! It seems like a topic that demands attention at the moment, given the conferences being organized, or attempted to be, in Portland and London, and Sheila Jeffreys upcoming hate screed (available soon from Rutledge University Press!).

    There’s a flip side to this all that I don’t think does get talked about enough, though. Which is that periodically, beneath their burning, biased, clearly irrational hatred and fear, the transphobes organizing themselves into these “radical” cliques occasionally touch on points that do deserve to be addressed. The truth is that the trans community, and certainly it’s main stream, often do espouse anti-feminist principles, and suggest creepy, essentialist things.’

    CARR
    One can only wonder what sort of a douchbag Sheila Jeffreys is to write a hatescreed that was part of the chain of events leading up to Natalie deciding to stop writing about the clashes between trans-feminism and ultra-feminism.

  105. says

    @ CAINE
    I’m not sure if you know what a flaming doucheweasel you sound like.

    CARR
    Thanks for the kind words. I hope you feel better for expressing your opinion of me.

    By the way, have there been any recent events which leads one to think that personal insults and name-calling are the kinds of behaviour which drive away nice people from sites like this?

  106. Matt Penfold says

    Carr,

    You are in no position to complain about a lack of politeness given the bilge you have been spewing here.

    And cut that crap of referring to yourself in the third-person. It makes you look pretentious. Which I am sure you are, but do you really want to advertise the fact ?

  107. Beatrice says

    I’m sorry to hear Natalie is leaving and even more sorry about the reasons that forced her to make that decision.

    —-
    I don’t have any idea what the hell stevencarr is on about, but I wish he would stop. An alternative is to start using blockquotes, in order to make a bit more sense (hopefully).
    What’s with the idiots unable to write clearly lately?

  108. Matt Penfold says

    Ok, all well and good, but what does that have to do with atheism and/or skepticism?

    Can you explain why you think it should have something to do with atheism or scepticism ? Seems to me like you want to dictate to bloggers here what they should blog about. And that makes you arrogant as well as rude.

  109. says

    Hi Matt,
    Thanks for the advice. I shall take on board your view that certain people are not entitled to be treated politely, and should presumably be silenced.

    Sorry for the bilge I was spewing. Should I stop quoting Natalie’s postings?

    Do you agree with her that there is a clash between trans-feminism and ultra-feminism?

    As an atheist, should I be on the side of trans-feminism or on the side of ultra-feminism?

    I must confess to my ignorance here. What did Natalie mean by an ultra-feminist?

    I am also deeply saddened by the news that Natalie has stopped blogging on one domain, and will then resume blogging at another domain – /wehappytrans.com/

    I can only say how pleased I am by the outpouring of sympathy expressed to Natalie on this very thread over the disturbing news that she will soon be blogging on a different domain to this one.

    It shows that her readers care deeply.

  110. Matt Penfold says

    What’s with the idiots unable to write clearly lately?

    Oh, I think I understand what Carr is trying to say. He is saying that no one is meeting his needs, and blogging about what he thinks they should be blogging about, and therefore it is all so unfair and wah!

  111. Beatrice says

    stevencarr,

    Do take notice of the reasons for Natalie’s leaving.
    It’s not just that she is leaving for another blog, but that she is leaving because a community many people here feel they belong to has been quite hostile to her and many other women.

  112. Matt Penfold says

    Thanks for the advice. I shall take on board your view that certain people are not entitled to be treated politely, and should presumably be silenced.

    It seems you think you are entitled to be treated politely, but are not willing to be polite yourself. Your very first post was rude, so no, there is no need for us to be polite to you. It is odd, and suggests a lack of awareness on you part, that you would think there was. But then we have already established that you are arrogant.

  113. says

    Beatrice:

    I don’t have any idea what the hell stevencarr is on about

    Translation: Natalie wasn’t writing about proper subjects, like atheism and skepticism [approved skepticism subjects, natch], who cares about all that whining she did about transgender stuff. I mean, FTB can find another transgender writer, right? So what are all you bitches whinging about?

  114. says

    You are correct once again.

    Reading about the clashes between trans-feminism and ultra-feminism is not relevant to my life.

    But this is the Internet, and it is good to know that Natalie will still be posting at wehappytrans.com for people who need to learn about the clash between trans-feminism and ultra-feminism and its relevance to atheism and skepticism.

    Adjust your bookmarks accordingly.

  115. Matt Penfold says

    What I would like to know is who is forcing Carr to read blogs he does not want to read, and why he has not done anything about it.

  116. Matt Penfold says

    and its relevance to atheism and skepticism.

    Again, you seem to think blogs here must be about atheism and scepticism. I have no idea where you get that idea from, but you are mistaken. Another example of you wanting to dictate to FtB what the site should be about.

    You really do seem keen on proving what a arrogant arsehole you are. There is no need to carry on, we are willing to agree you are.

  117. says

    Noone is forcing me to read blogs.

    I read the blog to see what I was missing by Natalie no longer being here.

    And, the answer was, I was missing nothing.

    And even if I were missing something, Natalie is still blogging.

    The tragic news that a blogger is moving their blog from one domain to another has deeply distressed me, and I fully understand how upset people are by this shock.

  118. says

    MATT
    You really do seem keen on proving what a arrogant arsehole you are

    CARR
    Thanks for you kind words.

    Have there been any recent events which have persuaded you that name-calling and insults are one way to drive people away from this site?

    NATALIE
    I haven’t always consistently agreed with everyone who writes here, but being here has been nothing but a positive experience for me, and I’ll always be grateful for having been a part of this network and project and community. It’s just no longer the best spot for me, given how my interests and priorities have changed over time.

    CARR
    I’m pleased she thought writing for FtB was ‘nothing but a positive experience’ and I hope her reader switch their bookmarks to http://wehappytrans.com/

  119. Matt Penfold says

    Noone is forcing me to read blogs.

    I read the blog to see what I was missing by Natalie no longer being here.

    And, the answer was, I was missing nothing.

    And yet you thought it important enough to tell us ? Like I said, you are an arrogant arsehole.

  120. says

    Matt:

    Again, you seem to think blogs here must be about atheism and scepticism.

    Why Matt, the only subjects freethought is allowed to encompass are atheism and skepticism, did you not get the latest memo?

  121. Beatrice says

    And I will repeat myself. What causes distress to us are reasons for Natalie’s leaving, not just that she is moving to another blog.

  122. Matt Penfold says

    Carr,

    I see no need to be polite to you, given your lack of politeness from your very first post. That you have failed to apologise for that post, and your subsequent conduct tells us a lot about the sort of person you are.

    Can you explain why you think you can be as rude as you like, but expect others to be polite to you ? Why did you think such hypocrisy would go unnoticed ?

  123. says

    CAINE
    Why Matt, the only subjects freethought is allowed to encompass are atheism and skepticism,

    CARR
    There are plenty of other problems for Natalie to write about, and she will be writing about them at that fully-inclusive site http://wehappytrans.com/

    Bookmark it now, so you can continue to read about the clashes between trans-feminism and ultra-feminism.

  124. kate_waters says

    This sucks. Natalie is a fantastic writer and I thought having her here at freethought was a brilliant addition. I’m happy to see, though, that she’ll still be blogging.

    …and in other news:

    SHUT THE FUCK UP STEVECARR.

    No, really. This is not, in the least, about YOU. No one give two shits what you think because nothing you’ve said here adds anything to the conversation.

    Take your ego and shove it up your ass. It ought to fit quite well next to your tiny head.

  125. says

    ‘What causes distress to us are reasons for Natalie’s leaving, not just that she is moving to another blog.’

    NATALIE
    I haven’t always consistently agreed with everyone who writes here, but being here has been nothing but a positive experience for me, and I’ll always be grateful for having been a part of this network and project and community. It’s just no longer the best spot for me, given how my interests and priorities have changed over time.

  126. says

    Hi Kate,
    Thanks for your advice. It was well-meant, sincere and thought out.

    Are there any recent events which have lead you to think that personal abuse and name-calling are the way to drive people away from Freethought Blogs?

  127. says

    Matt:

    I see the idiot still cannot work out how to blockquote, even with instructions!

    This seems to be going around. We had another fuckwit show up the other day (and is still non-stop posting in TDome) who was shown more than three times and still can’t do it.

    :eyeroll:

  128. Matt Penfold says

    Are there any recent events which have lead you to think that personal abuse and name-calling are the way to drive people away from Freethought Blogs?

    You keep repeating that phrase, like some kind of mantra. No matter how many times you repeat it, you have still been arrogant and rude, and you still need to apologise. That you have not done so just compounds your rudeness of course, but since being polite seems important to you, I am at a loss to understand why you keep being so rude.

    So come on, buck you ideas up. Admit you fucked up, apologise and then leave. Let’s see how much you really care about politeness!

  129. Matt Penfold says

    This seems to be going around. We had another fuckwit show up the other day (and is still non-stop posting in TDome) who was shown more than three times and still can’t do it.

    There are even instructions below the comment box! To not be able to do it with the instructions in front of you requires a special kind of genius!

  130. says

    HI Caine,
    Thanks for calling me a ‘fuckwit’. It shows a certain degree of imagination and sophistication on your part to come up with that, which I can only admire.

    Have you ever wondered if name-calling and personal abuse are an effective way to drive somebody away from Freethought blogs?

    Have you ever asked yourself how you got to such a stage in your life that you need to call strangers on the Internet ‘fuckwit’?

  131. says

    Hi Matt,
    More name-calling by you.

    You know, there is a tried and tested way to drive people away from Freethought Blogs.

    It is called ‘abuse and name-calling’.

    Some people find it very effective, and use it a lot.

  132. Beatrice says

    We could corral stevencarr into Thunderdome, with douglas. That could prove entertaining if the two start talking.

  133. says

    Matt pulls out the ‘victim’ card, having seen that abuse and name-calling won’t work.

    Matt has almost ticked off my Bingo card. He just needs to do one more thing.

    I won’t tell him what it is….

  134. bradleybetts says

    @NoelPlum99 and Steveencarr

    Here’s a novel idea: if the blog is not relevant to you personally or does not deal with a subject you are interested in… don’t read it. Groundbreaking, I know.

  135. says

    Beatrice:

    We could corral stevencarr into Thunderdome, with douglas. That could prove entertaining if the two start talking.

    That would also have the potential to kill us all via mass headache induced by egotistical gibberish overload.

  136. Matt Penfold says

    Again, I see he does not offer an apology.

    There really is no reason to treat him with anything other than contempt. A scumbag who thinks bloggers should blog only about subjects he approves of, and who thinks it is his job to tell FtB that it should only have blogs about atheism and skepticism.

    I suspect he is a member of the ‘pit.

    The worrying thing is that he claims to be a maths tutor. I pity any kid who gets this arrogant arsehole tutoring them.

  137. Matt Penfold says

    Have you ever wondered if name-calling and personal abuse are an effective way to drive somebody away from Freethought blogs?

    I have decided to answer this. It has indeed driven some people away, which given the fact those driven away seem to be sexist, misogynistic, arrogant fuckwits (so much like you really) is no bad thing.

  138. says

    Have you ever wondered if name-calling and personal abuse are an effective way to drive somebody away from Freethought blogs?

    Cupcake, we don’t pander to Tone Trolls here. Nor do we give a damn about willfully obtuse, privilege stuffed, sexist assclams swimming in smegmarmalade sauce.

  139. casus fortuitus says

    stevencarr, #125:

    what does that have to do with atheism and/or skepticism?

    “That” refers to a quote from one of Natalie’s blog entries, which includes the words:

    There’s a flip side to this all that I don’t think does get talked about enough, though. Which is that periodically, beneath their burning, biased, clearly irrational hatred and fear, the transphobes organizing themselves into these “radical” cliques occasionally touch on points that do deserve to be addressed.

    I’ve emphasised the key parts of the text for your benefit, stevencarr. If skepticism is not aimed at addressing biassed and irrational attitudes and ideas, what is it to be aimed at?

  140. bovarchist says

    Not so much celebrating silencing another woman, as celebrating driving another non-skeptic out of the skeptic’s movement.

  141. casus fortuitus says

    bovarchist, #170:

    Not so much celebrating silencing another woman, as celebrating driving another non-skeptic out of the skeptic’s movement.

    What are the goals of this “skeptic’s movement” of which you speak? Please be as specific as you can.

  142. Matt Penfold says

    Not so much celebrating silencing another woman, as celebrating driving another non-skeptic out of the skeptic’s movement.

    You will need to be a bit more specific, and offer evidence if you want your comment to be taken as anything other than drivel.

  143. Ogvorbis says

    Not so much celebrating silencing another woman, as celebrating driving another non-skeptic out of the skeptic’s movement.

    Why are there substantial portions of reality that are walled-off from skeptical inquiry? Why are gender relations, and trans-gender relations, verboten when it comes to self-proclaimed skeptics?

  144. Beatrice says

    *eyeroll*
    PZ better write a generic “Lock Ness monster isn’t real” post before he gets kicked out of his own network. Um, does Ed ever write about non-existence of ET and Chupacabra? Because that would mean bye bye to both Ed and PZ. Too bad.

    Oh wait. It’s their network. People on the network are people they want here.

    Commenters on the other hand… if we don’t like it, we can fuck off. Right, bovarchist?

  145. says

    bovarchist:

    Not so much celebrating silencing another woman, as celebrating driving another non-skeptic out of the skeptic’s movement.

    Oh? I think you’ll want to clarify this statement, stat.

    What gives you the idea Natalie is not a skeptic? And would you, perchance, be talking of the Holy Movement of Skepticism™ which addresses only those sacred, traditional subjects deemed worthy of skeptical scrutiny?

  146. Matt Penfold says

    Why are gender relations, and trans-gender relations, verboten when it comes to self-proclaimed skeptics?

    I am sure you already know this, but because if they were not these self-proclaimed sceptics would be forced to face the reality that they are not as progressive on issues such as gender-relations as they thought. And given many of them are rather inadequate people who can think themselves important by discounting the work of others (such as women), they egos simply cannot take it.

  147. says

    Why are there substantial portions of reality that are walled-off from skeptical inquiry? Why are gender relations, and trans-gender relations, verboten when it comes to self-proclaimed skeptics?

    Because thinking about sexuality in any fashion other than a man getting off by means of a woman — whether that other fashion means “thinking about female sexual organs in an entirely clinical way”, “thinking about power, ownership, and imbalance in sexual relationships”, “people whose gender doesn’t align precisely along whatever we claim the norm is right now”, or even “a man getting off by means of another man” — is just icky and we don’t want to be forced to think about it, even by the title of a blog post we won’t actually read.

    That’s also, ultimately, the argument against abortion: abortion is wrong because it makes people feel icky.

  148. says

    Also, bovarchist, just how much of a smegmarmalade brain do you need to be that driving a woman out of a blogging network via harassment, hounding and threats is cause for celebration?

    You aren’t even worthy of the saliva required to spit. Beyond contemptuous.

  149. emburii says

    Also, what exact credentials are needed to be a skeptic? An academic degree? A certain number of hours arguing parapsychology? Specific amounts of money? I assume, bovarchist, that if you’re so interested in the purity of skepticism, and so sure that you know who belongs or not, that you can give us the exact specifications.

  150. Ogvorbis says

    Matt:

    I am coming close to understanding. I still have a long way to go (my damned privilege keeps getting in the way of my stupid brain). This was more of a question aimed at the skeptics who want to limit their skepticism to religion (but not the continuing effects of religion), cryptozoology, UFOs, and crystals.

  151. Matt Penfold says

    There are some people who simply cannot stand the idea that FtB has a specific policy of seeking out good bloggers who are not blessed with possessing a penis and white-skin.

  152. says

    Ogvorbis:

    This was more of a question aimed at the skeptics who want to limit their skepticism to religion (but not the continuing effects of religion), cryptozoology, UFOs, and crystals.

    Actually, those who follow old school skepticism don’t think religion is a suitable subject.

  153. Ogvorbis says

    Actually, those who follow old school skepticism don’t think religion is a suitable subject.

    I stand (or (more correctly) sit) corrected.

  154. Ogvorbis says

    And I realize now that I forgot things like the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other government conspiratoricalist coverups.

  155. says

    Ok, all well and good, but what does that have to do with atheism and/or skepticism?

    Can you perhaps try to answer your own question? Do you know what essentialism is? Do you know what questions essentialist ideas are answers to? Do these questions matter to people’s lives, including yours? Is essentialism a correct answer, based on reason and evidence? Or is it a false and harmful answer rooted in religion and systems of domination? If the latter, can a skeptical approach be usefully applied to it? If you think not, why not?

  156. Matt Penfold says

    And I realize now that I forgot things like the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other government conspiratoricalist coverups.

    Talking of which, I am know getting a fair bit of spam about how the Sandy Hook shootings didn’t happen, and it is all a conspiracy by Obama to take away people’s guns.

    I do not have the ability to express how much I despise people pushing such crap.

  157. says

    I think there’s also an element of fear. A skepticism centering around them will foreground those topics on which they believe themselves most knowledgeable and competent. Participation in the movement then feeds the ego – superficially, at least -, making it about how gullible and ignorant those other people are. This is (again, superficially) a source of comfort and a superior identity.

    When there’s skeptical discussion of topics like sex and gender and others that haven’t been part of these “skeptics'” bailiwick, they feel uneasy and afraid. They’re accustomed to people listening to their uninformed opinions on these subjects, but they’re now starting to suspect or recognize at some level that those opinions are garbage and that others, often with very different views, know much more knowledge than they do. This is a source of fear, and it’s much easier to respond with dismissal, mockery, and attempts to exclude those topics than to try to learn and grow and look critically and skeptically at your own beliefs.

  158. says

    SC:

    This is a source of fear, and it’s much easier to respond with dismissal, mockery, and attempts to exclude those topics than to try to learn and grow and look critically and skeptically at your own beliefs.

    This really can’t be repeated or emphasized enough.

  159. Dr.Cheeselove says

    I’m really sad to see Natalie go.

    And I’m trying to figure out why there is so much hate for women, trans* people, gay people, POC, etc in the atheist/skeptic community. Of course discrimination against these groups is mainstream, so you find if everywhere. But you don’t find it spread out evenly everywhere, and I would expect to see less of it among atheists/skeptics who profess to love examining things rationally.

    I read somewhere that sexism persisted in some fields (like philosophy and physics) longer than others (like biology) and that women were allowed to take degrees in biology in the UK following WW2, but were banned from setting foot in physics or philosophy lecture halls until the 1970s in some places. The reason given for this is that physics and philosophy were historically associated with the priesthood. I wonder if skepticism has a similar problem because of its connection with philosophy (as weird as it seems to connect atheism with religion). Thoughts?

    Also, I do find it funny that certain skepdicks are like, “Skepticism isn’t about gender. It’s only about nerd things. Look at decades worth of Skepdick Weekly.”

    To these people I say, “No. Skepticism is a philosophy. Look at several centuries worth of philosophy.”

  160. Emrysmyrddin says

    Dr. Cheeselove: I agree with your sentiments almost entirely, 99.8%.
    *
    The remaining 0.02% is the ‘dick’ stuff, please lay off – it’s so much more creative and inclusive when a community resolves to avoid gendered insults, even casual ones, and this is one of them.
    *

    “…Skepticism is a philosophy. Look at several centuries worth of philosophy.”

    QFT.

  161. says

    Sorry it took so long, stevencarr, but I slept in this morning so I didn’t have a chance to ban your bigoted, hating little ass until now. Bye!

  162. Matt Penfold says

    Sorry it took so long, stevencarr, but I slept in this morning so I didn’t have a chance to ban your bigoted, hating little ass until now. Bye!

    I now feel a little smug!

  163. Rob Grigjanis says

    @191: “I read somewhere that sexism persisted in some fields (like philosophy and physics) longer than others”

    For the few women I knew in physics from the mid-70s to mid-80s, it was a gauntlet of sexism, and the sort of knee-jerk turf-defending condescension demonstrated so ably by the comedy* stylings of Plum & Carr. It seemed to get much better by the early nineties.

    *The unfunny kind.

  164. bradleybetts says

    @Bovarchist #170

    “Not so much celebrating silencing another woman, as celebrating driving another non-skeptic out of the skeptic’s movement.”

    So Natalie Reed isn’t a skeptic? *citation needed*.

  165. says

    Who knew this thread would smoke out so many assholes? Noelplum99 and stevencarr…gone now. And I’ve got my wicked eye on bovarchist and yubal, too.

  166. says

    I am sorry to see Natalie go. Her writing opened my eyes to issues facing the trans* community. It pisses me off that the misogynist atheist fuckwits have driven yet another person away. I hope they do not follow her (but given how relentlessly they harass Ophelia or Greta, I worry they may).

  167. anteprepro says

    So Natalie Reed isn’t a skeptic?

    No, because, you see, feminism and skepticism are mutually exclusive, because feminism is all irrational and hysterical and angry and stuff, and skepticism is all about sitting in an ivory tower, stoically dismissing obvious bullshit, chuckling at yokels, and patting each on the back about how Superior they are to the commonfolk. Feminism is far too active, far too loud, far too political. Skepticism is a passive hobby, spoken only at medium volume, that doesn’t dare dip its toes into anything as sordid as politics. Feminism looks at society and actively tries to change it for the better, skepticism looks at society and inches slowly way so that they can laugh about how stupid everyone is at a safe distance.

    Truly these are incompatible fields of inquiry.

  168. Matt Penfold says

    It pisses me off that the misogynist atheist fuckwits have driven yet another person away. I hope they do not follow her (but given how relentlessly they harass Ophelia or Greta, I worry they may).

    Yeap. And whilst Jen McCreight has not left FtB, she is on a break from blogging until further notice because of the behaviour of these arseholes.

  169. Rob Grigjanis says

    Maybe Bovarchist has history here, but I read his/her comment as describing the harassers’ viewpoint rather than subscribing to it. Open to both interpretations, I guess.

  170. says

    anteprepro:

    Feminism is far too active, far too loud, far too political. Skepticism is a passive hobby, spoken only at medium volume, that doesn’t dare dip its toes into anything as sordid as politics. Feminism looks at society and actively tries to change it for the better, skepticism looks at society and inches slowly way so that they can laugh about how stupid everyone is at a safe distance.

    Oh, so Quoted For Truth.

  171. says

    Rob:

    Maybe Bovarchist has history here, but I read his/her comment as describing the harassers’ viewpoint rather than subscribing to it. Open to both interpretations, I guess.

    They’re an occasional commenter here, and I considered the other interpretation first, however, if they aren’t going to come back and clarify, it’s best not to let such a statement stand.

  172. Pteryxx says

    It pisses me off that the misogynist atheist fuckwits have driven yet another person away. I hope they do not follow her (but given how relentlessly they harass Ophelia or Greta, I worry they may).

    Yeap. And whilst Jen McCreight has not left FtB, she is on a break from blogging until further notice because of the behaviour of these arseholes.

    It also bothers me how many commenters have mentioned wanting to start blogs of their own, but won’t because of the level of harassment. That’s the chilling effect in action, losing the voices of potential contributors.

  173. cuervodecuero says

    …was Carr a sock puppet of Plum? he popped up conveniently to continue the derail.

    I’m very sorry that Ms. Natalie assessed her risk level as being so high but I can certainly understand she wants less incoming fire from people who have decided their life value consists of hunting down the vulnerable. She’s stated in the past she’s not as ‘out’ in real space as she is in text and the limited venues of cons/videos.

    Given the example of cowardly assaults on Professor Myers via contacting his workplace and complicated by the fact that Ms Natalie is Canadian and the bulk of the predatory whiners are American and otherwise foreign anonymites, defense against stalking is even more tenuous. I only hope that she does find safer space in retreating from the battle line on the FTB front and that she finds renewed capacity to focus on her passion topic instead of wasting time on TwoMinute haters.

    My other concern is for the bloggers in FTB that remain. Is it a leap in prognostication to believe the human equivalent of townie dogs that pack together to slaughter unwatched stock before returning to their porches as feigned protectors are going to go after FTB even more so?

    I don’t believe those that are becoming more vicious and intractable will win any sort of political victory and it’s even likely their continuing actions will become the body of evidence to drive the overall atheoskeptic community to the very standards the tantrummers abhor but should there be fundraisers for massage coupons for the attacked parties in the meantime?

    On a related note, I’ve perused some of the atheo-youtubist video responses to Tf00t’s ranting about poisonous feminism. Masochistic curiousity after seeing some actually dissenting from him. It’s blackly ironic that many of his critics uncritically swallow the truthclaim about targeted individuals being’radical feminists’ while STILL finding Tf00t has gone over the truth cliff about people getting icky feminism in his AtheismTM. It’s as if they just can’t go that one truthclaim further.

  174. Vicki says

    Bovarchist:

    Not so much celebrating silencing another woman, as celebrating driving another non-skeptic out of the skeptic’s movement.

    Do you think it’s okay to celebrate silencing another woman, since her gender isn’t, allegedly, the main reason you are telling her to shut up? Are we supposed to be okay with silencing women as long as you can find something else to attack them for, like not being part of [your idea of] the tribe? How much time do you spend telling men that they shouldn’t be talking about things like hiking or electoral politics on a skeptical website?

  175. Anri says

    You know, there is a tried and tested way to drive people away from Freethought Blogs.

    It is called ‘abuse and name-calling’.

    Some people find it very effective, and use it a lot.

    Too late to the party, but perhaps someone hoping to follow along can understand:

    Abuse and name-calling are not the same things as bigotry and threats.
    If you don’t understand the difference, you’re not swift enough to add to this conversation.
    If you do, but pretend you don’t, you’re not honest enough to add to this conversation.

    FTB bloggers are given a substantial amout of leeway as to the amount of name calling and abuse they allow on their blogs. Some allow lots (this one) others, less so.
    I am not aware of any FTB bloggers that allow bigotry and threats free rein on their blogs – can anyone give some examples?
    Or is this just yet another desperate case of “you’re just as bad as we are!” by the slymepitters and their allies?

  176. Matt Penfold says

    I am not aware of any FTB bloggers that allow bigotry and threats free rein on their blogs – can anyone give some examples?

    Not free reign, no. Some of the bloggers will allow a bigot enough rope to hang themselves though.

  177. Pteryxx says

    How much time do you spend telling men that they shouldn’t be talking about things like hiking or electoral politics on a skeptical website?

    Or fuckken recipes. Physioproffe being present on FTB basically shoots that argument down all on his own.

  178. owlglass says

    For the optimists her move is an exchange of communities as people are now surely going to read her views in her new home and are thereby introduced to the topics relevant there, for the FOX news of atheism she was cowardly gunned down from behind by evil rapists, and for the neutral ones she simply adjusted her priorities and moved where she feels her energy is best spent.
    |
    Social issues have different causes and can be framed in many ways, hence there is an overlap. Everyone has to decide for which bubble is on top of the venn diagramm. Is property the issue, and religions are a way to treat women as property of men (a brand of feminism)? Are patriarchial structures the issue, and religions in their backward orientation keep them alive more than other reasons (other brand of feminism)? Is a dysfunctional society the issue, and religions thrive in misery as it “takes care” of people, with religious that happen to carry issues with them? (social politics) Is the issue perhaps with lack of education and critical thinking, and religion is a symtom of that? (skepticism or atheism) Or are religions a problem itself — not people in need, the unedcuated, or women (and LGBT) are their main victims, but children? (my brand of anti-theism). There is an overlap, and some people can address the issues from multiple or all sides, but others apparently want a kind of “home” or like to focus their efforts into the cause that is on top of the stack.
    |
    Whatever people make of it, I’m not buying the narrative presented here. It also reflects a rather naive view of how conflicts work on the internet. Once a topic is emotionally charged, free loaders from all sides join in, and the level of vitriol goes up, as each side tries to convince an imaginery third party that they are somehow right. Some are just trolls on either side and don’t care. If calling someone “ignorant”, “dumb” etc. are the strongest weapon in the set (education/atheism/skepticism perspective), they use that, and when its “douche” or “misogynist” (feminist perspective) they reach for that, or go with abusive swearing as it’s proven to be effective, with yet others holding up mirrors (like with trolling using Steven Pinker’s joke of the 16th century swearing “kiss the cunt of a cow”).
    |
    Of course, the fence sitters, the third party is automatically declared as fair game once actually present. With their their smug and arrogant attitude they claim to be without agenda, but that’s just a trick of course. ;)

  179. Sassafras says

    Kind of a late reply, but, Caine @ 122 –

    Those who are all about FAAB couldn’t give a shit about religion.

    This doesn’t detract from your main point as it is true that most of them aren’t religiously-motivated, but just as a point of interest, there are a few that are. There was recently a big blow-up in the neo-pagan community where Dianic Wiccans were engaging in transphobic shit at a public event. Also, many years ago, when I was still mired in new-age crap, I had a woman cheerfully tell me that her angel spirit guides told them that I couldn’t ever be a real woman and should just get over it. People will use just about anything they can get their hands on for bigotry.

  180. says

    Sassafras:

    Also, many years ago, when I was still mired in new-age crap, I had a woman cheerfully tell me that her angel spirit guides told them that I couldn’t ever be a real woman and should just get over it.

    :blinks: Jesus. What an assclown. That’s absolutely awful. As for the Dianics, yes, you’re so right. I tend to forget about them, as I had my fill arguing with them back in the ’70s and ’80s.

  181. Anri says

    Not free reign, no. Some of the bloggers will allow a bigot enough rope to hang themselves though.

    And that length of rope varies from blog to blog.
    My point is that there’s rarely (not never, of course) much confusion between a racist being racist, or a douchebag making death/rape threats on the one hand, and the insults and abuse they might receive when they have done so.

    It’s not hard to tell the two apart, generally speaking, and attempts to conflate the two are just bullshit, plain and simple.
    (You aren’t, of course, but some others here seem to be trying to do so.)

    Natalie’s not leaving because people said mean things to her. She’s leaving because people threatened her life and well-being. That’s my understanding, anyway.

  182. saukko says

    Greetings all, long time lurker, first time poster.

    The loss of talented and active members is truly disheartening and disturbing, firstly because this community relies 100% to its users, no active members, no content created by those. Secondly because it is coming from our own ranks, from sick people that I don’t want to associate with in any way.
    I can give simple example, youtube, I have been there since 2007, seen amazing science videos, seen religions and pseudo-sciences dissected. But now, everyday when I log in to my account, I see none of that anymore in my subscription box, it has been replaced with mindless drama (including a faked one!).

    And the biggest irony is that after all the atheism+ and FTB bashing, I see those performing better than their detractors.

  183. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    … for the FOX news of atheism she was cowardly gunned down from behind by evil rapists…

    Aren’t you just the loveliest little troll.

  184. anteprepro says

    Or are religions a problem itself — not people in need, the unedcuated, or women (and LGBT) are their main victims, but children? (my brand of anti-theism).

    So owlglass doesn’t care about them gays or women or the poor, but thinks that religion harms children by….what? Turning them religious? Religion is bad because it turns people religious? I can hardly say I am surprised that such circular, nonsensical bullshit is the crux of A*.

  185. says

    Owlglass:
    What narrative are you talking about? The one involving sustained harassment, sexism denying, cyberstalking, bullying and threats perpetrated by the Slymepitters, Reap Paden, Thunderf00t, Justin Vacula, Wooly Bumblebee, and various MRA asswipes? The narrative that played a strong role in Natalie’s decision to leave FtB? I hope that isn’t the narrative you are referring to. To disagree that this sustained campaign of hate from one side that has illuminated the toxic cloud in this community is to deny reality. What kind of skeptic would you be if you denied the evidence?

  186. says

    Saukko:
    Greetings.
    It is always good to hear from the lurkers. Especially those who are affected by the sexist crap that continues to be a gaping wound in the community. I think that the more people speak up…the more people state that this shit is not cool…the more people who speak out in the name of equality and progressive values, the more the voices of the pitters and MRAs will get drowned out. I don’t want anything to do with people like that, and I am glad that we have commenters who stand up and fight (in the nonviolent manner)*.

    *(that said, I do not begrudge anyone who chooses not to speak up. Issues of sexism and misogny have different effects on people and no one should feel compelled to join the fight if they opt not to for whatever personal reasons they have)

  187. says

    Or fuckken recipes. Physioproffe being present on FTB basically shoots that argument down all on his own.

    And, since his material isn’t of much interest to me and I can’t stand his writing style, I *gasp* don’t read his blog. Some of the trolls on here could learn from my example, clearly. Natalie’s blog, OTOH, I read regularly, although I haven’t usually got anything relevant to say/add.

  188. owlglass says

    @Tony, 218
    I was rather oblivious to the war and the sides involved until very recently (not mere blindness on my part, just didn’t pay attention to comment sections and wasn’t reading regularly enough). I would never suggest that people’s experiences didn’t happen. Period. I am just not convinced that the sides are grouped around the issues as claimed. Once you have commentary, you have additional layers that are “meta” to the original situation, and commentary about the commentary and commentary about the commentary of commentary and so on. On each layer more people join in that have little or nothing to do with the original situations, and not all of them are genuine, not all of them are well meaning, not all of them are capable of understanding the situation, or expressing views adequately enough. There is honest misunderstandings and a lot of willful misconstruing, people who provoke, troll, cry wolf, or people who deliberately rub salt into wounds. I don’t need evidence to know that sexism exists and that public women on the internet have to deal with a lot of hostile commentary. But with the way things seem to go, everyone loses.
    |
    @Caine
    If you feel challenged by my free-thinking views too much, I am happy to retreat voluntarily (I won’t flounce). I don’t want PZ deal with Kindergarten. Just ask, and I leave this one alone. In return I just ask that people don’t misconstrue what I wrote (because it sucks when people pile up abusive comments on a moniker that is used outside).

  189. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Owlglass, you are so fucking free thinking, you know that FtB is the equivalent to Faux News and that we call everyone who has a problem with this place evil rapists.

    And you fucking dare to get indignant.

    I do not care if you are retreating or flouncing. Just crawl out the window when you leave.

  190. anteprepro says

    Once you have commentary, you have additional layers that are “meta” to the original situation, and commentary about the commentary and commentary about the commentary of commentary and so on. On each layer more people join in that have little or nothing to do with the original situations, and not all of them are genuine, not all of them are well meaning, not all of them are capable of understanding the situation, or expressing views adequately enough.

    Hmmmmm. I detect the faint stench of a false equivalence underlying this missive.

  191. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But with the way things seem to go, everyone loses.

    Which is why you need to fight on the right side, not pretend to be a middle grounder. Too many idjits like yourself think free-thinking means not taking a stand. It only means look at the evidence, not the hyperbole. But that requires work you seem unwilling to do. Which means your commentary is just so much self-serving bullshit.

  192. Ray, rude-ass yankee says

    This sucks. No one should have to feel unsafe because they express their views in a blog. Hopefully any threats of violence are taken seriously, reported and investigated.
    Best of luck to Natalie Reed at other venues.

    Pteryxx@209,

    Or fuckken recipes. Physioproffe being present on FTB basically shoots that argument down all on his own.

    (bad joke) OOh, I’ve always wanted to try fukken, could you link to some of the recipes? (/bad joke)

  193. Pteryxx says

    Following up on Sassafras’s #211:

    There was recently a big blow-up in the neo-pagan community where Dianic Wiccans were engaging in transphobic shit at a public event.

    That culminated in this open letter to the host convention, discussing the event, what it meant for an influential and beloved leader to show their bigotry, and the convention organizers’ responsibility within the ongoing community discussion. I think it’s instructive reading.

    http://miniver.blogspot.com/2012/02/open-letter-to-pantheacon-organization.html

  194. chigau (無味ない) says

    Could someone point out the “free-thinking views” in owlglass’s comments?

  195. says

    Owlglass:
    You have a lot of fucking gall making any claim of misunderstanding. There is nothing to misunderstand. Thunderf00t doesn’t want sexual harassment policies at conventions and thinks women aren’t facing much harassment. Wooly Bumblebee is a bully who enjoys causing others to suffer. The Slymepitters revel in their misogynistic language. Justin Vacula writes for a hate site.
    These people continually display horrible, uncaring attitudes.
    They are dismissive of others’ suffering and derive glee in cyberstalking various bloggers.
    These are people who make fake Twitter accounts of Ophelia and spread lies about her.
    These are the kind of people sending rape threats to female bloggers.

    There is no misunderstanding.
    There is no middle ground.
    These people are amoral scum.

    Side with them or try to draw any moral equivalence between us and them, and you choose to be an asshole.
    Do note that neither Greta, Ophelia, PZ, Jen, Rebecca, Stephanie, or Surly Amy have done anything equivalent to the actions of the pit crew and company.
    ____
    And yes, if anyone could not figure it out, this is meant to be ‘US vs them’
    I am fucking sick to death of watching the dregs of humanity push away women. I am sick of them diminishing the struggles people face because they don’t have enough evidence. Either people like you stand with us in the pursuit of equality and progressive ideals
    Or
    Get
    The
    Fuck
    Out.

  196. kate_waters says

    Tony the Super-Duper Queer Shoop:

    And yes, if anyone could not figure it out, this is meant to be ‘US vs them’
    I am fucking sick to death of watching the dregs of humanity push away women. I am sick of them diminishing the struggles people face because they don’t have enough evidence. Either people like you stand with us in the pursuit of equality and progressive ideals
    Or
    Get
    The
    Fuck
    Out.

    This is pretty much it, in a nutshell. There is NO middle ground here. Your either with us or against us. If you’re against us, fuck off because nothing you would have to say is anything we haven’t heard a thousand million times before.

  197. says

    What are the goals of this “skeptic’s movement” of which you speak?

    I get the impression that for some people the skeptics movement is rapid hand motion accompanied by a bottle of lotion and a lot of self-regard.

  198. abear says

    @230; Careful, you don’t want to give slymepitter types ammunition to say to say that commenters on pharyngula are resorting to stochastic terrorism.

  199. Nepenthe says

    Speaking of PhysioProffe, it’s funny how he doesn’t seem to get harassed for his writing on feminism. And I remember him being a frequent commenter on IBTP–an actual radfem blog–when it was up and when Twisty/Jill would tolerate him.

    I guess it’s much more satisfying to harass a mainstream feminist woman than him. I have no idea why. I’m sure it has nothing to do with a four syllable word starting with P.

  200. kate_waters says

    abear:

    Piss off. Telling people to get the fuck out is NOT “resorting to stochastic terrorism”.

    Telling assholes that their asshole behaviour is not welcome is not an incitement to violence.

    Take your tone-trolling fuckery somewhere else.

  201. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Abear is just a hit and run troll. Doubt the fool will come back to this thread.

  202. kate_waters says

    So, Janine, you’re saying abear just shits in the woods and runs? (Oh, man… I work nights, but I’m on my days off right now and while I ought to be sleeping I’m up doing things when actual people are around.)

  203. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Abear is just a hit and run troll. Doubt the fool will come back to this thread.

    Hit and run trolls should immediately go to auto-moderation. We seem to have a few such folks who think it is the way to get their fuckwitted point across *snicker*.

  204. says

    abear:
    You lack comprehension skills. You somehow missed the part of my post where I said our side is not engaging in anything comparable to the pitters.
    All we are doing is criticizing and condemning the assholes. Loudly. Passionately.
    By dog you are obtuse.

  205. says

    abear:

    Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

    This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

    This is also the term for what Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, and others do. And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings

    http://m.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism-160-Triggering-the-shooters

    Given that definition, explain how the concept applies to anything I wrote at 230.

  206. athyco says

    My son knew not to use “transsexual” as a noun when he met (knowingly) his first trans woman customer at work some two months ago. I told him because it finally had sunk in indelibly when I heard it from Natalie Reed. (I hadn’t been pleased with myself, letting my privilege keep me ignorant.)

    Seeing the most recent repugnant idiocies from the slimy, mildewed, foot-in-mouth cliques against feminists less vulnerable than she, I can only support her decision and miss how easily I had found her site and new posts in the sidebar.

  207. wilsim says

    My first reaction was “FUCK!”
    My second reaction was “Way to go, assholes, scaring off one of the most eye-opening and intelligent writers on the internet.”
    My third reaction was “I hope she gets another blog soon, because I cannot accept this is the end of the insight she is compelled to share.”

    This news makes me sad. She is irreplaceable.

  208. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Amazing how assclams like to claim that their ineptitude somehow Hit A Nerve™

    Abuguphisass, how come it seems that getting along would consist of all of us on this side just shutting up.

    Also, you are not funny.

  209. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    abear wrote:

    I must have hit a nerve with that last post.

    Hahahahahaaahahahaha!

    Oh, wait – you were serious? Damn. That’s just…sad.

  210. squiller says

    To answer your question one would need to know who ‘they’ are. If it’s who I think they are, the answer would be appear to be no, certainly not, as even a cursory investigation would show. The only real interest appears to be in whether or not anyone of her ‘friends’ is helping her out in her time of obvious financial need. I doubt very much that she’d be wasting it on fluevogs.

  211. carlie says

    I guess it’s much more satisfying to harass a mainstream feminist woman than him. I have no idea why. I’m sure it has nothing to do with a four syllable word starting with P.

    Penis.i.s..is?

  212. says

    I doubt very much that she’d be wasting it on fluevogs.

    No, of course not. Because a well made, comfortable pair of shoes, which are on the low end price range, are of interest to no one at all.

    Jesus Christ, can’t you fuckwitted doucheweasels come up with *one* valid thing to whinge about? Gosh, guess you can’t.

  213. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Caine, you fail to understand, the act of Greta buying those pair of shoes shows just how duplicitous and frivolous all of us are.

    The only good thing in their bullshit “outrage”, the spite fund raising that Renee is doing will do some real people some actual good.

  214. hypatiasdaughter says

    My take on stevencarr is that he was implying that NR left FtB because she, as a trans, couldn’t get along with the “radical feminists” here. That’s bullshit.
    NR had always tried to stay out of the atheist squabbles. I cannot recall anyone on FtB ever having an issue with anything she wrote.
    When a certain ex-FtBlogger left here in a whirl of rage, he threatened to drop dox on her.
    For NR, this is FAR, FAR more serious than outing most atheists on this board. This could have affected her work, housing, and personal safety. It shook her, and left her feeling threatened. Every day she had to wait to see if the threat was serious or not. I cried for her when I read her post about it.
    Without any evidence whatsoever – I will speculate that the nasty “acid” tweet the OB received may have been the last straw. It would have been for me.
    And poor ol’ stevencarr is complaining that some people are being rude to him. He should walk in the shoes of RW, OB, JMcC and NR for a week. I don’t think the wuss could handle it.
    Natalie, I hope for all luck in your future endeavors. And I hope you find a place that you feel safe while you continue to help educate privileged dunderheads like me.

  215. squiller says

    I couldn’t give a shit what shoes Greta Christina buys. If anyone is willing to send her money to buy shoes, then so be it. The real issue here is whether or not anyone is helping out Natalie Reed, because she would appear to have a pressing need. If people are effectively willing to stump up for shoes after paying for Christina’s mortgage so that she doesn’t have to use her own money, then they can damned well help Natalie out. Would be a lot more useful than using her leaving as an excuse for a sideswipe at people who don’t really have an interest in whether she leaves or not, outside of some peoples’ fantasies.

    How about it. If you’ve already done so, then good on you. How about putting up a post about that Myers?

  216. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    You could have made yourself more clear with what you meant, squiller. Instead, you had to use the same trope that the slymies have been jumping on for the past few weeks. Also, before you bemoan that people have not been helping out Natalie Reed, you should fucking find out before you make charges.

    Any hostility you have received is because you have done a piss poor of of communicating.

  217. squiller says

    Janine, clairvoyant:
    “The only good thing in their bullshit “outrage”, the spite fund raising that Renee is doing will do some real people some actual good.”

    How would you know that she is spite fund raising? Maybe she did do it as a reaction to Greta Christina. Can you criticise someone for doing good as a reaction to what they perceive as cynicism. Are you incapable of accepting that Renee could be a good person? How is that spite, unless you think Greta Christina hates charity. Spite charity would be when people donate money to somebody who doesn’t need it because they erroneously think it’s going to piss other people off. If people have spare money, they could give it to someone who needs it, like Natalie Reed.

  218. says

    I couldn’t give a shit what shoes Greta Christina buys.

    No, of course not, you piece of rancid mold. That’s why you brought it up, because you don’t give a shit.

    Every time I think you fuckwits couldn’t possibly be stupider, one of you pops up and proves me wrong.

  219. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    How would you know that she is spite fund raising?

    Because I fucking read about it on their fucking site, assclam. Because Renee raised a shitfit about Greta buying a pair of shoes. Because they though that raising money for a charity would show that they are better then the baboons of FtB.

    So, no, I am not a fucking clairvoyant. What I am is fucking literate.

  220. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I must have hit a nerve with that last post.
    Nerd; It sounds like me that you are a computer bot that is projecting that identity on to me.

    Nope, no nerve, no projection, just describing your idiocy. We both know that, so quit showing attitude. You can’t bullshit me, or anybody else here. Your number is bullshit/lies/attitude..

  221. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Funny how MRA fuckwits like Squiller have to tell us what to do. Maybe they should shut the fuck up and listen to women for a change. They might learn humility and literacy.

  222. athyco says

    squiller:

    How would you know that she is spite fund raising? Maybe she did do it as a reaction to Greta Christina.

    No “maybe” about it. And although Janine could find on their own sites, she could have stayed as close to “here” as Greta Christina’s blog.

    ReneeHendricks

    January 7, 2013 at 4:22 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    And I’m off to do something a bit more worthwhile – raising money to repair cleft lips/palates in children of non-1st world areas. Feel free to contribute when it’s set up. I guarantee no $270 shoes will be purchased with the funds :)

  223. says

    Janine:

    What I am is fucking literate.

    I don’t know about you, but this last wave of intense stupid has me close to terminally annoyed by anyone whose communication skills are about kindergarten level.

  224. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m so confused right now I don’t know whether I should turn you in to the PC police

    What PC police paranoid fool? Your attitude is bullshit, just like your logic. Shut the fuck up and listen. We have nothing whatsoever to learn from egotistical fools like you.

  225. says

    I guarantee no $270 shoes will be purchased with the funds

    Yes, Renee is so smart she didn’t even bother to find out how much the shoes actually cost, which was considerably less than $270.

  226. squiller says

    “Squiller: You can fuck off, too. Natalie already has a tip jar link on her blog; go donate.”

    Ooh! PZ with a little pretend hammer, how dramatic. You don’t half take yourself seriously. You’re priceless! I don’t accept your ‘scum’ or your ‘fuck you'; don’t need them, you can have them back.

    If I had any money right now I really would, because I know what it’s like to struggle with REAL problems.

    Must be nice to see the world in black-and-white, so simple and uncomplicated; envy you in that way. I’ll leave you to make up more drama and lies. Bread and circuses. Here’s a tip, you might not get so many ‘trolls’ if you spent less time spitting slanderous vitriol at people and paid a little more attention to fact and a bit less to your imagination. But then you don’t strike me as someone who gives a shit about facts that don’t serve your agenda.

  227. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Thank you for pulling out that quote, athyco. I forgot about that one. And I sure as shit did not feeling dredging the pit.

  228. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Right, squiller, each and everyone of us here have no a care in the world. We just love having our “black and white” dramas here.

    You are a sad little joke.

  229. says

    PZ said:

    Abear: with that “hit a nerve” comment, you actually hit a predictable low. Fuck off.

    Squiller: You can fuck off, too. Natalie already has a tip jar link on her blog; go donate.

    Now I know PZ used some big words in there, but surely you two can manage to comprehend “Fuck off”, can you not? Put some effort into it and don’t be leaving assprints on our door. Ta.

  230. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’ll leave you to make up more drama and lies.

    That’s you, not us, who see the world through reality. You see it through misogynist colored idiocy.

    paid a little more attention to fact and a bit less to your imagination.

    You have presented no fact, as you OPINION is bullshit without citations. Your imagination makes your a delusional fool not in touch with reality. Care to play some more?

    But then you don’t strike me as someone who gives a shit about facts that don’t serve your agenda.

    Your facts don’t exist. YOU PRESENTED NO FACTS, JUST OPINION.

  231. squiller says

    Before I’m carted of to the Gulag, there’s something I’ve always wanted to know. What’s the deal with Nerd? Do you keep him around out of pity, for idle amusement, some other reason? Is there a melodious quality to his squawking that I’m not picking up? Maybe you should ask him what he means by ‘citation’. Maybe he really wants a cracker. I think he wants the ‘scientific literature’ to line his cage.

  232. says

    Chigau:

    squiller wants the “Banned at Pharyngula” merit badge.

    Oh, I don’t think that performance merited a pitstar. It was very poor overall, lacked style, no flair and absolutely lousy communication skills.

  233. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Before I’m carted of to the Gulag, there’s something I’ve always wanted to know.

    Because being called for your bullshit is just like jackbooted thugs carting you away in the middle of the night.

    Why do I get the feeling that squiller does not give a shit about Natalie Reed’s living situation?

  234. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Maybe you should ask him what he means by ‘citation’.

    Citation that evolution occured. Simple for anybody who is a true skeptic and understands what evidence is. Your OPINION isn’t and never will be evidence….Care to play some more abject loser?

  235. squiller says

    Nerd, you funny little person, when it comes to me, I am the fucking authority. Or do a need a fucking CITATION to tell you what I think, you irritating little prat. I know what I think, I know what the people I associate with online think, and it usually bears very little relation to what PZ Myers or his friends insist that I think or say. So fester in your insular little goldfish bowl here and pop up to regurgitate cliches as much as you want. You’re about as challenging as a rice crispie, or a cupcake for that matter.

  236. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    So, squiller. Do you actually care about Natalie Reed’s situation? Do you care that she is intimidated by the actions of Renee Hendricks and her associates?

  237. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    when it comes to me, I am the fucking authority.

    No, you are the delusional fuckwitted fool.

    I know what I think,

    And who the fuck cares what you think?

    So fester in your insular little goldfish bowl here and pop up to regurgitate cliches as much as you want. You’re about as challenging as a rice crispie, or a cupcake for that matter.

    And your OPINION is fuckwitted, inane stupid, childish, immature, ignorant, and EVIDENCE FOR NOTHING. Care to play some more fool?

  238. chigau (無味ない) says

    squiller

    I know what I think, I know what the people I associate with online think, and it usually bears very little relation to what PZ Myers or his friends insist that I think or say.

    ???
    Are we supposed to know who you are?

  239. athyco says

    squiller:

    Maybe you should ask him what he means by ‘citation’.

    Well, you’ve obviously discussed nothing that could have appeared in a reputable science journal. What, then, could possibly count as evidence for your opinion? I guess we’d need a link or a copy of something that anyone could verify individually. Like…Renee Hendricks own words on Greta Christina’s blog announcing Renee’s fundraiser? Including that last sentence that–at that location–screams “SPITE” to everyone who reads it.

  240. squiller says

    Polly Squawked:
    “Citation that evolution occured. Simple for anybody who is a true skeptic and understands what evidence is. Your OPINION isn’t and never will be evidence….Care to play some more abject loser?”

    If I were dumb enough to discuss evolution with you, I might need a citation. When it comes to expressing my opinion, my opinion is evidence of what my opinion is. What are you expecting, a lie detector readout?

  241. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    when it comes to me, I am the fucking authority.

    Talk about a delusional fool…

    Or do a need a fucking CITATION to tell you what I think, you irritating little prat.

    Who gives a shit what a fuckwitted turd like you thinks? You need a citation to verify facts.,.. You know, the facts you claim we are ignoring. Until you present those third party facts (not OPINIONS) by linking to them, they don’t exist. Welcome to science, where you are WRONG until you EVIDENCE yourself right. Care to play some more immature/ignorant one?

  242. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    . When it comes to expressing my opinion, my opinion is evidence of what my opinion is. What are you expecting, a lie detector readout?

    Per Hitchens, your unevidenced OPINION can and is *POOF* dismissed without evidence as fuckwittery. You lose again. You can’t win until you show your facts, and you OPINION is never a fact without verification.

  243. says

    Or do a need a fucking CITATION to tell you what I think

    Actually, that requires the ability to think, and you have not demonstrated that ability yet. (No, screeching and whinging don’t count.)

  244. says

    Janine:

    Thank you, squiller, for confirming just how much you care.

    You’d think someone so concerned with Natalie’s well-being and welfare would be offering support at her blog and dropping a bit into the tip jar, but apparently not. Interesting notion of concern.

  245. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Heh. I just checked the post where Natalie said she would be leaving FtB. I could not find squiller’s moniker there.

  246. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    Natalie, I completely understand getting away from these assholes, examples in this very thread no less. I look forward to following your blog wherever you go and hope these fuckers don’t follow you as well. Either way, I fully support you and am here to battle back against these assholes, since I haven’t been personally targeted.
    ========
    ========
    As for the rest of the thread, holy fuck WTF is wrong you assholes? Seriously? I can’t even make an coherent response, I’m so pissed. The Horde here has been stellar in responses as usual.

    The only thing running through my mind right now after reading this:

    I couldn’t give a shit what shoes Greta Christina buys. If anyone is willing to send her money to buy shoes, then so be it. The real issue here is whether or not anyone is helping out Natalie Reed, because she would appear to have a pressing need. If people are effectively willing to stump up for shoes after paying for Christina’s mortgage so that she doesn’t have to use her own money, then they can damned well help Natalie out. Would be a lot more useful than using her leaving as an excuse for a sideswipe at people who don’t really have an interest in whether she leaves or not, outside of some peoples’ fantasies.

    Greta had CANCER you asshole. She couldn’t work so she couldn’t pay her bills. She got more money than was needed, closed the fundraiser and bought a good pair of shoes much later, after she started working again. (Here’s Greta’s post about it. That’s a citation, motherfucker.)

    WTF is wrong with you? Is cancer not a real fucking issue to you? Do you not know the harassment and threats she gotten as well? Yes, I agree that donating to Natalie would be awesome but that doesn’t mean donating to Greta when she had CANCER was a wrong thing, a less good thing or whatever.

    Did you donate to Natalie? You could’ve just said, “Hey, I just donated to Natalie. Let’s raise some money to help her out to show we care.” OR “I wish I could dontate to Natalie but I’m unable to at this time. I hope others donate to show their support.”

    But Nooooooo! You had to drag Greta through the mud and smear the people who donated to her. That makes you a big giant hateful fuckface who can go jump into a hell portal to make the world a better place.

    FUCK YOU. And all your stupid asshole buddies polluting a threat that’s suppose to be in support of Natalie, not demonstrating why she has to leave.

    Fucking A, I hate you. I hate you all . Your damn straight I want deep rifts between me and people like you. I want a whole fucking planet without you fuckers.

  247. squiller says

    Athyco:
    “Well, you’ve obviously discussed nothing that could have appeared in a reputable science journal. What, then, could possibly count as evidence for your opinion? I guess we’d need a link or a copy of something that anyone could verify individually. Like…Renee Hendricks own words on Greta Christina’s blog announcing Renee’s fundraiser? Including that last sentence that–at that location–screams “SPITE” to everyone who reads it.”

    Have you polled everyone who’s read it? Now that might require a citation. What that screams at you might depend on your biases, might it not. A less cynical person might think that it’s creative use of an opportunity to do some good. Why would it be spite? Would Greta Christina be upset about money going to a good cause? I note that some people thought that they were sticking it to those ‘vermin’ by throwing money at Greta Christina, which is yet another example of pure fiction concocted out of bias, as is this thread title (I know it’s phrased as a question, but get real). None of them gives a shit where Natalie Reed blogs, but PZ has to have his little martyr parade. And quite frankly, he’s a despicable fuck with his talk about violent intentions,tracism, silencing people and hatred of women.

  248. says

    abear:

    I must have hit a nerve with that last post.

    No duh, you slymepit supporting shithead.

    I’m disappointed at the hostility I get as a moderate feminist that has some issues with people that I would normally consider allies.

    Slymepit feminist is an oxymoron fuckface.
    The hostility you’re getting is well deserved.
    Stop minimizing the harm done by the ThunderfUUcks, Vaculas, Padens and Bumblebees of the world.
    Stop trying to draw moral equivalence between us and them.
    Nothing…
    I mean NOTHING
    has been done by our side that is comparable to the actions of those smegmarmalade covered fuckwits.

    To quote Rodney King “Why can’t we all get along together!”

    Do you have any redeeming qualities, or are you solely defined by your sheer stupidity?
    I refuse to get along with people who treat women like shit you dumbfuck.

    ****
    squiller:

    I couldn’t give a shit what shoes Greta Christina buys. If anyone is willing to send her money to buy shoes, then so be it. The real issue here is whether or not anyone is helping out Natalie Reed, because she would appear to have a pressing need. If people are effectively willing to stump up for shoes after paying for Christina’s mortgage so that she doesn’t have to use her own money, then they can damned well help Natalie out. Would be a lot more useful than using her leaving as an excuse for a sideswipe at people who don’t really have an interest in whether she leaves or not, outside of some peoples’ fantasies.

    You do realize that people didn’t stump for Greta to buy shoes, right? She had a very serious health problem and asked people for financial help during the time of her recovery. That was the reason people donated money to her. She later bought shoes after she asked for the donations to cease and had started making money again. I don’t even know how people would know that she bought shoes with donation money or her money. Nor do I even care. It was her money to do what she wanted. She needed shoes. She bought shoes.

    As for the rest, yooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuu caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan juuuuuuuuuuuuust FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK off.

  249. sunny12 says

    (Here’s Greta’s post about it. That’s a citation, motherfucker.)

    *reads up on it*

    Jesus. So if someone has had cancer and needed financial support, they’re then basically supposed to live in rags and not do anything nice for themselves forever afterwards, even when they’re working again?

    It’s like the people making these claims have no capacity for empathy whatsoever. Ick. :S

  250. squiller says

    Caine, cupcake, if I had any money, it’d go to my rent, medical expenses, car insurance, my mother’s care and paying off my debts. Be a while before I can buy a new pair of cheap shoes.

  251. says

    If I needed shoes to keep making money, I’d damn well get that paid for before I sent money off to pay debts that weren’t in collection or to fund my mother’s care.

    Because I can’t work without shoes. And it’s piss ignorant to ask someone to work without shoes.

  252. says

    squiller:

    Are you incapable of accepting that Renee could be a good person?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    You are hilarious.
    What bullshit is she feeding you that makes you think she is a good person? Renee Hendricks is a scumbag piece of shit, who diminishes the struggles of others, minimizes the pain and suffering people go through, defend the actions of her morally bankrupt SlymeBuddies, and is the opposite of empathetic. No one with an ounce of empathy should want anything to do with her. I can see why you like her.

    ****
    abear:

    Is being a cupcake a bad thing?

    Not as bad as being you.
    Or a Vacula, Paden, or Bumblebee.

    ****
    squiller:

    Here’s a tip, you might not get so many ‘trolls’ if you spent less time spitting slanderous vitriol at people and paid a little more attention to fact and a bit less to your imagination. But then you don’t strike me as someone who gives a shit about facts that don’t serve your agenda.

    You are a pathetic little fucktroll.
    slanderous vitriol? Give one fucking example.
    You people are hitting my goddamned last fucking nerve with your lack of care for other human beings. We don’t go to your slime infused hunting grounds and bother you, yet here you are polluting Pharyngula specifically, and FtB in general with your fuckwittery. Why? Why do you bother us so much when you don’t like us, and you know we can’t stand your asses? Why do you continue to act in a way that would make your mother or father disappointed in their child?

  253. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Have you polled everyone who’s read it? Now that might require a citation. What that screams at you might depend on your biases, might it not. A less cynical person might think that it’s creative use of an opportunity to do some good. Why would it be spite?

    Squiller, you are as slymie as you are dishonest. So, you are claiming that Renee had to misrepresent the actions of an other person in order to be inspired to do something useful

    She could have fucking done that with out making a stink.

    And you still have not answered my question. Do you care about the situation that Natalie Reed is in?

    Because, right now, all I can see is a hateful, dishonest and sniveling little troll.

  254. squiller says

    “You do realize that people didn’t stump for Greta to buy shoes, right? She had a very serious health problem and asked people for financial help during the time of her recovery. That was the reason people donated money to her. She later bought shoes after she asked for the donations to cease and had started making money again. I don’t even know how people would know that she bought shoes with donation money or her money. Nor do I even care. It was her money to do what she wanted. She needed shoes. She bought shoes.

    As for the rest, yooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuu caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan juuuuuuuuuuuuust FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK off.”

    You do realise that the donations were so that Greta Christina didn’t have to dip into her savings. She had the money. The donations were effectively to maintain her lifestyle. But no, it’s not important, if people want to donate, that’s their business.

    You might note that what does have some people pissed off is that Abbie Smith’s partner was running up huge medical bills while certain people from FTB were trying to fuck with her job. No concern there. She didn’t try to hit up anybody for the cash. She scrimped, used stamps etc. She has debts, which she is taking responsibility for. Then this person who acts morally superior asks for money from others and then boasts about a new pair of shoes. Not the biggest crime in the world, but it is a bit rich and oblivious to what a REAL fucking financial problem is.

  255. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Caine, cupcake, if I had any money, it’d go to my rent, medical expenses, car insurance, my mother’s care and paying off my debts. Be a while before I can buy a new pair of cheap shoes.

    Like we care what a non-evidencer thinks.

    , but PZ has to have his little martyr parade.

    And quite frankly, he’s a despicable fuck with his talk about violent intentions,tracism, silencing people and hatred of women.

    Your OPINION is *POOF* dismissed as misogynist fuckwittery. Which it is loser. Why do you think your OPINION trumps facts?

  256. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The donations were effectively to maintain her lifestyle. But no, it’s not important, if people want to donate, that’s their business.

    Who the fuck cares about your OPINION, which it is without a citation to show what you OPINE is a fact. Which is why you are ignored as trash.

  257. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    You do realise that the donations were so that Greta Christina didn’t have to dip into her savings. She had the money. The donations were effectively to maintain her lifestyle. But no, it’s not important, if people want to donate, that’s their business.

    Yes! That highly lucrative money making career of a freelance writer, blogger and speaker at secular conventions.

    You are a deeply stupid pile of shit.

    Also, do you care about the situation that Natalie is in? Simple fucking question.

  258. says

    Get the fuck over yourself, squiller. Greta held out her tip jar and some of us remembered that we were getting good things from her free of charge. I did not make a “donation” to Greta. I paid her for writing that I wanted to see more of.

  259. says

    squiller:

    And quite frankly, he’s a despicable fuck with his talk about violent intentions,tracism, silencing people and hatred of women.

    Cite.
    Some.
    Fucking.
    Examples.
    I want to see PZ’s purported violent intentions.
    I want to see PZ’s “tracism” (whatever the fucking fuck that is).
    I want to see PZ’s “silencing people”.
    I want to see PZ’s “hatred of women.

    Can you cite examples?
    Or are you yet another example of the Slymepit lying scumbags who deserve their own deserted island away from civilized people?

  260. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    squiiller

    The donations were effectively to maintain her lifestyle. But no, it’s not important, if people want to donate, that’s their business.

    You make the statement of fact that the money was to maintain her lifestyle. Either provide third party evidence to back up the factual claim, or if you are a person of honesty and integrity, disavow the claim. If you can’t put up, and won’t shut up, you are exposed as a liar and bullshitter. Welcome to how science and true skepticism works.

  261. athyco says

    Recommendation: squiller prints out the comments at Greta’s in which Renee Hendricks took part. squiller prints out this thread. Then squiller highlights the squiller comments sets up a few job interviews with fundraising companies.

    There’d be some evidence there.

  262. squiller says

    Janine, I might be more inclined to give your accusations of dishonesty some thought if you weren’t posting in a thread with a title implying an egregious fucking lie.

    “Squiller, you are as slymie as you are dishonest. So, you are claiming that Renee had to misrepresent the actions of an other person in order to be inspired to do something useful

    She could have fucking done that with out making a stink.

    And you still have not answered my question. Do you care about the situation that Natalie Reed is in?

    Because, right now, all I can see is a hateful, dishonest and sniveling little troll”

    No, she is inspired to do something useful because of who she is, something you are obviously too partisan an churlish to accept. I’m saying she used the opportunity to implement it.

    Don’t care overmuch, because I don’t really know her? I care in principle. And please don’t try on the “you’re derailing, it’s all about you crap”. Ask that shitstirrer PZ why he had to use a post expressing concern for her to disseminate yet more crap about people. Does he think people are going to lie down and let him trash them without pushback? Or maybe he’s the uber troll, who knows.

    Am I supposed to care that you called me ‘snivelling’ and ‘hateful’. You obviously only see what your prejudices want you to see. That old fundie trope. Yes all your foes are snivelling cowards without pity.

  263. ckitching says

    JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness wrote:

    She couldn’t work so she couldn’t pay her bills. She got more money than was needed, closed the fundraiser and bought a good pair of shoes much later, after she started working again.

    It’s not about the shoes. It’s never been about the shoes. For the anti-feminists, it’s always been about finding a weakness in their hated enemy, and exploiting that mercilessly until they are silenced. There is no cause too noble or too petty that it can’t be turned into a weapon for their cause. What things they consider noble or terrible will vary from time to time, depending on what is expedient, except for the forever sacred freeze peach, which must not be violated by moderation or banning.

  264. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    First, thanks everyone. I’m so pissed that I’m shaking and crying.
    ==
    ==
    squiiler

    You do realize that the donations were so that Greta Christina didn’t have to dip into her savings. She had the money. The donations were effectively to maintain her lifestyle. But no, it’s not important, if people want to donate, that’s their business.

    You lying piece of shit. Look here’s another citation, the original ask for help that was linked in my first post. Clearly, you didn’t bother to fucking read anything.

    You might note that what does have some people pissed off is that Abbie Smith’s partner was running up huge medical bills while certain people from FTB were trying to fuck with her job. No concern there. She didn’t try to hit up anybody for the cash. She scrimped, used stamps etc. She has debts, which she is taking responsibility for.

    Do you realize what it takes to apply for benefits? What if she wasn’t eligible? What if it took too long? It can take MONTHS to get approval. In the mean time she’d have no fucking income. You don’t know a damn thing obviously. What you want people in rags before asking for help? It’s not a bad thing to ask for help. People like you are the reason people feel bad for asking for help when they need it.

    And where is this citation that people here where trying to fuck with her job? Is it our fault her sexist shit affected her real life?

    Then this person who acts morally superior asks for money from others and then boasts about a new pair of shoes. Not the biggest crime in the world, but it is a bit rich and oblivious to what a REAL fucking financial problem is.

    Abbie Smith is a sexist asshole and Greta is absolutely morally superior on that fact. No question.
    Asking for help isn’t a moral failing, you jackass. She bought a needed pair of shoes AFTER she started working. Good god, shouldn’t you be happy she was back on her feet and able to buy such a thing?

    I. Hate. You.

  265. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Don’t care overmuch, because I don’t really know her? I care in principle.

    And yet you gave all of us shit, not knowing if anyone actually donated to her or not. Natalie Reed is ust some name that you tried to use to score rhetorical points. Lovely

    And please don’t try on the “you’re derailing, it’s all about you crap”.

    Do not try to deny you actions. It is there for all of us to read.

    Ask that shitstirrer PZ why he had to use a post expressing concern for her to disseminate yet more crap about people.

    You mean when PZ quoted Natalie Reed’s own words?

    The reasons for this are complex and numerous, but most of them relate to feeling a lot of alienation from the Atheist Community, a lot of fear about the increasingly hostile attacks on women within that community, and the fact that my efforts to distance myself from all that while keeping my blog here haven’t really worked out. I’m still a target, and some of the stuff that Jen, Ophelia and Greta have had to deal with lately have been outright scary. Skepticism and Atheist just aren’t important enough to me to feel comfortable putting myself in the way of that for their sake.

    PZ did not say this. Read for comprehension.

    Does he think people are going to lie down and let him trash them without pushback? Or maybe he’s the uber troll, who knows.

    Am I supposed to care that you called me ‘snivelling’ and ‘hateful’. You obviously only see what your prejudices want you to see. That old fundie trope. Yes all your foes are snivelling cowards without pity.

    You are defending people who openly lie and distort about what most of us here stand for. You are defending people who laugh at death threats and rape threats.

    You are scum.

    That is all.

    Cry to about this when the slymies are getting death threads and rape threats everyday.

  266. squiller says

    It’s not about the shoes. It’s never been about the shoes. For the anti-feminists, it’s always been about finding a weakness in their hated enemy, and exploiting that mercilessly until they are silenced. There is no cause too noble or too petty that it can’t be turned into a weapon for their cause. What things they consider noble or terrible will vary from time to time, depending on what is expedient, except for the forever sacred freeze peach, which must not be violated by moderation or banning.

    You do realise that you are talking about real people, not characters in your own little fantasy. Go on telling yourself that these evil people are trying to silence you. It doesn’t bear any relation to reality though. repeating it over and over doesn’t make it so. Who hates you? What’s an anti-feminist anyway? The term has no meaning without an established definition of ‘feminist’. There appear to be a lot of people around who would miss their crusade if they acknowledged that they weren’t hated.

  267. sunny12 says

    Ask that shitstirrer PZ why he had to use a post expressing concern for her to disseminate yet more crap about people.

    Wait, what? Natalie herself said that the reason she’s moving blogs is because of the hostility experienced by women in the skeptical community, as evidenced by the insults and attacks faced by other female bloggers like Ophelia and Greta. It’s right there in the main post.

  268. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    It’s fine. It cannot be stressed enough. It also reassures me that I am not misreading it.

  269. says

    Ugh, ending up needing to skip ahead because the thread keeps doubling.

    @ the OP

    It is sickening how many voices are so routinely silenced or rerouted by terrorism campaigns by bigoted members of the movement trying to eliminate marginalized voices. The same tired shit that has occurred in every minority community for the worse. By the same self-empowered wanna-be kings of wanna-be mountains purging out the “uppity” because “they’re distracting us from the point of our movement”. It is sickening how bad it is and continues to be to be brave enough to fight against that trend and the many who have fallen in the daily battle.

    The number who have simply fallen off. Not because they don’t agree with the movement. But simply because it is no longer worth the constant battle and the constant hatred and vitriol.

    And it has to be frightening being a trans* member of a community under attack, receiving death threats. Every year in the US alone, at least one of the trans* murdered is someone who was a trans* activist. Someone who is killed specifically because they spoke out directly on trans* issues and about trans* experiences and tried to be visible for the community and talk about the intersections of oppression.

    A trans woman receiving a death threat therefore must exist in that context and process it on that level. They can’t not.

    Overall, I viscerally understand Natalie’s decision, because I’ve been there.

    I don’t mean I’ve been there on the level of being terrorized. I’m not a narcissist. But rather on the level of just not finding my investment in the atheist community to be strong enough for my mental state. To be worth the bullshit. I hit that point myself. I was going through unemployment and depression and every thread was an endless battle of douchebags and I just couldn’t muster it up. I wasn’t invested enough to barrel in and do good (and I’m endlessly grateful to those who were and didn’t chicken out like me).

    Too many people have been chased out of this movement. Too many more have simply looked at that and looked at the assholes and had to do some mental calculation on whether their personal disbelief in Gods and investment in a religious-bullshit-free world was worth jumping in and have decided to opt out.

    And that really, really sucks.

  270. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Cerberus, while this is off topic, I have to let you know this. During the time you were silent, you were missed by many members of the Horde.

    It is good that you been able to recharge and come back. I know it is not easy.

  271. says

    (and I’m endlessly grateful to those who were and didn’t chicken out like me).

    Cerberus, you did not chicken out. We remember everything you were going through and that was already a serious load – I don’t need to tell you the energy required to fight the good fight all the time, you know. It’s exhausting, half the time it’s triggering and sometimes, you have to take a walk for your own mental health. I’ve done it, pretty much everyone here has done it at some point.

  272. squiller says

    Janine

    You mean when PZ quoted Natalie Reed’s own words?

    Meaning what? Does that give PZ the right to accuse people of trying to silence her and gloating about it when they verifiably haven’t. He did not mention them by name, but I think we all know who he means. This is a person who compares people to Marc Lepine with ZERO evidence. Why would I give a man like that any respect? In fact, I give him a hell of a lot more respect than he gives me.

    If you are getting death and rape threats, report them to the police and they will follow up. They will at least trace a few. Please do that. I’m fucking begging you to do that. There is no reason on earth that I can see why one wouldn’t. In fact, it’s your civic duty. Maybe if you find out who is doing it you’ll stop spraying around the blame.

  273. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Verifiably? More like hand waving.

    And you also missed what was fucking meant when Marc Lepine was brought up. It is groups like the pit and MRA who give cover for people like Marc Lepine. That somehow the Marc Lepines of the world think that their murderous intentions have support in the mainstream world.

    And you fucking dare claim that we have a fundamentalist view of the world.

    Go to Natalie Reed’s blog and inform her that her fears are unfounded.

    I fucking dare you.!

  274. squiller says

    Caine:

    It would seem squiller is desperate for that pitstar, he’s gotten quite testerical

    I suppose that’s a frightfully clever reference to testosterone, because I’m going to have my manly pride wounded. If that’s the case, you do realise how silly that makes you look? It says more about your penchant for making assumptions and pigeonholing people. Oh, I get it, it’s the invert of hysterical. How hyst.., oops, I mean testerical. If I throw a strop about it would that make you happy? Please let me know, I aim to please.

  275. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Are you going to inform Natalie that her fears are unfounded. Or are you going to make crappy and very unclever jokes.

  276. squiller says

    Janine: Hallucinating Liar
    21 January 2013 at 11:50 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
    Verifiably? More like hand waving.

    And you also missed what was fucking meant when Marc Lepine was brought up. It is groups like the pit and MRA who give cover for people like Marc Lepine. That somehow the Marc Lepines of the world think that their murderous intentions have support in the mainstream world.

    And you fucking dare claim that we have a fundamentalist view of the world.

    Go to Natalie Reed’s blog and inform her that her fears are unfounded.

    I fucking dare you.!

    Handwaving. Quote me someone gloating, quote me someone wanting to silence Natalie Reed. And not just some random unaffiliated individual. Or do you want me to cite the quotes that aren’t there?

    Mr Myers, Meek and Mild:

    And these anonymous monsters on the internet who shriek affrontedly about women and feminists and moan that any feminist allies are ‘manginas’ — to me, every one of them has the name Marc Lépine, and is just hiding it in shame and fear and hatred and cowardice.

    Evidently I don’t have the Sooper Sekret FTB Code manual to interpret that correctly. I’m stuck with the literal version. Fuck you, fuck you into the ground Myers. I’d looove to hear your explanation of how the Pit lends support to mass murderers, or would that be the dreaded handwaving? And yes, the delusional crap you’ve just spouted is so over the top that you do come off as a bit fundie.

    As for Natalie Reed, I have no idea about the nature of the threats she receives. Why would I try to tell her anything about that, unless she were to repeatedly claim threats to win an argument, and then act victimised when asked for evidence. I’m NOT saying she has, but some have, and I suspect that that’s what you are angling at.A threat of violence is unacceptable and you seem to have some delusional fucking notion that I am somehow associated with such things. Take your lazy fucking accusations and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

  277. Tethys says

    squiller

    Why must you shit all over the thread? If you are so concerned about making Caine happy, you could do that by shutting your lying fool mouth.

    But alas no, for some reason you need to come on to a thread about Natalie to attack Greta and defend assholes such as Renee.

    To anyone with two brain cells you are a pusillanimous cockroach, and you deserve nothing but contempt.

    Fuck off.

  278. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    A threat of violence is unacceptable and you seem to have some delusional fucking notion that I am somehow associated with such things. Take your lazy fucking accusations and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

    Read for fucking comprehension, fuckface. All I said is this, you are defending people who are involved in this.

    But you are not here to learn anything. You are here to show off what a terrible person PZ Myers is.

    Crawl back to the pit. The slymies can congratulate you for fighting the good fight.

    At least try to have a little shame for your faux outrage about Natalie Reed.

    (As a side note, I am sure this little exchange, if she knows about it, would not help her at all.)

  279. squiller says

    Janine, you said it, not me:

    Are you going to inform Natalie that her fears are unfounded. Or are you going to make crappy and very unclever jokes.

    Profuse apologies. I thought crappy jokes were required. Just trying to fit in. I’m doing a good job too. Nobody’s noticed me yet. I’m just a bit nervous that someone will pick up a spelling error and out me.

  280. sunny12 says

    Evidently I don’t have the Sooper Sekret FTB Code manual to interpret that correctly. I’m stuck with the literal version. Fuck you, fuck you into the ground Myers. I’d looove to hear your explanation of how the Pit lends support to mass murderers, or would that be the dreaded handwaving? And yes, the delusional crap you’ve just spouted is so over the top that you do come off as a bit fundie.

    There’s something to be said about the type of mentality that could lead someone, after reading a post serving as a simultaneous tribute to the murder of 11 women at the hands of a woman-hating gunman and a condemnation of anti-feminists who harass people online, to respond “fuck you, fuck you into the ground” to the author, rather than the anti-feminists and misogynists.

    Just disgusting. :/

  281. squiller says

    Janine

    Read for fucking comprehension, fuckface. All I said is this, you are defending people who are involved in this.

    But you are not here to learn anything. You are here to show off what a terrible person PZ Myers is.

    Crawl back to the pit. The slymies can congratulate you for fighting the good fight.

    At least try to have a little shame for your faux outrage about Natalie Reed.

    (As a side note, I am sure this little exchange, if she knows about it, would not help her at all.)

    Oh so you came up with a slightly different bit of bullshit then. Defending nothing.Another baseless lie. You criticise me for reading comprehension after your little spin on what PZ Myers actually said. Ooh “fight the good fight”. Well, yes, surprisingly people do get a little combative when they are called mass murderers. Funny that. I do know that you aren’t allowed to read what other people actually say outside your bubble, because that would be obsessively stalking and monitoring and that’s bad. Out in Muggle land we call it reading, but we are funny like that. But then you wouldn’t have to waste your time making up shit about plans being made, gloating parties and hatin’ on teh wymynz fests. Think of the time saved.

  282. squiller says

    Evidently I don’t have the Sooper Sekret FTB Code manual to interpret that correctly. I’m stuck with the literal version. Fuck you, fuck you into the ground Myers. I’d looove to hear your explanation of how the Pit lends support to mass murderers, or would that be the dreaded handwaving? And yes, the delusional crap you’ve just spouted is so over the top that you do come off as a bit fundie.

    There’s something to be said about the type of mentality that could lead someone, after reading a post serving as a simultaneous tribute to the murder of 11 women at the hands of a woman-hating gunman and a condemnation of anti-feminists who harass people online, to respond “fuck you, fuck you into the ground” to the author, rather than the anti-feminists and misogynists.

    Just disgusting. :/

    But, but ..I am one of those faceless misogynists, apparently.There’s also something to be said about the mentality of someone who debases the memory of a 23-year old mass murder by using it to take swipe at people he knows fuck-all about. Spare me the bullshit. The notion that being accused of misogyny by PZ Myers has any meaning at all requires special kind of cluelessness. That slur was spread far and wide. Besides, didn’t you get the memo? We’re all one amorphous blob of evil. Whatever someone I have no association with does or says, it’s OK to lump us together. So, are you saying it’s not OK to get pissed off at being called a psychopath? Yes, fuck Marc Lepine into the ground. Same to PZ Myers for his calculating use of Lepine’s work to spray faeces.

  283. says

    And skipping back in the Way Back Machine:

    I think this bit from noel has something we can use for all the “durr, recognizing intersectionality is betraying atheism” asslanguishers:

    But ‘skepticism’ has never meant simply thinking skeptically about anything whatsoever. A talk on macro economic policy would be totally out of place no matter how skeptical the speaker was being.

    Why not? Why should macroeconomic mythology be placed off the table? Why shouldn’t we look at things like social darwinism, fallacies on just world, false assumptions on the magic power of tax cuts, or prosperity gospel with a skeptical eye? Where’s the demarcation point between a religious claim and a religious claim about economics or gender theory? Where do we go, oh no, that costs extra? Where are the clear drawn-out lines that put a lie to intersectionality? Where is the point where we go, no no, we can do this cultural theory in a Mythbusters type debunking, but not this one? Is the line when things become “politics”? Are gender, race, queerness, trans* identities, economic oppression, etc… off table when they might piss off a crowd with some sort of legitimate power? When it might have to make a political pronouncement and “take sides”?

    And if so, why? Isn’t that cowardice? Isn’t that abdicating a duty at the very point when it would actually matter? And isn’t it a fiction? If something in the skeptic wheel well becomes a hard-fought political subject like say vaccination-denialism is everyone supposed to just politely drop it, less they be branded “liberals”? Isn’t this just perpetuating a culture of terrorism where certain subjects are denied any real analysis because they are “inherently political” and thus we must arbitrarily force a “both sides do it, the truth is in the middle” stance of faux-neutrality at all times less we “hurt someone’s feelings”?

    And yeah, don’t think minority members haven’t noticed that their entire lives, everything they touch, everything they do, everything they care about becomes this magical “add-on” “political” “extra” simply because it is them rather than the presumed dominant class.

    And we’re plenty well sick of it.

    Also, while we’re back here:

    stevencarr @140

    You are correct once again.
    Reading about the clashes between trans-feminism and ultra-feminism is not relevant to my life.
    But this is the Internet, and it is good to know that Natalie will still be posting at wehappytrans.com for people who need to learn about the clash between trans-feminism and ultra-feminism and its relevance to atheism and skepticism.

    Really?

    You’re saying: “Clashes between trans-feminism and ultra-feminism are totally ancillary and have no connection to atheism, but I’m really glad that now that she’s been chased out of the atheism community for her “extra” ancillary addition, that she’s found a new place where she can discuss about how clashes between trans-feminism and ultra-feminism intersect with atheism and skepticism.” Without it even remotely clicking?

    Face-fucking-Palm!

  284. squiller says

    Janine, might I suggest more sparing use of the word ‘outrage’. It gets a bit tired. I know you like to imagine me as a spittle flecked monster, but I might not be. Of course, I might be, but you can’t be sure, and it’s totes bad to be less than 98% accurate. After all this is a quasi skepticy sciencey blog. Ask Nerd if you don’t believe me.

    Oh, how did you know I was a ‘fuckface’? Have I been doxxed?

  285. sunny12 says

    But, but ..I am one of those faceless misogynists, apparently.There’s also something to be said about the mentality of someone who debases the memory of a 23-year old mass murder by using it to take swipe at people he knows fuck-all about. Spare me the bullshit. The notion that being accused of misogyny by PZ Myers has any meaning at all requires special kind of cluelessness. That slur was spread far and wide. Besides, didn’t you get the memo? We’re all one amorphous blob of evil. Whatever someone I have no association with does or says, it’s OK to lump us together. So, are you saying it’s not OK to get pissed off at being called a psychopath? Yes, fuck Marc Lepine into the ground. Same to PZ Myers for his calculating use of Lepine’s work to spray faeces.

    But he didn’t mention you, or indeed any specific person. He was talking about:

    “anonymous monsters on the internet who shriek affrontedly about women and feminists and moan that any feminist allies are ‘manginas’”

    What part of that do you take issue with? Why are you so invested in defending those types of people? If you are not a misogynist, then why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that he is talking about you? Are you the kind of person who shrieks affrontedly about women and feminists and moans that any feminist allies are “manginas”?

    (Please note that I have absolutely no idea of your personal history with PZ Myers, if indeed you have one – I’m just going off the original article that you were referring to, and your response to it here).

  286. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    ou do realise that you are talking about real people, not characters in your own little fantasy.

    You’re the one with the fantasies. You were asked above to provide citations to prove you weren’t a liar and bullshitter by two of us. WHERE ARE THOSE LINKS TO PROVE YOUR HONESTY AND INTEGRITY?

    All you have is your delusions. Which you shouldn’t share with anyone.

    I am one of those faceless misogynists, apparently.

    Yep, you lie, bullshit, prove nothing, show attitude, and keep lying, lying, lying, and think your OPINION isn’t bullshit. But it is bullshit if you can’t back it up with facts. Your failure to do so proves that.

  287. says

    Hey you know what squiller, abear, steven, and noel remind me exactly of:

    Most of the MRAs featured on manboobz. Same bizarre obsession with meaningless conspiracy theories that no one could give half a fuck about. Same angry hatred of the notion of A. Woman. They. Don’t. Agree. With. Raising. Money. NOT LEGIT! Same bizarre attempts to defend both of above as if anyone could or should care. Same attempts to claim some higher-minded ideal when they belatedly realize no one in the room shares their obsession or really views those non-events as worse than the treatment of online women. The same obsession with doxxing, terrorism, and derailing threads so that no one can discuss anything beyond the same tired retreading of 101 blah blah blah.

    And of course, the same laughable claim that being a dick and getting blowback for it is some “attack by the PC police” and that being banned is something other than an acknowledgment that you acted like a troll who tried to dominate a space because you were uncomfortable with a space existing that wasn’t dominated by douchebro frat jackasses.

    Let me spell this out loud and clear to all you idiots:

    We don’t care. We couldn’t care. We shouldn’t care about your petty small minded post hoc rationalizations for your petty small-minded sexism. You have decided to bully women out of the community because they scare you. Not because Rebecca Watson totally told you off once, well, not really, but she could have been nicer or because Anita Sarkeesian didn’t really deserve that much money in her Kickstarter or because Greta Christina once bought an unrelated pair of shoes in an unrelated monetary situation and you’ve decided this explains why you’ve had a hate-on for her for years.

    And if you think the PC crowd is “being mean” and blah blah blah gag me with a spoon. All I can say is this. If you were actually for real and not retreading a common abuser trait for enlisting unearned sympathy for abusive behavior from your victims, you’d still be an asshole.

  288. squiller says

    Cerebrus, I won’t go into the specifics of what skepticism can be applied to, because that would take a lot of time and research. Whether or not conclusions on some of the issues you raise can be objective is open to question. There is nothing wrong in principle with applying skepticism to those things, as long as there can be agreement to disagree and not try to make skepticism about any particular area. That leads to fracturing of the community and then the remainder will eventually shift focus to something equally divisive and fracture again, and so on. Where one draws the line on what is fact, or subjectively determined would not be easy. There are existing fields of study and surely a more productive endeavour would be to set up specialist skeptic groups devoted to applying skepticism to those fields. The primary goal of the skeptic movement is surely to encourage skeptical thinking in all fields, not specifics.

  289. says

    squiller @343

    Ahem.

    But the worst, oh the most deeply enraging of pseudoallies are the comfort mongers. The people who are so dreadfully hurt by how “mean” trans people are, how “aggressive” or “vicious”, how much we’re all “jerks”, “harsh” or “too rough” on them. Of all the ridiculously privileged, shallow, asinine reasons to abandon the paradigm of oppression opposition, this is quite simply the worst.

    Let me tell you, pseudoallies who may be reading this (as someone will likely invariably link you my way when you pull your shit), unequivocally, indisputably, if your reason for not being an ally was “omg some trans people were mean to me”, you were never a good ally to begin with. If you are capable of abandoning the fight against the widespread oppression of trans people (or any group really, this applies on all zones of kyriarchy) because some trans people didn’t elevate your privileged person discomfort over our lives with us being upset at your privileged fuck ups (or even worse, at someone else’s fuck ups) then you are not a good ally or even an ally at all, by definition. Allies, as they pertain to marginalization activism, are people who work against and oppose oppression, always, invariably. An ally who purposefully stops opposing oppression is an oxymoron. A pseudoally. And if you’re being linked this post after you just did what I’ve described here, then you are a pseudoally.

    This utter lack of being an ally is what informs our lack of caring about tone argument derails, about the whining of failed Appeaser archetypes that forget the need for Nukers, about criticisms of how many “allies” we’ve chased away with our tone.

    I have not chased away a single genuine ally from anti oppression activism. Literally. Not even one. Some might not read my blog anymore but that isn’t a problem for me. As long as they’re still reading trans people’s experiences, accepting their privilege, owning their mistakes and fighting oppression, they’re fine. I have chased away many pseudoallies, but as pseudoallies are drains on our resources, who use us and abuse us, who turn us against each other, vampires that drink up our energy and our attentions with their precious hurt feelings and “it’s all about me” self obsessing bullshit, is that really a bad thing?

    No. It isn’t. In fact, chasing away draining pseudoallies is something that helps clean the sides of the barnacles in activism. One of the main benefits of having Nukers is the loss of pseudoallies like gray vampires, comfort mongers, Liberal Reputation Points™ players, concern trolls and trapdoor trolls, all of whom supremely and easily fuck with Appeasers on a regular basis.

    So no, we don’t care when we chase away pseudoallies. I’m amazed that anyone expects us to care. Do mention if we actually chase away a real ally (but don’t hold your breath for it). Until then, I’ll keep on doing what I’m doing.

    Every last one of you misogynist thread derailers come in with the same abuser-lite tactic of “hey, you women fighting back against my bullshit is you being ipso facto super-duper mean to me, so let’s spend the rest of the thread talking about my feelings and ignoring the real hurt perpetuated against the marginalized even in this very thread” and spout out the same type of garbage.

    And yet you have the gonads to whine about how we’re “just seeing you as one of the horde” instead of recognizing my super special snowflakeyness? Cry me a river and then go swimming in it far far away, because it’s tired, played out, and creepy as fuck. Just like all the others.

    Hey, if you really want to be differentiated from the usual troll, why not do something different, like I dunno, actually understand the issue being discussed, try to remain on topic, and see upsetting people or getting them angry as the bad thing it is rather than some misogynist honor badge or “they are so meeeeeen” personal assault.

    In short, grow up, learn, and stop being the standard misogynist troll trying to take every thread about women on a blog you admit you don’t read and making it about you and your petty whine overprivileged white cis male shit.

    Or shorter me:

    Fuck off, boring troll.

  290. John Morales says

    I see squiller is a classic specimen, with nothing but opinion as Nerd has noted.

    The primary goal of the skeptic movement is surely to encourage skeptical thinking in all fields, not specifics.

    Natalie Reed, the person who is the topic of this thread, has made it perfectly clear in her post (linked in the OP) that though she is a skeptic her passion is for social justice.

    (The idea that there’s a monolithic “skeptic movement” being fractured is mildly amusing)

  291. says

    squiller @349

    Well, here’s the thing you get to ignore. Are lucky enough to get to ignore about the world.

    Marginalized groups are always considered extra. Are always considered “political”. Are always considered something, and I quote, “that leads to fracturing of the community and then the remainder will eventually shift focus to something equally divisive and fracture again, and so on”.

    By. Their. Nature.

    And dominant groups are always considered simply part of the group. Are always considered “neutral”. Are always allowed to be “impartial” and “above the fray”. Are the group who’s issues are considered to not be an inherent fracturing and are even considered the only important group to hold onto.

    Let’s look at atheism. When it was only cis white men. When systematic oppression, unchecked biases, bad reputation, and organizational youth made it a cis white male’s private soiree, none of you were really concerned about all those non cis-white male perspectives and voices who were being shut out by your “divisive and fracture” nature. No, then it was simply normal.

    Now that diversity of the atheist community is being acknowledged. And we have to admit where intersectionality occurs between atheism and everything else, just like everything else in this goddamn world that really and truly exists. Now that atheist women, atheist queer people, atheist trans* people, atheist black people, atheist latin@s, atheist disabled people, atheist socialists, etc… are standing up and being heard and now that the only people “being excluded” (in theory, in practice the same cis white men are trying to intimidate off as many of the “others” as possible and claim they are only doing it to “protect the movement from fracturing” as if atheism was a fucking religious dogma instead of a society of skeptics and free thinkers) are well… nobody, but the cis white men are now called on their bullshit more regularly in a way they weren’t before and well, what could be worse, right?

    It only seems “extra”, it only seems like it’s “fracturing” to acknowledge because we are so good in our culture in assuming that dominant life experiences are “normal”, “unremarkable”, “simply how the world works” and marginalized voices and life experiences as alien, dangerous, and additional.

    And they are not.

    And guess what, as skeptics, we can’t keep ignoring that, unless we want to be a movement of meaningless, ignorant hicks that are completely left behind by a newer, better, more diverse “atheist” movement with a different name.

    In short, even if you won, you’d still lose, because intersectionality is unavoidable. Because everyone intersections whether they know it or not.

  292. says

    squiler @336

    As for Natalie Reed, I have no idea about the nature of the threats she receives. Why would I try to tell her anything about that, unless she were to repeatedly claim threats to win an argument, and then act victimised when asked for evidence. I’m NOT saying she has, but some have, and I suspect that that’s what you are angling at.

    So, let’s get this right, you assume that women, as a matter of course, invent hurtful, triggering, or bullying threats so they can… what? What’s the end-game? “Winning an argument”? For what? What does it really benefit women in this fictional world to invent hateful things that they know are going to trigger them and other women and perpetuate a climate of fear that discourages other women from speaking out for such a vague, non-successful rhetorical… nothing.

    But this conspiracy theory is not only totally plausible to you, it seems the most common. It’s your goddamn go-to assumption when such things transpire even in the wake of monumental evidence to the contrary. You assume this is true unless proven otherwise and yes, I see your weasel words, but this is the gist of that section. You’re not saying it is true, just that you assume it is unless proven otherwise.

    And you do this even when women have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such a state of affairs, bullying misogynist men with issues about female participation have everything to gain and very little to lose (aside from their opportunity to grow and become better people who are not actively associating with cultures designed to make them worse people)? Even when there are reams of evidence of women being brutally bullied in this community alone and the worst the poor menz can manage is “but, but, the feminists were like REALLY MEEEEEEEEEN after I was a giant asshole” to illustrate their oppression.

    And that’s sort of it at the end of the day. You admit to believing in a conspiracy theory, in a conspiracy theory way, despite contrary evidence staring you in the face, and are willing to discount the immediate reality of your life experiences to support it.

    And that is why skepticism can’t stop where the bigoted cis white men want to stop it. Because there is no way that should get a free pass from the same sort of cultural deconstruction and mockery as everything else.

  293. says

    hypatiasdaughter @257

    When a certain ex-FtBlogger left here in a whirl of rage, he threatened to drop dox on her.
    For NR, this is FAR, FAR more serious than outing most atheists on this board. This could have affected her work, housing, and personal safety. It shook her, and left her feeling threatened. Every day she had to wait to see if the threat was serious or not. I cried for her when I read her post about it.
    Without any evidence whatsoever – I will speculate that the nasty “acid” tweet the OB received may have been the last straw. It would have been for me.

    In a way I doubt our trolls are even marginally positioned to appreciate.

    “Outing a trans* person” is serious business. A great many trans* individuals have died, literally died because the wrong sorts of people were aware of their state. A great many of romantic partners of trans* individuals have murdered their partners because they were frightened of certain parties being aware that they had been involved with a trans* person.

    In this country, it is a mere handful of years since we finally signed into law the first piece of legislation dealing with trans* issues and it only really meant that for the first time law enforcement was encouraged to get serious about the brutal murder of trans* individuals.

    In many states, it is not only legal to fire a trans* individual from their job simply for being trans*. It is legal to deny them housing, public services, and so much more. A trans* person who is being outed has a very legitimate fear about whether or not they are going to lose their job, lose their home, and very possibly lose their life.

    And having to deal with that changes a metric fuckton of calculus because of how fucked up our culture is.

    And it’s worse when this threat or outing occurs from those who were trusted with the information. Because that’s when the paranoia sets in.

    Cause see, for trans* people, it is really fucking easy to get paranoid because there is a lot of very violent hatred for trans* people out there and a lot of narratives about how bad things that happen to them are “their fault”. Freaking out on a day to day basis because you’re not sure if that nasty stare is going to transition into physical bullying or outright assault, if a small action is going to be seen as the “justification” for someone to go apeshit on you, or freaking out that some small minded petty sonuvabitch is going to try and ruin your life because boo hoo, wah wah, feminazis were MEEEEEEEEN…

    So yeah, it’s not nearly as small as you’re imagining it if someone revealed you were John Q. Dumbass of Fuckberry, Michigan. It’s literally life, death, and full mental collapse on the line.

  294. squiller says

    Jesus, Cerebrus. are you all clones. Project, project, project, assume assume assume. I’m just so sick and tired off hearing people described as sexist, misogynist, bullying women off the internet, when they are patently not those things, and have no intention of doing anything except try to combat untruths. The effect goes far beyond FTB. You might not care, but other people do, lots of them, including men, women, everyone between and minorities. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the status quo or keeping any minorities out. I have only come across 2 people who give a shit about the gender of their representatives and speakers or their race, and they had very narrow-focussed issues. In my experience, black skeptics take great exception to being told that they should have different interests in skepticism than anyone else. There are people at the local level trying hard to establish atheist organisations so that Hispanics, for instance, will not feel tied to their church for a sense of community. Those are the kinds of issues keeping minorities from participating, not divisive, blaming theoretical constructs implicating old CIS gendered white guys. And some of the people doing this work are being shat on by people who jet around to conferences to recycle speeches, sometimes self-serving ones. They care when speakers who know little about a subject give a politically motivated speech about it to a supposedly skeptical audience. The major figures in atheism and skepticism got there with the authority of their scientific works, their philosophical writings, or their abilities and tireless application of skepticism like James Randi. Now these people are being having their heels nipped by people who think that a blog and the desire to be somebody is an entitlement. The sick thing is that there are minorities and women who are expert in their field local to events who could give an educational talk, but lets rather fly in PZ Myers to recycle a talk and some other outsider to talk about victimisation and lack of diversity. Of course, some other white guy not with the Gnu Gnu’s program can take a walk. Tell you what, Myers, next time you are invited to give a talk, find a young woman or minority member on the staff at a local university prepared to give a talk and insist that the event organisers use them instead. See if there’s an outcry of ‘hate’. Quite honestly it looks as if the community, such as it exists, is being coveted by people who think they are entitled to make a career out of it.

  295. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Cerberus, when did you become “Cerebrus”? ;)

    (Your directness and cogency impresses me)

  296. John Morales says

    squiller:

    Project, project, project, assume assume assume.

    [blah blah blahblah blah]

    … Quite honestly it looks as if the community, such as it exists, is being coveted by people who think they are entitled to make a career out of it.

    So, other people covet entitlement and thus project and assume, you see the community and intellectually infer other people’s covetous entitlement in action.

    (You coldly, rationally attribute others’ fundamental motivational schema by inferring it from their behaviour and dispassionately relate your findings, right?)

    In any case, Natalie Reed, (you know, the person who is the topic of this thread) clearly is showing no covetousness towards a skeptical career, and thus your little diatribe is out of topic.

  297. says

    squiler @355

    Jesus, Cerebrus. are you all clones. Project, project, project, assume assume assume. I’m just so sick and tired off hearing people described as sexist, misogynist, bullying women off the internet, when they are patently not those things, and have no intention of doing anything except try to combat untruths.

    Dude…

    I quoted you in my post @353 being a directly misogynistic bullying asshole.

    I don’t need to assume by association that you’re a jackhole. You’ve plenty revealed it by your own actions on this very thread. And I don’t know who you’re hoping to convince otherwise other than your own damn self, cause us homies? We ain’t playing.

    But hey, I guess IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION is a debate style your group has adopted wholesale from all the other wingnut assholes.

  298. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    This Invisible Pixel is invisible.

    *cough*

    Can someone spritz me with whatever scent your using to get responses from doucheweasels? Or is it like needing flashy colors to get attention? Using a spell?

    Being invisible sucks and it’s not like an Invisible Cloak I can just take off either.

  299. says

    John @356

    It began when I was doing a simple experiment on hard water, when I stopped to have a smoke break, not paying attention to the position of the lab equipment behind me and…

    No, wait, that’s the origin of Jay Garrick’s Flash…

    Also, aw, thanks.

  300. says

    JAL @359

    Well, if it’s any consolation, I thought your righteous fury @299 was both an important education to me on what meaningless bullshit conspiracy theory squiller was on about and a very nice takedown that adequately displayed the rage such underhanded BS warranted.

    It is remarkable how these misogynist assholes are so amazed that the incredible misogyny they are soaking in isn’t immediately apparent to pretty much anyone with eyes (especially women).

    So, one giant vote for your awesome Invisible Pixel!

  301. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Tell you what, Myers, next time you are invited to give a talk, find a young woman or minority member on the staff at a local university prepared to give a talk and insist that the event organisers use them instead. See if there’s an outcry of ‘hate’.

    Fuckface, here is some home work for you. Check out the people who have blogs on this platform. Do that and tell me that his actions does not live up to the talk.

    Look up the posts he has written, calling for women and minorities to be speakers. Look up the posts he has written, connecting to lists of women and minorities who are fully capable of delivering speeches. Look at the list of conventions that can be found on the side of this blog, conventions that have women and minorities as speakers and as organizers.

    But I doubt that you will. Because you are a very special little snowflake who knows what PZ does. Who knows that people decrying the actions of places like the pit are making shit up. That our lives contain not real problems. That we are professional victims.

    You know already who and what we are. And our concerns are beneath your notice.

    Because if you actually checked things out and were paying attention. PZ has already doing what you have demanded. But you do not care. You have your issues in black and white. And are a fundamentalist. And you cannot be fucking bothered.

    Fuck you, squiller. Fuck everything you stand for. And fuck that high horse your are riding.

  302. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    Cerberus from Time Forgot

    So, one giant vote for your awesome Invisible Pixel!

    Thanks!
    I wasn’t so much fishing for compliment but more whining “why do none of the assholes respond to me?”.

    Oh, right I cited and shit. Figures. *grumbles*

  303. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    JAL, if it means anything, I think fuckface fixated on me because I answered early and often.

    It does not take any from the worth of your comment.

    Besides, it was lost on fuckface. It is more for the benefit of the lurkers. Especially those who may be wondering why this argument is raging.

  304. says

    Further squiller @355

    The effect goes far beyond FTB. You might not care, but other people do, lots of them, including men, women, everyone between and minorities. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the status quo or keeping any minorities out. I have only come across 2 people who give a shit about the gender of their representatives and speakers or their race, and they had very narrow-focussed issues.

    So let’s see here, the only two people who managed to speak to your face about how the lack of diversity was making them feel uncomfortable of the, I’m sure, nearly two digits amount of minority member atheists you have talked to at cons, can be immediately be discounted as “having very narrow-focused issues” and essentially being fake atheist girls as it were.

    And all the countless narratives produced by women and minorities to explain what specifically causes them to avoid big atheist meetups or conferences? Or all the communities that seem to have an abnormally high amount of people who are areligious but don’t seem attracted to the word atheism or participating in the atheist community and directly cite associations with sexism and racism as the reason? They’re just… “having very narrow-focused issues” and can be ignored.

    Also, way to be privileged assuming that the selective group of minority members you specifically pursued to confirm what you wanted to hear (everything is fine, atheism does not need to do anything to be more diverse or address issues of intersection of oppressions (google it mo-fo)) somehow proves anything. It’s like all the wingnuts I parse on my blog who point to the 3-4 guys they pay to say that conservativism isn’t racist as some holy authority proof that conservatism isn’t racist.

    Sorry, dude, we’ve got the information. Huge bucketloads of minority-member atheists have stated there’s a problem with diversity. You’re just going to have to deal with that.

    In my experience, black skeptics take great exception to being told that they should have different interests in skepticism than anyone else.

    Your experiences being a white cis men speaking to only a small select group of particular black skeptics who are heavily culturally pressured to assauge your guilt because your community has a habit of dismissing those who don’t as “having very narrow-focused issues”. Selection bias, much?

    There are people at the local level trying hard to establish atheist organisations so that Hispanics, for instance, will not feel tied to their church for a sense of community. Those are the kinds of issues keeping minorities from participating, not divisive, blaming theoretical constructs implicating old CIS gendered white guys.

    And it must be true if you as a cis white male says it is.

    Hey, why are minority rights communities so heavily tied to Church? Did you ever ask?

    No, of course, you didn’t. See, back in the day, atheist leaning movements were making in-roads with black consciousness raising, but we let the ball drop, leaving blacks no other central organizing authority other than existing church structures. Wonder why minority communities are so hesitant to leave those behind and join rationalist movements that could dismantle things like the way “the slaveowner’s religon” has perpetuated racism in the modern day?

    Because of assholes like you who resist letting atheism meet that need. Be an attractive alternative to the church structure.

    Also, our cis white male dominated society smells like oppressor. We just don’t got the cred to be trusted if you dig. And the way we turn on any minority member that objects and the way we make minority atheists dance and fight and perform to be included is not helping that perception.

    And yes, I include cis in my designation. It’s not weird, it’s merely a polite way to note the different life experiences of cis white men in society from trans white men in society. Hint, it makes a difference.

    And some of the people doing this work are being shat on by people who jet around to conferences to recycle speeches, sometimes self-serving ones. They care when speakers who know little about a subject give a politically motivated speech about it to a supposedly skeptical audience.

    Which has happened… oh right, if a minority member is doing a presentation on oppression, then they must be “self-serving” and “ill informed” and “recycling speeches”.

    The fact that you expect us to ignore your automatic assumptions here and assume you are a person arguing in good faith who is not bigoted betrays a complete lack of respect for our collected intelligence.

    The major figures in atheism and skepticism got there with the authority of their scientific works, their philosophical writings, or their abilities and tireless application of skepticism like James Randi. Now these people are being having their heels nipped by people who think that a blog and the desire to be somebody is an entitlement.

    Uh huh… yeah, James Randi is totally being shut out by Greta Christina and PZ Myers. Right.

    The fact that you spew this deluded garbage, but want to be thought of as an intellectual is laughable to the point of physical discomfort.

    The sick thing is that there are minorities and women who are expert in their field local to events who could give an educational talk, but lets rather fly in PZ Myers to recycle a talk and some other outsider to talk about victimisation and lack of diversity.

    Well, that would be part and parcel of what PZ Myers is talking about. Cause see, us normal people, we use words because we mean them, not because we’re trying to reduce real life into a fucking rhetorical game we can win or lose. Yes, it’s a real issue when PZ Myers is turned to on diversity and bright black, latin@, queer, female, or trans* individuals with important perspectives on issues on topics are left out. It betrays a deeper cultural rot directly critiqued by PZ Myers when he calls for greater diversity.

    You tried a gotcha, but more revealed the problem. When given the option, cis white men are turned to because their “name” or “credentials” are seen as more valuable than promoting diversity and covering topics that might be of interest to more than the usual cis white male crowd.

    Of course, some other white guy not with the Gnu Gnu’s program can take a walk.

    And there’s your real issue, right there. You don’t really give a fuck if brilliant disabled black latina translesbian Octavia Madeupname is being denied a slot, just that there’s a single slot on the panel list that’s not devoted to stroking your ego and telling you that you’re a better person if you’re an atheist even if you are still a bigoted, small-minded, petty, conspiracy-theory believing, trollish, thread-jacking asshole. And it burns you up in real entitlement, not the made-up reverse bigotry entitlement, that that is allowed to exist where you, cis white male, don’t have a direct desire for it. One thing that doesn’t revolve around you.

    And that’s just pathetic.

    Tell you what, Myers, next time you are invited to give a talk, find a young woman or minority member on the staff at a local university prepared to give a talk and insist that the event organisers use them instead. See if there’s an outcry of ‘hate’. Quite honestly it looks as if the community, such as it exists, is being coveted by people who think they are entitled to make a career out of it.

    And since that was the only thing you care about, here you just sound like an idiot.

    Um, yeah, Myers and the others have tried to promote female and minority voices rising in the community.

    And yes, people really do produce an outcry of hate. YOU produced an outcry of hate. On this very post I am responding to now. YOU stated that you were sick to fucking death of these “nobodies” butting into your conferences to discuss their “narrow issues”. YOU had a freakout about mild critiques by minority atheists on this thread expressing their displeasure with the current state of affairs. YOU feel like we should stop wasting slots on these “side shows” in the name of diversity.

    YOU’RE having the very privileged meltdown you are desperately seeking to deny. And YOU can’t resist doing that, because it is central to your very issue with everything. Minorities are existing and being heard and speaking out and saying things you don’t like to hear and things that might be about you in specific doing bad things rather than agreed upon external enemies doing bad things. And that threatens you and what you’ve taken as natural because of cultural expectation and PRIVILEGE.

    And so you create endless conspiracy theories about how this supposed “outrage racket” works to deny the reality that atheism is just like every other minority movement out there. We have to accept intersectionality, just like everyone else. Our awareness on one issue does not make us perfect on all issues, just like everyone else. We end up with external and internal critiques by our minority members that might sometimes strike close to home, just like everyone else. We’re a diverse movement of many different voices, with many different perspectives, with many different life experiences, just like everyone else.

    And if that bothers you, you can do what the anti-lesbian feminists, the anti-trans* lesbians, the sexist civil rights activists, the racist gay men, and so on did.

    Leave after a long protractive period of attempted bullying of said minority members that ends in you creating a smaller, poorly-thought of group that “isn’t constrained by the PC police” that eventually dissolves because even insufferable assholes can’t stand their own company.

    Or you can grow. Accept that what is is. And stop drowning yourself in a pit of conspiracy theories and magical thinking guaranteed to plop you right back with all the other religious lunatics we regularly mock in this community.

  305. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    True, Janine, very true.

    Funny how I used to be so scared to comment and now I’m just itching for some personal takedown on a chew toy. hehe.

    (And my bad about the derail, (derailing the derail?) I didn’t mean to turn it all about me.)

  306. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Not a derail. Just amazing how some people get ignored when the rhetoric becomes heated and fast moving.

  307. squiller says

    Cerebrus.
    I did not say that women, as a matter of course, do anything. I said that there are some instances of some women doing certain things. Jesus, kneejerk assumptions. The odd thing about harassment at conferences is that the only survey ever done doesn’t show it to be a problem. There are a paltry number of cases reported and those don’t seem to have been borne out. Where is the evidence? Show it to people . Is it wrong to ask? Surely it would not be necessary to still be dredging up monopod man if the evidence existed (the actual victim in that case)? Ridicule me all you want, but can you provide the evidence? Project and bullshit away,by all means, but why would I object to real evidence? It’s only in the bullshit-filled, addled brains of certain people that such requests come from dudey pick-up artists trying to get their leg over with their attendant ‘wingmen’. No accounting for what comes out of some peoples minds.

    You really do have a low opinion of people. Somehow we are expected to believe that individuals who have made it through rain without melting need your hugs and talking about drugs and crime in order to become active in skepticism. They may wish to talk about drugs and crime, Jen, but they might also say “fuck that, what do you think I am, wheres Bigfoot, how about those UFOs”. They probably won’t ask where the watermelon is, although it is tasty.Where do you get the idea that any significant number of people object to actively recruiting ANYBODY? Actively recruiting and playing at self-congratulatory sociology are not the same thing. Yeah, we are all country club members. Of course, it’s convenient to forget those non-white, female members of places like the Mildew Pit. Even the odd transgender. Obviously defective ones who don’t know what’s good for them, like you do. Yes, people might want to talk about their own interests different to the usual. Here’s a novel idea. FIND MINORITY SKEPTICS TO GIVE TALKS AT EVENTS INSTEAD OF THE SAME INCESTUOUS FREELOADERS. PROBLEM.FUCKING.SOLVED.Of course, they might think your politics and sociology textbooks are a steaming pile of shite. It’s not the Mildew Pit keeping minorities out.They are just a nice convenient source of EEVIL porn to bag on so you can congratulate yourself for ‘getting it’. They just like to keep one-issue whackos from taking over.

  308. John Morales says

    squiller:

    You really do have a low opinion of people.

    You’re not “people”, you’re you.

    (Everyone has a low opinion of some people, you dolt)

    Also, your babbling has nothing to do with Natalie Reed, other that she was one of the found minority skeptics who people have harassed and whom you are now studiously ignoring.

    Remember this:

    The latest? We’re losing Natalie Reed.

  309. says

    Before I’m carted of to the Gulag

    Squiller, you hyperventilating misogynist nincompoop, I grant you your wish. Bye. Have fun in Siberia!

  310. Pteryxx says

    Pardon me, this lie is my specialty.

    The odd thing about harassment at conferences is that the only survey ever done doesn’t show it to be a problem.

    Answered long since:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/06/02/the-further-hyper-skepticism-stalling-our-conversation/

    Surveys fail to capture the incidence.

    There are a paltry number of cases reported [see above--p.] and those don’t seem to have been borne out.

    Answered long since:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2011/09/18/rape-myth-1-shes-probably-lying/

    Attrition’s generally due to victim-blaming, not evidence. (Also cases *were* borne out, see below.)

    Where is the evidence? Show it to people . Is it wrong to ask?

    Answered long since:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/06/06/arent-you-making-it-up-why-women-dont-report-harassment/

    Demands for extraordinary levels of evidence for common occurrences are a form of silencing.

  311. says

    Cerberus from Time Forgot, I am completely baffled as to how you conclude that this”I’m NOT saying she has, but some have

    turns into this: So, let’s get this right, you assume that women, as a matter of course, invent hurtful, triggering, or bullying threats so they can… what? What’s the end-game? “Winning an argument”? For what? What does it really benefit women in this fictional world to invent hateful things that they know are going to trigger them and other women and perpetuate a climate of fear that discourages other women from speaking out for such a vague, non-successful rhetorical… nothing.

    But this conspiracy theory is not only totally plausible to you, it seems the most common.

    Could you not only provide an example of anyone behaving this way, but show that this is the general situation?

    Why the fuck does it inevitably turn out this way, every fucking time. I can go through every fucking single thread, and never find an example of this not happening.
    You seem to have difficulty with this concept:

    So, let’s get this right, you assume that women, as a matter of course, invent hurtful, triggering, or bullying threats so they can… what? What’s the end-game? “Winning an argument”? For what? What does it really benefit women in this fictional world to invent hateful things that they know are going to trigger them and other women and perpetuate a climate of fear that discourages other women from speaking out for such a vague, non-successful rhetorical

    Yet you assume that the people that challenge your reasoning are gladly doing exactly that.

    DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE PEOPLE TOO, AND WE ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF GENUINELY VOICING CONCERN WITH YOUR BEHAVIOR OR LOGIC?

    It will always, always, every single time, and WILL ALWAYS turn out that this is what will inevitably result. You will conclude, that any person that objects to patently illogical reasoning, or being subject to gratuitously hurled insults and absurd claims that we are little more than drooling fucking miscreants.

    Always, and the next person that responds to me will treat me the same.

    YOU FUCKING SELFISH, SELF CENTERED FUCK. DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT MANY OF US HAVE BEEN RAPED WHEN WE WERE LITTLE. THAT WE ARE STRIVING TO DEAL WITH EQUALLY UGLY VIOLATIONS AS YOU? IT IS FUCKING SO UNBELIEVABLE SICK AND CRUEL THAT YOU ASSUME WE DON’T BATTLE THE EXACT SAME FUCKING DESECRATION AS YOU? BUT YOU CONTINUE TO TREAT US THE SAME WAY, INEVITABLY

    Do you ever consider that some of us are deeply scarred and damaged and fucking shamed like it can’t be comprehended that someone we looked up to, and fucking loved and trusted to keep us safe?
    I’ll guarantee that some of you cruel and sadistic freaks haven’t been through what I fucking have.

    I choose not to remain a terrorized little ball of confusion and and pain, and see every disagreement or criticism as a personal attempt as putting me back in that bed.
    But that’s why you act the way you act, and the way you claim no rational woman would ever consider doing, it being so pointless. this that you say:

    So, let’s get this right, you assume that women, as a matter of course, invent hurtful, triggering, or bullying threats so they can… what? What’s the end-game? “Winning an argument”? For what? What does it really benefit women in this fictional world to invent hateful things that they know are going to trigger them and other women and perpetuate a climate of fear that discourages other women from speaking out for such a vague, non-successful rhetorical

    There is an undeniable compulsion to reason and act like that. It’s because you choose to remain in that bed, or camper, or wherever it’s happened. Because it is so fucking impossible to comprehend what is being done to you when you start to realize what is going on. It is the nightmare that this ‘love’ has been goingf on and you didn’t realize what it meant, and all of a sudden a fuck fuck.

    I fucking well choose to quit trying to transfer the hate to anyone that reminds you of your horror, or perceive as trying to deny the enormity of the pain you carry. That is why you do it, because you are so desperate to fucking try to make sense of what happened to you, and every attempt by ‘the enemy’ to claim the right to be offended, or take exception to how you personally treat them, is an attempt to deny you of the pain you carry. How fucking dare you insolent little menz babeez try to claim that your bruised wittow feelings have any significance next to the unfathomable enormity of real suffering.

    I know the blatant reality that every fucking guy that accidently looks at your girlfriend, is polite and smiles at her ius a fucking pig fucking creep that wants to humiliate me again by fucking my slut girlfriend, who can’t be trusted. No matter how hard you try to reason and believe that that obviously isn’t realistically happening, there wan no way to stop the horror of the one thing that matters to you is going to be taken cruelly and visciously away from you again, the one single straw that enables you to feel safe and real, is a mere pittance to be laughed at. That one little time when you feel safe, is when she is pleased with you, and you are so fucking terrified of any little disappointment she might show being the sign she wants to be with one of those other monsters that are everywhere.

    I know perfectly the reason that some of you deny any concern we voice as as a selfish, woman hating, attempt to deny the enormity of the pain that you are so rightfully entitled to feel.

    I told you before that the only way extract myself from my nightmare reality, was to understand that it was that single person, out of a group of billions, that did this to me. I started to look around and admit that him over there, and her over here, didn’t do anything to me, and in fact, it was only one little3 damaged prick that went through the same horror, or worse, himself. It wasn’t him, or her, or the ones in my classes, or the ones on my soccer team, it wasn’t the biology teacher that was such a fucking gas that he let me not come to class, in fact he almost encouraged it, because I still had one of the highest marks in that, or any other class. I noticed that these people were not trying to destroy anything of value to me, they were actually trying to protect me and ensure that I have a right to feel proud of myself.

    I started to believe that some people actually wanted to care about me, and protect me ,when I was feeling insignificant and uncertain(read scared shitless).

    Now you come along and start to deny that my concerns, that I myself, have any right to respected and taken seriously. you ones that belittle me, try to hurt me by saying I’m really a worthless piece of trash whose only purpose in life is to hurt you and others.

    Why do you do that to me, Janine. Why do you think I am doing it to you? That’s why almost every time I assume the powerful mantle of justified anger and vitriol, out of deep place that still wants to make me understand what a piece of trash I am, only better, slightly, than trash, when I give up everything that is me to make other happy, and keep them that way, at all costs. It fucking hurts me, I mean, I feel hurt and danger when anyone refuses to even consider my concerns as anything other than proof that I am a freak that wants to fuck things up.

    It hurt, but it is an insult, and a denial of my right to have valid opinions, and I have begun too realize how enormously cruel it is, to lump me in with a group of freaks, as if that’s all I am but another faceless creep.

    Is it really of any worth to suspect me, and others, of trying to belittle and destroy you?, Even if I was really doing that, what the fuck is the point of diving into the slime alongside of me, in order to push as much slime on to me, as I am trying to push onto you? Why would anyone want to do that?

    I know exactly why. That is also why I am such an anally retentive logician(LOL) when reason becomes secondary to showing the world the world what a disgustingly filthy creep I am. What reason could anyone have for even bothering to do that?

    I fucking know why. And some of us relate very deeply to your pain, and we can actually understand what it might feel like to be gang raped and sodomized.
    I will not let other people start to take away my validity. That’s how I understand why so many unnoticeable little comments and common phrases dd up to the beginning of getting me back into that tiny little bed and keeping me there.
    That is what all the bitch, and must that time of the month comments, and blonde joke, and being addressed as honey, or babe, by people you don’t don’t know, that’s why it is important to be aware of all the uncountable, seemingly little and meaningless(to some men) concerns should be addressed and pointed out. I think that we, not necessarily me, until just now, should make sexual harassment important, but I think there is a very huge communications gap , that is fracturing our commonalities, into identifiable groups of enemy combatants.

    We aren’t that, at all. Most of us, anyways. Some are total poison bent on destruction of anything that poses a threat to their deeply defended world view, the woman haters, and they are secretly man haters,don’tcha know.

    So, Janine, and other people that have misunderstanding between you and me, I have not realized what is the real reason behind our anger and vitriol(I think) when we accuse each other of being in groups that are out to hurt each other. Now I know what’s going on, fucking finally. I think I understand, anyways. But for now, it answers a fucking awful lot of questions that were puzzles to me. A great many of us are aware of something is amiss in the skeptical community, obviously, and so at odds about the importance of explicitly stated harassment policies.

    However, I am starting to have an aneurysm from looking at my monitor in the dark for so long, and I really do wish I would shut the fack up, I’ve made my point a half hour ago. I am the slowest typist in the world, because *SHADDAPP ALREADY*

  312. carlie says

    Page: freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed
    Search term: squiller
    Search results: Sorry, but no results were found for that keyword.

    Page: google
    Search term: squiller site: freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed
    Search results: Your search – squiller site:freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed – did not match any documents.

    You care how much about Natalie and her situation, again?

  313. la tricoteuse says

    *drive-by delurk, as is my occasional wont*

    Does Cerberus have a Molly yet? Because if not, post #365 deserves about ten of them by my reckoning. (ie “Holy shit. Well said, person.”)

    *re-lurk*

  314. chigau (無味ない) says

    la tricoteuse
    Right at the top of the page there is a tab called ‘Mollies’.
    That’s the complete list.
    Cerberus was Mollified several years ago.

  315. la tricoteuse says

    Thanks chigau. Somehow I’ve managed to completely fail to notice any of those tabs. I appear to have some sort of weird inability to notice peripheral elements of the blog. Or I’m just really unobservant, take your pick.

  316. la tricoteuse says

    Er. Thanks Caine, too. Here’s hoping failure to acknowledge posts is a worse faux pas than double-posting, though I’ve probably been guilty of both.

    Tony – Looks like absolutely no one failed to recognise Cerberus’ contributions, as per chigau and Caine’s comments that Mollification took place years ago.

  317. says

    mikmik @ 374:

    So, Janine, and other people that have misunderstanding between you and me, I have not realized what is the real reason behind our anger and vitriol(I think) when we accuse each other of being in groups that are out to hurt each other. Now I know what’s going on, fucking finally. I think I understand, anyways. But for now, it answers a fucking awful lot of questions that were puzzles to me. A great many of us are aware of something is amiss in the skeptical community, obviously, and so at odds about the importance of explicitly stated harassment policies.

    I’m not absolutely sure what you’re on about, mikmik, but that was one fuck of a screed. For all the yelling you did, you don’t seem to have much understanding of what people have been saying. You certainly do not understand what’s behind the anger demonstrated by Janine or Cerberus or JAL or myself or pretty much anyone.

    You quoted the same piece by Cerberus over and over and still didn’t get it – squiller was accusing women (such as Ophelia Benson, Rebecca Watson, Stephanie Zvan, Greta Christina and Natalie Reed) of making up stories of harassment and threats. Cerberus rightfully pointed out that there is no advantage to doing that for these women. So why in the hell do have a problem with that?

    Are you even aware of the Slymepit? Are you aware of the ongoing, 2 year old campaign of harassment, threats and lies that is going on? Are you aware of the constant attempt to drive women bloggers into silence and retreat? Of course we’re fucking angry.

    Now, I’m very sorry you were raped, Mikmik. Many of the people you’re raging at were also raped. We know what that’s like and we know what it’s like to deal with, too. However, you seem to have some serious conflation issues going on. That has nothing to do with the waves of misogyny, the howls over privilege and the terrible wave of hate we are, and have been dealing with.

  318. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    squiller was accusing women (such as Ophelia Benson, Rebecca Watson, Stephanie Zvan, Greta Christina and Natalie Reed) of making up stories of harassment and threats.

    His whole screed was one made up story, full of sound and fury, meaning nothing. He must be accepted as the Authrority and believed without question. Not without being able to support his stories with third party evidence, as we are as skeptical of his word as he wants us to be about the womenz word. Typical of such lightweight specimans, not one citation….

  319. says

    Chigau:

    Didn’t mikmik say that he is bipolar?

    If he did, I missed it.

    Would that account for this?

    I don’t see how. I have friends who are bipolar and it affects mood, it doesn’t make them stupid and unable to comprehend writing.

  320. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    The slymies are calling squiller’s act a heroic stand.

    Why didn’t I see that coming.

  321. Tethys says

    Good morning Caine.

    I don’t know if MikMik is a slymepitter, but xe certainly is angry. I’m mulling over a few of the points in the screed, because they show that some of MikMik’s pain stems from rejection.

    MikMik said: I know the blatant reality that every fucking guy that accidently looks at your girlfriend, is polite and smiles at her ius a fucking pig fucking creep that wants to humiliate me again by fucking my slut girlfriend, who can’t be trusted.

    Yep, other men look at his GF, which proves that she is a slut who is really trying to humiliate him.

    Or some such nonsense that males get in their heads when they consider women to be property and status symbols. And then he is so offended when he gets lumped in with the slymepitters? How sad is that?

  322. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    [snark]

    Oh, and that squiller was battling Nerd-bots.

    *beep* “take me to your only working brain cell” *beep*
    [/snark]

  323. says

    Tethys, seems to me the point is that other men are using his cheating girlfriend to humiliate him, so I read that more as him not having a homosocial net, so he feels like he’s getting hit from both sides.

    That’s a shit situation and I empathize. I still don’t understand how it relates to what’s going on here.

  324. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    I could not understand why MikMik was addressing me. And I did not care to try to parse it out.

  325. Emrysmyrddin says

    I’d vote on holding off until mikmik clarifies their meaning; wherever it came from, there was a lot of pain in that post.

  326. says

    Janine:

    I could not understand why MikMik was addressing me.

    The closest I could get is that mikmik perceived you as attacking squiller. Much of what I parsed from the post was a defense of squiller. I’m just not sure why.

  327. Tethys says

    I still don’t understand how it relates to what’s going on here.

    I think it’s because you have no need to make everything about you.

  328. WharGarbl says

    I don’t see how. I have friends who are bipolar and it affects mood, it doesn’t make them stupid and unable to comprehend writing.

    Not stupid, but it may skew their perception of writing (especially writing, where you don’t get visual cues on what the other person is conveying).
    I suspect that if anyone write a sufficiently complex argument, giving it to someone bipolar, they will interpret it in two wildly different ways depending on their mental state.

  329. coyotenose says

    It’s boggling that these people, on top of their bizarre misogyny and vitriol, are so stupid that they don’t realize that attacking women in the movement is marginalizing themselves, not the women.

  330. Eurasian magpie says

    Mikmik has been having similar meltdowns in Avicenna’s blog this month.This was the first of them (that I saw). My understanding was that it can basically be distilled down to a really, really bad misunderstanding of Schroedinger’s rapist.

    The link looks funky in preview!

  331. says

    Eurasian Magpie:

    My understanding was that it can basically be distilled down to a really, really bad misunderstanding of Schroedinger’s rapist.

    That could go a long way in explaining some things. Unfortunately, he’d be far from the first to misunderstand it. Thanks, Magpie.

  332. says

    Squealer:

    Evidently I don’t have the Sooper Sekret FTB Code manual to interpret that correctly. I’m stuck with the literal version. Fuck you, fuck you into the ground Myers.

    Evidently I don’t have the Sooper Sekret Squealer Code manual to interpret that correctly. I’m stuck with the literal version. So you are threatening PZ with death by sex?

    According to Squealer we should report him to the police:

    If you are getting death and rape threats, report them to the police

  333. Nepenthe says

    Goodness me, I’d surely like to live on the planet where the cops take rape threats seriously.

    It’s probably in the same planetary system as the planet where cops take rapes seriously.

  334. says

    Nepenthe:

    It’s probably in the same planetary system as the planet where cops take rapes seriously.

    Yes. It’s probably called “Holy shit, Batman, it’s a miracle!” Besides, that bit of idiocy completely ignores the plethora of things like “I hope you get raped” / “It’s too bad you’re so ugly, no one would rape you!” “If I was a woman, I’d kick you in the cunt” and so forth. Those don’t technically count as threats, so they’re automagically written off. That not only doesn’t get to the root of the problem, it completely ignores the mental and emotional effects of such a continual barrage*.

    *Which they are, obviously, fully aware of, which is why they do it.

  335. says

    mikmik @374

    I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand much of what you are saying, so I don’t know how to respond to it.

    One of the few things I did get from you, I’d like to address:

    I am deeply sorry that my post triggered you and sent you into a dark place. I know enough of how shitty that feels these days and your day didn’t need me increasing your pain. If every you return and are feeling less in that bad place, I’d very much appreciate it if you could let me know what part triggered you, so I can try and put things like that behind TRIGGER WARNINGS next time so it is less likely to catch people like you off guard.

    Janine @388

    The slymies are calling squiller’s act a heroic stand.

    Why didn’t I see that coming.

    Of course they did…

    I can’t even waste a forehead slap on that one. How utterly pathetic and wrong side do you have to be to associate fucking trolling a website as a “heroic stand”? I mean, I read some of the worst sociopaths on the internet for my blog, bringing it back and fisking it line by line and mining dark humor from it. But that’s not a “brave” action and if my comment section started treating “going on said sociopaths blogs and engaging in the locals” as some sort of heroic stand I’d begin to worry about them.

    It’s the sort of thing assorted losers do to try and alleviate some of the fears they have of being assholes. MRAs who troll feminist blogs and then claim victimization when they manage to get themselves banned. Creationists who come onto Pharyngula to “witness to the heathens”, etc…

    Do they really not see how sad they appear by reacting that way?

  336. says

    Cerberus, it’s become a “badge of honour” to get your pitstar – meaning being banned here or at a couple of other blogs. They screencap the banning and cheer. That doesn’t mean quite as much since PZ instituted a “all ‘pitters banned on sight” policy, but it’s still a big deal to them.

    Personally, I’m happier to retain my ability to keep on arguing, so I don’t go looking to be banned. Seems the coward’s way out to me. But hey, what do I know, I’m just a woman.

  337. says

    Caine @413

    That’s… just stupid.

    It’s not hard to get banned in any place. Throw a bunch of mud and hate around, try to dominate topics and antagonize the host and you’ll get banned. It’s not something that’s difficult, intellectual, or particularly meaningful.

    I mean, it really only makes sense if you are trying to instill a strong homosocial support network for abusers, bullies, and the silencing of your enemies and justify it behind a thin weak rationalization that somehow makes the pathetic act of trolling into some brave action and…

    Ooooh, right.

  338. says

    Pteryxx:

    I wonder if they keep trophy screenshots of the bunnifying?

    :falls over laughing:

    They don’t really show up in Chris’s threads. This is about the Evil Dr. Myers, Misandrist Hatemonger Mangina of Doom.

  339. vaiyt says

    I just have to comment this:

    Here’s a novel idea. FIND MINORITY SKEPTICS TO GIVE TALKS AT EVENTS INSTEAD OF THE SAME INCESTUOUS FREELOADERS. PROBLEM.FUCKING.SOLVED.

    Here’s a novel idea: SOLVE THE PROBLEM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

    Genius!