Pope Reaches Out to the Damned »« I was not even tempted

Thugs in cheap suits are not paragons of human rights

So Ron Lindsay just said this on twitter:

Free inquiry. Free expression. Not only are these indispensable in our quest for the truth but they’re necessary conditions 4 human dignity

A lovely sentiment, and completely misleading. This long-running argument has never been about “free speech” — no one’s free speech has been denied, as any glance at the raging and constant torrent of abuse will show. It’s been about the responsible recognition of what kind of speech supports that “human dignity” he wants to cloak himself in; it’s about realizing that free speech as we see it in that unfettered medium called the internet is going to produce mostly noise with only a little signal; it’s about the responsibility of organizations to pluck out and amplify the good and damp down the stupid.

It really is about taking sides.

Not taking sides — pretending to have a false objectivity that values all speech equally — is actually favoring the noise. It’s the pretense that a statement on twitter like “It is honorable, noble and good to change your mind if you are wrong” from Lauren Becker has equal weight with “Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named. It’s the refusal to recognize that some of the people who support the same causes as CFI have been barraged with incessant hatred for about two years now — and that that hatred has been aimed at women and the people who support women’s rights. It’s a willingness to let your organization be affiliated with websites dedicated to misogyny.

A Voice for Men is essentially a mouthpiece for its editor, Paul Elam, who proposes to “expose misandry [hatred of men] on all levels in our culture.” Elam tosses down the gauntlet in his mission statement: “AVfM regards feminists, manginas [a derisive term for weak men], white knights [a similar derisive term, for males who identify as feminists] and other agents of misandry as a social malignancy. We do not consider them well intentioned or honest agents for their purported goals and extend to them no more courtesy or consideration than we would clansmen [sic], skinheads, neo Nazis or other purveyors of hate.” Register-Her.com, an affiliated website that vilifies women by name who have made supposedly false rape allegations (among other crimes against masculinity), is one of Elam’s signature “anti-hate” efforts. “Why are these women not in prison?” the site asks.

Oh, right. That’s just free speech. Where is the human dignity, though?

It’s also about being smart enough to see through the dishonesty of thugs who puff themselves up and call harassment a right, who claim tawdry garden-variety sexual bullying “free speech”. Amanda Marcotte has the clarity of thought to see right through this game.

If it seems baffling to you that people are “into” harassment, I don’t know what to tell you. Why else would people harass? (Don’t say autism, for the love of god. People on the spectrum struggle to interpret social signals. Harassers, on the other hand, are masters at manipulating social rules and actual physical space to creep people out as much as they can get away with. It requires careful study of social signaling, not the opposite.) I got harassed on the sidewalk the other day, because that’s just part of the atmosphere of being female. I didn’t catch exactly what the guy said, because he muttered it, but what he wanted out of the situation couldn’t have been clearer. He had that sly smile, that glint in his eye that harassers get when they manage to capture their target’s attention and make them uncomfortable. It’s the feeling of power they have over you, the little jolt they get from putting a bitch in her place. Why people harass is not a mystery. It makes them feel good to exert power. This motivation is all over the Twitter rampage from the pro-harassment forces. They love drowning out useful tweets about real information with their anti-feminist garbage and ranting. It makes them feel good, like they have power. They can harass you and get under your skin and make you write blog posts about them, and then they feel powerful. It’s all of one cloth, and it’s not about unexamined privilege. It’s about being an asshole. We’re asking them to give up this jolt of feeling powerful they get from making other people sad or angry. No wonder they resent us.

When they photoshop our faces onto porn, when they call us “manginas” and “cunts”, when they flood CFI conference streams with denigrating insults to the speakers, they are not making “free inquiry”, they are not using “free speech” in a “quest for truth” or to advance “human dignity”. It’s embarrassing to see the leader of a major freethought organization making excuses for the toxic, petty viciousness from the anti-feminists that has been plaguing this movement since a woman dared to politely ask for her share of that human dignity.

This is why I’ve lost all confidence in Ron Lindsay. He can talk about human dignity, but he doesn’t have the vision to actually lead CFI towards greater support for that principle.

We need a leadership that is willing to take sides. Otherwise, what’s the point of it all?


See also Secular Woman’s post on privilege.

Comments

  1. Brian E says

    Not taking sides — pretending to have a false objectivity that values all speech equally — is actually favoring the noise

    Main stream medias error. Finding middle ground, and calling that normal. Sadly, the middle ground between ordinary, caring versus misogynist prick is still misogyinst. Not ground I want to stand upon.

  2. says

    I was actually told, just yesterday, that calling a man a misogynist, is just as bad as BEING a misogynist, and I was “without stooping to his level and seeming like a hypocrite.” Because “If someone says a racist thing are you going to fight him or call him names back? If so your an immature and insecure human being.” Yeah because saying “you’re a racist” or “you’re a misogynist” is “calling him names.”

    “I don’t want to hear the act or the allegation of the act. It’s all uncalled for.” You know, because he’s not taking sides or anything. He just wants to make sure I know that “There’s a fine line between some feminists and a misandrist.”

    When asked to clarify his position, the poster said that he would give the same advice to a black person who called someone racist, or a gay person who called someone homophobic, because responding to such things isn’t called for except “if it became physical.”

    *Puke.*

  3. says

    Someone should have told Ron about the rules about holes several shovels ago.

    The longer this goes, the less likely I am to support CFI at any point in the future.

    Right now, I’m waiting for a clear signal from the board that his actions — and yes, his speech — are objectionable and do not represent the goals and interests of CFI.

    Absent that — we’re allowed to evaluate his speech and make determinations of what kinds of associations we want to be aligned with. And which ones we’re not.

    Right now, it’s a pretty simple call. No money, no time, no in-kind support, no nothing.

    That’s evaluation. And my right (freedom of association is also in the Constitution).

  4. says

    I also note that this post follows his blog post about Rebecca Watson which basically was denying her voice.

    That kind of breathtaking fuckwitted hypocrisy is why I don’t even bother buying new irony meters.

  5. gingerbaker says

    So is Ron Lindsay a Nazi supporter, a harassment supporter, an abettor of abuse, a misogynist (like that nasty old Richard Dawkins!), a skin head, a neo-Nazi? Is he pro purveyor-of-hate, pro troll, pro the ” toxic, petty viciousness from the anti-feminists “?

    He can only talk about human dignity, but you can’t have confidence he means it or is willing to do anything to support it, and he should lose his job. Just asking. It would be easier if you could put all this in checklist format – it makes the bingo scoring easier.

    Hey, maybe Ron Lindsay will be rubbing elbows with Richard Dawkins in the unemployment line – wouldn’t that be a great day?!

    Jesus Fucking Christ the bullshit is getting deep around here.

  6. kosk11348 says

    On the CFI’s main page, Lindsay finally issued his first not-pology yesterday in which he regrets comparing Rebecca Watson to a North Korean propagandist, but pretty much stands behind everything else.

    And for some bizarre reason he thinks it necessary to affirm he makes this magnanimous gesture of his own free will and hasn’t been pressured into it, as if it’s some great concession.

    Yeah, he just doesn’t get it.

  7. says

    There’s always a chance that he’ll eventually understand. I actually got him talking on Twitter about his reasons for having the “shut up and listen” topic in his speech, and Ophelia Benson seems to have convinced him to have a discussion about it. She shouldn’t have to be sensitive to his defensiveness, but she was, and that might be what turns it around. Optimism: it’s what’s for brunch.

    Hopefully it will be a good discussion. I think there’s a subtlety to the issue that often gets lost. It’s not just what you care about, but what you *focus on*. If you see people harassing others and you’re focused on the harasser’s free speech rights (or whether your “reasonable criticism” might be lost in the process), that says something. If you are being told – as an *ally* – to “shut up and listen”, and you can only focus on the “shut up”, that says something.

  8. anteprepro says

    Seriously? “B-b-but, FREEZE PEACH!” They all fucking converge on the same arguments, don’t they?Invoking “free speech” in these debates really is just the last defense of the scoundrel. For the side that really can’t support their arguments, that really doesn’t have the facts on their side, that really can’t justify themselves morally, they decide that is sufficient to simply make it a matter of FREEEDOM, instead of a matter of logic, data, best practices, or ethics. They like to have it both ways like that. They won’t admit that they are being an asshole, will stumblingly try to present an argument that they aren’t an asshole, and when that clearly doesn’t fly, they then just pull the nuclear option of saying “I have a constitutional RIGHT to be an asshole”, while still pretending that they aren’t an asshole. You’re not fooling anybody with this bullshit.

  9. says

    Freeze Peach: The audacity to announce that you have the moral high ground when other people use their right to free speech to angrily criticize you or their right of association to shun you for saying vile things.

  10. Amphiox says

    Aren’t you friends with this weasel, PZ? Any chance you could convince him to shut the fuck up and maybe read a book or two?

    Sadly, Dawkins is probably of the age wherein trying to get him to re-examine some of the ingrained prejudices he has built up over his lifetime and change them is substantially less likely to succeed than simply waiting for him to die of old age….

  11. anteprepro says

    So is Ron Lindsay a Nazi supporter, a harassment supporter, an abettor of abuse, a misogynist (like that nasty old Richard Dawkins!), a skin head, a neo-Nazi? Is he pro purveyor-of-hate, pro troll, pro the ” toxic, petty viciousness from the anti-feminists “?

    He can only talk about human dignity, but you can’t have confidence he means it or is willing to do anything to support it, and he should lose his job. Just asking. It would be easier if you could put all this in checklist format – it makes the bingo scoring easier.

    Hey, maybe Ron Lindsay will be rubbing elbows with Richard Dawkins in the unemployment line – wouldn’t that be a great day?!

    Jesus Fucking Christ the bullshit is getting deep around here.

    See, this is why we have free speech: Anybody who paid a penny for the above would die of crippling buyer’s remorse.

  12. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Seriously.

    Hey, maybe Ron Lindsay will be rubbing elbows with Richard Dawkins in the unemployment line – wouldn’t that be a great day?!

    This really isn’t fair. How come only Skeptic Thought Leaders get to have people defending their Thor-given right to have jobs as Skeptic Thought Leaders against people criticizing their job performance as Skeptic Thought Leaders?
    While nobody cares about my free speech and the fact that I could lose my job if I fill a Risk Assessment with indie pop lyrics where the list of hazards should be.
    Nazi supporters, the lot of you.

  13. G Pierce (Was ~G~) says

    I’m curious of Mr. Lindsay’s assessment of exactly what freedom of expression means to him. Does he mean in a legal sense? Or does he mean in a broader social sense? I wonder what his analysis of the exact kind of freedom of expression Jen McCreight has to express pro-feminist views compares with various harassers’ freedom to express anti-feminist views.

    Furthermore, if an organization is also promoting values other than just freedom of expression, those values have to be balanced. Clearly they take ethical and political stands as an organization all the time against expressions of ideas that are against their other values all the time and even their webforum has all kinds of rules about what kinds of expressions they find acceptable or not- http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewannounce/2516_37/

    There is a difference between being for freedom for expression and being for freedom from ever taking a moral stand or freedom from ever being judged on one’s behavior.

  14. anteprepro says

    [Reads Anthony K's link]

    Holy fuck, but Dawkins is a clueless git. Between cries of reverse racism, demeaning social sciences, and doing all of it with a constant backdrop of swatting down feminists, Dawkins must be vying for Republican party membership or something.

  15. Eurasian magpie says

    Hey, maybe Ron Lindsay will be rubbing elbows with Richard Dawkins in the unemployment line

    I believe the two gentlemen live in different countries, so no. Besides, retirees live on pension anyway. You do know Dawkins is past 70, don’t you?

  16. thetalkingstove says

    It would be easier if you could put all this in checklist format – it makes the bingo scoring easier.

    It’s already painfully obvious you’re not able to follow criticism and debate.

    I don’t think a checklist will help.

  17. says

    Please do not start talking about age and the expectation of death. I wish everyone involved a long life — it’s all we atheists have, you know — and take no pleasure in picturing the loss of anyone.

    I’m also a little sensitive to it. I have a heart condition and a family history of early death due to heart disease, so I expect the other side will have an opportunity to gloat over my funeral before anyone else’s.

  18. says

    Ron Lindsay is an utter embarrassment in light of this, his comments towards Rebecca Watson, and his speech at WiS2. He seems determined to dig that hole ever deeper.

    Ron Lindsay:

    You are not fit for the position you have. It’s a shame to look at you, who can’t seem to grasp that the anti-feminists are wrong. It is plain as day. Their position is not one reached by logic or reason. Their harassment doesn’t have equal weight with those calling for gender equity. Their position calls for people to be silent, to not speak up. Their position calls for harassing people they dont like through email, on Facebook, on blogs, on Twitter-anywhere they can have their say, they will. They see nothing wrong with their tactics. I have no idea why, but that fact should be disturbing enough to stop a reasonable person in their tracks. As the current leader of the Center for Inquiry, one would think you would be just such a reasonable person. One would think you would weigh the barrage of gender based slurs, photoshopped images, and opposition to anti-harassment policies against the equality for women. Free speech is about more than the freedom to say what you want, wherever or whenever you desire. Free speech should be guided by empathy and understanding of others. Free speech should not be guided by a personal desire to say what one likes, consequences be damned. Especially when those consequences have a direct, and detrimental impact on actual human beings. Telling a known ally of a women’s hate group that he has no place in a movement seeking to broaden its base is free speech used responsibly. Such a statement carries with it the understanding that in seeking equality for women in the atheist movement, those who wish to bully women into silence stand in direct opposition to said goal. Telling prominent female voices in the movement that they have no place in the movement, bereft of any justifiable reason does nothing to broaden the base of a movement seeking equality. It is the purest form of free speech, used irresponsibly without any consideration given for the outcome.
    That is the difference between those who support anti-harassment policies and those who reject them.
    That is the difference between those who criticize their harassers and those who invite hate groups to a secular women’s conference.
    By your own words you have shown a lack of understanding of the problem in the movement. You do not seek equity. You seek the opportunity to give both “sides” their say.
    What you fail to realize is that one side has nothing worthwhile to say. By giving them the time of day, by attempting to draw an equivalence between feminists and their harassers, you show where you stand.
    IN. THE. WAY.
    Now I kindly ask you to move, by stepping down.

  19. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Jesus Fucking Christ the bullshit is getting deep around here. – gingerbaker

    Stop shoveling it in, then.

  20. screechymonkey says

    As problematic as it was to begin with, the Open Letter to the Secular Community (which Lindsay signed on behalf of CFI) is particularly ironic now.

    Here are some things that we plan to do to make our online secular community a place where we can exchange ideas and views instead of insults….
    Moderate blogs and forums

    Wait, so being dedicated to free speech doesn’t mean you have to provide a forum to every bit of sludge someone wants to offer? Not only can you tell someone to shut up, you can actually silence them from speaking in a particular forum?

    Go offline before going online: pick up the phone. When you hear that an organization or member of our community is doing something that you think is wrong or bad for the community, call and talk with them, find out what they are actually doing and why they are doing it. If you don’t have a phone number, send a private email and arrange a time to talk. So much of the time there’s more to the story, and talking to another person on the other side of the issue can help us more fully understand the situation. Plus, a phone call makes it easier for people who are making mistakes to change course, because they aren’t on the defensive as they would be after being called out publicly.

    So, how many phone calls did Lindsay make before his speech at WiS?

    Listen more. . . . We should listen more so we can see distinctions among those with opposing views and start to move toward a more accurate understanding of the issues rather than being deadlocked into two entrenched camps.

    But, since it’s hard to talk and listen at the same time, wouldn’t “listen[ing] more” require, you know, shutting up and listening?

    Dial down the drama.
    It’s tempting to overuse inflammatory and derogatory rhetoric. It gets attention. We should be cautious about using this tactic within our community because of the long-term damage it does to relationships and morale. When critiquing people within our community, everyone should remember that our goal is to persuade our allies to see our perspective and modify their opinions. Insults don’t change opinions; they harden them.

    Right. Like comparing people you don’t like to North Korean dictators, for example.

    Be more charitable.
    We should remember that the purpose of argument within our community is to come to shared and correct conclusions that move us forward, not to score points against the opposing side. To that end, we should apply the principle of charity, which tells us to aim our argument against the best interpretation of the opposing arguments rather than picking off weaker versions. By applying the principle of charity we will elevate the discussion so we’re actually talking about our real differences, not just engaging in a pointless exchange.

    So, for instance, you might want to make sure that people who say “shut up and listen” are actually trying to infringe the free speech rights of others.

    Help others along.
    We should remember that we weren’t born knowing the things we know now. To get to the reasoned conclusions that we’ve reached, we learned by reading, thinking, and talking with others. When we encounter someone espousing a view we think is based on lack of knowledge or experience, we should remember that we have all held ill-informed views. We should cultivate patience and try to educate instead of condemn.

    So… not everyone has the same knowledge and experience, and those different backgrounds can influence people’s beliefs? And that people who lack certain knowledge and experience of others may have “ill-informed views” and need to be educated? That sounds familiar somehow….

  21. kagekiri says

    @6 gingerbaker:

    You know, not publicly defecating while you’re complaining would make your accusations of shit piling up a bit less ridiculous.

  22. anteprepro says

    To add some clarity to this thread, here is gingerbaker’s post put through Translation Party

    Old nasty naughty abuse Ron Lindsay Nazi sympathizer Richard Dawkins ( plagued by supporters! ), misogynist neo-Nazi skin head is? Purveyors of professional troll “but are not poisonous abuse human rights problems hate Pro Pro? They support the purpose of his work, he lost his human dignity. Just…-see the checklist for a simple score from bingo. Hey, a great non-fact unemployment line – Richard Dawkins and comfortable armchairs, maybe Ron Lindsay. It is a profound expectation of Jesus shit.

    Only slightly more coherent.

  23. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    It is a profound expectation of Jesus shit.

    On the third day, he rose again and needed to use the bathroom, stat.

    While nobody cares about my free speech and the fact that I could lose my job if I fill a Risk Assessment with indie pop lyrics where the list of hazards should be.

    Said lyrics had better be from Another Sunny Day’s “You Should All Be Murdered.”

  24. Eurasian magpie says

    It is a profound expectation of Jesus shit.

    This is so going to enter my vocabulary. Right next to gravity magnets and quantum tomatoes.

  25. mouse says

    @7 – It’s very telling that he apologized for his tone and choice of words, but resolutely refuses to apologize for or acknowledge how wrong he was in implying that the women he was speaking to have used the concept of “privilege” or “shut up and listen” to silence men who disagree. He quibbles over whether that was the crux of his talk. Not only is that a minor quibble, but as one who was there and heard the talk I can tell you it was the crux of my take-away.

  26. says

    Mouse:
    That makes him even more insufferable. He refuses to listen to the very people who were there-like yourself-who tell him the same things RW said. It’s like he thinks the only people who took issue with his statements are the higher profile individuals in the movement.

  27. Scr... Archivist says

    Following on the comments of Kevin @4 and BronzeDog @12,

    Freedom of association means more than being free to avoid people. It also means being free to associate with those with whom one wants to associate. That includes having some woman-centered atheist meetings, and it includes promoting atheism to women who might not previously have considered associating with other atheists to promote a secular society.

    But in terms of freedom of dis-association, when does Mr. Lindsay’s current term end?

  28. allegro says

    …how wrong he was in implying that the women he was speaking to have used the concept of “privilege” or “shut up and listen” to silence men who disagree.

    The only real thing I ever hear them disagree with is the concept of “shut up and listen.” Notice how they always give a sentence of lip service to how they too want gender and minority equality and participation? yeah… no, not really.

  29. says

    I am one of those terminally twitchy about freedom of expression, freedom of conscience. Dunno that I want to go over or even know all the reasons, but I do have a looming anxiety that they are frequently undervalued, lip service aside, even among those who should be first to defend them. I worry regularly if maybe, like vaccines, there are places they have done their job a little too well, and people living in the spaces they have made don’t realize how important it is to defend them. Worse, some imagine them ‘god given’ or innate or somehow immortal things that cannot die, when quite the opposite is true. Like all ‘rights’ they are actually just human things, human ideas, and things human groups may not even tend to foster especially naturally. More importantly, they are always hard-won things, and regularly bitterly paid for… Lose them, and you’ll pay again. Worse, you’ll pay anyway. That’s how the world is. No good deed goes unpunished, and the truth is frequently less welcome than you’d hope and someone, somewhere, always wishes you’d just shut the hell up up, and will take steps to try to make you do so, with the force of law and or violence, if they can arrange it.

    That said, Lindsay’s trying to wrap himself in that flag here makes me want to throw up in my mouth.

    It is sick making. Seriously. There are people in this world being shushed and threatened and jailed and tortured and generally made to suffer tremendously because they had the poor sense to call a popular but colossal humbug what it is against a prevailing opinion or in a climate in which they could really be hurt. Some of them are in hiding, some of them wound up dead, some will probably never be able to return to their homeland, some of them more just didn’t get to go to their high school prom or found a lot of people they thought once were friends just aren’t picking up the phone anymore.

    But Lindsay, no one’s silencing you, not on this. And listen, if you pay social costs for this, you’re not some damned martyr. You’re just a twit said something stupid and got called on it and retreated to this banal misdirection for want of any real answer. And history is full of those, too.

  30. Sili says

    The decision to issue the following statement is my own decision,

    I hadn’t realised Dr Lindsay was related to Anne Elk.

  31. ryancunningham says

    Check this out.

    Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

    Clearly Lindsay thinks there’s a time where it’s appropriate to shut down discussion; discussion ends whenever it might make him look bad. The hypocrisy is revolting.

  32. doublereed says

    Free inquiry. Free expression. Not only are these indispensable in our quest for the truth but they’re necessary conditions 4 human dignity

    This is such a stupid thing to say in this context.

    Some people think women deserve respect and dignity. Others don’t. Is he arguing that we should “respect both sides” on this or something?

  33. cfieldb says

    Well, okay, I’m not really that involved in this community and I only post here sporadically, but I didn’t think Dawkins’ tweets were that bad. Shakesville has a tendency to be pretty nasty and uncharitable; I think what he (Dawkins) is talking about is something that reasonable people can disagree over, as long as they aren’t calling the other side “cunts”.

    IMO it’s only in the context of the current Situation that Dawkins’ tweets come across as obnoxious and tone-deaf. If this was 2009, it might be cause for amiable discussion.

  34. Gregory Greenwood says

    The ‘Golden Mean’ fallacy is a problem that afflicts many arms of society, especially the media. The view that it is always best to assume the middle ground between any two intellectual poles, no matter how great the gulf in understanding between the people expressing those two opposed opinions may be – not that people are allowed to hold whatever beliefs they choose, but that all ideas and ideologies have at the base level equal intellectual validity irrespective of little things like evidence, and that the ideal position lies somewhere in the middle between any pair of opposed viewpoints – is one of the most problematic attitutes in modern society. It creates space for unevidenced and socially harmful ideas to gain unjustified legtimacy.

    If one side says “women are people too, and deserving of respect” and the other says “no they aren’t – women are one part sex toy, one part incubator, and all the wholly owned property of men”, then it should be obvious that these ideas are not equal, and that the ideal position does not lie in a middle ground that says women are mostly human, but aren’t equal to men. Attempting to deny the humanity of women flies is the face of our understanding and is monstrously socially toxic. There is no need to pretend that the two ideas must be treated as having the same intellectual weight, anymore than once must pretend that flat earth theories have equal weight with a modern understanding of the structure of the planet, and reflexively adopting the ‘middle ground’ in such a case makes no more sense than assuming that the earth must be dish-shaped because that form lies between a flat plane and a sphere.

    Ron Lindsay may have lots of company when it comes to embracing the golden mean fallacy, but one would hope that a rationalist would know better, or at least might be able to recognise that fault in themselves when it is pointed out to them.

  35. says

    The problem seems to be that some people have trouble distinguishing between free speech and worthwhile speech. Anyone in their right mind should support the former, while hoping for the latter.

  36. Rawnaeris, Lulu Cthulhu says

    Damn. Seriously, Lindsay, First Rule of Holes applies here.

    What the fuck is with the Freeze Peach brigade? First it was those shits who thought rape jokes were awesome, then the ‘misandry, misandry everywhere’ group joined, and now we have to hear that same shit from someone who should know better?

    Dr. Lindsay, for better or worse, because of your position, people are going to listen to you. Hearing you say that “free speech” is more important than discussing women’s issues at a women’s conference is simply destructive. You know what? Fuck you. In the last week you’ve made impressive strides to undo everything a large group of people I respect have been working toward over the last 2* years.

    *Yes, I know this has been going on for more than two years all told.

  37. Anthony K says

    What’s wrong with sociologists?

    The same thing that’s wrong with everybody who isn’t Dawkins: they know more than he does about things that aren’t biology.

  38. says

    White straight dudes appear to have a major hate-on for sociologists. Especially the libertarian ones. Gosh, I don’t suppose it has anything to do with the fact that sociologists provide empirical data showing that racism and sexism are real and that white straight dudes are going to have to give up a bunch of unfair advantages for our society to achieve equality.

  39. says

    I don’t get it either. I was just reviewing my talk for tomorrow, and I’ve got a line in there where I say that science isn’t enough…and specifically bring up sociology as a fundamental discipline we need to solve the world’s problems.

  40. mikee says

    Why is it so hard for people to admit that they are wrong. We recently had a politician here in NZ step down because he was rude to a waiter while under the influence, then took on a position of privilege refusing to apologise. Within two weeks it had cost him his political future. At any time over those two weeks a heart felt “I was an idiot, I unreservedly apologise and will not behave like that again” and saved his career.
    When someone says or does something wrong, realises it and then apologises they gain my respect.

    If they continue to double down on their ignorance, they lose my respect very quickly.

    Why can’t they see this? Does ones ego get too big when you become a leader in an organisation? Is the privilege that comes along with such positions so intoxicating that they lose sight of what their members expect of them?

    This is perhaps a good (but infortunate) lesson for future leaders of CFI and other organisations.

  41. ChasCPeterson says

    White straight dudes appear to have a major hate-on for sociologists….Gosh, I don’t suppose it has anything to do with the fact that sociologists provide empirical data showing that racism and sexism are real and that white straight dudes are going to have to give up a bunch of unfair advantages for our society to achieve equality.

    Yeah, that must be it. It’s all those empirical data.

  42. Ichthyic says

    I don’t think it’s what you meant, Chas, but that can be read as you being sarcastic about sociologists having empirical data at their disposal.

    It isn’t, is it?

  43. Forelle says

    Excuse me if I’m missing a pop culture reference (yet again) or some other trope, but what’s with the “cheap suits”? Thugs are thugs, whether they dress as self-inflated bankers or as conferences would-be disturbances.

    (By the way, I’m interested in all this drama about R. Lindsay — it seems quite educational, though I feel really sorry for the attendees for reasons that have been eloquently explained here.)

  44. Ichthyic says

    So is Ron Lindsay a Nazi supporter, a harassment supporter, an abettor of abuse, a misogynist (like that nasty old Richard Dawkins!), a skin head, a neo-Nazi? Is he pro purveyor-of-hate, pro troll, pro the ” toxic, petty viciousness from the anti-feminists “?

    well, since YOU were the one that made this checklist, moron….

    1. nobody ever said that but you.

    2. yes, yes he is. Did you even pay attention to his specific actions at the conference under contention? of course you didn’t.

    3. depends on what kind of abuse. but you won’t be specific, since YOU will want to leave it vague so you can try and smear everyone you don’t like with it.

    4. again, nobody ever said that but you.

    … for the rest of your list… why not just rattle off random irrelevant phrases? makes about as much sense.

    that you can’t see you are a failure at communication and thinking is testimony to the very thing the rest of us are in fact, exposing and trying to excise from the community.

    you. are. a. failure. You don’t belong. go away.

  45. says

    I’m interested in all this drama about R. Lindsay

    Again, can we please stop using the word “drama” to describe what’s going on? It minimises the seriousness of the issues and has sexist* undertones in this kind of usage.

    *It is teenaged girls who are stereotyped as being “drama queens”. It’s the contemporary equivalent of “hysteria”.

  46. Forelle says

    Sorry. Will you please excuse a very tired non-English speaker? You’re right, of course. (In my defence, I’ve found it serious enough to follow it rather closely.)

  47. Forelle says

    Wait — I meant, you’re right as to the potential minimising. Honestly, I never thought about teenage girls and sexism.

  48. says

    Indeed, he should take sides. Now, I’m actually my own side, but of the two sides in new atheism, the FTB crowd is hands down the best by far, easily. The other crowd is no competition, morally, ethically, intellectually. FTB/A+ aren’t allies to me, and I don’t consider them such, because, I am, after all, my own side ( http://pastebin.com/ZvTk2bqH ), but I do consider FTB to be, by far, way more compassionate and enlightened than the others.

    Ron Lindsey does need to pick a side. Oh wait, he’s a poor old white dude that’s being persecuted, I forgot!! We should all feel sorry for him and all the other poor, persecuted white dudes with no spine except to harass the very ‘weak’ they claim to protect, except victimize us instead.

  49. Ichthyic says

    Ron Lindsay may have lots of company when it comes to embracing the golden mean fallacy, but one would hope that a rationalist would know better, or at least might be able to recognise that fault in themselves when it is pointed out to them.

    no, see, you’ve confused Ron of being a rationalist, when he is rather acting as a rationalizer. he is using the fallacy of the middle ground defense to try and rationalize his previous missives.

    that’s not being a rationalist, it’s engaging in pure psychological defense. this is what is so troubling to me when I see people like Shermer, and now Lindsay, engaging in such behavior.

    At a guess, IMO it comes from our society doing a very poor job of educating people on how to properly defend their ideas, rationally, without getting defensive and resorting to logical fallacies.

    That said, people can and do rise above this, regardless of lack of training, and at least on occasion apply rational thought to analyzing their own missives. I would hope that Lindsay can choke down his ego for a moment and reflect on this, and at least in the future consider the impact of his missives on his mission as a CEO of an important organization. About the best I think can be hoped for, really. It really would do some damage to CFI to remove him, as otherwise he is a tremendous asset.

  50. Ichthyic says

    At a guess, IMO it comes from our society doing a very poor job of educating people on how to properly defend their ideas, rationally, without getting defensive and resorting to logical fallacies.

    I’d add that I’m guilty of this myself, frequently enough, but then I’m not trying to be the head of an organization whose very mission is one of rational inquiry.

  51. Ichthyic says

    Re:Dawkins I don’t get it. What’s wrong with sociologists?

    I get it.

    think of it like this:

    Sociologists, when Dawkins was a grad student, were looked on in academia much like Evolutionary Psychologists are in the current day by PZ.

    That sociology has actually succeeded in becoming a respected academic pursuit, with volumes and volumes of peer reviewed studies with copious amounts of data, is rather lost on those who stopped following it decades ago because they saw the early forms as being mostly hand-waiving.

    Likewise, you will find plenty of old evolutionary biologists who sided with Gould against sociobiology when Wilson first published his book. A lot of them never changed their mind about it, regardless of the fact that it’s quite clear that behavior obviously has heritable components to it, just like any other trait, and thousands of peer reviewed studies since the 70s have proved it.

    So, in short, Dawkins is an old dog that never kept up with sociology once he dismissed it early on, and now rationalizes that choice against the current evidence.

  52. imthegenieicandoanything says

    Boy, I was just gonna point out that the obviously limited effect of these useless anti-women idiots shows that simple refusal to remain limited to speech with the predetermined outcome of “they win cuz” pretty much assures they will be effectively self-marginalized.

    But the vitriol of several posts about something apparantly stupid that Richard D tweeted or something leads me to suggest that, even if the writers are in agreement with me about the topic in general, I want nothing to do with them outside of it.

    Cheeses! I’d getting tired of wanting to say, justifiably, “grow up!”

  53. Ichthyic says

    pretty much assures they will be effectively self-marginalized.

    if that were the case, this wouldn’t have become an increasing problem over the last several years.

    But the vitriol of several posts about something apparantly stupid that Richard D tweeted or something

    …that you can’t be bothered to even try to examine for yourself.

    Cheeses! I’d getting tired of wanting to say, justifiably, “grow up!”

    in response to you, I would substitute, “get a clue!” for “grow up!”

    *shrug*

    easy to dismiss concerns you’ve never bothered to actually examine I suppose…

  54. says

    Not to derail, but are my eyes deceiving me or did sleepingwytch @53 just link approvingly to a kill-all-men screed? I’m… not okay with that. Sleepingwytch, what gives?

  55. Ichthyic says

    Sleepingwytch, what gives?

    look again:

    I am, after all, my own side

    ’nuff said.

  56. says

    Well, I was trying to give sleepingwytch the benefit of the doubt in hopes that it’s some kind of poorly-executed parody, but if ze’s got an established history here of sincerely espousing those beliefs, I’ve gotta say, yuck. That’s definitely not the kind of support FTB needs.

  57. carlie says

    Anne – I’ve never seen that ‘nym before.

    Re:Dawkins I don’t get it. What’s wrong with sociologists?

    What I don’t get is that he’s making the same mistake re: “racism” that he rails against people making for “evolution”. The term “racism” is a sociological term, and the thorough sociological definition of it includes power differentials, even though colloquial public use doesn’t. That’s the same argument we have with how “evolution” has a specific, thorough meaning in biology that is not the same as its colloquial use. Yet, for the one Dawkins is firmly behind letting the experts in biology define what “evolution” means and saying everyone else should get on board, but for “racism” he’s saying that the colloquial use should trump the academic definition that the people in the field use. Hypocrisy, he has it.

  58. Ichthyic says

    but if ze’s got an established history here of sincerely espousing those beliefs

    no, I gotta go with Carlie, never seen this nym before.

  59. John Morales says

    [meta]

    I’ve seen sleepingwytch comment on FTB recently, not-so-much on Pharyngula.

  60. arbor says

    Ron Lindsay has crossed the line.

    There is nothing he could ever do to redeem himself.

    CFI, because it hasn’t repudiated Lindsay, is a lost cause.

    Having anything to do with either is wrong.

    I’m prepared to conclude the same with regard to any “leader” or organization that shows that is unworthy of our support.

    I have nothing important in common with these people and want nothing to do with them.

  61. rowanvt says

    Wow… that red queen screed is horrifying and disgusting, and full of sexist stereotypes. I now want absolutely nothing to do with sleepingwytch EVER due to the advocating of murdering my male relatives, friends, and hopefully-future-spouse.

  62. Ichthyic says

    Ron Lindsay has crossed the line.

    There is nothing he could ever do to redeem himself.

    CFI, because it hasn’t repudiated Lindsay, is a lost cause.

    Having anything to do with either is wrong.

    I’m prepared to conclude the same with regard to any “leader” or organization that shows that is unworthy of our support.

    I have nothing important in common with these people and want nothing to do with them.

    I could agree with the first line.

    not the rest.

    this is not as black and white as you want to make it out to be. DO look at what CFI has accomplished before you dismiss them out of hand for the comments of someone who works there.

  63. athyco says

    I’ve read “the talk” several times in making comments on the cfi site in the “A Few Examples” thread. I’ve commented there hoping for a greater likelihood that members of the board will read what’s on their own site.

    The more I go over “the talk” to verify that I’m not misrepresenting it, the angrier that pompous mishmash of high school history essay and vague warning/chiding makes me. I copied it into a word document to rid it of the fillers: “Let me emphasize at the outset that I think…” and “I’m not a believer in a priori arguments, but I will say that….” Those constructions are throughout the talk, but they spring up riotously when the topic turns to privilege and silencing. The only reason for that speech to have run long was those flowery fillers–and without them, the lack of content depth and the chiding message both lie unmistakably bare.

    But enforced silence is also a way of robbing someone of their humanity. Part of what allows us to give meaning to our lives is the ability to exercise certain core freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and reproductive freedom. We need these freedoms to take control of our own lives, to give shape and direction our own lives; otherwise, we are just going to be forced into a role that has been assigned to us.

    Yeah…forget tweeting after WiS2 about core freedoms of reproduction, conscience, and association. Those might get in the way of your noble point about freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech. Use hundreds of words in a Women in Secularism talk for the point that “enforced silence” could come from “shut up and listen” even though you can’t provide a single valid example of it happening among those who belong to or whose leanings are toward A+, the only organization you named in your talk. Argue that “witless wanker” is equal to “cunt” allowing the results of silencing from a barrage of “cunt” and “bitch” to be hidden in a wider (so surely more important) discussion of “dignity.”

    Something that makes me think points may be getting through to Lindsay, though, is that the comments on the post for which he gave his limited “apology” have been closed. Since it had Rebecca Watson’s name in the title, it had been heavily populated by ‘pitters.

  64. ChasCPeterson says

    well I read the link @#53 and I feel it’s necessary to quote the conclusion in full:

    Your death awaits you men, calculated, seductive, inevitable, complete and utter annihilation, until you sleep forever, until you are nothing but a bad memory in the collective memory of humanity. Should it be the case that cisgendered women are inevitably reactionary, they too should be exterminated, such a situation would leave then only transwomen, agendered and third gendered people. Hopefully this is not the case, but if it would be the case, Red Queen 2nd option should be initiated by the concerned parties, to assume the genocidal task towards ciswomen if they are found to be inexorably reactionary and reflexive due to an innate need for men or an innate and unalterable support of patriarchial goals or the existence of men. This is not to be assumed to be the case, but if it is found to be the case, 2nd option should be enacted, and secret societies and secret associations, ciphers, codes, plans, etc, should be enacted to make 2nd option a reality.

    Written by a marginalized transsexual woman in need of urgent medically necessary surgeries she is being denied by a cruel asshole society, and of uncertain origin and identity. Perhaps I wrote this manifesto, perhaps I did not and someone else wrote this or a group of marginalized people wrote this and ask me to put my name on it, it matters not. There will always be deception for the Enemy and the friends of the Enemy, for they are everywhere, they are in power, and they must be seduced, marginalized, and exterminated.

    The ultimate Solution to Patriarchy is to kill all men. We are Red Queen, and we are your best friend, your most seductive lover, your most feminine companion, your most faitful spouse, your most entrancing hypnosis Domina. We are also, your betrayer, your silencer, your murderer. Your death will be our salvation. We will not quit, we will not surrender, you will be exterminated.

    hoo!

  65. cfieldb says

    I’m not really involved in this community and I only post here sporadically, but I didn’t think Dawkins’ tweets were that bad. Shakesville can be pretty nasty and uncharitable at times; I think what he (Dawkins) is talking about is something on which reasonable people can disagree, as long as they aren’t hurling slurs at the people they disagree with.

    IMO, it’s only in the context of the current Situation that Dawkins’ tweets come across as obnoxious. If it were 2009, it might lead to some amiable discussion and nothing more.

  66. chigau (違う) says

    Anne C. Hanna
    In his threads, Chris Clarke replaces particularly obnoxious comments with bunny videos.
    sleepingwytch’s deleted comment was a link to some of her own writing, the bunnified one was an indignant and insulting defense of the spamming.

  67. Ichthyic says

    (I assume that’s what the bunny video means in your second link, chigau

    pretty much, at least as judged by Chris Clarke, who is typically a pretty good judge of such things.

  68. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    We need a leadership that is willing to take sides. Otherwise, what’s the point of it all?

    But they ARE taking sides – the status quo’s, by refusing to speak against it.

  69. says

    Well, I was trying to give sleepingwytch the benefit of the doubt in hopes that it’s some kind of poorly-executed parody, but if ze’s got an established history here of sincerely espousing those beliefs, I’ve gotta say, yuck. That’s definitely not the kind of support FTB needs.

    I don’t think you understand: I’m not giving support to FTB, and you are not my friends. You’re just the better form of my enemies, frenemies if you will.

    And yes that screed was 100% serious. I have no problem being an extremist at this point in time, if perhaps you could give me a rational reason how I shouldn’t, I’m open to the argument. Otherwise, what’s the point of this post? I don’t “support” FTB/A+, I am my own side with my own take on things, and yes it’s very extremist/terrorist and I have no qualms with that. It’s very understandable (of course) that you do, but I really don’t care. I’m going to stick around whether you or others like it or not, and if you try to ban me, you’ll go from frenemy to enemy.

    I’m not here to ‘support’ or ‘protect’ you, or anyone else in fact. I’m my own side.

  70. says

    Hi all,

    I’m familiar with sleepingwytch from other places, and am aware from the unusual nature of her views and writings that she’s therefore been the target of indordinate transphobic and ableist mocking on various atheist and skeptic forums on account of being transgender and having a complex of numerous mental disorders. I cannot support the repugnant ideas in her pastebin, but neither will I support the comment thread here at Pharyngula becoming another example of transphobic, ableist mockery of someone who has severe problems to deal with in their life.

  71. Ichthyic says

    mocking on various atheist and skeptic forums on account of being transgender

    transgender?

    not so much.

    all ideas are subject to critique, regardless of source.

    I won’t be party to EXCUSING her ideas simply BECAUSE she has problems in her life, either.

  72. Ichthyic says

    I’m not here to ‘support’ or ‘protect’ you, or anyone else in fact. I’m my own side.

    then perhaps you better stick to talking to yourself?

  73. John Morales says

    [meta]

    sleepingwytch,

    I’m not here to ‘support’ or ‘protect’ you, or anyone else in fact. I’m my own side.

    Fair enough; me too. :)

  74. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    FTB/A+ aren’t allies to me, and I don’t consider them such, because, I am, after all, my own side ( http://pastebin.com/ZvTk2bqH )

    You are a complete fucking monster and not “on the side” of anyone or anything.

  75. says

    Hi all,

    I’m familiar with sleepingwytch from other places, and am aware from the unusual nature of her views and writings that she’s therefore been the target of indordinate transphobic and ableist mocking on various atheist and skeptic forums on account of being transgender and having a complex of numerous mental disorders. I cannot support the repugnant ideas in her pastebin, but neither will I support the comment thread here at Pharyngula becoming another example of transphobic, ableist mockery of someone who has severe problems to deal with in their life.

    I wouldn’t expect you or anyone else here to agree with those views either, and think you are all better humans for not agreeing with those views. I myself am struggling to come to a more moderate position, but it’s not easy, it’s very difficult in fact.

    Thank you for the support, I need it. ((hugs))

    It’s been some months. I’m not the same, I tried to stop from radicalizing, I really did, but I couldn’t.

  76. says

    Icthyic, the discussion of sleepingwytch’s views is a totally off-topic derailment here. You want to turn this thread into another ‘bash the transgender person with mental illness because she has wacky views’ thread? Go right ahead — and then you can have your own personal Slyme Pit, right here on Pharyngula.

    I’m saying, for fuck’s sake, just simply acknowledge that the views are repugnant and drop it.

  77. says

    You are a complete fucking monster and not “on the side” of anyone or anything.

    Last time I checked I’m pretty sure I’m a human being. Now, you can dehumanize me more if you wish, but my humanity doesn’t stop existing just because you say so.

    You’re a fucking joke, and one of the reasons I wrote that screed: people like you. You’re not a humanist, you’re a hypocrite. Now, I’m obviously not a humanist either (the screed proves that), but hey, at least I’m honest. I’d like to BE a humanist again: that’s a comforting thought.

  78. Ichthyic says

    Icthyic, the discussion of sleepingwytch’s views is a totally off-topic derailment here.

    bullshit, since she introduced them.

    You want to turn this thread into another ‘bash the transgender person

    that appears to be what YOU are trying to do.

    I’m saying, for fuck’s sake, just simply acknowledge that the views are repugnant and drop it.

    good thing you’re dropping it then??

    seriously, stop it.

  79. John Morales says

    sleepingwytch:

    And yes that screed was 100% serious. I have no problem being an extremist at this point in time, if perhaps you could give me a rational reason how I shouldn’t, I’m open to the argument.

    Hmm.

    It’s a fantasy, and I think you know that.

    (You ever read Venus Plus X?)

  80. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    but neither will I support the comment thread here at Pharyngula becoming another example of transphobic, ableist mockery of someone who has severe problems to deal with in their life.

    You are defending someone who is advocating genocide because people are horrified by it.

    What the hell is wrong with you?

  81. says

    Hmm.

    It’s a fantasy, and I think you know that.

    (You ever read Venus Plus X?)

    I wish I could be weaker, I need to be weaker in order to regain my humanism. It’s a very evil political order, one I don’t consent to. People would ask “Why did you write it?” and I would say I didn’t feel like I had a choice. I’ll try to deradicalize, it’s just not easy.

  82. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Last time I checked I’m pretty sure I’m a human being. Now, you can dehumanize me more if you wish, but my humanity doesn’t stop existing just because you say so.

    You’re a fucking joke, and one of the reasons I wrote that screed: people like you. You’re not a humanist, you’re a hypocrite. Now, I’m obviously not a humanist either (the screed proves that), but hey, at least I’m honest. I’d like to BE a humanist again: that’s a comforting thought.

    How the fuck does reviling the advocacy of crimes against humanity make me a hypocrite?

  83. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Icthyic, the discussion of sleepingwytch’s views is a totally off-topic derailment here. You want to turn this thread into another ‘bash the transgender person with mental illness because she has wacky views’ thread? Go right ahead — and then you can have your own personal Slyme Pit, right here on Pharyngula.

    Point the first: her being transgender is irrelevant to my disgust at her views or to any responses in this thread I’ve seen.

    Point the second: as noted, she was the one who injected it into a discussion that had no relation whatsoever to her views.

    Point the third: as a person with a mental disorder/disability myself I find your attitude here sickeningly patronizing and you can fuck right the hell off.

  84. PatrickG says

    neither will I support the comment thread here at Pharyngula becoming another example of transphobic, ableist mockery of someone who has severe problems to deal with in their life.

    You don’t know very much about the Pharyngula community, do you?

    I guarantee you, transphobic and/or abelist mockery of anyone will be jumped on immediately — think Voltron vs. a cup of tea.

    That said, mockery of a person’s positions is an entirely different, well, cup of tea.

  85. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    I’m defending someone who’s mentally ill. Why are you attacking her?

    BECAUSE SHE’S ADVOCATING GENOCIDE?!

  86. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Oh, I’m sorry, because she’s “mentally ill,” I’m supposed to just smile and nod and pat her on the head and not take her seriously and respond to the content of what she said?

    Take your paternalism and shove it.

  87. PatrickG says

    … and once more I learn to refresh before posting. Multiple Voltron attack!

    I’m defending someone who’s mentally ill. Why are you attacking her?

    I suffer from mental illness, and I have no qualms telling you to go fuck off.

  88. says

    How the fuck does reviling the advocacy of crimes against humanity make me a hypocrite?

    When you call someone a dehumanizing term like a monster, you’re not making it easier for me. If you want to me to deradicalize, which I’ve been attempting to do for some time now (limited success), it’s best to say something like “gee, that’s horrifically revolting and disgusting and I really hope you’ll reconsider someday”. Or maybe take John Morales’ approach. Regardless.

    Also, it’s not so simple as ‘crimes against humanity’. It’s not that simple anymore. You can’t see my humanity, and my genocidal screed didn’t come first, abuse by others did, including many in this community: abuse, neglect, shunning (another form of abuse).

    If you truly want me to reform my ways, then try kindness.

  89. Ichthyic says

    I’m defending someone who’s mentally ill. Why are you attacking her?

    the best way to defend your friend would be for you to tell her she needs to expect harsh criticism for publicly posting such things.

    if she can’t grasp that, then you need to tell her to work within a support group, instead of deciding all forums are fair game for expounding ideas arising from her particular background.

    you can’t expect anyone to know her entire history, and take that into account, on an open public forum.

    it’s worse than unreasonable, and you’re not doing your friend any favors.

  90. Ichthyic says

    If you truly want me to reform my ways, then try kindness.

    kindly take your ideas to a less public forum?

  91. says

    Sleepingwytch: I used gender-neutral pronouns at first because I *wasn’t* making assumptions about you or your identity, not because I was. You’ll note that I switched as soon as I connected your ‘nym with comments of yours elsewhere which did explicitly identify your gender.

    I am happy to support you against anyone who bullies you or mocks you for any reason, especially if it’s in relation to your gender identity or mental health. However, I will not support you in the advocacy of murder, and I will thank you to keep that kind of talk way the hell away from any cause I care about. If that makes us enemies in your book, then so be it, but I’d rather see you learn to advocate for your own fundamental right to exist without trying to take that right away from others. You’ll find that this community can be a very supportive place if you do.

  92. says

    #93, You don’t know very much about the Pharyngula community, do you?

    Oh Patrick G, I know plenty about the Pharyngula community, and I know very well what is going down in this thread. I suggest that if you don’t know who this person is, you should have a read of the Pervocracy: The missing stair — which is a description of an extremely problematic personality in a community (basically, a rapist in a BDSM community) that doesn’t want to acknowledge that problem. The analogy here is that we’re supposed to be a community with social justice as our focus, and that means treating people with empathy and compassion — even marginalised people in our community with severe mental illnesses who hold repugnant views.

  93. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    For fuck’s sake, “complete fucking monster” does not literally mean you’re not a human and no one would interpret it that way in good faith. You are being intellectually and regularly dishonest here.

    . You can’t see my humanity, and my genocidal screed didn’t come first, abuse by others did, including many in this community: abuse, neglect, shunning (another form of abuse).

    You know what? I’ve been abused too, and I don’t fantasize about murdering everyone who I could possibly categorize alongside the people actually responsible. You’re insulting me and millions of others who’ve been victimized without abandoning basic ethics. Fuck you back.

    When you call someone a dehumanizing term like a monster, you’re not making it easier for me. If you want to me to deradicalize, which I’ve been attempting to do for some time now (limited success), it’s best to say something like “gee, that’s horrifically revolting and disgusting and I really hope you’ll reconsider someday”. Or maybe take John Morales’ approach. Regardless.

    If you truly want me to reform my ways, then try kindness.

    This is abusive, manipulative bullshit. I cannot and will not take responsibility for your ethical sense or lack thereof.

  94. says

    kindly take your ideas to a less public forum?

    But why? You don’t care, don’t pretend you do. And my ideas are very relevant to the MRA discussion in the topic, because MRA’s are one (not the only) of the main reasons I was compelled to write that screed. I actually do want to believe what I wrote in that screed is wrong, desperately so in fact, so if you want to talk to me and reason with me or something else, do so. If not I’ll just drop it, because we don’t have to talk about it if you or others don’t want to.

    The fact you think the views in that article are evil, genocidal, and nuts, simply means you’re moral and capable of not being evil that way. I want to join you, but I don’t know how.

  95. John Morales says

    [meta]

    sleepingwytch is not the topic here, and I reckon she’d stop responding if people stopped provoking her, having made her case.

    (Thunderdome is for that sort of stuff)

  96. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    …so you know your ideas are wrong, but you’re demanding people convince you….? This is like Saw Movie logic.

  97. Ichthyic says

    You don’t care, don’t pretend you do

    I don’t know you. Why have you decided this is the place where you want to get others to understand who you are?

    why not have that discussion in your own private space?

    it’s like if you ran into a bar, naked and screaming, and wonder why everyone in the bar is avoiding you.

  98. says

    Sleepingwytch: I used gender-neutral pronouns at first because I *wasn’t* making assumptions about you or your identity, not because I was. You’ll note that I switched as soon as I connected your ‘nym with comments of yours elsewhere which did explicitly identify your gender.

    I am happy to support you against anyone who bullies you or mocks you for any reason, especially if it’s in relation to your gender identity or mental health. However, I will not support you in the advocacy of murder, and I will thank you to keep that kind of talk way the hell away from any cause I care about. If that makes us enemies in your book, then so be it, but I’d rather see you learn to advocate for your own fundamental right to exist without trying to take that right away from others. You’ll find that this community can be a very supportive place if you do.

    You being ‘enemy’ or whatever has nothing to do with what I posted after the fact, and everything to do with how I was treated before the fact. Regardless you don’t want it posted so I won’t post it again.

    And no, I don’t find this community to be a ‘very supportive place’, not in the slightest. I find this community to be chock full to the brim of bullshit artists.

    People like to just think I got isolated for espousing these views, they just don’t get these views came about, as a result of being isolated. Shunning results in deterioration of mental health, which results in terrorism, you or anyone else pretending that magically isn’t so won’t change that one iota. If people want to be abusive to me, they will find I am going to harden my resolve, not weaken it.

    FTB are frenemies who I would like to consider friends again. It’s difficult for me, because every category of people at this point are frenemies. I wish it weren’t that way.

  99. Ichthyic says

    And my ideas are very relevant to the MRA discussion in the topic

    let me be absolutely clear, so there is no misunderstanding:

    no, they really are not.

  100. rowanvt says

    No. Fuck that. I’m not going to go “gee I hope you’ll change your mind.”

    You are advocating killing MY FATHER, who is a wonderful and gentle person. You are advocating killing MY UNCLE, who is much loved by his lesbian daughter and who can’t wait to see her get married to a woman she loves. You are advocating killing BEN, a person I love so much that the mere thought that someday he’ll be dead makes me want to curl up into a ball and cry. I fall asleep listening to his heart beat, because it is more precious to me than my own life.

    So fuck that noise. Abuse, neglect and shunning don’t mean you get to go on about killing an entire gender and gender identity. It doesn’t mean you get to stereotype an entire gender and advocate killing them based on that stereotype. It does not mean you turn into the very thing you say you hate.

  101. says

    I don’t know you. Why have you decided this is the place where you want to get others to understand who you are?

    why not have that discussion in your own private space?

    it’s like if you ran into a bar, naked and screaming, and wonder why everyone in the bar is avoiding you.

    I don’t know, I don’t know. I wish I could answer that. I’m sorry for being rude.

  102. omnicrom says

    sleepingwytch would you consider moving this discussion to Thunderdome? Thunderdome is the designated off-topic discussion thread, there’s a link to it on the sidebar. If you’d like to continue this discussion it may be a better place to post as this thread is getting somewhat derailed.

  103. PatrickG says

    I want to join you, but I don’t know how.

    Read, listen, and learn. In no way am I speaking for the community here, but if you’re sincere in repudiating the sentiments you expressed there, just … repudiate them. Don’t make excuses for them. Don’t plead extenuating circumstances.

    In short: stop and think about what you’re saying. Back away for a few minutes, or even a few hours. I obviously have no idea what you’re going through personally, but I know certain topics get me extremely agitated. Is it possible something similar is happening with you?

  104. Ichthyic says

    I wish it weren’t that way.

    I wish you weren’t making it that way, and I realize it’s likely not by choice.

    … but you need help that we cannot give here, nor should we. It is not an appropriate or productive place to work out your specific issues.

  105. says

    No. Fuck that. I’m not going to go “gee I hope you’ll change your mind.”

    You are advocating killing MY FATHER, who is a wonderful and gentle person. You are advocating killing MY UNCLE, who is much loved by his lesbian daughter and who can’t wait to see her get married to a woman she loves. You are advocating killing BEN, a person I love so much that the mere thought that someday he’ll be dead makes me want to curl up into a ball and cry. I fall asleep listening to his heart beat, because it is more precious to me than my own life.

    So fuck that noise. Abuse, neglect and shunning don’t mean you get to go on about killing an entire gender and gender identity. It doesn’t mean you get to stereotype an entire gender and advocate killing them based on that stereotype. It does not mean you turn into the very thing you say you hate.

    I’m not turning into the very thing I say I hate, definitionally, that’s impossible, if you paid technical attention. I’m trying to not hate people like your father or your uncle. My father beat me hundreds of times, before I ever left training diapers, for being trans.

    Now, can you imagine it would be hard for me to see any man or male as non-hostile? You’re not making it any easier. You’re not going to undue hundreds of traumatic events by telling me to fuck off, but you’re quite correct for defending your uncle and father in conventional moral terms. I want to see them as you do, or more like you do. I actually do.

  106. says

    I wish you weren’t making it that way, and I realize it’s likely not by choice.

    … but you need help that we cannot give here, nor should we. It is not an appropriate or productive place to work out your specific issues.

    It’s not that way, I do need help, but you can’t substitute therapy for social contact with people that care.

    I’m sorry I’m such a mess, I’ll crawl back into my hole now.

  107. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Jesus Fuck.

    My ex’s position is basically that, you know, she drove drunk with our daughter in the car; stole her college savings when she moved out with another man; got drunk and screamed at me in front of our daughter that she should have had an abortion; exposed daughter to and left daughter with the strong impression that daughter “had to” like ex’s next boyfriend, who it turns out got drunk, tried to get ex to start drinking again, “borrowed” ex’s car and credit cards, apparently applied for credit in ex’s name, and punched ex in the stomach when she got pregnant.

    And, you know, there was that one time when I yelled at daughter for being careless and knocking something liquid over and making a mess.

    And so, you see, we’ve both made mistakes as parents, and we shouldn’t be judgmental with each other.

    I never thought I’d meet someone who made that Klein-bottle perspective seem reasonable by comparison.

  108. omnicrom says

    sleepingwytch it is very clear that this is not the appropriate place to deal with this. If you really do have these issues then an online, fairly acerbic, blog is not the best place to find help for them.

  109. says

    Reading what’s been posted since I started composing my comment @100, I am *really* sorry I started things down this track.

    I’d like to think that there’s enough capacity for nuance among the people here that it’s possible to simultaneously:

    1) make it clear that everyone here really strongly completely 100% disagrees with sleepingwytch’s views on killing all men and wants nothing to do with such talk, and

    2) still avoid using somebody who seems to be already dealing with a lot of pain and rejection as a scratching post.

  110. rowanvt says

    You are advocating the abuse, neglect, and even further murder of an entire gender because an individual of that gender harmed you. You do realise that there are very likely women who would take the same foul course of action your father did, right?

  111. Ichthyic says

    I’m sorry I’m such a mess, I’ll crawl back into my hole now.

    we’re all a mess.

    find someplace that works for you to discuss these things, crawling into a hole won’t help, but neither will debating this stuff here.

  112. omnicrom says

    What exactly do you want us to say or do sleepingwytch? You yourself feel that Genocide against malekind is a bad thing and don’t want to feel like you want it, but what is the role of Pharyngula in this?

  113. says

    Jesus Fuck.

    My ex’s position is basically that, you know, she drove drunk with our daughter in the car; stole her college savings when she moved out with another man; got drunk and screamed at me in front of our daughter that she should have had an abortion; exposed daughter to and left daughter with the strong impression that daughter “had to” like ex’s next boyfriend, who it turns out got drunk, tried to get ex to start drinking again, “borrowed” ex’s car and credit cards, apparently applied for credit in ex’s name, and punched ex in the stomach when she got pregnant.

    And, you know, there was that one time when I yelled at daughter for being careless and knocking something liquid over and making a mess.

    And so, you see, we’ve both made mistakes as parents, and we shouldn’t be judgmental with each other.

    I never thought I’d meet someone who made that Klein-bottle perspective seem reasonable by comparison.

    I’m sorry, I’ve got serious issues, I’m not going to pretend they’re moral, because they’re not.

    I’ll just mostly shutup now and go lie down. What is wrong with me, I feel like I’m losing my mind.

  114. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    my apologies to those who had every right to be upset.

    Thank you. :/

  115. Ichthyic says

    What is wrong with me, I feel like I’m losing my mind

    call a friend, go for a walk, and talk with them. don’t sit there alone and stew.

  116. says

    Sleepingwytch: there’s no way I can support the advocacy of murdering men. Stop pushing that idea here, please, or I will shut you down. I understand that you face some serious personal challenges so I’m going to cut you some slack, but it still needs to stop now, and the discussion here has taken an inappropriate turn by all participants.

  117. rowanvt says

    *deep breaths*

    If you know that what you are feeling is wrong, please do find someone trained who can talk with you about this in a non-judgemental fashion. I am very sorry that you had such a shitty child hood, and do hope that you can overcome it.

  118. says

    sleepingwytch it is very clear that this is not the appropriate place to deal with this. If you really do have these issues then an online, fairly acerbic, blog is not the best place to find help for them.

    What exactly do you want us to say or do sleepingwytch? You yourself feel that Genocide against malekind is a bad thing and don’t want to feel like you want it, but what is the role of Pharyngula in this?

    Yes yes, you are mostly right, I am going to lie down soon to rest, as I feel totally overwhelmed and exhausted. I am evil, and wrong, and morally incorrect, I also feel like I’m losing my mind and my willpower is draining, like my mind is going slowly. I can’t keep it together anymore.

  119. says

    Sleepingwytch: there’s no way I can support the advocacy of murdering men. Stop pushing that idea here, please, or I will shut you down. I understand that you face some serious personal challenges so I’m going to cut you some slack, but it still needs to stop now, and the discussion here has taken an inappropriate turn by all participants.

    Yes sir, understood. I have to go lie down now, I feel exhausted.

  120. says

    Sleepingwytch, I think stepping back is wise. Please do take care of yourself.

    Just to be clear, I never assumed that you were isolated *because* of these views. As soon as I connected your appearance here with your comments on Zinnia’s blog, I suspected that if those views were sincerely held, they were likely derived from pre-existing pain.

    I want to point out that it’s one thing to *feel like* you want something terrible to happen to everyone who even reminds you a little bit of the people who hurt you, and another thing to endorse those terrible things as something that should actually happen to those people. It’s possible to recognize the legitimacy of your pain and frustration and rage without taking the course of action that they dictate. When the pain is as deep as yours seems to be, it can be a real struggle to make those distinctions and to find a path forward that’s more about helping yourself than hurting others, but it *is* possible, especially if you can find people who support *you* (even if they may not agree with the things you feel you want to do). I hope you can find people who can give you that support.

  121. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If you truly want me to reform my ways, then try kindness.

    Why should we be kind to somebody advocating genocide? Think about that before you fade into the bandwidth.

  122. Eristae says

    Not to derail, but are my eyes deceiving me or did sleepingwytch @53 just link approvingly to a kill-all-men screed? I’m… not okay with that. Sleepingwytch, what gives?

    Whoa, you’re right! I clicked the link, read like two sentences in, decided it was non-nonsensical and quit reading it, but scanning down to the end, that is indeed what it says.

    It . . . doesn’t really work to post that kind of thing on a blog written by a man . . .

    @chigau (違う)
    OMFG BUNNY!

  123. Eristae says

    . . . aaaand it seems I waited far too long to post the last thing I did. Soooorry.

  124. says

    So, in short, Dawkins is an old dog that never kept up with sociology once he dismissed it early on, and now rationalizes that choice against the current evidence.

    Thank you, Ichthyic. That makes sense, in the way that people sometimes thinking in ways that don’t make sense makes sense. What is up with that guy? I used to think he was pretty great. He’s still pretty great in some ways, but the shine is off for sure.

  125. Ichthyic says

    He’s still pretty great in some ways, but the shine is off for sure.

    people are people.

    We all have our foibles, which become ever more apparent as we grow older. I like Dawkins as a science communicator, disagreed with him on his specific takes on selection in various circumstances, don’t think he was ever a great scientist per se, and never really bothered with his personal views on much of anything, not having had much experience growing up as a student in England.

    My own father didn’t start saying really stupid shit (and defending George W Bush) until he was well into his 70s, FWIW. Still respected his views on anything having to do with architecture or construction though.

    I guess what I’m saying is I’m not a “shine” guy to begin with; that got crushed out of me early on as a grad student. :)

  126. markbrown says

    As loathsome as the screed at #53 was, would I be right in concluding that since then Sleepingwytch has only been responding to our responses? I’ve read the whole thread, and don’t recall her actually defending that position since then, but rather apologizing for feeling that way.

    I get the need to denounce such views, but is it necessary for us to jump on someone is clearly – and admits to being – mentally disturbed? If this is a cry for help, or understanding, or to be talked down from such feeling, do we really help anyone by pushing her away and attacking her so vehemently?

    Basically, can we not consider that sometimes people are not irredeemably broken, and that sometimes a more nuanced approach would be appropriate instead of going straight to turning them into a chew-toy?

  127. markbrown says

    Sorry for the further derail in my above by the way. As someone with mental issues (Anxiety and depression), this is a touchy subject for me. I’d much rather we err on the side of caution instead of potentially triggering people.

  128. Ichthyic says

    As loathsome as the screed at #53 was, would I be right in concluding that since then Sleepingwytch has only been responding to our responses?

    can we NOT keep going with this?

    seriously.

  129. Ichthyic says

    I’d much rather we err on the side of caution instead of potentially triggering people.

    right, so SHUT UP ALREADY.

  130. markbrown says

    Yep, sorry… wasn’t trying to continue the discussion, just commenting on the aftermath. Will shut up now.

  131. says

    I found that “why don’t we jail women that falsely accuse men of having raped them” bit a few weeks ago. Unfortunately the best response I could pull off was to ask for specific cases where this happened, but I don’t even know enough about the law to tell where I’m being misdirected in this piece of propaganda. The fellow seemed pretty confident about women having been caught lying under oath in court and then not receiving the punishment that is supposed to go with that, and I lacked the confidence to stick to “until you tell me when this actually happened I have to assume you’re making it up or misinformed,” especially because I was worried I’d find myself having to untangle some case I knew nothing about. I’d guess that this is just people mixing up a “not guilty” verdict with “all testimony against this man has been proven false,” but does anybody know what case(s) they’re actually raving about?

  132. consciousness razor says

    markbrown, the subject’s been dropped, for good reason I think. I will say that I did interpret some things as “defending” it and otherwise trying to excuse it. There were a few cases of what I’d call “attacking her,” but given the circumstances, I think it’d be hypocritical if we didn’t allow everyone a bit of consideration in that regard. But please let’s just drop it.

  133. andywatson says

    “Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named. It’s the refusal to recognize that some of the people who support the same causes as CFI have been barraged with incessant hatred for about two years now

    This is not a fair or reasonable point. I have seen equal barrages of incessant hatred right here, to anyone that dares to disagrees with the dogma of this site. This is absolutely inescapable. First, those who dare to disagree are abusively called “misogynist” (when they have said nothing misogynist at all, and this applies to Ron Lindsey also, as he has not said anything misogynist, but has been tarred and feathered as one here multiple times), and then they are barraged with abuse, told to “fuck off scumbag, you are not wanted her” (comments like that are frequent and normal on this site). The OP talks as if this site is a bastion of truth, decency, and honor, but that is a completely unsupportable position (cue abuse at me for daring to state this simple actual truth).

  134. markbrown says

    andywatson
    Are you truly trying to equate comments in a private space to comments over twitter? Really?

    As for your accusation of people being accused of misogyny without reason, I’m sure you’re willing to provide evidence of this assertion?

  135. Ichthyic says

    to get back on topic…

    I was reminded a moment ago of the old kerfuffle between Kurtz and Lindsay when Kurtz was still on the board of directors for CFI (well, since he started CFI, of course!), and if you look at those exchanges, it’s like Lindsay has now BECOME Kurtz!

    except instead of railing against “militant atheism” within the ranks of CFI, Lindsay is substituting “militant feminism”.

    really, not kidding, anyone who hasn’t should go back and read those exchanges, and the posts by Kurtz.

    http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/are_there_any_mccarthyites_at_the_center_for_inquiry/

    If I were a personal acquaintance of Lindsay, I would be reminding him of his own responses to Kurtz’ attacks on atheism being a part of CFI’s mission.

  136. Ichthyic says

    This is not a fair or reasonable point.,

    yes, it is.

    I have seen equal barrages of incessant hatred right here

    show me ONE that is comparable in nature and scope.

    This is absolutely inescapable. First, those who dare to disagree are abusively called “misogynist”

    one, it appears that it’s only inescapable in your own mind, because two… it doesn’t really happen like you say it does.

    run along and post your fantasies elsewhere.

  137. consciousness razor says

    This is not a fair or reasonable point. I have seen equal barrages of incessant hatred right here, to anyone that dares to disagrees with the dogma of this site.

    You have? What is the dogma of this site? Why would your tu quoque (if it were true) be fair or reasonable, especially if you believed the point you’re referring to isn’t fair or reasonable?

    First, those who dare to disagree are abusively called “misogynist” (when they have said nothing misogynist at all, [...]

    When has that been claimed here when they didn’t say anything misogynistic?

    Also, define “abuse.” Claiming someone is being misogynistic is not abusive. But don’t even talk about abuse unless you show some sign that you haven’t just walked into this conversation like it just started last week. If you’re unaware of the harassment, death threats, rape threats, etc., the misogynist fuckwads have been engaging in and defending for years (just online in atheist circles), then shut the fuck up and learn something before you say another word about “abuse.” Because unless you’re a complete asshole, you probably don’t want people thinking that you equate all of these things with insults or being impolite.

    and this applies to Ron Lindsey also, as he has not said anything misogynist, but has been tarred and feathered as one here multiple times),

    He didn’t use any sexist slurs, if that’s what you mean, although what he said about Watson was awfully hostile. That aside, his actions and the points he thought worth making in that context were misogynistic in an important sense. (Not to mention astonishingly ignorant and condescending in general.) You might say the sexism was implicit, not explicit, but that makes no difference whatsoever. So there goes your entire point: you don’t recognize misogyny when it happens so you have nothing worthwhile to say about it.

    and then they are barraged with abuse, told to “fuck off scumbag, you are not wanted her” (comments like that are frequent and normal on this site).

    People here care less about tone and more about substance. That is not “abuse.” It’s just an insult, and it’s not comparable to sexism or any other form of bigotry.

    The OP talks as if this site is a bastion of truth, decency, and honor, but that is a completely unsupportable position (cue abuse at me for daring to state this simple actual truth).

    What do you think the truth is? (I’ve asked you to support your assertions.)

    What do you think is decent? (Is “implicit sexism” a-okay with you? Is it the same thing as “fuck off scumbag”?)

    What does “honor” have to do with anything? I care about integrity, not some trumped-up sense of “honor.”

  138. says

    Andywatson:
    Why, why, why can NONE of you ‘both sides are just as bad’ people EVER say what the feminists have said or done that is anywhere as bad as what the Slymepit has? You people always talk vaguely, unable or unwilling to get specific.
    So here’s your chance: get specific or leave.

    The slymepitters and people like them that have created the rift in the community have engaged in continuous harassment on Twitter (Ophelia Benson has a continuing series where she documents the harassment), the farewell post by Jen McCreight listed in detail the barrage she was under that drove her to take a hiatus. Rebecca Watson has spoken repeatedly about the barrage of vile, unbridled hatred she continues to get. Ophelia and PZ both had images of themselves photoshopped. Greta Christina has a continuing series about what these fuckholes have said and still say about here (stuff about how ugly she is or needs to die or get raped)
    These are people who think its funny to joke about raping a Skepchick.
    These are people who use gendered slurs as insults because they don’t care if they insult others—BASED ON THEIR GENDER.
    These are people that invitite the Westboro Baptist Church to a Women in Secularism conference.
    These are people who count among their allies a vacuous, callous, shitbag with ties to A Voice for Men–a women’s hate group.
    These are people who create entire videos in YouTube for the sole purpose of calling women c*n*s.
    These are people who, when Greta Christina was diagnosed with cancer, intially offered well wishes and a desire to assist her financially only to revoke said offer because people said mean things about them.
    These are people who wrote vicious screeds against Greta Christina for asking for financial aid in the first place.
    These are people who again treated Greta Christina like dirt because she bought shoes after her treatments.
    These are people who think they get a say in what someone does with donated money.
    These are people who create fake Twitter accounts in the name of FtB bloggers and say hateful things.
    These are people who support Thunderf00t in his misogynistic ranting against anti-harassment policies.
    I am sick of you people who act like both sides do it.
    Everything I just listed can be found easily. I remember it all, as do many others.
    WHAT IN THE EVER LOVING fuck has anyone: PZ, Greta, Ophelia, Jen, Stephanie, Rebecca, Surly Amy, any Pharyngula commenters or anyone on the feminist side ever done that compares to the laundry list of despicable, bottom feeder tactics of the Pitters?
    And its going to take a long list of comparable deeds to match what they have done. So if all you can list is “someone told someone to die in a fire” you can stop right now (especially since the commenter who said that long ago apologized and has not said anything like that again AND one example up against the leaning tower of Pit Shit does not compare)

    So, can you put up?
    I’m not going to hold my breath.

  139. ivycannon says

    Well you’ve vilified huge numbers of well resprected people in the atheists community for very little and say much worse things about them then even anonymous trolls say about you. You seem to confuse anonymous trolls with these respected members of the community and force others into amplifying the crazy. You pat yourself on the back for your tolerance, but your tolerance only extends involved in your McCarthy-like hunt for purported “misogynists”, and your brand of feminism is whiney, self indulgant, and mean and hasn’t furthered anyone’s rights– in fact it’s shut out quite a lot of women. It seems to be comprised of privileged people who live life on the internet and have the time and money to go to conventions to talk about how oppressed and righteous they are.

    Oh, and you have become an echo chamber of a hysterically named set of blogs that pretends to be about “free thought”– it’s not free thought– PZ’s thoughts. So many have run away to avoid getting tangled in the miasma.

  140. Maureen Brian says

    So you don’t know the about the long and honourable history of Free Thought? And you prefer your activism both authoritarian and hierarchically organised?

    No need to bother with your attempt at withering criticism then.

    By the way, who is “you” in comment 155?

  141. Lofty says

    Oh my goodness ivycannon,

    echo chamber

    would more accurately describe yourself.
    Go back to worshipping your “respected” heroes, and how they echo your dismissal of their harassment of people esp. women who dare to speak out about mysogyny.

  142. Ogvorbis, aquaskeptic groupie! says

    ivycannon:

    your McCarthy-like hunt for purported “misogynists”, and your brand of feminism is whiney, self indulgant, and mean and hasn’t furthered anyone’s rights– in fact it’s shut out quite a lot of women.

    Here are some examples of the pushback against the idea that women are fully human (collected by Michael Nugent). Please read it. And then explain just how it is those pushing for actual equality are the bullies, are the whiney, self indulgent and mean ones. Here are the examples.

    [looks up thread]

    How about some substance from those of you who want to ditch religion but keep all of the privileges of Abrahamic patriarchy?

  143. says

    Yet, for the one Dawkins is firmly behind letting the experts in biology define what “evolution” means and saying everyone else should get on board, but for “racism” he’s saying that the colloquial use should trump the academic definition that the people in the field use. Hypocrisy, he has it.

    Don’t forget, the English language itself bows to the might of Dawkins.
    Whatever he says means exactly what he intends it to mean.
    Funny how those most outraged by the “white men” meme keep it going the most.

    ivycannon

    say much worse things about them then even anonymous trolls say about you.

    Evidence, please. And no, “misogynist” and “douchbag” don’t count.

    Oh, and you have become an echo chamber of a hysterically named set of blogs that pretends to be about “free thought”– it’s not free thought– PZ’s thoughts. So many have run away to avoid getting tangled in the miasma.

    Glenn Beck called. He offers you a job for crafting conspiracy theories. You already seem to have a knack for the language.

  144. omnicrom says

    ivycannon can you put up some evidence? Or make a specific claim? You claim that “our” feminism has “shut out” many women. Can you provide figures and evidence for this? In what ways have they been “shut out”? You seem to imply that the problem is “our” feminism, if this is so what sort of feminism will not “shut out” many women?

    You come in here shouting angry MRA talking points without a smidge of substance. If you’d like to be taken seriously you’d better use bring some standard. Also cut that mocking “FTB doesn’t really believe in Freethought!” malarky, that’s one of the most classic slymepit dismissals and it really hurts your case to unironically try and use it.

  145. andywatson says

    I was asked to show things that are bad on this site. I’ve been utterly shocked at the non-rational abusive scorn poured on many people over the last 6 months that I’ve been aware of this site. A few weeks ago, one of the people/followers here made a death threat (he/she stated that they wanted to kill another poster, but the poster had said absolutely nothing that was misogynist in any way). The vast amount of abuse on this site (which is not private, it’s a public forum on which admin’s can ban people that don’t follow the dogma, just as people can be banned from twitter also, if twitter so choose). So, a death threat to a person that disagreed with the dogma of this site is utterly atrocious.

    Also recently, a person called EllenBeth Wachs stated that what Adria Richards did in publicly shaming people on twitter was unconscionable in a conference setting. Everything that she said about Adria Richards was true, correct, rational and ethical. The abuse hurled at EllenBeth Wachs for daring to say that a woman could have been in the wrong was beyond belief.

    Followers of dogma disregard anyone that says anything against dogma. So, although Ron Lindsey has never said anything misogynistic in the last few weeks, he is still tarred as a ‘misogynist’ by dogma-followers in this thread (the people that have called him that should go to prison if I had my way. I despise bigots, and the people calling a person misogynist who denigrate others in that way are certainly bigots).

    So yes, clearly, absolutely atrocious and shameful dogmatic bigotry exists on this public website. There are many many examples of hate, bigotry and abuse in the last 6 months alone on this site.

  146. omnicrom says

    I was asked to show things that are bad on this site. I’ve been utterly shocked at the non-rational abusive scorn poured on many people over the last 6 months that I’ve been aware of this site.

    Ah, here’s problem number 1: Insulting someone is not equal to the several years of dedicated, focused, aggressive, and hateful abuse from the misogynist wing. If you can’t get people saying mean things without falling on the fainting couch then leave. Just be advised that just because someone doesn’t use swear words doesn’t mean they can’t be a vile contemptible person, hatred of women without using a sexist slur is still hatred of women.

    A few weeks ago, one of the people/followers here made a death threat (he/she stated that they wanted to kill another poster, but the poster had said absolutely nothing that was misogynist in any way).

    Link to this please? Because Pharyngula takes a VERY hard line against death threats. Saying that you want to kill someone is not supported at all, this very thread shows that. Things like “I hope they commit suicide” are also not approved of.

    Gonna skip the rest of this paragraph because its substance-less whining.

    Also recently, a person called EllenBeth Wachs stated that what Adria Richards did in publicly shaming people on twitter was unconscionable in a conference setting. Everything that she said about Adria Richards was true, correct, rational and ethical. The abuse hurled at EllenBeth Wachs for daring to say that a woman could have been in the wrong was beyond belief.

    Let’s play a game: Dishonesty or ignorance? Because that’s not what happened. EllenBeth Wachs got an earful because she came in and supported the asshole MRA Michael Best and found nothing wrong with his bullshit. She also got some very strong disagreement because she came at it from the view of a convention organizer, Wachs was much more interested in not rocking the boat and so viewed Adria Richards through the lens of a problem person who had to be dealt with or quieted down. Also there was that lovely incident where Wachs asked for Pharyngulite Caine for her real name so she could be preemptively barred from any of the conferences she organized which is a stunning breach of privacy to ask. Also Adria Richards did not “Publicly Shame” anyone on Twitter, that’s the MRA talking point of the incident not the reality.

    Followers of dogma disregard anyone that says anything against dogma. So, although Ron Lindsey has never said anything misogynistic in the last few weeks, he is still tarred as a ‘misogynist’ by dogma-followers in this thread (the people that have called him that should go to prison if I had my way. I despise bigots, and the people calling a person misogynist who denigrate others in that way are certainly bigots).

    A person who acts misogynistic and does not recant on their misogyny and show that they are no longer a misogynist must be assumed to remain a Misogynist until evidence shows them not to be.

    So yes, clearly, absolutely atrocious and shameful dogmatic bigotry exists on this public website. There are many many examples of hate, bigotry and abuse in the last 6 months alone on this site.

    Firstly why do you keep referencing Pharyngula as a “public website”. Does that mean anything?

    Secondly I request you provide examples and perhaps more importantly define what you mean by “Hate, bigotry, and abuse.” I question what standards you use to pull a tu quoquo on Pharyngula, especially since even by the strictest standards where calling someone a douchebag is “hate, bigotry, and abuse”, the Slymepit is WAY worse.

  147. rowanvt says

    Can you provide us links, instead of assertions that they are here? I’d really love to see that death threat one in particular.

  148. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Everything that she said about Adria Richards was true, correct, rational and ethical. The abuse hurled at EllenBeth Wachs for daring to say that a woman could have been in the wrong was beyond belief.

    Citations needed. Your unsupported allegations can be dismissed per Christopher Hitchens’ : “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Funny how those who criticize us lead with assertion, not evidence.

  149. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    So yes, clearly, absolutely atrocious and shameful dogmatic bigotry exists on this public website.

    This is factually wrong, as this is a privately owned site. If you lie about that, what else will you lie about? Think about that. We have, which is why we require you to back up your assertions.

  150. Ogvorbis, aquaskeptic groupie! says

    Andywatson:

    Read these. These are the some of the comments left by those on your side — the side that thinks that gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights. Compare that to abear being threatened by one commenter (who was out of line and was told so by some of the regulars) because he showed up to explain that survivors really are to blame for being raped because their actions put them in a situation where they could be raped.

  151. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    the dogma of this site

    Which is, what, exactly?

    The fact that you use ‘dogma’ to describe how FtB operates and its expectation of allies can be seen as, yet another, passive aggressive yipping snip at everyone here, backed up with absolutely nothing but your difference of opinion with, what exactly? That people shouldn’t agree with each other, no matter how thoughtfully they conclude their agreements? Using ‘dogma’ as an attempt to poison the well, you know, cause it’s usually religious and we just hate religion and should strive to be nothing like them, or that it’s authoritarian and, “Go Wolverines!”, or even if it’s just being used to contradict ‘freethought’, which makes it no better than the phrase “Free from Thought Blogs”, which is belittling and condescending to the bloggers here, not to mention the many talented, thoughtful regular commenters, who I’ve read and enjoyed for the last 7 years or so.

    I certainly hope you don’t expect respect after coming to shit on the rug.

  152. says

    andywatson

    So, although Ron Lindsey has never said anything misogynistic in the last few weeks, he is still tarred as a ‘misogynist’ by dogma-followers in this thread

    Shows that you’re a dishonest liar.
    Nobody called Ron Lindsay a misogynist in this thread (AFAIK nobody called him one at all)

    Emphasis mine (the people that have called him that should go to prison if I had my way.

    So, wanting to lock people away for a crime that
    a) only exists in your head
    b) is not a crime at all
    that’s really not trying to silence people at all.
    Shows how much you people actually do care about your Freeze Peach.
    Do you also advocate prison for calling women bitches, c*nts, w**res, black people n++gers and gay people fa**ots or is it only men who get your special protection?

  153. says

    Andywatson:
    Ok, glad to know you’re an intellectually vapid douchebag who confuses criticism and insults with bigotry and abuse. I gave you the perfect opportunity to LIST specific examples of the supposed horrendous things we’ve done that is in any way comparable to the pitters. You flunk. Even your ally, IVYCANNON sucks at it as well. That one had already proven their inability to back up statements with facts and links. As Nerd would say: your opinion is FLOOSH.
    (Oh and the comment made about killing someone, if it is who I think you’re referring to was very quickly retracted and apologized for. The commenter has not repeated anything similar since. I know of no case of the pitters doing the same. Hell, Justin Vacula can’t seem to easily denounce the horrible things his good slimy buddies say on the regular. Nor do any of them denounce his ties to a hate group).
    ****

    Not directed at the two idiots (oh noes, I called both of them a mean name. That is so abusive and bigoted), it is amusing to see that they accept that their ‘brand’ of feminism is wrong. After all, most of us seek full equality for women in social, political, and economic areas. Since they stand opposed to that, it let’s us know they are not allies.
    -
    Oh and echo chamber? Well I haven’t heard that silly ‘criticism’ in a while. It is clear that doofus doesn’t actually read any of the comments.

  154. says

    Giliell:
    I missed that part of Douchey McDouchebags comment. ‘Go to jail’ for calling Ron a misogynist??!! Wow. Even if that was said (which, as you mention, wasn’t) I didn’t know being called a misogynist was so bad. Clearly it is worse than if one displays misogynistic behavior. I wonder if andywatson thinks that LGBTQI supporters are bigoted for calling NOM or Focus on the Family bigoted, hate-filled orgs…

  155. Tethys says

    Can you provide us links, instead of assertions that they are here? I’d really love to see that death threat one in particular.

    Seconded.

  156. says

    Free inquiry. Free expression. Not only are these indispensable in our quest for the truth but they’re necessary conditions 4 human dignity

    1)no one is depriving anyone of their free speech; their blogs are not being shut down, and no one is preventing or banning anyone from organizing their own conferences to talk about secular/atheist/skeptical issues from their own perspective.
    2)On the other hand, insisting that a certain demographic should have the right to speak in ALL venues, and the denial of that is silencing and deprivation of Free Speech, is to take away the right to speak from those who rarely are provided the opportunity to do so.
    3)If free inquiry and free expression are indispensable and necessary conditions for human dignity, folks like Lindsay should be far more concerned with people who are actually being silenced, such as the many women and other minorities who have been harassed into silence and who are not given the space to speak because a certain demographic just won’t shut up long enough to let them get a word in edgewise

    - – - – - – - – - – -

    …and even after he dies, we’ll still have the equally insufferable Sam Harris to put up with…

    now, let’s be fair. Harris is far more insufferable than Dawkins. I’ve yet to see Dawkins suggest that profiling of “Muslim-looking” people at airports is a good idea; nor have I seen him suggest that maybe it could someday somehow become ethically defensible to nuke the Middle East preemptively.

    As problematic as it was to begin with, the Open Letter to the Secular Community (which Lindsay signed on behalf of CFI) is particularly ironic now. [...] So, how many phone calls did Lindsay make before his speech at WiS?

    nevermind the phone; Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers, the two people Lindsay had the biggest issue with apparently, were right there at the conference with him. He could have talked it over with them over lunch and a beer if he had wanted to.

    Re:Dawkins I don’t get it. What’s wrong with sociologists?

    They disagree with him and dare think they know more about society than he does. Stoopid elitist “experts”.

    I’ve got a line in there where I say that science isn’t enough…and specifically bring up sociology as a fundamental discipline we need to solve the world’s problems.

    O.o
    PZ, sociology is a science. WTF?

    I think what he (Dawkins) is talking about is something on which reasonable people can disagree, as long as they aren’t hurling slurs at the people they disagree with.

    you think “reasonable people can disagree” about whether identifying white dudes as such in the context of being privileged is racist and sexist?
    What definition of “reasonable” are you using?!

    IMO, it’s only in the context of the current Situation that Dawkins’ tweets come across as obnoxious. If it were 2009, it might lead to some amiable discussion and nothing more.

    That’s because in 2009 the only people he’d be talking to about this would be people who agreed with him, since the rest of us was still being effectively told to stfu. It wasn’t reasonable to call identifying someone’s position in the matrix of oppression “racism” and “sexism” in 2009 either. Nor was showing hatred for an entire legitimate social science.
    - – - – - – - -

    I have seen equal barrages of incessant hatred right here, to anyone that dares to disagrees with the dogma of this site.

    no you haven’t actually. It’s impossible for that to be true, given that no one here has been using bigoted slurs, photoshopping the heads of “the other side” into porn, publishing the home addresses, or sending death and rape threats to those we disagree with.

    First, those who dare to disagree are abusively called “misogynist”

    and ths you cmpare to rape and death threats as well as bigoted slurs? See, this is what I meant when I said you haven’t actually seen “both sides” be equally bad. You need to make up false equivalences like this one to make it happen.
    Also, you’re going to have to show some evidence for ppl being called misogynist without saying anything misogynist. Given the extreme rumor-mill on this topic, i will not simply take your word at face value (also, how does someone “abuse” someone by calling them a misogynist? How is this “Abuse” happening?)

    Well you’ve vilified huge numbers of well resprected people in the atheists community for very little and say much worse things about them then even anonymous trolls say about you.

    I’m sure you have evidence for “us” saying things that are worse than rape and death threats and bigoted slurs.
    I’m sure you have evidence for “us” vilifying people for “very little”.
    I’m sure you’re going to link to that evidence soon, aren’t you?

    hasn’t furthered anyone’s rights

    assertion contrary to evidence; dismissed.

    It seems to be comprised of privileged people who live life on the internet and have the time and money to go to conventions to talk about how oppressed and righteous they are.

    1)adorable how you can assert class-privilege by simply ignoring the scholarships etc. I was there. I have never had an income above the poverty line. Don’t fucking tell me I have class privilege in this country, you ignorant dunce.
    2)You’re one of those luddites who still hasn’t figured out that the internet is a real place with real people and real social structures, aren’t you.

    which is not private, it’s a public forum

    lol. you’re confused.

    Also recently, a person called EllenBeth Wachs stated that what Adria Richards did in publicly shaming people on twitter was unconscionable in a conference setting. Everything that she said about Adria Richards was true, correct, rational and ethical. The abuse hurled at EllenBeth Wachs for daring to say that a woman could have been in the wrong was beyond belief.

    this bears little semblance to what actually happened. What EBW said was neither correct, true, rational, nor ethical; the response to her was harsh (and the person who was harshest on her apologized), but not “abusive”. And it was not for “daring to say that a woman could have been in the wrong”. What an absurd thing to say while commenting on an instance where multiple women were disagreeing with each other; what a patently false thing to say, given that the core of the disagreement was about EBW’s agreement with a man (a MRA named Michael Best), not her disagreement with Richards.

    Ok then. IOW, you don’t actually have evidence, you only have distorted narratives. Firgures.

    So, although Ron Lindsey has never said anything misogynistic in the last few weeks, he is still tarred as a ‘misogynist’

    quote or it didn’t happen.You really have some serious problems with living in reality, do you.

    A few weeks ago, one of the people/followers here made a death threat (he/she stated that they wanted to kill another poster, but the poster had said absolutely nothing that was misogynist in any way).

    link or it didn’t happen. The closest to this I’ve seen was a commenter saying something along the lines of “you’re like the bullies who bullied me in high-school and who I used to phantasize about killing”. Which is a nasty thing to say, but not a threat against anyone; phantasies from high-school are less a threat than when my google-search-stalker tells me i need to be raped and murdered.

  157. says

    So, although Ron Lindsey has never said anything misogynistic in the last few weeks, he is still tarred as a ‘misogynist’ by dogma-followers in this thread (the people that have called him that should go to prison if I had my way. I despise bigots, and the people calling a person misogynist who denigrate others in that way are certainly bigots).

    Well, aren’t you an authoritarian little shit. So much for “free speech”.

    Because you see, throwing people in jail for saying things you don’t like, that is actual violation of free speech.

    “Make my enemies ridiculous” etc.

  158. ChasCPeterson says

    PZ, sociology is a science. WTF?

    Totally. A social science, like economics.

  159. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    ChasCPeterson,

    What’s your point? If it’s a social science, then it’s a science, while PZ appeared to be contrasting “science” and “sociology”. I’d say there are people who pursue both sociology and economics in unscientific ways – but that’s also true of biology and physics.

  160. andywatson says

    I can show everything I’ve said, but conversation starts with honest, and if lies are already being hurled at me, that’s just a good exmaple of the dogma of this site:
    @169 “Ogvorbis” said: “These are the some of the comments left by those on your side — the side that thinks that gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights.”

    And that’s it right there: I have no side (I respect people that are ethical and honest, and I don’t respect people that are amoral liars such as Ogvorbis). So Ogvorbis is a deceitful liar but to further compound the deceit, Ogvorbis creates lies about what this so-called “side” believes. So, this is dogma, if people don’t agree with the dogma, then create a massively dishonest characterisation. Christians (and all dogma-obsessed groups) do this almost without thinking.

    It’s good to bypass liars like Ogvorbis of course, but it does relate to the point of the OP: has Ron Lindsey *ever* said anything that is “misogynistic”? If he has, state it, *quote* it, clearly. If he has not, simply say “Ron Lindsey has said nothing to indicate that he is a misogynist”. Saying “I *believe* what he said is misogynistic” without evidence, is dogmatic, non-rational, unethical, and utterly deceitful as it’s really no different than saying a person is a racist becuase of a feeling you got while shaking his hand. Every person on here knows that Ron Lindsey is not a misogynist, and of course every person that called him that is a bigot. Dogma is generally closely associated with bigotry.

  161. consciousness razor says

    andywatson, it’s hilarious that you seem to think we ought to take your presuppositional rants seriously.

  162. Ichthyic says

    I can show everything I’ve said

    no, you can’t.

    otherwise you would have started off with it.

    you’re bloody delusional.

  163. says

    andywatson:

    I can show everything I’ve said

    Except for that little problem that you don’t actually show it.

    (I respect people that are ethical and honest, and I don’t respect people that are amoral liars such as Ogvorbis). So Ogvorbis is a deceitful liar but to further compound the deceit, Ogvorbis creates lies about what this so-called “side” believes.

    Well, we can rule out you being ethical and honest, now can’t we? Ogvorbis is not amoral, nor is he a liar. He’s not in the slightest bit deceitful, either. The Slymepit and sites like AVfM are most definitely a side, and frothily opposed to anyone who stands up against everyday systemic sexism as well as having the misogyny required to keep up two years of solid harassment, rape threats and death threats.

    You’re a bit of an idiot, Cupcake.

  164. andywatson says

    Seriously? Is that it? Avoid the 2 points (Ogvorbis’ blatant lies and ridiculous attacks, and the point about Ron Lindsey) and instead make attacks, call people “delusional” bla bla?

    So, no rational thought on here, and no people with strength to talk honestly? Christians and other dogmas that can’t *answer* questions often call people “delusional” when they have no answer. It’s a classic avoidance tactic…

  165. consciousness razor says

    Christians and other dogmas that can’t *answer* questions often call people “delusional” when they have no answer. It’s a classic avoidance tactic…

    Where is your evidence to support any of the claims you’ve made? (A link, a quote, anything at all.) Can answer that question?

    Of course you’re not avoiding a simple question like that. Heavens, no. So what’s the issue, here? Is it that you have better things to do with your time? Is there no possibility that you are wrong? How exactly are we supposed to come to a similar conclusion as you have?

  166. andywatson says

    > “Well, we can rule out you being ethical and honest, now can’t we?”

    Certainly you cannot find any ethical flaw or dishonesty in what I’ve said, so, the rule in dogma is to always attack the person, instead of address the points.

    > “you’ve a bit of an idiot, Cupcake”

    And another tedious personal attacks. When the question cannot be answered, attack the person. As they say, fools attack the person, wise people addresses the issues. Interesting that you simply refuse to answer the question. This tactic is also used by to defend dogma by most religious people.

  167. says

    What, exactly, did Ogvorbis write that you consider to be “blatant lies and ridiculous attacks”? Specifics are needed or you’re just hand-waving to poison the well.

  168. says

    I can show everything I’ve said

    then do. we’re waiting.

    Saying “I *believe* what he said is misogynistic” without evidence

    quote or it didn’t happen.

    Every person on here knows that Ron Lindsey is not a misogynist, and of course every person that called him that is a bigot.

    who are these persons? quote them.
    Also, show how calling someone “misogynist” qualifies someone as a bigot. make your argument, don’t just assert this.

    Also: accusations of dogmatism from someone who wants to throw people in prison for the exercise of free speech are…. deliciously, cracktastically hypocritical.

    the point about Ron Lindsey

    what point? asserting contrary to fact that he’s being called a misogynist? wanting to imprison people for supposedly saying this? what?

  169. says

    What, exactly, did Ogvorbis write that you consider to be “blatant lies and ridiculous attacks”

    well, he denied the obvious and self-evident truth that andy has no side in this fight and that he is a completely objective observer; of course. that is totes an attack and a lie and stuff.

  170. John Morales says

    andywatson, you allege* much, but you evidently have nothing to sustain your claims.

    * It’s futile to allege you can sustain your allegations when everyone can see you can’t.

  171. says

    Certainly you cannot find any ethical flaw or dishonesty in what I’ve said

    vs.

    he is still tarred as a ‘misogynist’ by dogma-followers in this thread

  172. andywatson says

    “Ogvorbis” said: “These are the some of the comments left by those on your side — the side that thinks that gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights.”

    The lie is in the above quote chigau (as explained above), and the links are not related to the lie.
    This is good isn’t it: the lie is clear, you can see the lie (in the above quote), but dogma demands that you pretend that there is no lie (just as a Christian refuses to acknowledge hate-crimes performed by god in the Bible).

  173. says

    the rule in dogma is to always attack the person, instead of address the points.

    sez the guy with no points, but fuckloads of accusations of dogmatism and bigotry

  174. Tethys says

    andywatson

    Interesting that you simply refuse to answer the question

    I have some questions, which I’m sure andy will be happy to answer since he is so obviously more ethical than thou..

    1. Where are the death threats you referred to earlier?

    2. Can you provide any evidence that contradicts ogvorbis’s links?

    Refusal to answer these questions will confirm that andy lacks integrity and honesty.

  175. says

    andy dear, saying that you’re on the side of the pitters is not a lie. you’d have to show evidence that ogvorbis knows that for a fact you’re not before it can actually be a lie. just sayin’

    aside from that, all the evidence possible to glean from your comments here actually does confirm his conclusion that you’re indeed a supporter of the FTB-haters. so it’s an entirely reasonable conclusion from available evidence.

  176. says

    Interesting that you simply refuse to answer the question.

    what question? this one?

    has Ron Lindsey *ever* said anything that is “misogynistic”?

    I don’t know. Who said he did? where? quote them.

  177. andywatson says

    “It’s futile to allege you can sustain your allegations when everyone can see you can’t.”

    As the Christian said to the Atheist: “It’s futile to allege you can sustain your allegations that god is not real when everyone can see you can’t.”

    (ignored Jadehawk comment as it’s a logic fail).

    Has Ron Lindsey said anything that is misogynistic? If he didn’t (and I’ve seen nothing). To accuse any person of bigotry without evidence is a criminal offence in some countries.

  178. chigau (違う) says

    andywatson
    If you type
    <blockquote>paste quoted text here</blockquote>
    this will result.

    paste quoted text here

    It will make your comments easier to read.
    It will not help you make sense.
    But it may cause people to respond rather than just [hush]ing you.

  179. says

    (ignored Jadehawk comment as it’s a logic fail)

    you wish, honeycakes. in reality of course, you’re simply avoiding admitting the part where none of the assertions you’ve made on which you’ve based your frothy indignation are actually true. if they were, you could have linked or quoted a long time ago.
    and you’re also avoiding admitting that you’ve not made an argument showing that calling someone a misogynist per se is bigotry, and that in fact no such argument can be made.

    To accuse any person of bigotry without evidence is a criminal offence in some countries.

    1)more authoritarian anti-free speech bullshit. it’s also illegal in some countries to be an atheist, but that’s hardly a good thing.
    2)asserting that anyone called Lindsay a misogynist when it’s been repeatedly pointed out that this has not actually happened is pretty fucking close to lying, and it’s certainly bullshitting to assert things without regard for whether they’re true.

  180. omnicrom says

    andywatson there’s that old phrase about how if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck. You come in here and you sound like a slymie MRA and you act like a slymie MRA so you’re being treated as a slymie MRA. So far your only point is that someone associated you with slymie MRAs for acting exactly like a slymie MRA. Cupcake: You need to get a new point.

    Put up or shut up. If we have a dogma lay it out and explain what it is. If there actually was an instance where a death threat was not repudiated then bring it out. If we’re nasty horrible abusers at least as bad as the Misogynist wing then show when and where.

    The fact that you refuse (and are unable to) back up anything you say and then shriek loudly about how we aren’t answering your questions is a hoot. What a wonderful irony.

  181. says

    I have no side

    You certainly aren’t showing it very well, repeating just about every single one of the common anti-FTB talking points used by those associated with the Pit.

    So Ogvorbis is a deceitful liar but to further compound the deceit, Ogvorbis creates lies about what this so-called “side” believes.

    If you’d just been introduced to this divide in the last, say, week, and hadn’t seen enough to know that two sides exist, that’d be one thing. However, you seem to have followed this over six months at least (based on what you post). Google “slymepit”, go to the first result, and read for a few weeks. That’s what I did; if you still deny that a side exists, then you’re being willfully delusional.

    So, this is dogma, if people don’t agree with the dogma, then create a massively dishonest characterisation.

    Speaking of outright lies… So, when did deriving conclusions and group traits based on the actions of a particular group of people become “dogma”? Ogvorbis wasn’t just making it up out of whole cloth; the characterization is based on the words and actions of those who form the group. Basing a conclusion on evidence available is, in fact, the opposite of dogma.

    It’s good to bypass liars like Ogvorbis of course, but it does relate to the point of the OP: has Ron Lindsey *ever* said anything that is “misogynistic”? If he has, state it, *quote* it, clearly.

    Gladly. Observe:

    But it’s the second misapplication of the concept of privilege that troubles me most. I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” Shut up, because you’re a man and you cannot possibly know what it’s like to experience x, y, and z, and anything you say is bound to be mistaken in some way, but, of course, you’re too blinded by your privilege even to realize that.

    This approach doesn’t work. It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism. You pull your dogma off the shelf, take out the relevant category or classification, fit it snugly over the person you want to categorize, dismiss, and silence and … poof, you’re done. End of discussion. You’re a heretic spreading the lies of Satan, and anything you say is wrong. You’re a member of the bourgeoisie, defending your ownership of the means of production, and everything you say is just a lie to justify your power. You’re a man; you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of how to achieve equality for women.

    Lindsay is creating a strawman of feminists here. Absolutely nobody in the secular feminist movement was advocating for the outright “silencing” of men (recognizing that the transphobic wing of feminism that actually does hate men is not accepted by almost any secular feminist, and particularly opposed by groups like Skepchick). The entire point of the “shut up and listen” meme is that, when determining an opinion about a group, it may just be a good idea to actually listen to members of that group, instead of asserting that you can know a priori without needing to actually pay attention to those directly affected. It arguably could be used as an attempt to silence, but that hasn’t been the case thus far, and to claim it has is either mistaken or dishonest.

    Do I think Lindsay is actually a misogynist? I tend to think not (but his asinine comparison of Rebecca Watson to a KCNA “journalist” after she made a post that was a model of civil, constructive criticism does give me pause). But does that make the strawman he created any less misogynistic? Of course not.

  182. says

    “It’s futile to allege you can sustain your allegations when everyone can see you can’t.”

    As the Christian said to the Atheist: “It’s futile to allege you can sustain your allegations that god is not real when everyone can see you can’t.”

    LOL, yes, Christians often say that. And Atheists reply, “The burden of proof is on you, my friend, since you are the one making the claims.”

    You have made claims. The burden of proof is on you. Someone lied? Someone is a bigot? Someone called Ron Lindsay a misogynist? Please. Show it.

  183. John Morales says

    andywatson

    @163:

    There are many many examples of hate, bigotry and abuse in the last 6 months alone on this site.

    @182:

    Every person on here knows that Ron Lindsey is not a misogynist, and of course every person that called him that is a bigot.

    @201:

    Has Ron Lindsey said anything that is misogynistic? If he didn’t (and I’ve seen nothing). To accuse any person of bigotry without evidence is a criminal offence in some countries.

    It is true that there have been bullshit accusations made here, but then it is also true they’re always called out: for example, right here I see you making plenty of accusations of bigotry; what I don’t see is you presenting any evidence for your accusations.

    You have been unable to respond to the many challenges for that evidence, so the implication is clear.

    You have nothing but puff and bluster to sustain your pointless animosity.

  184. says

    semantic sidenote:

    But does that make the strawman he created any less misogynistic?

    sentences like this is why I’d seriously urge people to stop using words like “misogynist” in general; too much stuff in the meaning-cluster, and consequently it means too many different things to too many different people.

    I’m assuming in this instance it’s supposed to mean “biased against women” or “in effect contributing to the marginalization of women” (as opposed to for example “hating women” or “discriminating against women”, which are two other possible meanings)

    IOW, words with too much too varied connotation and with too many closely related meanings become useless for communication. Unfortunately. Might as well be precise about what we mean, instead of using the imprecise, vague word.

  185. andywatson says

    oh, he was “mansplaining” right. And men that “mansplain” are misogynists.
    And people here are going to stop giving any support to CFI if he is the head of the CFI.
    And people here have asked for him to be fired from his position.
    For what? Is he a misogynist? And if not, what is his crime? Being a speaker at a conference is a crime? Did he criticise women (is that ever ok)? Do women ever criticise men (is that ever ok?).
    So no, he’s not mansplaining, and he’s not a misogynist, any more than you are womansplaining or a misandrist (well, at least I very hope not).

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain. Remember, the OP mentioned the following as an example of unacceptable abuse ““Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named.”. Would you *disagree* that a vast amount of worse comments than this happen on this site constantly?

  186. consciousness razor says

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain.

    You can but you don’t. What the fuck is anyone supposed to do with the mere possibility that you could maintain it? Do you want a fucking cookie or something?

  187. Tethys says

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain

    You are a liar and a bore andywatson.

  188. andywatson says

    @tigtog, see above. I explained why Ogvorbis is a liar just up there.

  189. Amphiox says

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain. Remember, the OP mentioned the following as an example of unacceptable abuse ““Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named.”. Would you *disagree* that a vast amount of worse comments than this happen on this site constantly?

    In the context in which the various comments were actually made?

    Indeed I do disagree.

    Very little, if anything, on this site is anywhere near as bad as that statement.

    It isn’t the just the naughtiness of the words that used that matters, you know, but how, when, and in response to what, that they are being used.

  190. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    andywatson, there’s so much wrong in what you write that it’s difficult to know where to start. But this one certainly needs addressing:

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain. Remember, the OP mentioned the following as an example of unacceptable abuse ““Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named.”. Would you *disagree* that a vast amount of worse comments than this happen on this site constantly?

    This is what we call false equivalence. The two things you describe? No equal. Not even close to being equal. There’s a vast difference between isolated, angry back-and-forths between commenters here and a co-ordinated, months-long campaign of harassment against Ophelia Benson by a gang of thugs whose aim is to silence those seeking increased diversity in the atheist community and which the tweet to which PZ referred was only one of literally thousands.

    Context matters. So, try thinking about it some more.

  191. Amphiox says

    Every person on here knows that Ron Lindsey is not a misogynist, and of course every person that called him that is a bigot.

    Ah yes. The cargo cult bigotry accusation from someone who in so doing demonstrates beyond any doubt that he does not even comprehend in the slightest what the word really means.

    Classic.

  192. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain.

    Links or quotes, please.

  193. says

    oh, he was “mansplaining” right. And men that “mansplain” are misogynists.

    more assertions. are you going to show some evidence for either of these two claims having been made?

    And if not, what is his crime?

    “crime” as hyperbole from someone who’s seriously suggested throwing people in prison for using a word he doesn’t like is… gross.
    In any case, Lindsay behaved highly unprofessionally. That’s what he did wrong. As people have been repeatedly stating. Are you ever going to cite where people have been supposedly calling him a misogynist?

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain.

    then do so, don’t just assert that you can.

    Would you *disagree* that a vast amount of worse comments than this happen on this site constantly?

    original claim:

    I have seen equal barrages of incessant hatred right here, to anyone that dares to disagrees with the dogma of this site.

    diagnosis: either goalpostshifting, or some odd assumption that Vacula’s comment was what PZ referred to as “barrage of incessant hatred”, despite the fact that they’re actually in two separate points PZ was making.

    I explained why Ogvorbis is a liar just up there.

    incorrect. you asserted that he is.

  194. Ichthyic says

    As the Christian said to the Atheist: “It’s futile to allege you can sustain your allegations that god is not real when everyone can see you can’t.”

    It’s obvious Andy came here to try and fill the thread with logical fallacies and inane accusations, all from the comfort of his personal fainting couch.

    good luck with that, Andy.

  195. John Morales says

    andywatson:

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain. Remember, the OP mentioned the following as an example of unacceptable abuse ““Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named.”. Would you *disagree* that a vast amount of worse comments than this happen on this site constantly?

    Your original claim was I have seen equal barrages of incessant hatred right here, to anyone that dares to disagrees with the dogma of this site. where the reference is “barraged with incessant hatred for about two years now”. That example is but the merest drop of the veritable ocean of personal animus that has extended across not just Twitter, but other social media (eg. FaceBook) and sites on the Web and even email for those two years.

    Alluding to comments on Pharyngula similar to that as equivalent to such a campaign is disingenuous and unsustainable.

    I explained why Ogvorbis is a liar just up there.

    No, you quoted Ogvorbis and then repeated your claim that it was a lie.

    (Assertion is not explanation, and by your own standard that makes you a liar)

  196. omnicrom says

    Still not seeing any evidence of andywatson’s alleged “points”. Also not seeing how Ogvorbis is a liar. Could you go back and show us how Ogvorbis is a liar andywatson? Start with how Ogvorbis should automatically know that even though you sound exactly like one of the Anti-FTB Misogyny brigade you aren’t one of them. Also explain why you act and sound exactly like them if you take umbrage at the thought of being associated with them.

  197. andywatson says

    @tethys: you sound like a Christian (i.e. avoidance tactics by petty insults).

    The OP stated that the following was an unacceptable slur: ““Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named.”. However, the far far far worse slurs on this site every day are presumably ok.

    Anyone that shows any disagreement here is immediately slandered, or, as in Ogvorbis’ ridiculous lie above, say that the person belongs to a group that is bigoted in some way (Ogvorbis lied that I was part of a group that thinks that “gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights.”. Similar level of lies that have been hurled at Ron Lindsay. Communication doesn’t work when there liars like Ogvorbis peddle their lies. When people talk honestly. i.e. an honest question gets an honest answer. “boring”, “idiot”, “MRA”, “misogynist” etc, all that stuff here is exactly evidence that is a non-rational site full of non-thinkers. It’s just dogma.

    Just saw this from you from earlier; it’s either markedly stupid, or incredibly naive:
    “2. Can you provide any evidence that contradicts ogvorbis’s links?”
    At what point did I make a comment about Ogvorbis’ links? Above, I simply commented on the lies that Ogvorbis made, not the links.

  198. Ichthyic says

    And people here are going to stop giving any support to CFI if he is the head of the CFI

    some are, some aren’t. PZ includes himself in the latter, FWIW.

    And people here have asked for him to be fired from his position.

    some have.

    For what?

    Because not only is it unprofessional for the CEO of the organization that FUNDED a conference to come in and badmouth the very reason the participants of that conference were there, and extend a special welcome to specifically named disruptive and obnoxious influences (which you would know if you really cared, and weren’t just a fucking jackoff), it’s even MORE unprofessional to then deliberately choose to attack both speakers and participants, personally, using the official website OF that same organization.

    It’s quite reasonable to ask for the board of directors to review whether someone who acts so unprofessionally in an official capacity is still a worthwhile asset to the organization.

    if you knew anything about CFI, you might look back to what happened to Paul Kurtz, who was the person who STARTED CFI to begin with. yet, after review, it was decided his behavior was so unprofessional that he no longer could be considered an asset.

    go figure.

    now go bleat your ignorance somewhere else, moron.

  199. says

    here’s the relevant quote from the OP, by the way:

    Not taking sides — pretending to have a false objectivity that values all speech equally — is actually favoring the noise. It’s the pretense that a statement on twitter like “It is honorable, noble and good to change your mind if you are wrong” from Lauren Becker has equal weight with “Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named. It’s the refusal to recognize that some of the people who support the same causes as CFI have been barraged with incessant hatred for about two years now — and that that hatred has been aimed at women and the people who support women’s rights. It’s a willingness to let your organization be affiliated with websites dedicated to misogyny.

    note that PZ gives three separate examples of what “not taking sides” is:
    1)equating in value comments like Becker’s with comments like Vacula’s
    2)denying the barrage of incessant hatred aimed at women & supporters of women’s rights
    3)being willing to let your organization be associated with recognized hate groups.

    andy’s original claim was that the barrage in 2) is equally present here:

    I have seen equal barrages of incessant hatred right here, to anyone that dares to disagrees with the dogma of this site.

    now he’s shifted to the much weaker claim that some comments here are worse than the quote in 1)

    So like I said: either that’s goalpost shifting, or he can’t read and thinks “barrage of hatred” referrs to the quote.

  200. andywatson says

    @”John Morales” Ogvorbis stated that my group believed in various odious things. Whether I was or was not part of *any* group is not possible for Ogvorbis to know, hence Ogvorbis is a liar straight away. The lie that I was a member of this group was further compounded by the weak attempt to associate disgusting beliefs and hence attach them to me. It’s a pretty disgusting lie when you think about it. If this lie was said to you, would you say “Ogvorbis is right, I, John Morales, believe that gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights”, or might I suggest that you might say that person was lying about you ?

    hmm … but hey, Ogvorbis didn’t lie right … !!!

  201. says

    Boy, it sure is lucky for Andywatson that people are insulting him. Otherwise he’d have to work much harder to avoid answering the substantive replies he’s received so far.

  202. John Morales says

    andywatson:

    @tethys: you sound like a Christian (i.e. avoidance tactics by petty insults).

    This is perfection! ;)

    (Your unawareness is impressive)

    The OP stated that the following was an unacceptable slur: ““Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named.”. However, the far far far worse slurs on this site every day are presumably ok.

    Funny how you keep ignoring Jadehawk.

    Here is the response to that: “either goalpostshifting, or some odd assumption that Vacula’s comment was what PZ referred to as “barrage of incessant hatred”, despite the fact that they’re actually in two separate points PZ was making.”

    Anyone that shows any disagreement here is immediately slandered, or, as in Ogvorbis’ ridiculous lie above, say that the person belongs to a group that is bigoted in some way (Ogvorbis lied that I was part of a group that thinks that “gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights.”.

    Yeah, I know what you keep asserting; hell, your first comment included First, those who dare to disagree are abusively called “misogynist”.

    (How’s that prognostication doing, BTW?)

    Similar level of lies that have been hurled at Ron Lindsay. Communication doesn’t work when there liars like Ogvorbis peddle their lies. When people talk honestly. i.e. an honest question gets an honest answer. “boring”, “idiot”, “MRA”, “misogynist” etc, all that stuff here is exactly evidence that is a non-rational site full of non-thinkers. It’s just dogma.

    You burst into the thread with your baseless allegations and your false equivalence, and despite being challenged you bullishly persevere in robotically repeating them.

    (How’s that working for you?)

    Look, everyone can see you have your pants around your ankles.

    You have become a chew-toy.

  203. omnicrom says

    The OP stated that the following was an unacceptable slur: ““Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named.”. However, the far far far worse slurs on this site every day are presumably ok.

    No, the OP was using only a recent example of the hateful bile that gets spat day-to-day. Hateful bile that has been consistently spewing for years now. This has been explained to you and you have yet to respond to it.

    And no Ogvorbis did NOT lie. Ogvorbis made an educated guess about your loyalties. Ironically despite you wailing up and down about how Ogvorbis is an evil nasty liar for calling you a part of the anti-FTB brigade you act and sound exactly like someone from the anti-FTB brigade. If you want to prove Ogvorbis a liar you are going to need to show that Ogvorbis knew in advance that calling you part of the MRA Brigade would be dishonest. The more you sputter on and on about Ogvorbis the more it looks like a blatant diversionary tactic. You have yet to provide that death threat you mentioned up upthread, you have yet to prove that FTB is equivalent to the Slymepit, and you have yet to answer in any meaningful way the criticism of Ron Lindsay or show where he was called a misogynist.

    What similar levels of lies have been spat at Ron Lindsay? I mean for starters you mockingly dismissed HIS dismissal of misogyny. Lindsay DID dismiss the misogyny by claiming that it’s not a problem because it’s merely “free speech” and refusing to condemn it.

    And what do you mean by “dogma”? You have yet to identify the dogma of Freethought Blogs. What is our Dogma? Dogma implies dogmatic beliefs? What are they? Can you provide ANYTHING but intentionally misunderstanding people to support your case? And are you going to repudiate what you said about wanting to throw people you call liars in prison?

  204. andywatson says

    No contradiction Jadehawk. Just to be clear, people get abuse on the internet right? That’s bad. What has that got to do with Ron Lindsay?

    Take the Atheist example: Atheists can be good or bad, that depends on the person.
    But the Christian will say “No!! Look at Stalin! He was an Atheist and he killed millions!”

    So you are trying to associate Ron Lindsay (and every other person that you disagree with) with bad people on the internet that he has nothing to do with. How is that different from the “Atheism is evil because Stalin was evil” fallacy?

  205. Ichthyic says

    dude, just shut up. you’d do yourself a favor.

    your imagination is working overtime, but spitting out stuff a five year old would not even find amusing.

  206. says

    @”John Morales” Ogvorbis stated that my group believed in various odious things. Whether I was or was not part of *any* group is not possible for Ogvorbis to know, hence Ogvorbis is a liar straight away. The lie that I was a member of this group was further compounded by the weak attempt to associate disgusting beliefs and hence attach them to me. It’s a pretty disgusting lie when you think about it. If this lie was said to you, would you say “Ogvorbis is right, I, John Morales, believe that gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights”, or might I suggest that you might say that person was lying about you ?

    hmm … but hey, Ogvorbis didn’t lie right … !!!

    If Ogvorbis’ (allegedly) mistaken assumption that you were a Slymepitter, or sympathetic to Slymepitters, based on how some things that you wrote sounded like things Slymepitters often say, qualifies as a lie, then your evident assumption that Ogvorbis had positive knowledge that you do not sympathize with Slymepitters and their ideological positions and consciously decided to lie about you anyway also qualifies as a lie.

  207. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    andywatson wrote:

    @tethys: you sound like a Christian (i.e. avoidance tactics by petty insults).

    Please cite a definition of Christianity that advocates ‘avoidance tactics by petty insults’. Are you claiming all Christians do that?

    Anyone that shows any disagreement here is immediately slandered

    Do you know what slander actually is?

    Similar level of lies that have been hurled at Ron Lindsay.

    Citation needed. Do you know what the word ‘lie’ means?

    Communication doesn’t work when there liars like Ogvorbis peddle their lies.

    Where did Ogvorbis ‘peddle lies’? Link, please.

    “boring”, “idiot”, “MRA”, “misogynist” etc, all that stuff here is exactly evidence that is a non-rational site full of non-thinkers. It’s just dogma.

    So, every time someone uses a word you don’t like, that’s dogma? Hmmm…

    Are you sure you know what the word ‘dogma’ means?

  208. says

    Anyone that shows any disagreement here is immediately slandered

    Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person’s reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don’t contain statements of fact don’t constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.

    ok andy: now show where and how people have made claims with “statements of fact” about Lindsay that are false and likely to cost him his job.
    And I’m even going to let it slide that you cannot slander someone in writing; that’s libel.

    Ogvorbis lied that I was part of a group that thinks that “gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights.”

    you keep on asserting this, but you still haven’t shown how the conclusion based on evidence (i.e. your parroting of claims made by that group) is a lie. FYI, it can only be a lie of Ogvorbis knew otherwise. As it is it’s merely a conclusion, regardless of whether it’s a correct one.

    Similar level of lies that have been hurled at Ron Lindsay.

    stop asserting, start providing evidence.

    Communication doesn’t work when there liars like Ogvorbis peddle their lies.

    communication broke down much earlier, given that you’re just endlessly repeating claims you’ve still not shown any evidence for. Asserting shit over and over is not communicating, it’s bullshitting.

  209. omnicrom says

    andywatson you are doing a good show of being incredibly dense. I’m glad that you’ve managed to reduce every post about Lindsay down to a 3-second soundbite to egg on your pointless outrage. Come back with evidence of Ogvorbis’ psychic powers, our dogma, or that death threat.

  210. says

    How is that different from the “Atheism is evil because Stalin was evil” fallacy?

    Excellent question. I urge you to reflect on it. I’m sure even you can come up with a few examples of how “Ron Lindsay acted unprofessionally and reinforced misogynist norms in the process, and this might be grounds for him losing his job (depending on who you talk to about it)” is slightly different from “Atheism is evil because Stalin was evil”.

  211. Ogvorbis, aquaskeptic groupie! says

    And that’s it right there: I have no side (I respect people that are ethical and honest, and I don’t respect people that are amoral liars such as Ogvorbis)

    By your writings here, I assumed that you were placing yourself on the side of Vacula and his anti-human rights gang. If you are not on the side that is trying to expand human rights, then, to me, you are on the side of those who seek to deny full human rights to all humans. The Slymepit and A Voice for Men actively seek to deny women a voice in the atheist community and have driven women out of blogging by their relentless and misogynistic attacks.

    So Ogvorbis is a deceitful liar but to further compound the deceit, Ogvorbis creates lies about what this so-called “side” believes.

    Read the link. These are statements by anti-human rights atheists. Vacula and his ilk have neither denied nor denounced these statements.

    It’s good to bypass liars like Ogvorbis of course

    You still have presented no evidence that I am either amoral or a liar.

    Avoid the 2 points (Ogvorbis’ blatant lies and ridiculous attacks, and the point about Ron Lindsey) and instead make attacks, call people “delusional” bla bla?

    Again, you have presented no evidence that I am a liar, that I am amoral, or that I have ever written anything about Ron Lindsey. If you claim to have no side in the fight for equal rights, you are on a side — the side of reaction, not the side of equal rights.

    he lie is in the above quote chigau (as explained above), and the links are not related to the lie.
    This is good isn’t it: the lie is clear, you can see the lie (in the above quote), but dogma demands that you pretend that there is no lie

    Again, where is you evidence that the quotes in Michael Nugent’s blog are lies? Where is your evidence that these quotes do not seek to silence women and deny them full equal rights? Again, Andywatson, if you claim to have no side in the fight for equality, then you are on the anti-human rights side.

    To accuse any person of bigotry without evidence is a criminal offence in some countries.

    Who called you a bigot? I merely stated that, based on your writings on this post, you seem to be supporting the people who wrote the quotes that I linked to on Michael Nugent’s blog.

    So Ogvorbis is a deceitful liar but to further compound the deceit, Ogvorbis creates lies about what this so-called “side” believes.

    Just caught that one. I did not create those quotes. I did not publish those quotes. Those quotes are on Michael Nugent’s blog. So now you are lying — if you had visited the blog and read the quotes, you would know that Ogvorbis and Michael Nugent are not the same person (based just on writing style, not to mention on-line name).

    oh, he was “mansplaining” right. And men that “mansplain” are misogynists.

    Bullshit.

    I have, on many occasions, said sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, or bigoted things (or written them). That does no mean that I am a sexist, or a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophobe, or a bigot. It means that I am a human being who was raised in an environment, a social construct, that is sexist, racist, homophobic and bigoted. It means that, far more often than I can tolerate, my privilege and socialization peek through. Saying something that is misogynist does not, automatically, make one a misogynist. It makes one human. So no, mansplaining does not make one a misogynist. It shows that the cultural misogynism is still there and that we all should try to be more aware of our privilege and acculturation showing up.

    I explained why Ogvorbis is a liar just up there.

    You still have not shown that I am lying. If you claim to have no side in the fight for human rights, you are on the side of the status quo. Just as Vacula, the Slymepit and AVfM are.

  212. Tethys says

    andy

    Less lying and assertions, more links to evidence please. A smidgen more reading for comprehension, and some actual logic would be helpful too. Your christian comparison doesn’t even make any sense, nevermind that its completely hypocritical.

  213. Amphiox says

    Whether I was or was not part of *any* group is not possible for Ogvorbis to know,

    Ogvorbis made OBSERVATIONS of your behavior, based on the posts you yourself willfully made. Xe derived a HYPOTHESIS regarding your group affiliations based on those observations. Xe TESTED that hypothesis against further EVIDENCE that you provided with your subsequent posts, and concluded that your behavior remains consistent with that hypothesis being true.

    Obvorbis then PUBLISHED those conclusions, by posting to this forum, where it received informal PEER REVIEW, from all the rest of us who have also observed the EVIDENCE of your behavior. And so far, these conclusions are passing peer review with flying colors.

    Don’t think the scientific method is restricted only to labs and formal research projects.

    hence Ogvorbis is a liar straight away.

    You either do not understand what the word “liar” means, or you are deliberately lying about it.

    I hypothesize the latter.

  214. andywatson says

    @omnicrom: “No, the OP was using only a recent example of the hateful bile that gets spat day-to-day. Hateful bile that has been consistently spewing for years now. This has been explained to you and you have yet to respond to it.”

    So, the OP used an example of “hateful bile” yes? Ok, so if that is hateful bile, then what do you call the far far far worse bile on this site? “Insanely hateful bile”? “Disgustingly shameful bile”?

    Again, it’s part of the dogma on this site, and it’s always the same: bad things are said and done on the internet, and for example Rebecca Watson gets abuse on the internet, so immediately, anyone that disagrees with Rebecca Watson is accused of being associated *somehow* with the people that send death threats. That’s messed up and shameful. So the OP is talking about Ron Lindsay, and immediately it goes on about hateful comments on the internet. Ron Lindsay didn’t make any, so why is he being associated with such things? But this always happens on here. Ron Lindsay has as much to do with death threats and rape threats as you do. i.e. nothing. There is no connection between Ron Lindsay and death/rape threats and it is bilious and disgusting to invent such a connection.

  215. says

    No contradiction Jadehawk.

    what exactly is that supposed to be in response to? I’ve not accused you of contradicting yourself in any of my recent posts.

    Just to be clear, people get abuse on the internet right? That’s bad. What has that got to do with Ron Lindsay?

    can’t you read? it says right there in PZ’s OP: not taking sides, as Lindsay is trying to do, requires ignoring the lopsidedness of the problems at hand; of which PZ listed 3 examples.

    So you are trying to associate Ron Lindsay (and every other person that you disagree with) with bad people on the internet

    actually no, they’ve associated themselves, by posting on Lindsay’s blog unhindered, and by Lindsay welcoming the quoted “unnamed troll” to WiS (while refusing to welcome the speakers or attendees), who is also a writer for the hate group mentioned.

    How is that different from the “Atheism is evil because Stalin was evil” fallacy?

    you mean aside from the fact that the argument being made doesn’t resemble it in form nor content?
    No one is saying “Lindsay is evil because Vacula is evil”; PZ said that pretending to be impartial in the way Lindsay attempts in fact ends up as partiality towards the status quo; they’re completely different arguments, dude.

  216. John Morales says

    andywatson:

    Ogvorbis stated that my group believed in various odious things.

    Liar.

    You even quoted him: “those on your side” is not ‘your group’.

    Whether I was or was not part of *any* group is not possible for Ogvorbis to know, hence Ogvorbis is a liar straight away.

    So you deny being anti-FTB?

    Go on, I dare you to! :)

    If this lie was said to you, would you say “Ogvorbis is right, I, John Morales, believe that gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights”, or might I suggest that you might say that person was lying about you ?

    There is no reason why I should have such an inference made about me; I am not one to make the sort of baseless allegations and false equivalences that would lead to it, nor then evade the challenges to those allegations even were it so.

    (And even if it happened, I would then say that it was not so, and seek to sustain my plea with evidence. I would (as I do) save any accusations of lying for when they are justified.)

    hmm … but hey, Ogvorbis didn’t lie right … !!!

    Right.

    Rather, he read you like a book.

    Again: Do you deny being anti-FTB?

    (That being the side to which you deny belonging when you accuse Ogvorbis of being a liar)

  217. says

    andywatson:

    @tethys: you sound like a Christian (i.e. avoidance tactics by petty insults).

    Why do you keep using “you sound like a Christian” as an attempted insult? Don’t you realize how silly that happens to be?

    Oh, by the way, since you can’t seem to function apart from exaggeration, I noted that you were a bit of an idiot, an opinion which you are compulsively confirming with every post.

  218. says

    Ok, so if that is hateful bile, then what do you call the far far far worse bile on this site?

    are you ever going to show us an example of this supposed “far far far worse bile”?

    anyone that disagrees with Rebecca Watson is accused of being associated *somehow* with the people that send death threats.

    evidence for this?

    So the OP is talking about Ron Lindsay, and immediately it goes on about hateful comments on the internet. Ron Lindsay didn’t make any, so why is he being associated with such things?

    because he personally greeted a person known for making such, and for writing for a hate group, to WisCFI while refusing to welcome attendees and speakers in general; because those people are currently running rampant on his blog, and he’s not bothered criticizing them in any way, nevermind in the way he bothered to criticize RW. Seriously, Lindsay has managed to associate himself with these folks, voluntarily and in person. This is not a random connection PZ is making.

    There is no connection between Ron Lindsay and death/rape threats and it is bilious and disgusting to invent such a connection.

    you seriously can’t read. PZ made the connection very clear: that to make the “no sides”, “freedom of speech” position Lindsay has taken requires ignoring the harassment that has been made under that banner of the “free speech”, and consequently biases the “no sides” stance into a “defend the harassers right to harass” stance, in effect if not intent.

  219. John Morales says

    Because it’s amusing:

    This is absolutely inescapable. First, those who dare to disagree are abusively called “misogynist” (when they have said nothing misogynist at all, and this applies to Ron Lindsey also, as he has not said anything misogynist, but has been tarred and feathered as one here multiple times), and then they are barraged with abuse, told to “fuck off scumbag, you are not wanted her” (comments like that are frequent and normal on this site). The OP talks as if this site is a bastion of truth, decency, and honor, but that is a completely unsupportable position (cue abuse at me for daring to state this simple actual truth)

    You’ve now had nearly a hundred comments to make your case and the response you’ve gotten is here for anyone to see.

    (You’ve inadvertently disproven your own case via an existence proof :) )

  220. says

    PZ made the connection very clear: that to make the “no sides”, “freedom of speech” position Lindsay has taken requires ignoring the harassment that has been made under that banner of the “free speech”, and consequently biases the “no sides” stance into a “defend the harassers right to harass” stance, in effect if not intent.

    O.o well, that came out garbled. Take two:

    PZ has made the connection very clear: taking the “no sides”, “freedom of speech” position that Lindsay has taken requires one to ignore the years of harassment comitted under the banner of that “free speech” position, and consequently results in the “no sides” position actually being a position in defense of the right of harassers to harass, in effect if not in intent.

  221. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    Sadly, andywatson – like so many of his misogynist, ‘skeptic’ ilk – came unarmed to a battle of wits.

  222. rowanvt says

    Apparently… in Andy’s world it is impossible for someone to have simply been mistaken. You are either correct, or a liar.

    Andy, here in the *real* world, a lie is intentional. Being mistaken is unintentional. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, but it might help you out.

  223. andywatson says

    @Amphiox / John: Ogvorbis *stated* that this is my side, the side that thinks that that gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights. That’s fairly bilious and disgusting. If that was said to you, you would be offended, but you keep.

    @John: “Rather, he read you like a book”
    right, so just to be clear, you are stating you believe that I think that that gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights?

    ok, in that case, if I stated that “Amphiox’s ‘side’ believes in raping women” then would I be a liar? According to you, that would be absolutely fine of me to say it. In fact, as you say maybe that would be reading him like a book? Amphiox, John reckons it’s perfectly ok for someone to *read* you across the internet, and accuse you of being associated with a group that believe that rape is ok. Are you ok with this? If I make a disgusting assertion about you like this, would that be ok with you? Or not ok?

    “can’t you read? it says right there in PZ’s OP: not taking sides, as Lindsay is trying to do, requires ignoring the lopsidedness of the problems at hand; of which PZ listed 3 examples.”

    (yep, petty insults, reflect on the person I guess). I can read, and I can also see how empty the point is. This is at it’s core a ridiculous point as it presumes that the “sides” are acting together in some way. So for example, any person here that disagreed with this site is immediately lumped with people that make death/rape threats or similar nonsense (I was immediately lumped with people that think that genered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women arent’y quite eligible for full human rights. Of course, I believe the opposite of all of those things, but that doesn’t matter, it’s all about the abuse here, not about the rational debate, so this site is not a place for rationality or ethics. Or should people be lumped with Amphiox’s side (see above)? No, of course not, because that would also be disgusting, firstly to imply that Amphiox is part of a group that believes in raping women, and secondly it’s like suggesting that if Amphiox shares some small view with the rapists (maybe Amphiox likes comics, and they do too, say) then he also is a rapist: that would be stupid. Ron Lindsay’s view is fine, and the abuse on the internet is not of Ron Lindsay’s doing, and he cannot stop it, even were he given a billion dollars to do so. And the situation is not lopsided, that is a ridiculous view: the situation is only lopsided if there are 2 sides, but there are not, it’s not 2 armies squaring off against each other. As we all know, there are a million sides, one for every person that posts something on here, the CFI site, SLymepit. Sometimes drunk people wanting a reaction so they post pathetic rape threats, sometimes people like that sleepingwytch who posted a comment above about killing men, sometimes people get angry and hurl insults at people just because they can. For the OP to make sense, there would have to be coordinated “sides” pushing against each other. That is patently ludicrous.

  224. Ogvorbis: Arkangel of Doom! says

    Andy:

    Did you actually follow the link I provided? If you did, you would have noticed:

    A: I did not write that blog entry. If you had followed the link to Michael Nugent‘s blog, you would have known that Michael Nugent =/= Ogvorbis.

    B: You keep writing about Ogvorbis’ links. Plural. I only tossed up one link. The same link. Twice. If you had followed both of the links, you would have known that both links went to the same place.

    So, again I ask: Did you link through and read Michail Nugent’s blog post?

  225. John Morales says

    andywatson, your rather desperate focus on sustaining your ludicrous assertion about Ogvorbis being a liar is transparently an attempt to justify your ridiculous fantasy that barrages of bile would be coming your way for your supposed dissent* no less than it is (still!) studiously shying from supporting your initial bombastic denunciation with evidence.

    (How’s it working for you?)

    * Said dissent being a series of accusations and failed predictions.

  226. andywatson says

    @Jadehawk “PZ has made the connection very clear: taking the “no sides”, “freedom of speech” position that Lindsay has taken requires one to ignore the years of harassment comitted under the banner of that “free speech” position, and consequently results in the “no sides” position actually being a position in defense of the right of harassers to harass, in effect if not in intent.”

    Taking no sides and freedom of speech is exactly the correct position to take exactly for the reason that I stated above. To do other than Ron Lindsay is doing is . Taking sides against the “abusers” is like taking sides against the “wind”. You can’t do anything about it, except total regulation and oversight of the internet. Do you want total regulation and oversight of the internet? Every comment logged and stored in a database, marked against your IRL person? Total scrutiny of an Orwellian state? That is the only way to achieve what the OP is saying. It is a nonsensical position. Ron Lindsay’s position is correct, because it recognises this truth. We can either have freedom and bad things will sometimes be said/done, or we can have total scrutiny such that people will be prosecuted for saying “That person is a fucking asshole!!” while drunk at a bar. This is part of the dogma of this site. i.e. The idea that this is a fight with 2 sides, and that, with just enough Harassment Policies and control the world will be a “Better Place”, and that people are either with the good guys (you lot), or with the death/rape threat people (the slymepitters !!!). This is such unbelievable horseshit. And you know it, but you can’t admit you were mistaken. Because like any dogma, you have pinned yourselves to it, so any dissent *must* be eliminated at all costs. So, you’ll do personal attacks, insults, anything but considering that maybe, just maybe, the OP could be talking complete shit. Ron Lindsay is taking the only view that is possible to take considering the “Real World Truth” that the internet is an amorphous mess full of drunk idiots spewing crap on it. Ignore stupid people, focus on things worth discussing, because that’s all you can do. Focusing on all your energy on all the random insults on the internet is like sniffing your own farts: it might smell ok to *you*, but to everyone else it stinks.

  227. says

    If that was said to you, you would be offended, but you keep.

    i don’t remember anyone denying you the right to be offended at what ogvorbis said; we’ve just been pointing out that for that to be a lie, ogvorbis would have to know that what he said is in fact not the case.

    right, so just to be clear, you are stating you believe that I think that that gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights?

    i believe the accusation was that you’re on the side of people who do, not that you do yourself.

    if I stated that “Amphiox’s ‘side’ believes in raping women” then would I be a liar?

    do you believe that? then you’re just wrong, or bullshitting. if you intentionally stated this despite knowing or being informed otherwise, then that would be a lie, yes. Do you at all understand what a lie is?

    According to you, that would be absolutely fine of me to say it.

    goalpost shifting: you claimed that ogvorbis lied, not that it shouldn’t be fine to say such things.

    (yep, petty insults, reflect on the person I guess)

    sez the guy who’s done nothing but insult. *rolleyes*
    aside from that, it’s a valid question. you keep on making assertions about what people have written which bear no semblance to what they’ve actually written. It raises the question whether you can read for comprehension at all.

    This is at it’s core a ridiculous point as it presumes that the “sides” are acting together in some way.

    they do; I’m guessing you mean that they coordinate their actions, which is a different statement and not actually presupposed by anyone; but the mere claim that their actions have synergistic effects, i.e. that they “act together” is boringly true.

    So for example, any person here that disagreed with this site is immediately lumped with people that make death/rape threats or similar nonsense

    if I were you, I’d avoid such absolute statements, since they can be refuted with a single example of that not happening. For example, I have disagreed with PZ and with “this site” on numerous occasions, and I didn’t get lumped as you claim. Therefore the caim that “any person” who disagrees here is thusly lumped is false.

    it’s like suggesting that if Amphiox shares some small view with the rapists (maybe Amphiox likes comics, and they do too, say) then he also is a rapist

    it is? show evidence for how that is the case.

    Ron Lindsay’s view is fine, and the abuse on the internet is not of Ron Lindsay’s doing, and he cannot stop it, even were he given a billion dollars to do so.

    where is anyone claiming that it’s his doing?
    And incidentally, of course he can stop it when it happens on his own blog. D’uh. even without a single dollar.

    And the situation is not lopsided, that is a ridiculous view

    so you don’t think that one group of people in this argument has been receiving rape and death threats, while another has not?

    the situation is only lopsided if there are 2 sides, but there are not

    that’s not how being lopsided works. you can have more than two sides, and things still could be lopsided.

    As we all know, there are a million sides, one for every person that posts something on here

    and when people agree on a point, they’re on the same side of that issue; d’uh. do i really need to explain such basic things to you?

    Sometimes drunk people wanting a reaction so they post pathetic rape threats

    evidence for people issuing rape threats being drunk, please. Without such evidence, this is nothing more than minimizing a problem.

    For the OP to make sense, there would have to be coordinated “sides” pushing against each other.

    incorrect. no active, knowing coordination is required. the emergent effect is fully sufficient here.
    nonetheless, denying that there are two different camps with two distinct and identifiable ideas of where the future of the skeptics movement lies is just boring-ass reality denial; it’s libertarian-ish denial of the existence of social facts

  228. says

    Taking no sides and freedom of speech is exactly the correct position to take exactly for the reason that I stated above.

    vs.

    the people that have called him that should go to prison if I had my way.

  229. says

    (I was immediately lumped with people that think that genered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women arent’y quite eligible for full human rights. Of course, I believe the opposite of all of those things, but that doesn’t matter, it’s all about the abuse here, not about the rational debate, so this site is not a place for rationality or ethics.

    You know what would be more convincing that all your outraged flailing? An explanation of why you think that gendered insults are not fine, why you think misogyny is not a natural part of being human, and why you think that women aren’t deserving of full human rights.

    Pattern recognition: you sounded a lot like many, many other people who hold those beliefs you claim to oppose.

    So why haven’t you gone to the substance? Why haven’t you gone ahead and just explained what your views really are, rather than whingeing on about how unjust it was that you were lumped?

    So, if Ogvorbis made a mistake, then please go ahead and talk about your views vis-a-vis anti-harassment policies, abortion, sexual assault, equal pay, equal representation in the media and elsewhere, and whatever else you can think about.

  230. John Morales says

    andywatson:

    Taking no sides and freedom of speech is exactly the correct position to take exactly for the reason that I stated above.

    So, for the third time: Do you deny being anti-FTB?

    It amuses me it that you earlier fulminated against those who allegedly here wrote bigoted comments about the subject of the post by using “To accuse any person of bigotry without evidence is a criminal offence in some countries” and now appeal to freedom of speech.

    (I’m guessing you’re one of those who imagines their freedom of speech is violated if they are banned from commenting on someone’s blog — after all, the anti-FTB side hold that opinion)

  231. andywatson says

    It’s working well John (try and answer my points instead of these things. I saw you use this same tactic in a couple other posts, the “how is this working out for you?” thing. Quite a tired old tactic).

  232. andywatson says

    I deny being anti-FTB. I am not anti-here and I am not anti-there. I’m not a sheep.

  233. andywatson says

    ““To accuse any person of bigotry without evidence is a criminal offence in some countries” and now appeal to freedom of speech.”

    But I’ve not appealed to freedom of speech John. I’ve not done that at all. Can you read? I pointed out some cold hard realities of the world, which has nothing to do with @FREEZE PEACH@. Can you read John?

  234. Tethys says

    Taking sides against the “abusers” is like taking sides against the “wind”. You can’t do anything about it, except total regulation and oversight of the internet. Do you want total regulation and oversight of the internet?

    What a load of complete crap. Abusive assholes on the internet are nothing like the wind. Wind is a force of nature, assholes can refrain from being assholes. It takes very little effort to make a public statement condemning the hateful abuse, and that is all that is really being asked for.

    Condemning the abuse does not require total regulation of the internet, though it is very weird that you decided to throw some authoritarian fantasy in with your false equivalencies and other incoherent rambling.

  235. andywatson says

    @SallyStrange: Shit Sally, that’s daft, so I’ll just not bother with all that “An explanation of why you think that gendered insults are not fine” for the same reason you would if someone asked you that. Go and read my above posts, they’re about the OP, and about how ludicrous the OP’s position is and how right Ron Lindsay’s position is (John was confused and thought my posts were about my desire for “FREEZE PEACH!!!”, so just to clarify, they’re not, they’re just about some hard realities of how the internet actually works. “FREEZE PEACH!!!” as I see it has fuck all to do with the internet. The internet is a mess, and so is nature. I climb a lot of mountains and I’d bloody hate it if a bunch of bureaucratic twits came and filed them all down, and mowed all the grass, and killed off all the weeds. Humans are part of nature, so they’re a bit messy too. Regulating the internet in a way that would achieve the OP’s goal would be totally fucked up. You’d fucking hate that.

  236. John Morales says

    andywatson:

    It’s working well John

    Well, if you think having every one of your checkable claims shown to be wrong and your bluster exposed is working well, then I can’t deny that. :)

    I deny being anti-FTB.

    So noted.

    But I’ve not appealed to freedom of speech John.

    You were responding to this: “Taking sides against the “abusers” is like taking sides against the “wind”. You can’t do anything about it, except total regulation and oversight of the internet.”

    I’ve not done that at all. Can you read?

    Not only can I read, I can understand that which I read; what I read is a claim that unless the internet is other than totally regulated, nothing can be done against internet abuse.

    Can you read John?

    Are you supposedly dissenting from some dogma (what dogma that may be you’ve been evading since you alleged it) or are you asking stupid questions?

    Clearly, you’ve yet to dissent since we all know what you claim is the result of dissent)

  237. andywatson says

    @tethys: you didn’t think it through tethys !!!
    “It takes very little effort to make a public statement condemning the hateful abuse, and that is all that is really being asked for.”
    right, really? so Ron Lindsay is not getting hundreds of requests to have him fired from CFI for daring to speak at the WiS conference??
    oh, and that’s right, the OP would have posted this even if Ron Lindsay had not “mansplained” to the conference right?
    It’s a nice idea tethys, but as you know he’s being called out *because* he dared to stand up to RW ove the WiS conference, and will continue to be until he’s fired, or some new target comes along to replace him.
    And a “public statement condemning the hateful abuse”? Right, so if he just did that, then the world will be a happy shiny better place. Are you saying that’s all this here post is about?? Seriously, what fantasy land did you just fall out of??

  238. Tethys says

    The internet is a mess, and so is nature.

    You do realize that the internet is man-made, right?

  239. says

    I’ll just not bother with all that “An explanation of why you think that gendered insults are not fine” for the same reason you would if someone asked you that.

    Oh, so you know for sure that I wouldn’t bother responding if someone asked my why I think gendered insults are not fine?

    You’re wrong.

    By the standards you’ve exhibited in this thread, that makes you a liar, just like you allege Ogvorbis is.

    For the record, gendered insults are not fine because they are often the last words a woman hears before she is raped or murdered by her intimate partner. They dehumanize women and non-gender-conforming men, thereby facilitating the epidemic levels of murder, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence currently afflicting our global culture. They encourage inaccurate gendered stereotypes that have been identified in empirical research to be significant obstacles to women achieving full economic equality.

    That’s off the top of my head. Took me 2 minutes to type it. Your turn.

    If you can’t I’ll take it as an admission that Ogvorbis was right. Since you have enough time to defend Ron Lindsay, surely you can spare a minute or two to defend women’s rights.

  240. andywatson says

    @John “Clearly, you’ve yet to dissent since we all know what you claim is the result of dissent” (plus some other stuff about being “exposed” or about how you’ve WON and I’ve LOST or somesuch really great, scathing, witty stuff). Yep, sure John, whatever you say man.

    Any chance you’d address the points I made though in the longer posts?
    So, seriously, what DO you want to happen on the internet? Do you *really* see the internet as a fight of Good vs Evil, with Ron Lindsay (and me!) on the side of ***Evil*** but you on the side of ***Good***. How do you think this works? Is there some clear way to stand up to people that make random rape threats from drunk dummies go away? Is the way to do that, by abusing anyone that points out how impossible that is? Is the answer to shout “FREEZE PEACH!!” at people? Is the answer to call everyone that disagrees a “fucking misogynist MRA scumbag”? Great answers John, I think you and PZ are going to make a difference in the world with the above system. Well, either that, or you are going to make everyone on the planet despise you. But you know, sometimes, when you are fighting ludicrous (I mean important) causes, people that just don’t get it are gonna hate on ya from time to time! Damn those people for seeing through the Emperor’s New Clothes and knowing that equating this thing to a war between 2 groups is total bullshit. You may as well buy a potato and wear it on your head all week if you want to end abuse on the internet (I mean, at least wearing a potato-hat might do something about all this bloody “FREEZE PEACH!!!” and “MRA scumbag fuckers fucks

    Seriously, what is the answer John to random people making death/rape threats John, I am literally all ears? (and I actually have big ears, so no ‘earist’ bigotry huh, stop hating on me and my ear’ish people)

  241. Tethys says

    so Ron Lindsay is not getting hundreds of requests to have him fired from CFI for daring to speak at the WiS conference??

    No, this is not an accurate statement. It is the content of his speech that was objectionable, as has been explained to you multiple times in multiple blogs.

    oh, and that’s right, the OP would have posted this even if Ron Lindsay had not “mansplained” to the conference right?

    This sentence is pretty garbled, but if Ron Lindsay had not made his condescending and egotistical speech, we wouldn’t be discussing how badly he fucked it up, now would we?

  242. omnicrom says

    Well it’s good to know that andywatson is a liar by their own standards. As they have repeatedly said when they attacked Ogvorbis you shouldn’t bother engaging with a liar because you shouldn’t have a conversation with someone who peddles lies. I guess I don’t need to bother responding to the pathetic false equivocacies and annoying pro-misogynistic positions that andywatson has brought up.

  243. John Morales says

    andywatson:

    @tethys: you didn’t think it through tethys !!!
    “It takes very little effort to make a public statement condemning the hateful abuse, and that is all that is really being asked for.”
    right, really? so Ron Lindsay is not getting hundreds of requests to have him fired from CFI for daring to speak at the WiS conference??

    Your false equivalence is pointless; however many (uncited but claimed to be in the hundreds) of requests to have him fired from CFI for daring to speak at the WiS conference there may be, they are not personal hateful abuse.

    You alleged that it’s no worse than comments here when you ventured here claiming that the OP’s contention [It’s the refusal to recognize that some of the people who support the same causes as CFI have been barraged with incessant hatred for about two years now] was wrong and tried to justify that on the basis of the vile nature of this place — where such things as you claimed inevitably happen didn’t actually happen.

    (Of course, even had your now-tired claim had any truth whatsoever, it would have remained a tu quoque)

  244. says

    Fantastic chew-toy action. I mean really. Prolific enough for everyone to get a bite, smart enough to actually make a BIT of sense but not so smart that anyone really has to exert themselves. All in all I say 9 out of 10. A touch more coherence would really go a long way.

  245. says

    as you know he’s being called out *because* he dared to stand up to RW ove the WiS conference

    You do realize that the “everything is Rebecca Watson’s fault” meme was supposed to be a joke, right?

  246. says

    andywatson:

    I deny being anti-FTB.

    Which is why you’ve spent all this time ranting about how vile and horrible Pharyngula happens to be, but you have no anti-FTB feeling. Gotcha.

    I am not anti-here and I am not anti-there. I’m not a sheep.

    So…you’re nothing, then. As for you not being a sheep, your repeated words belie that notion.

  247. says

    andywatson:

    You’re being an apologist (at the very least) for misogyny.

    You call internet thugs a “force of nature,” as if that means a goddamn thing. If they are, then the people who organize to oppose them are as well. And you’ve very clearly displayed which side you’re on by demonstrating which “force of nature” you’ve chosen to tell to shut up.

    Give up now. You will not win here.

  248. John Morales says

    andywatson:

    Seriously, what is the answer John to random people making death/rape threats John, I am literally all ears?

    Well, in the case of those which have been documented as some of the worst (as opposed to some of the least-bad such as the example in the OP) as shown on the link which Ogvorbis helpfully provided, the start is to expose their existence and to call them out for it — as Nugent did there — not to helplessly wave one’s arms about and say that it just can’t be helped that some people do that.

    As for your allegations about people here making such threats: what happened to your claim @182 “I can show everything I’ve said”?

    I’ll tell you exactly what happened: it has been shown to be an empty claim.

    Any chance you’d address the points I made though in the longer posts?

    I’m not here to facilitate your trolling, troll.

    (I’m here to point and laugh)

  249. says

    Taking no sides and freedom of speech is exactly the correct position to take exactly for the reason that I stated above.

    then the same applies to you as to Lindsay: your pseudo-neutral stance benefits the haters who have been harassing people.

    Taking sides against the “abusers” is like taking sides against the “wind”.

    false, since humans are not a mindless force of nature. And a stupid analogy, since the entire rural US took a stance against wind after the dusbowl and effectively reduced any harm done by it.

    You can’t do anything about it,

    boring falsehood is boring.

    except total regulation and oversight of the internet

    or, you know, NOT personally welcoming them to a conference that you refused to welcome anyone else to; NOT letting them go rampant on your own blog; NOT making statements that make it very clear that you reject other people’s desire to not let them run rampant on their blogs. etc.

    Do you want total regulation and oversight of the internet? Every comment logged and stored in a database, marked against your IRL person? Total scrutiny of an Orwellian state?

    idiotic hyperbole is idiotic.

    That is the only way to achieve what the OP is saying.

    I don’t know what the fuck you’ve read into PZ’s post, because what “the OP is saying” is that it’s possible and desireable to weed out the noise in skeptical spaces; that’s very easy to do, as long as one stops pretending that harassment and argument are equally valuable contributions to “free inquiry”

    Ron Lindsay’s position is correct, because it recognises this truth.

    it is wrong, precisely because it denies that it’s actually not that fucking hard to not let harassers and bigots run rampant on your internet sites.

    We can either have freedom and bad things will sometimes be said/done,

    your repeated minimization of the harassment has once again been noted.

    We can either have freedom and bad things will sometimes be said/done, or we can have total scrutiny such that people will be prosecuted for saying “That person is a fucking asshole!!” while drunk at a bar.

    false dichotomy; doing nothing and criminalizing are in fact not the only options.

    that, with just enough Harassment Policies and control the world will be a “Better Place”

    you don’t like harassment policies, but you’re totally not on the pro-harassers side. *rolleyes*

    Because like any dogma, you have pinned yourselves to it, so any dissent *must* be eliminated at all costs.

    your continued whining is evidence to the contrary.

    So, you’ll do personal attacks, insults, anything but considering that maybe, just maybe, the OP could be talking complete shit.

    we’d consider it, but you have shown no reason to do so, other than bullshit assertions about slander and equally bullshit claims about how harassment is somehow like the wind and therefore what? unstoppable?

    Ron Lindsay is taking the only view that is possible to take considering the “Real World Truth” that the internet is an amorphous mess full of drunk idiots spewing crap on it.

    evidence for the latter assertion, please. making shit up and calling it “real world truth” is still making shit up.

    Ignore stupid people, focus on things worth discussing, because that’s all you can do.

    sez the guy who threw a shitfit over imagined accusations of misogyny against Lindsay

  250. Tethys says

    I climb a lot of mountains and I’d bloody hate it if a bunch of bureaucratic twits came and filed them all down, and mowed all the grass, and killed off all the weeds.

    How is this pertinent to the OP in any way? It sounds like some deep paranoia about ebil government.

    According women the respect due to equalsFeminism will ruin everything and is an evil government plot to take over the world!!??

  251. says

    But I’ve not appealed to freedom of speech John.

    vs

    Taking no sides and freedom of speech is exactly the correct position to take

    they’re just about some hard realities of how the internet actually works

    you dont’ have the faintest clue how the internet works, given your repeated idiotic assertion about how it’s like the wind and how the harassment is just drunk people and how nothing except totalitarianism can be done to keep harassers from harassing.

    I climb a lot of mountains and I’d bloody hate it if a bunch of bureaucratic twits came and filed them all down, and mowed all the grass, and killed off all the weeds.

    rape and death threats are like topography and flora? are you fucking shitting me?

    Regulating the internet in a way that would achieve the OP’s goal would be totally fucked up. You’d fucking hate that.

    this of course is false, mostly because you seem to be reading things into the OP that aren’t there, like the demand that someone eliminate all harassment from all of the internet.

    so Ron Lindsay is not getting hundreds of requests to have him fired from CFI for daring to speak at the WiS conference??

    indeed he isn’t.

    he’s getting complaints for behaving highly unprofessionally during the conference and during that speech, not for “daring to speak” at the conference.

    but as you know he’s being called out *because* he dared to stand up to RW ove the WiS conference

    pretty little narrative, so incorrect and oddly slimepitesque. but no, you’re not on their side, you’re no sheep, you just believe the same bullshit as they because you independently and without external influence came to believe exactly the same incorrect narrative about what’s going on. *rolleyes*

  252. says

    andywatson:

    Seriously, what is the answer John to random people making death/rape threats John, I am literally all ears?

    You are literally all ears? How are you managing to see and type, Cupcake? Well, it is getting easier to understand why you have so much difficulty with reading comprehension.

    I’m not John, however, I’ll toss in my two bits. Are you under the impression that societies are static? They aren’t. Attitudes and mores change, they change all the time. One of the prime ways to bring about societal change is to challenge the status quo, to speak up, to speak out, to write, to use whatever means one has to bring their voices to bear, to be heard, to give others something to think about. To change minds, hearts and attitudes.

    Now, the side you claim not to be on, in spite of your repeated defense of it, has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and stoop to very low levels to make that clear – harassment and threats. Systemic sexism is a societal problem. It requires awareness and thought to recognise it both in yourself and in society. There are people who don’t wish to indulge in awareness or thought and think things are just dandy the way they are even though things aren’t dandy.

    The more people speak out, the more they help to raise awareness in others, the more attitudes will change. It’s quite simple, really. This has always been happening, all throughout known history.

  253. andywatson says

    @Sally: ok, I’ll play the game for you (as you didn’t actually insult me there so that’s cool)
    “For the record, gendered insults are not fine because they are often the last words a woman hears before she is raped or murdered by her intimate partner. They dehumanize women and non-gender-conforming men, thereby facilitating the epidemic levels of murder, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence currently afflicting our global culture. They encourage inaccurate gendered stereotypes that have been identified in empirical research to be significant obstacles to women achieving full economic equality.”

    sure, all good. I’d maybe word things differently, but it’s fine, I agree with everything. But what’s your point? I’m sorry, but we won’t ever live in a world where these things don’t happen. And that’s not a cop out on my part, I would love it if everything you wanted could come true. Partly I applaud what you want to happen, but partly it’s just daft. As long as religion exists on this planet, gender differences (and bigotry and insults) will exist. And religion isn’t going anywhere. And even if it does, we’ll still have all that Nationalistic Patriotism crap (which is on the rise in the good ol’ US of A) which is another form of sickness. Humans are tribal, it’s part of the programming. Religion, Racism, Patriotism. How many people did you scream “you fucking MRA misogynist scumbag” at that came round to your way of thinking (as Phil Plait points out in his ‘Don’t Be A Dick’ video) ?? The only way to make people change their view is to be zen-like. Don’t post inflammatory blogs (like this one, everyone knows it’s about wanting to get Ron Lindsay fired from CFI to be replaced by a more FTB friendly person. I mean, everyone knows this is what it’s really about, and it’s sick, and it makes people hate you, cos people are not as dumb as you imagine them to be). So instead of that, have a word in private, stop labelling people with stupid labels “MRA”, “misogynist”, “mansplaining” etc. Be nice. People won’t always be nice back. Religious people will spout crap. Misogynists will say totally bullshit also, but don’t rant at them, just have a private word (and none of that pathetic ‘public shaming’ like Adria Richards tried on). You actually might *create* misogyny with all this militancy and trying to get people fired. I have no figures, but you saw the pushback of Adria Richards for example. People were utterly outraged at her publicly shaming that guy on her blog where she compares herself to Joan of Arc, the responses are almost universally against her (so she’s taken that site down, but you can see it on internet history sites). Any person that thinks women are more trustworthy than men, or vice versa, is missing an important part of their brain. All the harassment policies in the world, and all the screaming “FREEZE PEACH!” at people is just going to make people hate you. Is Richard Dawkins still under the RW ban? Are you all banned from buying/reading his books? Yeah, that also make people hate you (I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard people call that out as total bullshit). Ah fuck it, if you think there’s 2 sides, Good vs Evil, and all that crap, that’s like faith and dogma, and trying to change you out of that, is like trying to turn a Christian. Ain’t going to happen 99% of the time. And you know most people just laugh at yours AND the Slymepit’s arguments. Most people actually think you are all ‘equally’ nuts. Mate said to me the other day “someone should put all those FTB nuts and all those Slymepit nuts in a windowless room, lock it and lose the key, then let them just rant at each other about their dogma and faith”.

  254. says

    on a side note, what the fuck is it with people who think criminal law is the only form of effective behavioral modification in humans?

  255. says

    andywatson:

    the internet is an amorphous mess full of drunk idiots spewing crap on it.

    Ah, you’re not a sheep, you’re a drunk idiot spewing crap on the amorphous mess called the internet. That explains a great deal.

  256. says

    Jadehawk:

    on a side note, what the fuck is it with people who think criminal law is the only form of effective behavioral modification in humans?

    They tend to be sheep who deeply believe in authoritarianism.

  257. chigau (違う) says

    andywatson
    <blockquote is so easy, I expect a baboon could learn how

  258. says

    But what’s your point? I’m sorry, but we won’t ever live in a world where these things don’t happen. And that’s not a cop out on my part, I would love it if everything you wanted could come true.

    it’s half a cop-out. the other half is the part where just because we can’t reach 100% effectiveness, we shouldn’t try because “wind” and “force of nature” and other such bullshittery.
    And I don’t actually believe that you would love to see that come true, seeing as you’re spending an inordinate amount of time accusing those trying to make things better of dogmatism, reality-denial, and desire for orwellian totalitarianism on the internet.

    As long as religion exists on this planet, gender differences (and bigotry and insults) will exist.

    non-sequitur, but also likely not true; non-gendered religion is at least theoretically possible, and given that religions get changed by social change, the development of that is just as possible as the development of democracy-compatible christianity was.

    The only way to make people change their view is to be zen-like.

    asserted without evidence AND directly contradicted by the experience of every person who has ever had their mind changed by an argument right here on this blog (e.g. virtually everyone who has posted here for more than a year)

    everyone knows it’s about wanting to get Ron Lindsay fired from CFI to be replaced by a more FTB friendly person

    asserted without evidence; dismissed.

    So instead of that, have a word in private

    interesting. why are you not suggesting to Lindsay that he should have had a “word in private” with Watson and PZ, but are whining at us with this pointless suggestion?
    FYI, social change is not achieved by private talks.

    Be nice.

    you first.

    You actually might *create* misogyny with all this militancy and trying to get people fired.

    lol

    Any person that thinks women are more trustworthy than men

    lolwut. why do you keep on making shit like this up?

    All the harassment policies in the world, and all the screaming “FREEZE PEACH!” at people is just going to make people hate you.

    harassment policiesa re just going to make people hate us. really. you fail at reality; or at English; or both.

    Is Richard Dawkins still under the RW ban?

    what RW ban? what exactly could RW ban Dawkins from? why are you mindlessly spouting pitter tropes that are blatantly untrue?

    Are you all banned from buying/reading his books?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH you’re a fucking idiot.

    Most people actually think you are all ‘equally’ nuts.

    “most people” are also religious. argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason. so is the fallacy of the golden mean, btw.

  259. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m not a sheep.

    The quit baaahhhing us with your inane drivel. You have no point, can’t make a point (that requires evidence, which you refuse to produce), and you can’t shut the fuck up, which is wise for someone in the hole over their head.

    Skepticism is properly utilized when you ask someone you think is telling porkies to produce evidence for said porkies. They confirm they are telling porkies by not providing evidence, or dropping the claims, just like you have repeatedly done. You sound like a right wing pundit. All noise and attitude, no evidence, but lots of opinion nobody here cares about, as it is sheep following more sheep.

  260. says

    I’m amazed at how andy’s non-sheep-ness and non-side-taking resulted in him repeating one pitter trope after the other, one pitter falsehood after the other. such a “freethinker”. lol.

  261. Tethys says

    on a side note, what the fuck is it with people who think criminal law is the only form of effective behavioral modification in humans?

    Not only criminal law, but the bizarre leaps into equating any modification with fascist government and orwellian levels of control.

    There is also a tendency to say that societal inequities will never be completely erased so there is no need to do anything about them. (and they’re natural, like a mountain) rolleyes

  262. says

    andywatson:

    everyone knows it’s about wanting to get Ron Lindsay fired from CFI to be replaced by a more FTB friendly person

    Oh dear. Didn’t you deny being anti-FTB upthread a bit? If that’s so, why on earth are you positing that people want a more ‘FTB friendly’ person? This has nothing to do with freethought blogs, it has to do with a person in a professional position acting in a most unprofessional manner, then compounding that initial unprofessionalism several times over. A whole lot of people who have spoken up about Lindsay’s behaviour have nothing to do with FTB.

  263. says

    I’m deeply unconcerned by the “moderates” and “no-sides” and “independents” who tell me to stop being so angry and uppity and militant. It was bullshit when it was Mooney and the accommodationists were saying it, and it’s still bullshit when the current “let’s heal the rifts” contingent is doing it. It has in fact been bullshit for as long as activism has existed. Even the really big folks in the really big social justice fights had to deal with that.

  264. Owlmirror says

    I’m sorry, but we won’t ever live in a world where these things don’t happen.

    So here you are, fighting tooth and nail… for apathy.

    And that’s not a cop out on my part

    It is exactly a cop-out on your part.

    As long as religion exists on this planet, gender differences (and bigotry and insults) will exist.

    The entire problem is that gender differences, and bigotry, and insults exist regardless of religion.

    And religion isn’t going anywhere.

    Religion can be opposed.

    As can misogyny.
    As can bigotry.

    And I would not be so sure that religion isn’t going anywhere. Like all social institutions, it can lose or gain power.

    Humans are tribal, it’s part of the programming. Religion, Racism, Patriotism.

    Programming can be counterprogrammed. That’s how socialization works.

    How many people did you scream “you fucking MRA misogynist scumbag” at that came round to your way of thinking

    I know that you have zero examples of anyone screaming “you fucking MRA misogynist scumbag”. You are making it up.

    The only way to make people change their view is to be zen-like.

    This is obviously (a) false, and (b) hypocritical. You are not “zen-like”, so you must not really want to make people here change their view.

    (John Morales is often zen-like, but he doesn’t pretend that this will make anyone change their view, nor that he is trying to do so.)

    So instead of that, have a word in private, stop labelling people with stupid labels “MRA”, “misogynist”, “mansplaining” etc. Be nice.

    Your ironic and hypocritical stupid labeling and lack of niceness is noted.

    People won’t always be nice back.

    You are the perfect case in point.

    Misogynists will say totally bullshit also, but don’t rant at them, just have a private word

    Ha! And yet here you are, ranting, and not in private!

    (and none of that pathetic ‘public shaming’ like Adria Richards tried on).

    And here you are, loudly and pathetically publicly shaming PZ and Pharyngula commentators. Well done, hypocrite!

    You actually might *create* misogyny with all this militancy and trying to get people fired.

    Well, your militancy is certainly creating an anti-apathy mood here.

    I have no figures, but you saw the pushback of Adria Richards for example.

    Yes, some misogynists get louder when their misogyny is pointed out, just as some racists become more loudly racist.

    Is Richard Dawkins still under the RW ban?

    What ban? I understand that they avoid speaking to each other, so you might just as well say that RW is under a Richard Dawkins ban.

    Are you all banned from buying/reading his books?

    Obviously not.

    Although I admit that I am less interested in reading what he’s written.

    Yeah, that also make people hate you

    It’s true that stupid hateful people will hate for stupid reasons.

    Ah fuck it, if you think there’s 2 sides, Good vs Evil and all that crap, that’s like faith and dogma

    And here you are, trying to convince us that you are Good, and we are Evil.

    Mate said to me the other day “someone should put all those FTB nuts and all those Slymepit nuts in a windowless room, lock it and lose the key, then let them just rant at each other about their dogma and faith”.

    Because obviously both sides in any disagreement are both wrong. And yet here you are, loudly on the side of not taking sides.

  265. omnicrom says

    Show of hands: How many people here have had their minds changed by andywatson’s zen-like private conversation espousing the value of being quiet and nice and not rocking the boat?

  266. says

    ok, I’ll play the game for you

    (

    Yep, taking 2 minutes out from several hours of defending Ron Lindsay to defend women’s right – totes a fun game, bro!

    as you didn’t actually insult me there so that’s cool)

    Pretty sure I’ve already insulted you at least once so far. :D

    “For the record, gendered insults are not fine because they are often the last words a woman hears before she is raped or murdered by her intimate partner. They dehumanize women and non-gender-conforming men, thereby facilitating the epidemic levels of murder, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence currently afflicting our global culture. They encourage inaccurate gendered stereotypes that have been identified in empirical research to be significant obstacles to women achieving full economic equality.”

    sure, all good. I’d maybe word things differently, but it’s fine, I agree with everything. But what’s your point?

    You can’t write about the importance of using language to subvert rather than reinforce damaging gender norms in your own words. That’s the takeaway here.

    I’m sorry, but we won’t ever live in a world where these things don’t happen.

    I don’t believe the part about you being sorry. Why would you be sorry? You accrue a lot of nice advantages in the current system. Change would entail more risk of losing status and advantage than gaining it. You know that, else you wouldn’t resist so hard.

    And that’s not a cop out on my part, I would love it if everything you wanted could come true. Partly I applaud what you want to happen, but partly it’s just daft.

    Again, I don’t believe you. Based on your actions here, you prioritize defending guys who do sexist shit over calling out sexist shit. Whatevs, man. Nobody says you have to share our priorities, but you should at least have the courage to own your ideas and call them what they are. “I’d like equality, and not to be assaulted, please!” “Well, that’s just daft!” Yah, man. Your impression of a person who gives a fuck about equality needs work.

    As long as religion exists on this planet, gender differences (and bigotry and insults) will exist. And religion isn’t going anywhere. And even if it does, we’ll still have all that Nationalistic Patriotism crap (which is on the rise in the good ol’ US of A) which is another form of sickness.

    No, I reckon gender differences and gender stereotypes predates and will outlive religion, due to the simple combination of human tendencies towards essentialism (i.e., thinking objects having a dualistic, magical sort of “essence,” as in the essential cow-ness of a cow, or a soul), physical differences between the biological sexes, and other legacies of evolution, like confirmation bias. Not sure why you’re bringing up nationalistic patriotism, nor why you continue Capitalizing random Things, like Atheists.

    Humans are tribal, it’s part of the programming.

    Who ever heard of programming that changed? Hah!

    Religion, Racism, Patriotism. How many people did you scream “you fucking MRA misogynist scumbag” at that came round to your way of thinking (as Phil Plait points out in his ‘Don’t Be A Dick’ video) ??

    Oh wait, we’re supposed to convince the asshole harasser contingent? Of what? That’s right, you can’t even articulate it. No wonder you have trouble imagining convincing people… but no, I don’t really care if these harassers are convinced of anything, so long as they stop their harassing behavior.

    The only way to make people change their view is to be zen-like. Don’t post inflammatory blogs (like this one, everyone knows it’s about wanting to get Ron Lindsay fired from CFI to be replaced by a more FTB friendly person. I mean, everyone knows this is what it’s really about, and it’s sick, and it makes people hate you, cos people are not as dumb as you imagine them to be). So instead of that, have a word in private, stop labelling people with stupid labels “MRA”, “misogynist”, “mansplaining” etc. Be nice. People won’t always be nice back. Religious people will spout crap. Misogynists will say totally bullshit also, but don’t rant at them, just have a private word (and none of that pathetic ‘public shaming’ like Adria Richards tried on). You actually might *create* misogyny with all this militancy and trying to get people fired. I have no figures, but you saw the pushback of Adria Richards for example. People were utterly outraged at her publicly shaming that guy on her blog where she compares herself to Joan of Arc, the responses are almost universally against her (so she’s taken that site down, but you can see it on internet history sites). Any person that thinks women are more trustworthy than men, or vice versa, is missing an important part of their brain. All the harassment policies in the world, and all the screaming “FREEZE PEACH!” at people is just going to make people hate you. Is Richard Dawkins still under the RW ban? Are you all banned from buying/reading his books? Yeah, that also make people hate you (I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard people call that out as total bullshit). Ah fuck it, if you think there’s 2 sides, Good vs Evil, and all that crap, that’s like faith and dogma, and trying to change you out of that, is like trying to turn a Christian. Ain’t going to happen 99% of the time. And you know most people just laugh at yours AND the Slymepit’s arguments. Most people actually think you are all ‘equally’ nuts. Mate said to me the other day “someone should put all those FTB nuts and all those Slymepit nuts in a windowless room, lock it and lose the key, then let them just rant at each other about their dogma and faith”.

    Blah blah blah blah you are totally full of bullshit and you know it. You’re boring and predictable. That was a fuckload of words just to avoid saying, “Actually, I am incapable of articulating the reasons why gendered slurs are harmful.”

  267. says

    andywatson:

    As long as religion exists on this planet, gender differences (and bigotry and insults) will exist.

    You aren’t too good with history either, are you? Religion has nothing to do with the raging sexism within certain parts of the atheoskeptisphere.

  268. says

    Show of hands: How many people here have had their minds changed by andywatson’s zen-like private conversation espousing the value of being quiet and nice and not rocking the boat?

    The thing that really won me over was when he modeled this non-confrontational, boat-steadying, zen-like behavior himself in explaining it.

  269. says

    Bah, I kind of have to fix that.

    ok, I’ll play the game for you

    Yep, taking 2 minutes out from several hours of defending Ron Lindsay to defend women’s right – totes a fun game, bro!

    (as you didn’t actually insult me there so that’s cool)

    Pretty sure I’ve already insulted you at least once so far. :D

    “For the record, gendered insults are not fine because they are often the last words a woman hears before she is raped or murdered by her intimate partner. They dehumanize women and non-gender-conforming men, thereby facilitating the epidemic levels of murder, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence currently afflicting our global culture. They encourage inaccurate gendered stereotypes that have been identified in empirical research to be significant obstacles to women achieving full economic equality.”

    sure, all good. I’d maybe word things differently, but it’s fine, I agree with everything. But what’s your point?

    You can’t write about the importance of using language to subvert rather than reinforce damaging gender norms in your own words. That’s the takeaway here.

    I’m sorry, but we won’t ever live in a world where these things don’t happen.

    I don’t believe the part about you being sorry. Why would you be sorry? You accrue a lot of nice advantages in the current system. Change would entail more risk of losing status and advantage than gaining it. You know that, else you wouldn’t resist so hard.

    And that’s not a cop out on my part, I would love it if everything you wanted could come true. Partly I applaud what you want to happen, but partly it’s just daft.

    Again, I don’t believe you. Based on your actions here, you prioritize defending guys who do sexist shit over calling out sexist shit. Whatevs, man. Nobody says you have to share our priorities, but you should at least have the courage to own your ideas and call them what they are. “I’d like equality, and not to be assaulted, please!” “Well, that’s just daft!” Yah, man. Your impression of a person who gives a fuck about equality needs work.

    As long as religion exists on this planet, gender differences (and bigotry and insults) will exist. And religion isn’t going anywhere. And even if it does, we’ll still have all that Nationalistic Patriotism crap (which is on the rise in the good ol’ US of A) which is another form of sickness.

    No, I reckon gender differences and gender stereotypes predates and will outlive religion, due to the simple combination of human tendencies towards essentialism (i.e., thinking objects having a dualistic, magical sort of “essence,” as in the essential cow-ness of a cow, or a soul), physical differences between the biological sexes, and other legacies of evolution, like confirmation bias. Not sure why you’re bringing up nationalistic patriotism, nor why you continue Capitalizing random Things, like Atheists.

    Humans are tribal, it’s part of the programming.

    Who ever heard of programming that changed? Hah!

    Religion, Racism, Patriotism. How many people did you scream “you fucking MRA misogynist scumbag” at that came round to your way of thinking (as Phil Plait points out in his ‘Don’t Be A Dick’ video) ??

    Oh wait, we’re supposed to convince the asshole harasser contingent? Of what? That’s right, you can’t even articulate it. No wonder you have trouble imagining convincing people… but no, I don’t really care if these harassers are convinced of anything, so long as they stop their harassing behavior.

    The only way to make people change their view is to be zen-like. Don’t post inflammatory blogs (like this one, everyone knows it’s about wanting to get Ron Lindsay fired from CFI to be replaced by a more FTB friendly person. I mean, everyone knows this is what it’s really about, and it’s sick, and it makes people hate you, cos people are not as dumb as you imagine them to be). So instead of that, have a word in private, stop labelling people with stupid labels “MRA”, “misogynist”, “mansplaining” etc. Be nice. People won’t always be nice back. Religious people will spout crap. Misogynists will say totally bullshit also, but don’t rant at them, just have a private word (and none of that pathetic ‘public shaming’ like Adria Richards tried on). You actually might *create* misogyny with all this militancy and trying to get people fired. I have no figures, but you saw the pushback of Adria Richards for example. People were utterly outraged at her publicly shaming that guy on her blog where she compares herself to Joan of Arc, the responses are almost universally against her (so she’s taken that site down, but you can see it on internet history sites). Any person that thinks women are more trustworthy than men, or vice versa, is missing an important part of their brain. All the harassment policies in the world, and all the screaming “FREEZE PEACH!” at people is just going to make people hate you. Is Richard Dawkins still under the RW ban? Are you all banned from buying/reading his books? Yeah, that also make people hate you (I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard people call that out as total bullshit). Ah fuck it, if you think there’s 2 sides, Good vs Evil, and all that crap, that’s like faith and dogma, and trying to change you out of that, is like trying to turn a Christian. Ain’t going to happen 99% of the time. And you know most people just laugh at yours AND the Slymepit’s arguments. Most people actually think you are all ‘equally’ nuts. Mate said to me the other day “someone should put all those FTB nuts and all those Slymepit nuts in a windowless room, lock it and lose the key, then let them just rant at each other about their dogma and faith”.

    Blah blah blah blah you are totally full of bullshit and you know it. You’re boring and predictable. That was a fuckload of words just to avoid saying, “Actually, I am incapable of articulating the reasons why gendered slurs are harmful.”

  270. says

    oh, he was “mansplaining” right. And men that “mansplain” are misogynists.

    Excellent job putting words in my mouth. I wouldn’t call it mansplaining though (that term, as I understand it, has a meaning too specific to fit into Lindsays actions).

    For what? Is he a misogynist? And if not, what is his crime?

    It’s generally bad form to pointlessly condescend to people who paid to be at your event. Of course, I may be a little different than others in that I don’t think he should immediately stand down, assuming he can admit he was in the wrong here (my personal interpretation is that he didn’t intend to sound condescending, but now feels defensive about the situation; you know what they say about intent though), nor do I judge the whole of CFI by its CEO (as multiple bloggers here have also stated, FYI).

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain.

    Then do. I suspect links are forthcoming then?

    Remember, the OP mentioned the following as an example of unacceptable abuse ““Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named.”. Would you *disagree* that a vast amount of worse comments than this happen on this site constantly?

    If you completely ignore the context in which said comments were made, then no, I wouldn’t disagree. Fortunately, we live in a world where context is anything but irrelevant.

    Ogvorbis lied that I was part of a group that thinks that “gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights.”. Similar level of lies that have been hurled at Ron Lindsay. Communication doesn’t work when there liars like Ogvorbis peddle their lies.

    Based on the dull regurgitation of said groups talking points, can you really blame him for concluding that you were a part of that group? I mean, if you meet someone arguing that the Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with man, and (if they’re real dedicated) that the speed of light has decayed from a higher speed to create the images we see in the sky, and then he claimed he wasn’t a Young Earth Creationist, would you believe him?

    So, the OP used an example of “hateful bile” yes? Ok, so if that is hateful bile, then what do you call the far far far worse bile on this site? “Insanely hateful bile”? “Disgustingly shameful bile”?

    You don’t seem to understand. “hateful bile”, in this context, is not defined by tone, it’s defined by substance.

    Example:

    “Fuck you, you’re a vile, nasty piece of disgusting shit for believing the Holocaust was justified”

    “The ones of ill birth are not fit for civil representation, nor for life within a civilized society.”

    The latter had impeccable tone, but the substance would be classified, justifiably, as “hateful bile” (as it supports the idea of a Holocaust). The former, while the tone was downright vicious, is not “hateful bile”, given that the substance is valid (Content note: Nothing in this thread even approaches advocating for a Holocaust; this was given as an example of the difference in how “hateful bile” is defined, and should be looked at strictly in this scope).

    You can’t do anything about it, except total regulation and oversight of the internet.

    Hmmm… Let’s try that black and white reasoning elsewhere:

    “You can’t do anything about crime, except complete and utter police state domination of everyday life, therefore, why have any laws?”

    That’s not to say that legal solutions are the ideal way to fix this issue, of course (except the overt rape/death threats; I’d love to see those IPs traced, and the imbeciles posting them dragged before a judge).

    he’s being called out *because* he dared to stand up to RW ove the WiS conference

    Err…. No. If you were paying attention, you’d probably realize that he drew the ire of more than just Watson due to the section of his speech we’ve discussed. It blew up worse once he responded with a blatantly dishonest, hyperbolic comparison of her to a KCNA reporter (North Korean communications, BTW), but that certainly wasn’t the start.

    and none of that pathetic ‘public shaming’ like Adria Richards tried on

    Ohhhh, I see. You’re just being deliberately obtuse then, aren’t you? That twitter photo was published as a quick way to let the conference know. It wasn’t intended to “publicly shame” anyone. This seems to imply that you believe women who are made to feel uncomfortable should simply sit down, stay quiet, and accept it (presumably for fear of accidentally causing some infinitesimally minute inconvenience to a man if it’s unintentional). Is this accurate?

  271. says

    oh, he was “mansplaining” right. And men that “mansplain” are misogynists.

    Excellent job putting words in my mouth. I wouldn’t call it mansplaining though (that term, as I understand it, has a meaning too specific to fit into Lindsays actions).

    For what? Is he a misogynist? And if not, what is his crime?

    It’s generally bad form to pointlessly condescend to people who paid to be at your event. Of course, I may be a little different than others in that I don’t think he should immediately stand down, assuming he can admit he was in the wrong here (my personal interpretation is that he didn’t intend to sound condescending, but now feels defensive about the situation; you know what they say about intent though), nor do I judge the whole of CFI by its CEO (as multiple bloggers here have also stated, FYI).

    All allegations about the abusive comments on this site I can maintain.

    Then do. I suspect links are forthcoming then?

    Remember, the OP mentioned the following as an example of unacceptable abuse ““Get out, Amanda, you not welcome here. Take your dogma elsewhere (you too, Ophelia)” from a troll who doesn’t deserve to be named.”. Would you *disagree* that a vast amount of worse comments than this happen on this site constantly?

    If you completely ignore the context in which said comments were made, then no, I wouldn’t disagree. Fortunately, we live in a world where context is anything but irrelevant.

    Ogvorbis lied that I was part of a group that thinks that “gendered insults are fine, that misogyny is a natural part of being human and that women aren’t quite eligible for full human rights.”. Similar level of lies that have been hurled at Ron Lindsay. Communication doesn’t work when there liars like Ogvorbis peddle their lies.

    Based on the dull regurgitation of said groups talking points, can you really blame him for concluding that you were a part of that group? I mean, if you meet someone arguing that the Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with man, and (if they’re real dedicated) that the speed of light has decayed from a higher speed to create the images we see in the sky, and then he claimed he wasn’t a Young Earth Creationist, would you believe him?

    So, the OP used an example of “hateful bile” yes? Ok, so if that is hateful bile, then what do you call the far far far worse bile on this site? “Insanely hateful bile”? “Disgustingly shameful bile”?

    You don’t seem to understand. “hateful bile”, in this context, is not defined by tone, it’s defined by substance.

    Example:

    “Fuck you, you’re a vile, nasty piece of disgusting shit for believing the Holocaust was justified”

    “The ones of ill birth are not fit for civil representation, nor for life within a civilized society.”

    The latter had impeccable tone, but the substance would be classified, justifiably, as “hateful bile” (as it supports the idea of a Holocaust). The former, while the tone was downright vicious, is not “hateful bile”, given that the substance is valid (Content note: Nothing in this thread even approaches advocating for a Holocaust; this was given as an example of the difference in how “hateful bile” is defined, and should be looked at strictly in this scope).

    You can’t do anything about it, except total regulation and oversight of the internet.

    Hmmm… Let’s try that black and white reasoning elsewhere:

    “You can’t do anything about crime, except complete and utter police state domination of everyday life, therefore, why have any laws?”

    That’s not to say that legal solutions are the ideal way to fix this issue, of course (except the overt rape/death threats; I’d love to see those IPs traced, and the imbeciles posting them dragged before a judge).

    he’s being called out *because* he dared to stand up to RW ove the WiS conference

    Err…. No. If you were paying attention, you’d probably realize that he drew the ire of more than just Watson due to the section of his speech we’ve discussed. It blew up worse once he responded with a blatantly dishonest, hyperbolic comparison of her to a KCNA reporter (North Korean communications, BTW), but that certainly wasn’t the start.

    and none of that pathetic ‘public shaming’ like Adria Richards tried on

    Ohhhh, I see. You’re just being deliberately obtuse then, aren’t you? That twitter photo was published as a quick way to let the conference know. It wasn’t intended to “publicly shame” anyone. This seems to imply that you believe women who are made to feel uncomfortable should simply sit down, stay quiet, and accept it (presumably for fear of accidentally causing some infinitesimally minute inconvenience to a man if it’s unintentional). Is this accurate?

    Reposted due to blockquote fail in the first attempt (Only a slash was missing on the first one, I can’t let that go uncorrected). Please delete previous post, PZ, Chris, or Sastra.

  272. Anri says

    andywatson:

    Taking no sides and freedom of speech is exactly the correct position to take exactly for the reason that I stated above. To do other than Ron Lindsay is doing is . Taking sides against the “abusers” is like taking sides against the “wind”. You can’t do anything about it, except total regulation and oversight of the internet.

    You are incorrect.
    We can convince people that it’s a bad thing to do, and that they shouldn’t do it.
    Of course, that’s impossible if we insist we don’t – and shouldn’t – have an opinion.

    Do you want total regulation and oversight of the internet? Every comment logged and stored in a database, marked against your IRL person? Total scrutiny of an Orwellian state?

    No, but it would be nicer if we could convince people to be a little less horrible.
    Or to not let people being horrible go by without comment. Which is, as stated, impossible while maintaining neutrality.

    That is the only way to achieve what the OP is saying. It is a nonsensical position. Ron Lindsay’s position is correct, because it recognises this truth. We can either have freedom and bad things will sometimes be said/done, or we can have total scrutiny such that people will be prosecuted for saying “That person is a fucking asshole!!” while drunk at a bar.

    I am reminded of the conversations in which we discuss rape, and someone opines that rape is something no-one can control, and it’s pointed out to them that rapists can control it by, yanno, not raping.

    This is part of the dogma of this site. i.e. The idea that this is a fight with 2 sides, and that, with just enough Harassment Policies and control the world will be a “Better Place”, and that people are either with the good guys (you lot), or with the death/rape threat people (the slymepitters !!!). This is such unbelievable horseshit.

    So – and I want to get this completely straight – you honestly don’t see any difference?
    You honestly think that belittling women and telling people that belittling women is bad, and that you should be ashamed of doing it, are equivalent positions?

    And you know it, but you can’t admit you were mistaken. Because like any dogma, you have pinned yourselves to it, so any dissent *must* be eliminated at all costs. So, you’ll do personal attacks, insults, anything but considering that maybe, just maybe, the OP could be talking complete shit. Ron Lindsay is taking the only view that is possible to take considering the “Real World Truth” that the internet is an amorphous mess full of drunk idiots spewing crap on it. Ignore stupid people, focus on things worth discussing, because that’s all you can do. Focusing on all your energy on all the random insults on the internet is like sniffing your own farts: it might smell ok to *you*, but to everyone else it stinks.

    Just so you know, the women involved believe that being harassed is something worth discussing. They are of the opinion that ignoring stupid people ignores important issues. I doubt they are focusing all of their energy on it (but hey, that sounded better in your head, I imagine), but they do seem to think it’s worth spending some effort on.
    Can you explain why you know better than they do?

  273. chigau (違う) says

    shockna #304
    I’m pretty sure so one is going to fix your screwed-up formatting.
    Try to do better next time.

  274. chigau (違う) says

    yay shockna!
    Same thing but with correct formatting.
    yay
    oh and [meta]

  275. athyco says

    andywatson:

    Don’t post inflammatory blogs (like this one, everyone knows it’s about wanting to get Ron Lindsay fired from CFI to be replaced by a more FTB friendly person. I mean, everyone knows this is what it’s really about, and it’s sick, and it makes people hate you, cos people are not as dumb as you imagine them to be).

    What? There were no slurs, no profanity, no use of any form of the words “privilege” or “misogyny.” Not even a “shut up and listen”–and you call this blog post inflammatory? Even when I was a kid (before identifying as a skeptic, a feminist, or an atheist), I knew that people who started statements with “everyone knows…” were the ones most likely to shovel more onto a pile of self-serving mind reading.

    And it’s amazing, isn’t it, that you returned over and over to the claim that Ogvorbis is lying because he’s associated your rhetoric with that of anti-FTB groups? If you’re not associated, how do you even come to the conclusion that this blog post is “sick” and “makes people [certain people?] hate you” and is an insult to the intelligence of some group of people you imagine that we imagine? If I distributed this post around my neighborhood, where no one (as far as I know) is aware of the Center for Inquiry or Pharyngula or the Slymepit, I’m pretty sure that “hate” wouldn’t make it to their emotional reaction list. “Hate” would have to come from those who are invested.

    Misogynists will say totally bullshit also, but don’t rant at them, just have a private word (and none of that pathetic ‘public shaming’ like Adria Richards tried on).

    LOL…Cede the public square? No, that’s where we’re decorating for the Big Dance! If we just have a private word, how will anyone else who wants to say something to them know that they can also have a private word, or that a private word would work, or that their private word would be acknowledged? Can you link us to the public misogynist saying total bullshit who then recanted because you had a private word?

    You actually might *create* misogyny with all this militancy and trying to get people fired. I have no figures, but you saw the pushback of Adria Richards for example. People were utterly outraged at her publicly shaming that guy on her blog where she compares herself to Joan of Arc, the responses are almost universally against her (so she’s taken that site down, but you can see it on internet history sites).

    It is my strong belief that one cannot create misogyny in anyone who believes that women are human beings who deserve freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and reproductive freedom. It leaves me contemptuous of those who claim that either they or some amorphous “others” would so convert.

    You brought up Ellen Beth, so you know perfectly well that we saw the push back of Adria Richards because of the horrible thing she did to that guy…..that guy that got fired for the con incident combined with other issues….that PlayHaven developer guy…you know that guy because he went on Hacker News under a pseudonym to name Adria Richards….I remember how sadly he said that he had 3 kids and had really liked that job, poor guy…but what’s his name? What’s his name, andy?!? You mean, you don’t know his name because he’s still anonymous? But thousands and thousands of people can still remember the name of Adria Richards because he anonymously tattled on her about his company’s independent decision. That made him a #BraveHero in some circles.

    Go climb a mountain, andywatson.

  276. says

    So I’m at comment #254, and I’m ever so curious, will andywatson explain what the FtB dogma is?

    Will he ever give details of the death threat?

    Will he ever understand false equivalence?

    Will he ever list the far, far worse things said by anyone on our “side” (worse in comparison to the sustained, two year barrage of abuse, bullying, rape and death threats from his side*)?

    *yes, I firmly place you on the side of the pitters. You do not denounce them, yet you criticize us. You seek to keep things as they are-which is exactly what the pitters want.

    You suck dude.

  277. Owlmirror says

    Show of hands: How many people here have had their minds changed by andywatson’s zen-like private conversation espousing the value of being quiet and nice and not rocking the boat?

    I am absolutely convinced!

    I am absolutely convinced that the malevolent asshole who said that people should go to jail for calling other people misogynists is so completely full of shit that he doesn’t actually believe in anything except for his own right to be an asshole.

  278. says

    The only way to change minds is to be Zen-like?
    Only ONE way?
    I dont recall being zen-like when I rejected god, embraced feminism, and decided to speak out more against sexism. In all three cases, I had a willingness and desire to educate myself and in the latter two, I decided to shut up and listen. I rather like the resultant change of mind.
    See, no zen required.

  279. Amphiox says

    Taking sides against the “abusers” is like taking sides against the “wind”.

    Funny, that.

    We build walls against the wind. We wear clothing to protect us from the wind. We developed the science of meteorology to help us predict the patterns of the wind so that we can prepare for it accordingly. We fortify our skyscrapers against the wind.

    Indeed the abusers are much like the wind. A mindless force for harm that all decent people would cooperate to mitigate against.

  280. Ichthyic says

    Fantastic chew-toy action. I mean really. Prolific enough for everyone to get a bite, smart enough to actually make a BIT of sense but not so smart that anyone really has to exert themselves. All in all I say 9 out of 10. A touch more coherence would really go a long way.

    this.

    it’s rather obvious Andy loves trolling here.

  281. Lofty says

    Wow. What an entertaining half hour reading the shredding of the new chew-toy.
    .
    andywatson:
    Would you like a nice warm cup of bile?
    Milk?
    Sugar?
    (tinkles spoon)
    Here you go.
    .
    Now you can feel properly insulted.
    .
    Be my guest.

  282. says

    Hey folks, kind of late to the show here. Someone named “andywatson” is today’s chewtoy? OK! My teeth are dull from lack of use, so can I take the easiest bit of gristle?

    You actually might *create* misogyny with all this militancy…

    There’s two parts to this. The easier part of this is that there is behavior that is always wrong, and is never deserved. No one can do anything so bad that they deserve to be treated in an inhumane manner. Period. Anyone who would claim that someone can somehow “earn” being treated in an inhumane manner? That person is kind of absolutely horrible, and should be shunned… but otherwise should not be tortured, or harassed, or otherwise subjected to the behavior that they would wish on others.

    The other part is that no one can possibly be responsible for “provoking” another person into treating them in an inhumane manner. No one can “create misogyny” in other people. No one can force another person to become a bigot, no matter how angry the person gets. And one person CAN enrage another person, and there’s no doubt of that. But as enraged as someone can get, no one else can make them express that anger is bigoted ways. The only way someone expressed misogyny when they are angry is if they are carrying misogyny in their heart when they aren’t angry. Otherwise, that poison wouldn’t rush to the surface at the first opportunity.

  283. mildlymagnificent says

    Ron Lindsay’s view is fine, and the abuse on the internet is not of Ron Lindsay’s doing, and he cannot stop it, even were he given a billion dollars to do so.

    None of us, including Ron Lindsay, is obliged to do any more than we can do. So what can we do? What can he do?

    We can say – out loud – that we disagree with something other people say. Abuse and associated nastiness is one form of people freely expressing themselves. It happens to be an unpleasant, anti-social form of expression. No one has to track down every such expression. All that we have to do is to freely speak up about each instance that we come across, or is thrown right where we have no option but to see it. Right now, Lindsay is seeing such stuff being thrown conveniently into his path in the comments on pieces he has written.

    All he has to do is tread on it. He can openly criticise it. He can comment subtly, negatively, on it. He can discreetly moderate such comments out of existence,

    He chooses not to do any of those things.

    What impression does that give of him and what does it convey about the organisation presenting that blog as part of its face to the world?

  284. andywatson says

    Can’t answer all that, it’s like 4000 lines or something, so core point: when you denigrate someone who is at heart a good decent person that cares about all humans having human rights, by calling them “MRA” and “misogynist” etc, you make them hate you. Most likely they won’t *become* a misogynist, but by abusing people by throwing terms of insult at them (and MRA is not even a term of insult, so it’s quite strange), you create division. Adria Richards was a good case in point, the people that put like 20,000 Like’s against all the criticism of her on her blog, were not “Slymepitters”, they were normal people sickened by what she did. On the MRA point, you say that women are entitled to activism, but at the same time (hundreds of time on this site) “MRA” is used as an insult. So, what that says is: men are not *entitled* to activism to defend what they feel is important to them, and it is impossible in your eyes for a man who cares about mens rights to be for equality (i.e. if he is “MRA” then he is automatically a “misogynist”. again, this point has come up literally hundreds of times on this site and Skepchick). Denying one group the right which you extend to yourself (or mocking them as if it’s a joke), that’s bigotry, as much as making black people sit at the back of the bus, it’s bigotry. So everytime you rant at someone on here that they are “MRA”, people hate you. How exactly is it different from saying “ok, us whites, we’re allowed rights, but you blacks can fuck off”. That’s happened many times in history, and it’s always wrong and you’re doing it. Sure, men have had all the rights for thousands of years, but that’s not the point. A man born today is not guilty of those thousands of years, any more than a human is born with Original Sin, or German child today is *guilty* for WW2. This blame game is stupid. People have to be respected for who *they* are. Hurling terms like “MRA” and “misogynist” creates a rotten atmosphere, and you will never get what you want by doing that. All that “fucking MRA misogynist scumbag” stuff (somebody asked me to quote, but just go and look, huge amount of that on here over tons of blog posts, seriously, and you all know that is said very frequently to people that have said nothing misogynistic on here).

    Socialization: sure, humans can change and become better. 40 years ago women would be pushed into Home Economics at school and away from Woodwork all that bullshit, but I never saw that when I grew up. Children are children of course, so there was bullying, insults, sex jokes (puberty is equally confusing for boys and girls), but no, there was no idea AT ALL that women should do certain subjects and boys others, there was no suppresion at all, and I’ve asked a lot of the women that I went to school if they felt that way, and none ever did. But your school may have been different, and that’s sad (I’m also glad that I didn’t grow up in places in the world where it’s far worse). All that should be changed, and if you are American that’s more difficult due to the scourge of Christianity, but getting Ron Lindsay fired for a trumped up bullshit charge of “condescension” is not going to help the world, that’s just abusing people that are on your side. And he is. Definitely, and he’s quite right to not apologise, he did nothing wrong. And defending Adria Richards for her utter bullshit is also wrong.

    Just a few things that I think were missing the point on:

    omnicrom:

    “You come in here and you sound like a slymie MRA and you act like a slymie MRA so you’re being treated as a slymie MRA. So far your only point is that someone associated you with slymie MRAs for acting exactly like a slymie MRA.”

    And there we have it, dogma. And it’s ridiculous. Just tar and feather people that dissent. Stop attacking the message, go and look at Adria Richards page and look at all the likes on comments pointing out that what she did was ridiculous. To imply all these people are misogynists (Owlmirror 295 “Yes, some misogynists get louder when their misogyny is pointed out, just as some racists become more loudly racist.”) is patently bullshit. Those are people that were offended by bullshit, Adria Richards bullshit, cos that’s not about equality, that’s about being a nutjob. Adria Richards acted like a nutjob. She might a nice person in real-life that makes dick jokes on Twitter. oh yes, she does that doesn’t she. wow, what a hypocrite she is…

    athyco:

    And it’s amazing, isn’t it, that you returned over and over to the claim that Ogvorbis is lying because he’s associated your rhetoric with that of anti-FTB groups?

    I’d say the same if those words were directed at you. I don’t like people abusing others. But he gets away with it because he follows “dogma” and I call the dogma out for being bullshit. In a normal situation, at a dinner party say, if someone said what Ogvorbis said to a person at the table who dared to say that what Adria Richards did was bullshit, all normal people would jump to the defence of the accused, cos it’s bullshit, and most people are pretty decent that way. Who’s jumped to my defence when I’ve been tarred that way!? ;) And that’s how dogma works, by ignoring the points, focusing on personal attacks and dishonesty. Dogma rejects honesty over the bizarre fantasy that the dogmatic group want to construct (in this case, get Ron Lindsay fired, I’m sure that a petition will go to CFI any day now if it hasn’t already: and that’s bullshit).

    Owlmirror:

    “And here you are, loudly and pathetically publicly shaming PZ and Pharyngula commentators. Well done, hypocrite!”

    That’s a pretty weak retort. I don’t ask for PZ to be kicked out of a conference, and I don’t want PZ fired from his job. So how am I a hypocrite? I’m being pretty reasonable when you use critical thinking, but critical thinking always loses when dogma is invoked.

    Sally Strange:

    No, I reckon gender differences and gender stereotypes predates and will outlive religion

    I agree with you, but not for the same reasons, but yes, humans will always do this to greater or lesser extent. Religion is probably the biggest example of this. It’s all Tribalism.

    Not sure why you’re bringing up nationalistic patriotism

    If you don’t understand why Nationalism/Patriotism is the same as “my people are better than you because you are black” then I’m amazed. Patriotism, the sense of “my countries *betterness*” is shameful. I care about my country because of my cultural ties to it, and I miss it when I’m away because it’s what I know, but Patriotism is as ridiculous as men being sexist towards women. A person from any country is my equal, they just have different cultural values. America has virulent Patriotism at the moment that is ruining the country.

    @Jadehawk:

    “To accuse any person of bigotry without evidence is a criminal offence in some countries.

    1)more authoritarian anti-free speech bullshit. it’s also illegal in some countries to be an atheist, but that’s hardly a good thing.”

    wow, this is so round the wrong way that is *fucking unbelievable*. Actually what I said, and you can see, is “without evidence”. In a country where someone is accused of being an Ahteist and was not, obviously he would be able to counter-sue (if he wasn’t stoned to death first of course! but hey, that’s religion!). “Without evidence” was the point Cupcake!! What you propose is utterly authoritarian. Some mad person (you) tells someone else they are a misogynist, and that’s it, they are tarred for life, with no right to comeback, they have been *labelled* by Sally Strange WRA (“Womens Rights Activist”) and that’s just fine in your authoritarian nightmare.

    @Sally Strange: “Blah blah blah blah you are totally full of bullshit and you know it. You’re boring and predictable. That was a fuckload of words just to avoid saying, “Actually, I am incapable of articulating the reasons why gendered slurs are harmful.”

    oh god Cupcake, is that just empty anger?? You sound like a kid at school that’s gone in the huff as they didn’t get what they wanted. That’s great though, you have your little freakout.

    You are all over-compensating. Ron Lindsay is a person that dared to speak at your conference (YOUR conference! how dare he! well, he was justified as he’s the president of the CFI, but don’t let that point get in the way of a good Witch Hunt!). The crime? Well, he was *allegedly* condescending… wonderful. Aren’t Witch Hunts wonderful things??

    Taking no sides and freedom of speech is exactly the correct position to take exactly for the reason that I stated above. To do other than Ron Lindsay is doing is . Taking sides against the “abusers” is like taking sides against the “wind”. You can’t do anything about it, except total regulation and oversight of the internet.

    You are incorrect.
    We can convince people that it’s a bad thing to do, and that they shouldn’t do it.
    Of course, that’s impossible if we insist we don’t – and shouldn’t – have an opinion.

    No you are not getting the point. Ron Lindsay is against abusers, everyone is, but the point is, if you impotently shout “stop abusing!” across the “internet”, gues what happens!? Yep, that’s right, it’s going to make abusive internet garbage swell up for the next week or 2. That’s what it does, as regular as clockwork, as people in general don’t like being told what to do, and particularly by self-righteous people that hypocritically defend Adria Richards even though if the genders were reveresed they would hypocritically defend the women making the dick jokes, and who try to get people fired from their jobs. That’s wrong.

    You can’t do anything about it, except total regulation and oversight of the internet.

    Hmmm… Let’s try that black and white reasoning elsewhere:
    “You can’t do anything about crime, except complete and utter police state domination of everyday life, therefore, why have any laws?”

    Again, that’s not the point. There is a huge difference between an angry person shouting at RW as she’s said something daft or getting angry at Adria Richards. There’s a immense gulf between that and a man raping a woman or someone stealing a car. If anyone says that I support rape/death threats that would show the level to which you have all stooped on this site. The point is that there is no “coordinated group of rape threatists” any more than there are “coordinted car theives”. So, to label Ron Lindsay / Vacula / whoever else as all being part of some “coordinated group that support or empower rape threat’ists” is inherently unjust and well, just total and utter bullshit. When you do that stuff (which you do all the time on here) you are being unjust, and people can see it. People can smell that bullshit a mile away.

    And here it is again!

    Anri:

    This is part of the dogma of this site. i.e. The idea that this is a fight with 2 sides, and that, with just enough Harassment Policies and control the world will be a “Better Place”, and that people are either with the good guys (you lot), or with the death/rape threat people (the slymepitters !!!). This is such unbelievable horseshit.

    So – and I want to get this completely straight – you honestly don’t see any difference?
    You honestly think that belittling women and telling people that belittling women is bad, and that you should be ashamed of doing it, are equivalent positions?

    Again, you are trying to misrepresent me and say that it’s “them and us”, but it’s not like that. The people that put likes against every negative comment on Adria Richards ridiculous Joan of Arc blog post are not “slymepitters” they are ordinary people from all over the world that despise bullshit in all it’s forms. What Adria Richards did was bullshit (especially considering her own dick jokes just the week before that on twitter) and people have no time for bullshitters like her. Imagine a guy did this 2 women making dick jokes in the row behind her instead of 2 guys (and remember Adria’s own harmless dick jokes on twitter, was she ‘raising Feminist awareness’ by making dick jokes on the internet???). The indignation saying the women were in the right here would apoplectic. So yeah, that’s dogma. Say you can pin down on all the “bad” people in the world (like say, with some invisible god, that lives in the sky, that knows what people are doing, every minute of every day, and she knows who is good and who is bad!) then great, you win the battle! So basically this dogma you have is bullshit, because it fails to recognise the simple reality of what the internet is. Fuck, you must be on LSD if you think it’s useful to focus on “internet garbage” posts. All that does is make the garbage posts increase in number, but maybe that’s what you want deep down, there’s a very good chance that you *want* the abuse to continue as you feel like you are fighting The Good Fight (it’s kind of like the War on Terrorism, it has no location, no real targets, it’s just a fuzzy concept). Going out and talking about Equality and Human Rights, great, trying to get Ron Lindsay fired for daring to speak to a woman audience, total and utter bullshit.

    And that’s what dogma does. Christians go around firing Atheist school teachers, and you go around trying to get decent people fired. Fuckin’ hell, get your priorities right. Firing good people is the wrong thing to do. Equality is a importnat issue, but it’s not the be all and end all. Life is difficult for everyone on this planet, I’d much rather be a woman born in America than a child born to utter poverty and malnutrition in Africa, or say a child born in Iraq just as America started bombing it in yet-another-bullshit-war. Everyone has issues to deal with. Losing jobs, bringing up kids, Ron Lindsay is defending his job literally from a bunch of dogmatic nutjobs at the moment, and I hope he wins. He’s not a misogynist, he cares for equality, and you are going after him instead of Christians in high positions in government who are closing abortion clinics and preparing America for the “Rapture” etc. Little campaigns like getting Lindsay fired. But you will petition and campaign until it’s done, and if you succeed you’ll think it’s a great victory (while at the same time Christian nuts are stopping evolution being taught in schools etc). Jeez, what a load of out of control nonsense …

  285. andywatson says

    mildlymagnificent:

    All he has to do is tread on it. He can openly criticise it. He can comment subtly, negatively, on it. He can discreetly moderate such comments out of existence,

    But that is what he did, though your dogma blinds you to it.
    Firstly, *no*, censoring people is an absolutely bullshit approach. When in history did “censored” people just “go away”. No fucking way, they went elsewhere and said the things there.
    He openly criticized all the way that people talk to each other, he said how the tone poisons the debate on both sides. He said this. Your dogma simply refuses to believe it, identically to a Creationist refusing to accept Geology. And you just keep saying “no, he was condescending at a woman’s conference so he must be fired!”. It’s nonsense. If you honestly believe that Ron Lindsay is not for all of those things (except for the daft thing about moderating comments out of existence), then you at the very very least, completely delusional.

  286. Ogvorbis: Arkranger of Doom! says

    andywatson:

    Did you read the comments collected by Nugent on his blog? The link I posted? When you defend the right of harassment, and the concomitant denial of human rights, these are the people you are siding with.

  287. mildlymagnificent says

    the daft thing about moderating comments out of existence

    Well, perhaps you should talk to him about it. He was one among several who signed a very public document about doing exactly that. (Among other things.)

  288. Ogvorbis: Arkranger of Doom! says

    Damn. I phrased that wrong. Strike my #320 and substitute this:

    andywatson:

    Did you read the comments collected by Nugent on his blog? The link I posted? When you defend those who harass, and the concomitant denial of human rights, you are are siding with these people: Vacula and the Slympitters..

  289. andywatson says

    310 Tony:

    So I’m at comment #254, and I’m ever so curious, will andywatson explain what the FtB dogma is?

    Will he ever give details of the death threat?

    Will he ever understand false equivalence?

    Will he ever list the far, far worse things said by anyone on our “side” (worse in comparison to the sustained, two year barrage of abuse, bullying, rape and death threats from his side*)?

    Seriously, you know where all of these quotes are. The death threat you can see above (it was quoted by someone else, and actually the OP of the death threat apologised, and another person said that it was seriously wrong language to use). So, you’ve got all your answers.

    But more importantly, I never said this was “worse” than death threats, so that’s either a deliberate lie, or stupid, which is it? What I did say was there were far worse things said than the OP’s quote.
    Even 500 such death threat quotes are just anecdotal evidence. Random twits post such things, and then you use those death threats in arguments against people who never made death threats (so here, against Ron Lindsay as if he is responsible for them). That’s not only wrong, it’s stupid, unjust, unethical, and irrational. But on this site, as you can see in virtually every post, this is done on an almost daily basis (and if you want a quote, just look above at your own words, where you just did it to me !!!). Awful dogma, awful misrepresentation, and you’ll certainly not admit that you were wrong (you have to defend the dogma after all). If you can’t work out the dogma from all of the above, that’s pretty worrying. Women’s rights, great, working against Christians in government destroying education, great, hounding Ron Lindsay out of his job, shameful and disgusting.

  290. andywatson says

    Ogvorbis:

    Did you read the comments collected by Nugent on his blog? The link I posted? When you defend those who harass, and the concomitant denial of human rights, you are are siding with these people: Vacula and the Slympitters..

    I read them. And nobody defends that. You have suggested that I defend that, which is shameful and disgusting of you to do so. I read what Vacula said and he doesn’t “defend” such quotes either, to suggest that is also a lie. Misrepresentation is an awful tactic. Cowardly I’d say. Talk honestly about Vacula and, well, just everyone. You don’t need to lie and misrepresent. You’re arguments work much better if you use intellect and honesty instead of misrepresentation and lies. I don’t even understand why lying about this is useful to you?

  291. Ogvorbis: Arkranger of Doom! says

    andywatson:

    Why are you defending Vacula so hard? What is your purpose? Why are you supporting the Slymepitters and the A Voice for Men hero Justin Vacula?

  292. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    when you denigrate someone who is at heart a good decent person that cares about all humans having human rights, by calling them “MRA” and “misogynist” etc, you make them hate you.

    Citation needed. Your unevidenced OPINION is dismissed per Hitches (which I did link to, that being evidence and all).

    a misogynist, but by abusing people by throwing terms of insult at them (and MRA is not even a term of insult, so it’s quite strange), you create division.

    Go take this to the Slymepitters, who are abusing people by rape/death threats and calling them names. Either preach to both sides or preach to no sides. Funny how Slymepit sympathizers keep trying to tell us how to behave, but not them. Put your efforts out properly, or shut the fuck up as a prove hypocrite.

    but getting Ron Lindsay fired for a trumped up bullshit charge of “condescension” is not going to help the world,

    You have presented no EVIDENCE that this blog is officially trying to get RL fired. All you do is make unevidenced and unsupported assertions, a classic Slymepit™/asshole tactic. No wonder we think you sympathies lie with the Slymers, you provide prima facie evidence you sound like them.. You aren’t confronting them, you aren’t telling RL he was an ass, you complain to us. Get your house in order, and get evidence, to make a valid non-hypocritical argument.

  293. andywatson says

    mildlymagnificent:

    the daft thing about moderating comments out of existence

    Well, perhaps you should talk to him about it. He was one among several who signed a very public document about doing exactly that. (Among other things.)

    So you just contradicted yourself, as in your previous post you said he was not doing that … “He chooses not to do any of those things.”. wow … If you’d like to suggest that he signed a document, but didn’t follow through, that’s also patently ludicrous as his comment in the OP isn’t about that … double wow … “free expression” I think he mentioned (sorry “FREEZE PEACH!!!” to use bullshit-language). So, yes, free expression (“FREEZE PEACH!!!”) of ideas in debate is incredibly important, but if someone says something that is criminal go for it, delete that, but in the main, that’s something that should be done with a great deal of care, or you end up with people going and expressing those same views elsewhere (and that’s what happens in practice) so censorship is ultimately futile in that respect, cos you complain if it’s on CFI, and if it’s kicked off there and ends up on Slymepit you also complain !!! and that’s just nuts. Sure, if a rape threat is deleted, fine, that’s a no-brainer, but someone saying they disagree with you should and calling you a bad name (when you call them bad names at the same time) should *not* be deleted. So yeah, his twitter comment there is *completely consistent* with the document that he signed, or do you disagree (that’s going to be difficult without invoking so total misrepresentation of him of course)?

  294. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And there we have it, dogma. And it’s ridiculous. Just tar and feather people that dissent.

    Ah, prima facie EVIDENCE of your own words using Slymepit™ lies. We have asked the ‘Pitters to provide us an EVIDENCED argument on how feminism (treating women a equals) should be ignored time and time again, and all they offer is OPINION. Unevidenced opinion isn’t evidence. Which is why everything you say isn’t evidence, and we should question all factual assertions you make that don’t line up with reality. Which we are doing, and your responses, instead of links to facts, contain nothing but your OPINION. Making no progress are you.

  295. andywatson says

    Ogvorbis ignored my points and then went with the predicable: “Why are you defending Vacula so hard? What is your purpose? Why are you supporting the Slymepitters and the A Voice for Men hero Justin Vacula?”
    Well, as you know, I’m not defending him in any way. I know next to nothing about him, but *you* brought up Vacula, I read your link, and it was clear that he simply didn’t support any of the things that you’ve said he does. So you’ve lied about him just as you’ve lied about me, and just as you’ve failed to answer the points I made, and then just made an empty comment to *again* accuse me of supporting rape threats. That is truly pathetic.

  296. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But he gets away with it because he follows “dogma” and I call the dogma out for being bullshit. I

    Oh, dogma is evidenced conclusions you don’t agree with? Without evidenced argument? Gee, where have I heard that before….

  297. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And that’s how dogma works, by ignoring the points, focusing on personal attacks and dishonesty.

    Yet you are doing the same here hypocrite. Show otherwise by using evidence, and losing your pure opinion.

  298. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    No you are not getting the point. Ron Lindsay is against abusers,

    Funny how his comment was abusive and degrading. But then, I do think RL is possibly a liberturd. They have trouble with the concept they aren’t the bright bulbs in the universe, and do need to shut up and listen. Funny how that operates.

  299. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Ogvorbis ignored my points

    Except he had evidenced points, and you had unevidenced opinion. Which can be dismissed per Hitchens. You can’t see that is the whole problem with what you post? Nothing of substance.

  300. Ulysses says

    A troll out of legend has come to grace us. You can tell the devoted, steadfast, hardcore trolls by the way they keep shifting goal posts, claiming they’ve got specific evidence for something without actually providing such evidence, calling people liars because of disagreement, and making accusations of dogmatic, intolerant groupthink because people object to bigotry.

    Congratulations, andywatson, you are a true troll. Your fallacies of equivocation, excluded middle, ad hominem and use of red herrings are well done. I was particularly impressed with how you labeled Ogvorbis a “liar” when he made a reasonable assumption based on evidence you provided. Well done!

  301. andywatson says

    Nerd of Redhead:

    Ah, prima facie EVIDENCE of your own words using Slymepit™ lies. We have asked the ‘Pitters to provide us an EVIDENCED argument on how feminism (treating women a equals) should be ignored time and time again, and all they offer is OPINION.

    But that’s ridiculous. You say you’ve “asked” as if it’s a coordinated group. Ron Lindsay did nothing wrong (and this site wants him fired). Adria Richards was a complete idiot (though never called out for it on this site). I’m sure there are twits on Slymepit that insult you, and twits here that insult them, but if those people are not sending anything too extreme then fair enough. But if there are death threats over there, then those are not representative of that person Vacula (at least not on the basis of what Ogvorbis sent, *everything* in that link that Vacula said was absolutely reasonable and correct). So it’s just about exaggeration and projection. You here exaggerate about them, and they probably exaggerate about you. Both sides are dishonest and foolish in the extreme. Why is it so important to demonise Vacula at all costs? This makes no sense. I would guess that he’s never made death threats and does not “represent” those that do, so why suggest that, and go on about anyone pointing this out honestly as being prima facie evidence of some collusion? That just makes no sense.

  302. andywatson says

    Nerd of Redhead

    You have presented no EVIDENCE that this blog is officially trying to get RL fired. All you do is make unevidenced and unsupported assertions

    hahahahahahahahahaha. I never said “officially”.
    Blog Post Title “Thugs in cheap suits are not paragons of human rights”
    I don’t think anyone needs a crystal ball to see through the transparently obvious intent ;) “Thugs in cheap suits”. Pretty pathetic …

  303. Ulysses says

    andywatson adds a new fallacy to his repertoire. Claiming that titling a post “Thugs in cheap suits are not paragons of human rights” is a call for Ron Lindsay to be fired is a classic example of a non sequitur.

  304. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But that’s ridiculous.

    As is your unevidenced denial. Typical ‘pitter tactic. You won’t be believed until some links to EVIDENCE are present in your posts.

    I never said “officially”.

    Thanks for the acknowledgement. If you are honest and have integrity, the firing claims will be dropped as evidenceless bullshit. Get it?

  305. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Adria Richards was a complete idiot

    Evidence needed for your insult. Welcome to evidence, not opinion bases reality. Still not showing us you are attacking the Slymepit™. Some evidence for that would be nice…

  306. says

    @ andywatson

    I don’t think anyone needs a crystal ball to see through the transparently obvious intent ;) “Thugs in cheap suits”. Pretty pathetic …

    Er, … the “thugs” being referred to:

    who puff themselves up and call harassment a right, who claim tawdry garden-variety sexual bullying “free speech”

    Read the OP again. This time with comprehension. (Do you read only “between the lines” – even when the arguments are clearly and plainly expressed?)

    Does CFI, to your mind, benefit from having such people setting the tone? What is the alternative that Ron Lindsay is leading (his job, just bye-the-bye) towards?

  307. andywatson says

    Nerd of Redhead

    I never said “officially”.

    Thanks for the acknowledgement.

    It wasn’t an acknowledgement. It was clarification on your ludicrous assertion/implication when you used the word “officially” to suggest that I had said that. I had not.
    If I could get a bet that continued harassment of RL will go on (as it did for Richard Dawkins) for some months (until some new innocent ‘victim’ is identified for dogmatic ritual abuse) I would take that bet in a second (even without “EVIDENCE”). Life isn’t all about evidence, you’ll learn that in time, and there is no such thing as “Absolute Truth”, hence opinions are a very important part of life. Quoting Hitchens doesn’t mean much, he’s just a human (I liked him a lot though). So, it is 99.9% certain that this site intends to do all it can to get RL fired. That percentage is my ESTIMATE (I give it a deviation of 0.05%, so it’s not definite, just very very likely. ;). It’s a modern day Witch Hunt !! Get the bonfires blazing !!

  308. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    It was clarification on your ludicrous assertion/implication

    All your implications are ludicrous as they are UNEVIDENCED. Without links to evidence, all you have is your worthless opinion.

  309. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Life isn’t all about evidence, you’ll learn that in time,

    Gee, you are saying reality isn’t important? Or that I’m not an AARP card carrier of many years who understand you are peddling your inane and supported vision of reality? Evidence is reality checks to modify your thinking to match reality. And is why science works, compared to other “methods of knowing”. Now, mature intellectually and understand that reality.

  310. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Dang, typed too fast. meant to say:

    Or that I’m not an AARP card carrier of many years who understand you are peddling your inane and unsupported vision of reality?

  311. andywatson says

    hahahaha, can you provide evidence for that ?? ;)
    Everything above has evidence that is easily referencable by anyone with a search engine. Opinions however, are personal! So for example. I’m absolutely certain that you want to perform a Witch Hunt against RL, while you on the other hand have the opinion that RL should be fired immediately, and you will do everything you can to make sure that happens. That’s how opinions work. Evidence is different. So, RL “condescending” the audience is not a fact with EVIDENCE, it’s the opinions of the people that are members of the Witch Hunt Club. But they try to say that there is EVIDENCE for condescension, which is woo-woo.

  312. andywatson says

    No, reality is pretty much all that’s important to us as humans, but it exists through a filter and our brains can do funny things, such as create beliefs in invisible gods or magic (clearly a common drive as it exists in all cultures through all times) or create mad dogma’s about about the invisible gods and mad non-rational dogmas of this site. that’s all what it is, most people are sheep who require dogma to function, but what’s not ok, is using the dogma filter to defend Adria Richards daftness (even when she herself posts dick jokes on twitter, and ja-ja, it was a conference, so fuckin’ what, the guys didn’t harm her or anyone else. Maybe she was jealous that their dick jokes were better than her dick jokes?) or to try and get RL fired. You ever seen those American morons that chant “USA! USA! USA!”, that crap is the same as your crap “Witch Hunt! Witch Hunt! Witch Hunt!” … “and lo, the sheep did chant and follow, and the Witch Hunt did happen!” :)

  313. Ulysses says

    I started to fisk the troll’s post 318 but I gave up in the middle of the second paragraph of the wall o’text. This troll is not only longwinded but ignorant, opinionated, arrogant and not too bright. He misunderstands what MRA stands for, misrepresents Aria Richard’s calling out sexual harassment, doesn’t know what dogma is, and really likes misogynists. He must like them, he supports their positions and sneers at people who are anti-misogyny.

  314. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m absolutely certain that you want to perform a Witch Hunt against RL, while you on the other hand have the opinion that RL should be fired immediately, and you will do everything you can to make sure that happens.

    Who the fuck care what a fuckwit like you thinks? This is a non-sequitur. Typical dishonest Slymepit™ maneuver.

    RL “condescending” the audience is not a fact with EVIDENCE,

    Actually it is, as his talk has been published. You don’t understand EVIDENCE. What he said is public record. Your interpretation of what he said is your opinion. But my opinion does match that with others here. He engaged in bad behavior by his remarks, which should have been simply, welcome, thanks for coming, we have a good program, here’s our first speaker. Those of us with experience understand what is required from such a speech. What he did was to breach the protocol and preach at the attendees. Prima facie evidence he was condescending.

  315. zenlike says

    In case any lurker (of which I normally am one) has any lingering doubt about andywatson, on this tread in comment #260 he says:

    I deny being anti-FTB. I am not anti-here and I am not anti-there. I’m not a sheep.

    While a week age he said as comment 184 on the blogpost of Lindsay:

    SallyStrange and all of the FreeThoughtCult (including PZ “Jim Jones” Myers) only have “expertise” in: lies, distortion of truth, childish pettiness, and pouring filth and obfuscation on any debate. If SallyStrange’s mouth is moving, only ever ignore and/or laugh at her, do NOT engage her (or any of that foul bunch) in honest debate, as that is utterly pointless.

    Well done Mr. Lindsey for exposing petty fascists like Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, SallyStrange etc for what they are: bigots who try to hijack and any all discussions. I hope that other strong women come forward who can group together to drive away the PZ/Watson bigot-bullies by reasonable men and women who have a willingness to engage, debate, respect, question, listen and appreciate each others points of view. PZ/Watson are already utterly irrelevant, but let’s hope that they will also just shrivel away to utter obscurity before the end of this year. These people have no interest in human rights or womens rights; they have only ever been interested in their “me-me-me!!!” rights.

    Andy, you are a pathetic/pathological lying sack of shit.

  316. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    most people are sheep who require dogma to function,

    You’re baaahing us again. Your are a sheep. Consider that, as we have evidence and your don’t. Just your opinion.

  317. zenlike says

    Dang, and then I forgot to add that it is rather sad that someone who is eager to accuse others of being fascists and referring to Orwell, that this is the person who calls for the imprisonment of persons who call others misogynists.

  318. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    *snicker*
    AW skewered by evidence. No wonder xe avoided it like the plague.

  319. andywatson says

    @theophontes

    Read the OP again. This time with comprehension. (Do you read only “between the lines” – even when the arguments are clearly and plainly expressed?)

    who puff themselves up and call harassment a right, who claim tawdry garden-variety sexual bullying “free speech”

    Does CFI, to your mind, benefit from having such people setting the tone? What is the alternative that Ron Lindsay is leading (his job, just bye-the-bye) towards?

    yep, but the post is about RL, so who ultimately is he being compared to? Oh yes, that’s right, to them… it’s a pretty wild and loose drama-post, and yeah, the intent is pretty clear. i.e. Witch Hunt.

    Yes, I absolutely believe that CFI benefits from a decent person like that. He’s not any of the things that the Witch Hunters (you) are saying he is, his speech was well intentioned and non-condescending (and remember, as Nerd of Redhead pointed out above, the “condescension” charge is *opinion* based, and not *evidence* based, ta for that Nerd for Redhead). In his speech, he was talking about the kind of craziness that happens both here and on Slymepit / Skepchick / AVfM (set the death/rape threat people aside, those people are idiots obviously and are not ‘representative’) etc. Fuck, you people need to learn to not blow things out of proportion every 5 minutes. Everyone is the enemy, and the trigger switch of screaming “misogynist!” / “MRA!” at everyone is on high alert. And RL is right, you all act a bit crazy, you all talk like shit to each other (see Ogvorbis *constant* misrepresentation of things that I’ve said above) and I would rather see a million sane RL’s over any radical extremists like RW at CFI any day; now, that WOULD be scary as fuck if she was ever put in charge of something like that. The whole world RUN away from CFI in a second if that ever happened !!! :-o

  320. says

    SallyStrange and all of the FreeThoughtCult (including PZ “Jim Jones” Myers) only have “expertise” in: lies, distortion of truth, childish pettiness, and pouring filth and obfuscation on any debate. If SallyStrange’s mouth is moving, only ever ignore and/or laugh at her, do NOT engage her (or any of that foul bunch) in honest debate, as that is utterly pointless.

    Ah, andywatson is one of Sally Strange’s fanbois. That explains all this hot wind, reeking with the stench of dishonesty. As for

    PZ “Jim Jones” Myers

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh my, the rhetoric just gets more and more desperate. Tsk.

  321. andywatson says

    who calls for the imprisonment of persons who call others misogynists.

    yep, if somehow I found out I was from Krypton and had super-powers, I would immediately round up all bigots like that. Racists, sexists, loonies that run around constantly accusing people of bigotry etc. It would be great (don’t worry, as special treat for you, I’ll give you a nice padded cell with a view of the sky). Can’t say fairer than that! (you can thank me later, after the Witch Hunt is over!).

  322. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    uck, you people need to learn to not blow things out of proportion every 5 minutes.

    Sorry fuckwit, you are blowing your OPINION out of proportion. And still no evidence, so you say nothing cogent.

    The whole world RUN away from CFI in a second if that ever happened !!! :-o

    Ah, the paranoia shines….

  323. andywatson says

    hehe, did you like the PZ “Jim Jones” Myers comment, I was particularly happy with that one, I’m glad you also agree with me !!! :-p

    you missed the bit where I pointed out Sally’s hypocrisy though, that was quite nice, I was hoping you would post that bit also :)

  324. Stacy says

    Um, andywatson, you’ve already been caught out in a lie.

    No need for you to continue bullshitting. We’ve got your number. Cute how you’re trying to ignore the elephant in the room, though.

  325. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I would immediately round up all bigots like that.

    Ah, let the bigots have fee experession without being called out for what they are. Usually expressed by a bigot themselves.

    Racists, sexists, loonies that run around constantly accusing people of bigotry etc.

    Gee, you don’t seem to care about the actual bigots, just those calling them out for their bigotry. Tone troll be you.

    Can’t say fairer than that! (you can thank me later, after the Witch Hunt is over!).

    What do you do with the actual bigots, sexists, etc.? Which is you.

  326. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I was particularly happy with that one, I’m glad you also agree with me !!! :-p

    Yep, prima facie evidence you are nothing but liar and bullshit, and probable misogynist. Welcome to evidence based reality, not your delusional version of the world, were you aren’t called out for lying and bullshitting.

  327. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Andy’s a specimen of that rare type, the Super Troll. Analogous to the “super tasters,” everything is ratcheted up to 11 for Super Trolls. It’s congenital; they can’t help but lie and spin and sputter and at such a rapid clip they cannot keep up with what they thought they were trying to say. Basically you get a logical and ethical left-over-Sunday casserole filled with all manner of shit that just makes no sense together.

  328. nightshadequeen says

    Dear Andy:

    < a href=”URL HERE”>LINK</a>

    <blockquote>quote</blockquote>

    Actually give us some evidence, you rambling egoist.

  329. andywatson says

    I call out your bullshit to your face, and Sally Strange was totally hypocritical on that other blog, so it’s fair (she acted all coy saying she was offended at what RL said, but at the same time she is hurling abusive comments all over the place. totally hypocritcal). So I saw that quote and thought “what a bloody hypocrite”.
    Evidence of *what* nightshadequeen ??
    Josh, thanks for saying that I’m super. I think you are super too :)
    Nerd of Redhead

    “Yep, prima facie evidence you are nothing but liar and bullshit, and probable misogynist.”
    This is great, I love that one. wow. And again, dissent is equated to “misogyny”. I think you’ve proved my point about the dogma…
    What “lie” Stacey? Please elaborate?

  330. says

    SallyStrange:

    The kind of troll that makes you wonder whether it’s not a ringer, trying to discredit that point of view…

    Didn’t you have another fanboi troll following you about a while back, insisting you were lying about something? (Different nym, but same old shit.)

  331. andywatson says

    just to clear that up….
    Nerd of Redhead

    “Yep, prima facie evidence you are nothing but liar and bullshit, and probable misogynist.”

    This is great, I love that one. wow. And again, dissent is equated to “misogyny”. I think you’ve proved my point about the dogma…
    What “lie” Stacey? Please elaborate?

  332. andywatson says

    Stacey

    Um, andywatson, you’ve already been caught out in a lie.

    No need for you to continue bullshitting. We’ve got your number. Cute how you’re trying to ignore the elephant in the room, though.

    serisously, in what way is this a lie? Are you equating the fact that I called out Sally Strange’s bullshit on another blog, to a “lie” ?? That’s just bizarre. As I said above, the stuff you talk here, and the stuff they talk on the slymepite is equally ridiculous. What lie?

  333. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Andy, thank you for being so ridiculously dishonest. You’ve really done us a favor by keeping to the other side of the rift.

    Keep typing. The more you do, the clearer your motives are.

  334. andywatson says

    What have I been dishonest on Jackie? And what are my “motives”?
    I’ve been very clear on my motives, that this is a Witch Hunt, and that’s ludicrous.
    So what do you see as my motives?

  335. says

    You’re done, Andy. You’ve abandoned any pretense of actually discussing things in good faith. Just leave, because you are only making yourself look bad.

  336. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Calling out SallyStrange’s “bullshit?” Oh no, you didn’t. Sally runs intellectual and ethical circles around you. You’re a fussy, self-centered, entitled little shithead boy who’d rather the world be left as it is and to hell with the consequences for other people so long as that makes your mountain climbing interesting. Typical straight male libertarian whinging.

    You’re shit.

  337. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    He can take the time to inappropriately capitalize, but paragraph breaks and blockquotes are too much trouble. Soooooo typical.

  338. ChasCPeterson says

    I hope that other strong women come forward who can group together to drive away the PZ/Watson bigot-bullies

    you’re in luck!
    sl*mepit link

  339. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’ve been very clear on my motives,

    Nope, nothing but lies and bullshit. You do so much if it, you can’t keep your lies straight. Typical.

    And again, dissent is equated to “misogyny”.

    Dissent of an evidenced position requires evidence. Science is only refuted by more science. Your opinion isn’t and never will be evidence of anything other than your irrational thinking.

    serisously, in what way is this a lie?

    Lie = not congruent with reality.

  340. Amphiox says

    I’ve been very clear on my motives

    You have provided no reason to believe that your stated motives, however clearly expressed, are anything but deliberate and calculated lies.

  341. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Andy, telling people to be silent or at least deferential and polite in the face of threats, bigotry and harassment is not being neutral. It is supporting the the vile assholes out to frighten and marginalize others. Telling people being harassed, lied about and treated to volley after volley of misogyny that they are the real villains and that they should accept their natural place as targets for bigotry and threats is not neutral. It is just another silencing tactic to help maintain the current toxic climate. Warning us that it is hopeless and to give up now, is just more of the same. We get it, you’re afraid we’ll take your ice cream. You’re frightened into such a tizzy that you can’t manage to make sense or even argue in goodwill. That’s fine by me. See, we aren’t out to make friends with assholes like you. We’re here to let them know that we’re not going to take this shit off of them. So be afraid. Be very afraid. That ice cream is as good as ours. Muhahahahahaha!

    You’ve come here and shown your ass. Now prove you could find it with both hands if you tried by providing some evidence to support your claims, or don’t. If you can’t, you can go now. You’ve made PZ’s point for him. Your further assistance is not required.

  342. andywatson says

    Calling out SallyStrange’s “bullshit?” Oh no, you didn’t. Sally runs intellectual and ethical circles around you. You’re a fussy, self-centered, entitled little shithead boy who’d rather the world be left as it is and to hell with the consequences for other people so long as that makes your mountain climbing interesting. Typical straight male libertarian whinging. You’re shit.

    That’s a lot of insults. Exactly as I’ve been describing … Interesting isn’t it, you *entitle* yourselves to insult people with complete carte blanche, but if anyone cares to call out this behaviour, then a torrent of diarrhea is hurled at them. Exactly as you’ve done. Fairly predictable. I have no entitlement to anything, but I call your Witch Hunt (the point of the OP) to be what it is: Bullshit.

    “Typical straight male liberatian whinging. You’re shit”. That’s just an awful comment on so many levels. Stereotyping and abusing a whole section of society. Let’s turn that around. If anyone was to say to you “Typical lesbian democrat whinging. You’re shit”, then would you call that person a homophobe? But you denigrate other sections of society with complete impunity … and this you call honest and ethical behaviour?

  343. Stacy says

    serisously, in what way is this a lie?

    I have no idea what your “this” is referring to, but you are a liar.

    @zenlike caught you lying and provided the evidence at #354. To recap:

    In case any lurker (of which I normally am one) has any lingering doubt about andywatson, on this tread in comment #260 he says:

    I deny being anti-FTB. I am not anti-here and I am not anti-there. I’m not a sheep.

    While a week age he said as comment 184 on the blogpost of Lindsay:

    SallyStrange and all of the FreeThoughtCult (including PZ “Jim Jones” Myers) only have “expertise” in: lies, distortion of truth, childish pettiness, and pouring filth and obfuscation on any debate. If SallyStrange’s mouth is moving, only ever ignore and/or laugh at her, do NOT engage her (or any of that foul bunch) in honest debate, as that is utterly pointless….These people have no interest in human rights or womens rights; they have only ever been interested in their “me-me-me!!!” rights

    (Emphasis mine.)

    So, we know that:

    1. You are a liar.
    2. You are a bullshitter (bullshitting being distinct from lying.)
    3. You can’t write clearly (a sign of being unable to think clearly.)
    4. You are a liar.

  344. Tethys says

    andywatson is nothing if not a deeply dedicated troll. I am amused that he gets so offended when we call him out on his multiple lies. I was going to start listing them for fun chew-toy action so I searched his nym.

    Arrgh! There are several lies and misrepresentations in his first comment, and the second comment adds several more lies and gross misrepresentations of actual events. I decided that was too much work for such a pitiful specimen of humanity as andy.

    Still waiting for a link to that death threat andy. It’s long past put up or shut up time.

  345. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Goddamn you’re dumb, Andy. Like “Calling a white man honky is JUST AS BAD as calling a black man nigger!11!” level dumb.

  346. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Andy, telling feminists that they are engaged in a witch hunt for calling out misogyny is rather like telling Jews they’re engaged in a Holocaust for calling out anti-antisemitism.

    You’re really determined to make as big a fool of yourself as possible, aren’t you?

    You may be so dim that you can’t see your motives here, but the rest of us aren’t. You’ve taken the side of the liars, sexists and harassers. Good for us. You aren’t exactly a boon to your allies.

  347. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Oops…too many “anti”s. Sorry for the garbled writing.

  348. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Goddamn you’re dumb, Andy. Like “calling a white man honky is just as bad as saying ni***ger!;lkl1//!!” level dumb.

  349. Stacy says

    For the record, yes, Ron Lindsay’s “welcoming” remarks were utterly condescending and unprofessional (I was there.)

    Dan Fincke (among many others) said it very well:

    That he broke with traditional form of being a host rather than a critic when the event’s speaker roster was set to be all women and his audience was predominantly women sent a message, whether he intended it or not. It was that women don’t deserve the same basic respect and civility that is routinely afforded to your average conference speakers and participants. A crowd of women can get a stern talking to and skeptical querying about issues they are probably oblivious to in lieu of a welcome.

    Now, Ron Lindsay was an egregious violator of civility principles by being such a disrespectful host and then poisoning the well against Rebecca Watson in his post replying to her counter post to his talk and to his first blog defense of it. And this is especially upsetting given that only this past spring he signed a civility pledge meant to set a standard for others in the community to follow.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2013/05/feminism-civility-and-ron-lindsays-welcome-to-women-in-secularism/

  350. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Did you read the comments collected by Nugent on his blog? The link I posted? When you defend those who harass, and the concomitant denial of human rights, you are are siding with these people: Vacula and the Slympitters..

    I read them. And nobody defends that.

    Another lie* from andywatson. See Pitchguest doing so here.

    *Or just possibly ignorance. But given this bare-faced lie:

    I deny being anti-FTB.

    exposed by zenlike@354, along with all the usual lies about FtB dogma, witch hunts, etc., I’m going with “lie” as the best current hypothesis.

  351. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I have no entitlement to anything, but I call your Witch Hunt (the point of the OP) to be what it is: Bullshit.

    And we call your calling it bullshit, bullshit. Checkmate.

    Still attempting to say that calling out bigotry is worse than being the bigot and experessing bigotry?

    How do you call out real bigotry?

  352. andywatson says

    It is supporting the the vile assholes out to frighten and marginalize others. Telling people being harassed, lied about and treated to volley after volley of misogyny that they are the real villains and that they should accept their natural place as targets for bigotry and threats is not neutral.

    nope, I’m not saying accept it, I pointed this out many times above. Do you want equality? Then why do you use “MRA” as an insult? I’ve never needed for anything in my life, but some men have a perfect right to use activism if they are in difficult situations. There are plenty of sexual harassment cases by women towards men, do you denigrate things that men might go through, is that a joke to you? Most men and women never have any serious problems in life but do men in Western society have an unfair slice of the pie. Yes, they do through thousands of years of it being that way, and that’s totally unfair, but do you really think that misrepresenting people (as Ogvorbis did above) and denigrating men as “fucking misogynist MRA”, and say men who are beaten by their wives (which is actually a fairly common situation) is about equality? That’s not equality, that just bigotry on your part. I don’t believe you want equality by your views and your actions. You certainly do not show it. The Witch Hunt to get RL fired is a part of political and radical inequality against a man. If RL was a woman and gave the IDENTICAL speech, the response would be totally different “Ms Lindsay gave a great talk where she warned us that listening to others can be more constructive” etc. That’s what would have happened, so no, you are not about equality, this is a Witch Hunt.

    It is just another silencing tactic to help maintain the current toxic climate. Warning us that it is hopeless and to give up now, is just more of the same.

    Nope, misrepresentation, not anything that I said. If you want equality, don’t go attacking everyone all the time and having completely transparent Witch Hunts like this. I never said it’s hopeless (it’s not, imho), and I never said you should give up (I don’t think you should, but I think you should give up with political bullying like trying to get RL fired), and no you shouldn’t settle for anything less than equality. I don’t think anyone should.

    We get it, you’re afraid we’ll take your ice cream.

    Jim Jones favored cyanide-laced grape-flavored Flavor Aid.

    You’ve made PZ’s point for him. Your further assistance is not required.

    yep, my assistance in the Witch Hunt you mean? Well, yep, you never had that. And what point did I make for PZ Myers? Are you suggesting that I am, as PZ talks about, one of a group of people that sends death/rape threats to people? What else could you be alluding to, that I support such groups, or enable that? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Take the people that make sexual slurs / death / rape threats away from the Slymepit, and what’s the difference between you and them?

  353. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Andy, you aren’t anti-FTBs but we’re inquisitors and PZ is just like a mass murderer?

    If you truly believe those things, why would you not be anti-FTBs?

    Oh, that’s right. Apathy in the face of injustice is the moral high ground in your world.
    *headesk*

  354. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    I’ve never needed for anything in my life

    And that’s exactly why you’re such a self-centered person utterly lacking in empathy or emotional response to anyone else’s concerns. Only yours. Only Andy’s.

  355. Tethys says

    Take the people that make sexual slurs / death / rape threats away from the Slymepit, and what’s the difference between you and them?

    One group thinks that harassing women with rape threats, death threats, and constant sexual slurs is a fun and rewarding hobby.

    FTB fights the people who agree with that group.

    The difference is very clear to anyone who does not have their head shoved up their rectum.

    Still waiting for a link to the death threat here andy.

  356. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    MRA is an insult because MRAs are rape apologists and women hating anti-feminists. They cry misandry while perpetrating the worst sorts of stereotypes about men. They are bigots who endorse belittling, threatening, raping and marginalizing women. They endorse murder and terrorism. They also support Warren Farrell, a man known to think raping children is a nice way to bond with them. Feminism is not anti-men and as has been said so many times before, patriarchy hurts men too. What feminism fights for on behalf of men, MRAs do not. They are not interested in rights anymore than the KKK is.
    …and here you are supporting them. *Shock and dismay*

  357. says

    Do you want equality? Then why do you use “MRA” as an insult?

    Because MRAs are overwhelmingly as thick-witted, obnoxious, and insultingly dishonest as you are. Recognizing this fact does not indicate hypocrisy with regards to any desire for equality. Anyone can fly the flag of equality, but often their actions don’t match their stated intentions. So it is with MRAs, Republicans, religious fundamentalists of all stripes, and libertarians.

    You know what does indicate hypocrisy vis-a-vis desiring equality, which you allege to do? Spending most of one’s time lecturing those fighting against inequality about how they should be quiet, unobtrusive, polite, and try not to rock the boat, and spending little or zero time pushing back against the people reinforcing the status quo. History’s pretty clear on the fact that none of those tactics have ever worked in isolation. Either you don’t know that, which means you’re too ignorant to do anything but get in the way, or you do know that and are lying maliciously. Given your history of outright lying right here in this thread, I’m assigning higher probability to the latter.

  358. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Take the people that make sexual slurs / death / rape threats away from the Slymepit, and what’s the difference between you and them? – andywatson

    Srsly? Can anyone play?
    “Take away the people who lie about scientific findings, quote-mine papers, and claim humans and dinosaurs coexisted, and what’s the difference between “Answers in Genesis” and you?”
    “Take away the people who picket funerals with signs saying “God hates fags”, and what’s the difference between Westboro Baptist Church and you?”
    “Take away the people who say gays, Hindus, Jews and apostates should be beheaded, and called the 9/11 hijackers “the magnificent 19″, and what’s the difference between al-Muhajiroun and you?”
    Hey, this is fun!

  359. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    If RL was a woman and gave the IDENTICAL speech, the response would be totally different “Ms Lindsay gave a great talk where she warned us that listening to others can be more constructive” etc. – andywatson

    Either this is another lie, or you are completely deluded. The Slymepitters, as they are very keen to point out, do include women. Indeed, the very founder of the Slymepit, and long one of its keenest haters, is Abbie Smith. I believe she coined the charming epithet “Twatson” for Rebecca Watson. If anyone, man, woman, genderqueer or intersex, had presented the kind of shit sandwich Lindsay did at WiS2, they would have been told how much it stank.

  360. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Andy, someone should teach you the difference between “nice” and “good”. I don’t give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about being “nice” to cruel and malicious assholes. I am good enough not to use bigoted slurs toward them, threaten, harass or lie about them. That’s a pretty low bar, but it’s one the opposition to harassment policies, decency and equality can’t seem to clear. To be kind to the cruel is often to be cruel to the kind. That’s what you started out doing here and from there, you just went into a tailspin of stupid.

    You are tone trolling. You are suggesting that if we set aside content, that our tone is just as rude as the sexist liars and their creepy cheerleaders. What if it is? Content matters.

    Andy, this is you:
    *Gasp* Won’t anyone think of the poor bigoted harassers and assorted creepy assholes who adore them? People have been rude to them when they support hateful, toxic shit that makes the lives of others miserable and places them in danger! Oh noes! The people they marginalize and threaten should say “Pretty please” if they want to stop being mistreated for daring to exist!

    No…just…no.

  361. says

    Anita Sarkeesion on how she accidentally became the villain in a massive multiplayer online AND real-life game. Just as with Anita Sarkeesian, the people harassing Ophelia Benson, Surly Amy, and FTBloggers in general are not doing it because they get attention from their targets. They get positive reinforcement and attention from each other. In Anita Sarkeesian’s case, her harassers explicitly referred to harassing her as a game, in which she was the big enemy, and winning would constitute preventing her from *gasp horror* making videos that critically examined gender in video games. Their behavior mirrors that of the people in the atheist/skeptical movement targeting prominent feminists. They are brave heroes, the feminists are the villains trying to end free speech and ruin everyone’s fun, they have their message boards where they pick apart their targets’ words and activities and brag about counting coup in some way – i.e., getting blocked or banned for using abusive language.

    So, yes, there is coordination, and, no, ignoring them doesn’t make them go away. And the constant stream of harassment has the same effect as it would if we were speaking in a public space in real life. If women can count on getting denigrated, dehumanized, and threatened disproportionately just because they are women when they enter the public sphere, then proportionately fewer will enter the public sphere. It’s just human nature. Some people are more sensitive, some people are less. This doesn’t vary by gender or race, as far as I can see. So if a particular demographic gets targeted for harassment whenever they reveal themselves online, then logic dictates that a certain percentage of members of that demographic simply won’t bother. The internet is an important part of our public life now, so it’s unconscionable that we’re even discussing whether it’s worth it to tamp down gender-based harassment and other forms of exclusion from public life.

    But then, I don’t expect the high-RWA reactionary types that make up the bulk of the libertarian/MRA faction to really appreciate the value of a vibrant public square. Too fascist or socialist or something like that. We’re not the boss of them. That’s the important part. The ONLY important part, according to the way they act.

  362. Amphiox says

    Do you want good tea? Why should you use Tea Party as an insult?
    Do you believe in family and kinship? Why would KKK be an insult?

  363. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Then why do you use “MRA” as an insult?

    It’s not an insult. It’s a description of their beliefs for those coming to the blog. Lets them know those called that are not arguing in good faith, which requires evidence. And why you don’t argue in good faith.

  364. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If you want equality, don’t go attacking everyone all the time and having completely transparent Witch Hunts like this.

    Citation needed, for both the equality and witch hunt claims. No evidence, claims dismissed as utter and total bullshit.

  365. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    I see people like Andy wailing that we won’t get equality if we aren’t nicer about wanting it and it is clear to me where the disconnect is. To them equality is not something we already have that shitheads don’t want to recognize. It is something those with privilege may choose to gift us with if we grovel sufficiently for it. It isn’t that we deserve to live a life that does not include fearing for our safety or having our voices heard too. It is that we need to earn our basic rights by garnering goodwill with those who actively seek to suppress them. We don’t get to be angry or outraged, because humanity wasn’t ours in the first place. It belongs only to them and they like being able to dish it out in tiny, condescending bites as they see fit.
    Of course they have it backwards. Those are already my rights. If I’m taking them, it is from the people trying to steal them. If you get in my way, you can expect me to correct you publicly and without any concern for my tone. My humanity is not up for debate. I will not be civil when you suggest it is. If you welcome doxxing, harassing, slur slinging, bigots, but scold their targets, you don’t charity. You don’t get patience. You get shown the door. That’s not a witch hunt. In a witch hunt it is the powerless (usually the poor, the elderly, women and children) being stolen from, lied about, tortured and murdered. It is not the marginalized standing up to the privileged and saying they’ve had enough. Claiming otherwise is either a symptom of some serious confusion or just outright lying.

  366. Ichthyic says

    Andy sez:

    Jeez, what a load of out of control nonsense …

    and finally produces an accurate, concise summary of his entire presence here.

    this clown didn’t come here to discuss anything, he came here to troll.

    I can haz banhammer?

  367. Ogvorbis: Arkranger of Doom! says

    Ogvorbis ignored my points and then went with the predicable: “Why are you defending Vacula so hard? What is your purpose? Why are you supporting the Slymepitters and the A Voice for Men hero Justin Vacula?”

    Since you have completely and totally ignored the substantive responses (see my #240 above) I have made to your comments, I figured I would try a different tactic. To which you responded with:

    Well, as you know, I’m not defending him in any way.

    Except that you are defending him and his fan base. You are defending the Slymepitters. You claim not to side with them but you comments on other blogs say otherwise. Your comments here say otherwise. You claim to be on no side yet you vigourously defend the status quo and apathy — and the status quo is a patriarchal society (and atheism and skepticism is part of that society and we all carry the societal baggage of that patriarchy) immersed in sexism, misogyny, rape culture and the objectification of women.

    Of course, I expect you to ignore what I actually wrote because, in your mind (as expressed in your comments here (who you actually are, I have no way of knowing)), I am an amoral liar who is out to prevent equality, to prevent human rights, to encourage rape culture and protect the rights of the patriarchy.

  368. zenlike says

    andythebullshitter:

    hehe, did you like the PZ “Jim Jones” Myers comment, I was particularly happy with that one, I’m glad you also agree with me !!! :-p

    I post a comment made by you. I posted a second comment that shows you were lying in your first comment. And somehow you think I agree with you? You are not very bright are you? Ever heard of reading comprehension?

    Anyway, thanks for confirming that the second comment was indeed made by you. When I was posting it I was thinking that maybe you were going to go into full denial mode.

  369. Ichthyic says

    getting back on topic…

    anyone check out the lastest missive from CFI?

    http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/an_open_letter_to_the_secular_community/

    you know, a lot of comments have been made about Dan Fincke’s “civility pledge”. some agreeing with the idea, others not so much. However, I can’t recall a single person saying that Dan was anything other than honest in his approach, and that he most certainly wasn’t using it to hide behind, or create an artificial sense of moral superiority.

    OTOH, this entire missive REEKS of creating an artificial sense of superiority to hide behind, especially given that over half of it actually attacks the VERY THINGS Ron Lindsay pulled over the last several days.

    It talks about amiinstrating threads for civility, and that responsibility would fall to those who created the threads to begin with, but what about Ron? HE CREATED THE INCIVILITY. We all know how well self-regulation works in reality.

    This is a poor substitute for a recognition of bad behavior on the part of those who actually bear the very responsibilities laid out in that missive.

    It’s a deliberate ignorance of the basis for the reactions to Ron’s behavior itself.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else find it to be more than a little insulting to their intelligence?

  370. says

    Zenlike:

    And somehow you think I agree with you?

    I believe that was aimed at me, with andywatson demonstrating that andywatson doesn’t know when they are being laughed at, and that it was in no way a compliment, nor any sort of agreement. I was wrong when I noted andywatson is a bit of an idiot. Andywatson is a complete idiot.

  371. Ulysses says

    Ichthyic @409

    That’s the Skepchick’s Open Letter first published in April.

  372. Tethys says

    That’s the Skepchick’s Open Letter first published in April

    No, that open letter is not from the Skepchicks. It’s from CFI.

    RW wrote a response to it here that begins “Good news! The leaders of the secular movement have gone to the mountaintop and returned holding a stone tablet engraved with wisdom for us to behold.”.

  373. says

    So, what that says is: men are not *entitled* to activism to defend what they feel is important to them, and it is impossible in your eyes for a man who cares about mens rights to be for equality (i.e. if he is “MRA” then he is automatically a “misogynist”.

    Just in case you’re not familiar with actual MRAs, or the so-called “manosphere” (which I do think is possible even if you’re slymepit sympathetic, as you really, really come off): They don’t really care about “men’s equality” or human rights. They care about shitting on feminism. That’s it. They seem to acknowledge that there are problems with being a man in society (I should know, having been male my entire life), but then get it backwards and assume the cause of all those problems is feminism (many of them ironically, accept the assumption that causes most of the problem; the notion of “manliness”, or an “ideal man”). Regardless of whether you identify as a feminist, those who identify as MRAs have more in common with White Citizens Councillors than with the Civil Rights Movement.

    Imagine a guy did this 2 women making dick jokes in the row behind her instead of 2 guys

    I’d support the man. If someone is making you uncomfortable at a conference, report it. This is gender independent. Adria Richards just happened to get it much worse because she’s a woman, and lots of people get off on harassing women (this refers to the morons issuing rape/death threats, not the lesser idiots who insist on making her the villain without such threats).

    his speech was well intentioned and non-condescending (and remember, as Nerd of Redhead pointed out above, the “condescension” charge is *opinion* based

    Intention, as the cliche goes, isn’t magic. I’m now beginning to wonder if you understand how basic human intention works; interpretation is evidence, and it’s based on the listeners reaction, not the speakers intention.

    If he didn’t intend it to sound condescending, but it came off that way, it was condescending. In person, I tend to have that problem a lot (coming off as condescending without meaning to, in case it wasn’t clear). You know what the proper response is? Apologize.

    If Lindsay had just admitted off the bat it was a mistake and apologized, this whole issue would have instantaneously evaporated. Keep in mind Lindsay essentially declared himself an ally in the past (he wrote a “speaking out against hate directed at women” post for Surly Amy last year), so he would have almost certainly been given slack.

  374. says

    Actually what I said, and you can see, is “without evidence”.

    irrelevant. you want people thrown in prison for speech. that’s authoritarian.

    What you propose is utterly authoritarian. Some mad person (you) tells someone else they are a misogynist, and that’s it, they are tarred for life, with no right to comeback, they have been *labelled* by Sally Strange WRA (“Womens Rights Activist”) and that’s just fine in your authoritarian nightmare.

    it is pretty clear that you don’t know what “authoritarian” means, if you think throwing people in jail for speech isn’t, but calling people “misogynist” is.

    Ron Lindsay is a person that dared to speak at your conference (YOUR conference! how dare he! well, he was justified as he’s the president of the CFI, but don’t let that point get in the way of a good Witch Hunt!).

    you have already been corrected on this point; repeating it is willful ignorance verging on plain lying.

    Aren’t Witch Hunts wonderful things??

    criticizing someone is not a witch hunt; not even if that person is a “leader”; authoritarian dipshit.

    Ron Lindsay is against abusers,

    oh yeah; he’s so much against them, he’s personally welcomed one at WiSCFI (while refusing to welcome the speakers and other attendees), and he lets them freely comment on his blog. I don’t think you understand what it means to be “against” something, either.

    if you impotently shout “stop abusing!” across the “internet”, gues what happens!?

    the same thing that happens when people do it in meatspace: first you get backlash, then when enough people do it you get a cultural shift and things get better. Learn how society works before having opinions on it, m’kay?

    So, to label Ron Lindsay / Vacula / whoever else as all being part of some “coordinated group that support or empower rape threat’ists” is inherently unjust and well, just total and utter bullshit.

    1)Lindsay isn’t being labeled as being part of any group, you’re making that up.
    2)Vacula is a writer for a recognised hate group. As in: the SPLC has them listed as a hate group, the same way they list St0rmfr0nt and V-Dare. It’s perfectly fair to associate him with the people for whom he writes.

    But that is what he did, though your dogma blinds you to it.

    dude, you know we can see the comment section at his blog, and we know he welcomed a writer for a hate group to WiSCFI, right? I’m thinking we’re not the ones “blinded” here.

    Firstly, *no*, censoring people is an absolutely bullshit approach.

    I see that you don’t know what censorship is, either. Hint: marginalizing abusers by not giving them a platform is not actually censorship.

    He openly criticized all the way that people talk to each other, he said how the tone poisons the debate on both sides. He said this.

    he said it, and then didn’t actually act on it. that’s hypocrisy, not being against abuse.

    The death threat you can see above (it was quoted by someone else,

    no one quoted any death threats. why are you making things up? wtf?

    But more importantly, I never said this was “worse” than death threats,

    vs.

    I have seen equal barrages of incessant hatred right here, to anyone that dares to disagrees with the dogma of this site.

    so ok, you said it’s “equal”, not “worse”, but that’s hardly true either.

    What I did say was there were far worse things said than the OP’s quote.

    only after the goalpost shift; before, you were claiming that there’s equal levels of “barrages of incessant hatred”, which references the death and rape threats, not the quote in the OP.

    Even 500 such death threat quotes are just anecdotal evidence.

    you clearly have no idea what the words you just used actually mean.

    (so here, against Ron Lindsay as if he is responsible for them)

    quote or it didn’t happen. Pointing out that his pseudo-neutral stance ends up skewing in favor of the harassers is not the same as saying he’s responsible for death threats.

    But on this site, as you can see in virtually every post, this is done on an almost daily basis

    this has already been disproven. Repeating it makes you a liar.

    If you can’t work out the dogma from all of the above, that’s pretty worrying.

    since you made up “all of the above”, the only worrying thing is your tenuous grasp on reality.

    the daft thing about moderating comments out of existence

    Well, perhaps you should talk to him about it. He was one among several who signed a very public document about doing exactly that. (Among other things.)

    So you just contradicted yourself, as in your previous post you said he was not doing that … “He chooses not to do any of those things.”. wow …

    are you really this stupid, or do you just play dumb on the internet? there is no contradiction in saying that Lindsay signed a pledge promising moderation, and saying that he doesn’t actually act on that pledge.

    but if someone says something that is criminal go for it, delete that,

    false dichotomy. not everything that’s bad is illegal. most workplace harassment for example is not criminally actionable, but it’s still harmful. But given your desire to throw people in jail for expressing their views, this is probably the only way you can comprehend things.

    you end up with people going and expressing those same views elsewhere

    what the fuck do I care if bigots are having their bigoted circlejerk elsewhere? the point is not to let them run rampant in the secular/atheist/skeptic community.

    So yeah, his twitter comment there is *completely consistent* with the document that he signed,

    incorrect, since the pledge was not about criminal actions but about “uncivil” speech. and he’s contradicted that signed pledge with his refusal to moderate his blog and with his personal welcome to a person who writes for a recognized hate group.

    yep, but the post is about RL, so who ultimately is he being compared to? Oh yes, that’s right, to them… i

    bullshit. you’ve been told multiple times now that Lindsay is not being compared to anyone, so stop repeating that patent falsehood.

    He’s not any of the things that the Witch Hunters (you) are saying he is,

    dude, you’ve made up every single supposed characterization of Lindsay; this is worse than a strawman.

    I would rather see a million sane RL’s over any radical extremists like RW at CFI any day

    I’m sure you would. Moderates hate having their cozy world rattled. That means nothing though, since all that moderates like you have ever done is hinder progress.

    yep, if somehow I found out I was from Krypton and had super-powers, I would immediately round up all bigots like that. Racists, sexists, loonies that run around constantly accusing people of bigotry etc.

    authoritarian.

    hehe, did you like the PZ “Jim Jones” Myers comment, I was particularly happy with that one, I’m glad you also agree with me !!! :-p

    you have completely lost the plot.

    As I said above, the stuff you talk here, and the stuff they talk on the slymepite is equally ridiculous.

    didn’t you just claim you weren’t equating what’s said here to threats…? hmm….

    nope, I’m not saying accept it, I pointed this out many times above.

    you claimed pposing it is like opposing the wind; what other interpretation other than “accept it” is there?

    Do you want equality? Then why do you use “MRA” as an insult? I’ve never needed for anything in my life, but some men have a perfect right to use activism if they are in difficult situations.

    you’re once clueless fucker. MRAs don’t do activism to help men; they do anti-feminst agitation.

    say men who are beaten by their wives (which is actually a fairly common situation) is about equality?

    you fucking bullshitter, you better cite where anyone here claimed such a thing. I’m fucking sick of your pathetic fabrications about what people here do or do not say.

    The Witch Hunt to get RL fired is a part of political and radical inequality against a man. If RL was a woman and gave the IDENTICAL speech, the response would be totally different “Ms Lindsay gave a great talk where she warned us that listening to others can be more constructive” etc.

    assertion contrary to evidence. Why do you keep on making up shit, andy? You are looking more and more like a pathological liar. :-/

    Take the people that make sexual slurs / death / rape threats away from the Slymepit, and what’s the difference between you and them?

    the fact that no such people need to be taken away from this side. What a ridiculous thing to say: “take all the horrible things the other side does away, and then you’re the same”. LOL.

  375. Ulysses says

    Tethys @412

    If you look at the date on the page you linked you’ll see it’s from April.

  376. Tethys says

    Yes Ulysses, I remember reading both the Open Letter from CFI, and Rebecca Watsons response (my link) back in April. My point is that the skepchicks aren’t the authors of the Open Letter.

  377. Ogvorbis: Arkranger of Doom! says

    Jadehawk:

    Well done (# 414).

    andy really does seem to be going for the shotgun approach. Keep shouting and pointing and eventually hopes to hit something that actually exists.

  378. says

    Icthyic #409, that Open Letter was written weeks before WISC2, so it’s not a response to recent criticism.

    That Ron Lindsay signed on to a document specifically pledging to (among other things) moderate comments to ensure civility though? As others have pointed out, he hasn’t fulfilled that pledge at all.

  379. Ichthyic says

    that Open Letter was written weeks before WISC2, so it’s not a response to recent criticism.

    doh!

    huh, I just saw it on the front page of CFI and assumed it was recent.

  380. says

    The CFI front page seems to auto-pull its links from several sources within its network of sites, and the ones at the top of the page (news releases and org news) are not necessarily as recent as the links to blog posts below that top section, in fact since various CFI member blogs publish far more frequently than the org does officially the most recent entry on the front page is most likely to be a member’s blog post most days.

    CFI could make that much clearer with more informative section headings and by displaying the publication date for each item on the front page, if they told their webmonkeys to make it so.

  381. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    treestump@424,

    Do you have any idea what a witch hunt actually involved? If so, you should have some idea how stupid and offensive it is to use that term to apply to strongly objecting to Lindsay’s dump on the participants of WiS2, or even to calls for him to lose his job.

    No, andywatson was not misrepresented in any way, and his posts made no good points at all (I notice you don’t actually specify any). Moreover, he is a proven liar, see #354. And guess what, I don’t believe you are honest. In fact, I suspect you’re andywatson.

  382. Nick Gotts says

    Nah, #354 does not “prove” any lie at all – treestump

    Yes, it quite plainly does: andywatson denies here that’s he’s anti-FTB, but is shown to have ranted about:

    SallyStrange and all of the FreeThoughtCult (including PZ “Jim Jones” Myers)

    And your denial proves that you’re a liar too, and strengthens the suspicion that you’re andywatson.

    As for the rest of your comment, WTF are you on about? I haven’t posted any cartoons on this thread.

  383. Nick Gotts says

    BTW, treestump@427, I’m not stupid enough to follow links from a proven liar. I’d advise everyone else not to do so.

  384. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    BTW, treestump@427, I’m not stupid enough to follow links from a proven liar. I’d advise everyone else not to do so.

    Excellent advice.

  385. Nick Gotts says

    Nick, you posted these links above at #392

    No I didn’t, liar. I posted a link to a comment by a Slymepit scumbag called Pitchguest. I wouldn’t follow his links any more than I’d follow yours.

  386. says

    Nick posted a link in #392 to a comment by Pitchguest on another blog, and it was Pitchguest who posted those links in that comment.

    Liar.

  387. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I never click on links from those I don’t trust. And anybody claiming AW was anything other than a loudmouthed hypocritical tone troll I don’t trust.

  388. John Morales says

    Trolling troll trolls stupidly.

    [1] You guys completely misrepresented that andywatson above. [2] You took quotes from him and totally twisted their context over and over [3] e.g. you said that he was calling for “apathy” but that is absolutely not what he said at all [4] as he made it clear that he was for activism for feminism and atheism, [5] but just not for a witch hunt against Ron Lindsay.

    [6] Well, it’s fortunate that anyone can go back and read the full posts (which make good points I believe) as [7] I don’t believe the shredded up misrepresentations are honest.

    1..5 are shown to be bullshit as per 6 which is true, as is #7.

    (Not even you could believe your shredded up misrepresentations are honest.)

  389. John Morales says

    treestump, I see you made 5 bullshit claims, now you wank on about someone linking to some comics somewhere.

    (You have no credibility)

  390. Nick Gotts says

    treestump@437,

    You’re a barefaced liar, as anyone can easily check for themselves: there is nothing that could even be mistaken for an indication that Pitchguest is quoting me, as this:

    though he didn’t use blockquotes, it’s a quote from Nick

    admits. No evidence whatsoever is provided for the claim made. That’s because there is none, because it’s not a quote from me, as treestump clearly knows.

    Treestump, only you know what you think the point of posting such obvious lies is, but it’s strong evidence you’re a complete lackwit as well as a lying shitbucket.

  391. John Morales says

    treestump, seriously, your trolling is feeble.

    (Try to be less boring)

  392. Nick Gotts says

    treestump,

    Your stupid lies are excellent evidence that you are a stupid liar.

  393. John Morales says

    troll:

    Have you done more of these? I’d love to see the full set as the 3 here are just so well done.

    Your continued spamming of some comics somewhere is pointless.

  394. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Ah well, I’m guessing this specimen and its droppings will soon disappear, so I leave it be.

  395. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, Troll is a stupid fuckwit if it thinks we are going to go to its malware site. That’s been done before here, so everybody is suspicious of trolls and their links.

  396. ChasCPeterson says

    the “great parody work” is by sl*mepitizen Jan Steen. Yeah, there’s plenty more where those came from, and he’s also got a puppetshow series that you’ll enjoy (puerility seems to float your boat). It’s all over there, where it belongs.

  397. ChasCPeterson says

    I heard a rumour that Pharyngula have a plan to

    trollig troll trolls

  398. says

    Most of the Horde are in timezones where it’s sleeping hours right now, you drongo.

    But do keep on dancing and waving that bladder on a stick, cupcake. You’re not doing the damage you think you’re doing, so if pointless wittering floats your boat, then witter away.

  399. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    It’s just my opinion, but that seems a pretty unethical plan to me …

    So it’s no wonder you came up with it yourself, then?

    I wonder how long this was planned.

    For as long as it’s been in your head.

  400. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    So let me get this straight: treestump is willing to jump to conclusions on such flimsy evidence as Rebecca Watson hasn’t posted for 14 days. But a whole speech that derided the group being addressed for being rude, or telling them that their worries of being unwelcome are unfounded therefore they weren’t being welcomed, because they know it, or the association between RW and North Korea, or that he personally welcomed a ‘pitter and AVfM poster-boy who is unwilling to condemn the ongoing harassment, mockery and derision from his chums against FTB… and we’re somehow in the wrong for thinking that Ron Lindsay isn’t fit to run as a ‘leader’ of anything?

  401. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    And if it doesn’t happen it’s because of the efforts of #braveheroes such as yourself. This certainly is a win-win outcome for your paranoid fantasy.

  402. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    What planet are you from, Treestump? Because on this one it refers to eating. In this case Sally is referring to feeding the trolls. You are the troll. My little girl has a T-shirt with a bunny eating cookies that says “Nom, nom, nom”, because most often “nomming” is done by baby animals. I Googled it and nowhere to be seen was an oral sex reference. There were kittens and bunnies eating adorably, though. But then, you know that. You’re a lying liar and you’re lying.

  403. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Riiiiight, it’s a conspiracy just like the one that involved steering a tornado into an atheist’s home and so she could serve the forces of darkness on TV by politely answering a rude reporter.

    Treestump, it’s nice that you’re trying to make Glenn Beck look more rational by trying to out-wacky him. Most people wouldn’t be willing to destroy their own credibility like that. You really went the extra mile. I’m impressed. Does Beck know you’ve got his back?

  404. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Treestump, there is no neutral position to take on harassment and bigotry. Ron has not shown himself to be a decent person. Now take your tinfoil hat and go away. I’m bored of the lies and projection.

  405. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    hatemongers

    Eh? Turn around, you came to the wrong place if you want to start throwing that word around here hoping it sticks. The people who operate out of hatred, hatred for FTB, hatred for Watson, hatred for Ophelia, hatred for Skepchick, can all be found at the ‘pit. I totally understand your confusion. After all, you’re totally new to the debate and clearly have no dog in the fight.

  406. says

    @ andywatson

    He’s not any of the things that the Witch Hunters (you) are saying he is, his speech was well intentioned and non-condescending

    Again, you show your lack of reading comprehension. What, specifically, did I say in criticism of RL?

    I am sure RL feels his speech was well intentioned and non-condescending. I can even believe that his really were well intentioned, in their own unselfcritical way. Unfortunately his intentions did not prevent him from being condescending, which was all the more highlighted by the audience and context of the speech. I think it says a lot about you, that you do not cringe upon reading his speech.

    … Sally Strange …

    Here again. Rather than spewing screenfulls of bile, and verbose tone trolling, you could actually STFU and learn something of value from the very person you are attacking.

  407. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    it’s almost certainly a preliminary step before putting a “Replace Ron Lindsay” plan into action

    Care to wager on it? If this happens and Lindsay is replaced by any one of those people you’ve mentioned then you will get $10usd. If it doesn’t happen then you come back here with a photograph of yourself in a tinfoil dunce hat with an apology, signed (with your nym of course) and dated. Your face doesn’t have to be visible (even though you don’t have to really worry about doxxing or people stalking you around here.)

    What d’ya say? Care to chance it?

  408. anteprepro says

    I thought you guys at FTB were meant to be the #braveheroes?

    This, on top of everything else. So, is it tiresome to be so consistently and persistently wrong? Or is it freeing to not worry about facts before spouting off about whatever you decide that you are an expert in?

  409. anteprepro says

    In this thing (called “politics”), very often people manipulate situations towards goals that they want to achieve….what people are capable of doing is whipping up scandals to discredit other people so that they can get their *own* people into positions of power.

    Reacting to someone politically throwing women under the bus? Manipulative and political.

    Asserting without evidence that our outrage is actually a Machiavellian scheme to replace Ron Lindsay with Rebecca Watson? *whistles innocently*

    (Also: Why is it that discussions about the leadership of atheist organization are “political” and yet TEH JOBS of the people in those positions are defended as if they were just regular working joes, scraping to get by? Why is it that criticism of them is treated as “political” and yet, when you are defending their job, you pretend that their job ISN’T a “political” position, and thus we aren’t justified in expecting someone to lose said job for reasons that people typically lose jobs in, you know, “politics”?)

  410. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    @throwaway, are you saying that it’s ok to call *anyone* at that Slympit site “hatemongers”,

    No, read it again.

    The people who operate out of hatred, hatred for FTB, hatred for Watson, hatred for Ophelia, hatred for Skepchick, can all be found at the ‘pit.

    I’m actually saying that you won’t find the hatemongers here, but you will find a fair sample elsewhere.

    Another thing, boiling down this response to Ron Lindsay as if it’s all borne of hatred and not a bit of it is borne of his own dismissive attitudes at the conference and the response of the audience toward that dismissiveness is quite the oversimplification, not to mention a disparaging thing to say about the cognitive abilities of those who were on the receiving end of his criticisms. The argument about whether he should lose his job isn’t even on the table right now. But Lindsay as a leader? He lost that position. He doesn’t lead by example. He doesn’t inspire loyalty to his cause or any other cause he supports. He doesn’t direct people in a worthwhile way which empowers them to affect their communities in a positive way. He is, de facto, not a leader as we speak, not for those who were in attendance at WiS2 and definitely not for me.

    I can be reached at [email protected]

  411. Tethys says

    What is that stench!? looks around

    Oh, its another lying sack ‘o shit troll called treestump who seems to be an even bigger idiot than andywatson.

    Hey treestump, quit shitting up our threads with your paranoid authoritarian delusions.

  412. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    Can you please quote to me, where Ron Lindsay was “politically throwing women under the bus” cos that’s a pretty serious allegation surely?

    So what should atheists or humanists who are interested in social justice focus on? Women’s issues only? Presumably not. ~ Ron Lindsay

    Said without the least bit of irony at a confrence devoted to women’s issues.

  413. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    The position that a woman is allowed to make dick jokes on twitter (as Adria Richards did a week or 2 before her hate attack), but that same woman is offended if any man ever makes such jokes, photographs them and sprays it onto Twitter and one of them gets fired from his job for doing that which she permits and entitles herself to do (i.e. SHE can make dick jokes, but MEN cannot).

    Fuck, not this again. He did not splatter dick jokes on Twitter where, if she didn’t want to see them she could hide, unfollow or block him. He splattered them at her at a conference. Both men admitted their wrong-doing.

  414. Tethys says

    radfem positions are multifarious and ever-changing

    So, treestump doesn’t have clue one what an actual radical feminist opinion is, but is sure that the intent is malicious and throws in a side order of silly wimmins are always changing their minds so you can’t trust them.

  415. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    The position that a man should not be able to politely invite a woman for a drink, be that in a bar, a bus, or an elevator, that’s radfem (as if the genders were reversed, it would of course be completely ok for the woman to invite a man for a drink in an elevator).

    Yet an other person who misses the context of the Rebecca Watson story. And also cannot (or will not) understand why being propositioned in an enclosed space is problematic.

    And who has been making the argument that it is fine and dandy for women to do this.

    You are so divorced from critical thought that you have drifted into cliched fantasy.

  416. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Forgot to close the tag. The first paragraph is by treestump. (Elfquest’s Treestump would never be this oblivious.)

  417. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    So the conference was about SECULARISM right,

    Wrong. WOMEN IN SECULARISM. And women have trouble the male chauvenist pigs like yourself in secularism. That needs to get aired to start changing the opinion of the MCPs….

  418. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Treestump, Opening speeches at conventions are outlined this way:
    Welcome to the convention.
    We have a nice line-up of speakers and programs.
    Thank you to X, Y and Z for organizing the event.
    Enjoy yourselves.
    The first speaker is …..

    What it shouldn’t be is a condescending lecture essentially saying the conference shouldn’t be held.

  419. David Marjanović says

    Humans are tribal, it’s part of the programming. Religion, Racism, Patriotism.

    Yes, we’re tribal; patriotism, however, is an invention of the end-18th/early 19th century, and it has already died out again where it was invented. Nowadays it’s mostly found in the US and (recently) China.

  420. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    I thought you guys at FTB were meant to be the #braveheroes??

    Do you understand anything that you read? No one at FtB calls themselves that. It is a term that Justin Vacula reserves for his MRA friends. In fact, you now qualify as a #bravehero. It is also the name of his podcast.

    (Would be nice if the troll could even begin to have any facts.)

  421. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    Seriously, is THAT all this comes down to?

    Wouldn’t you just love it to be so.

    (remembering that he was attacked first!!).

    Please cite this heinous attack on such an honorable man.

  422. anteprepro says

    but, Ron Lindsay didn’t throw any women under any buses

    Perhaps “feminists” would have been more accurate. That would count as “any women”, no? But really it is even worse than that, since Lindsay really wants to make sure that straight white men are able to continue talking constantly, even when the topic is about the experiences of those less privileged.

    Behold, the wonders!

    Watch as he mocks the idea of privilege!

    But in her defense, perhaps Watson was too busy tweeting about how “strange” it was to have a “white man” open the conference to pay attention to what I was actually saying. (I’m just glad Watson didn’t notify security: “white man loose on stage, white man loose on stage!”)….

    Witness as he makes a general rule of thumb over how to let disenfranchised groups inform of us of their experiences into a debate over the RIGHT of straight white cis males to keep on talkin’.

    Myers-Watson assume you should never question, you should never argue back, because the person from the marginalized group must have the expertise.

    I do not share that assumption, and I doubt its wisdom. Indeed, I think it is a horribly misguided, logically infirm understanding of communication.

    Marvel as he demeans giving greater weight to the experiences expressed from group members themselves as illogical!

    At CFI, we do not follow the rule “shut up and listen.” Generally, employees can express their opinions. There is one requirement, however. They need to supply reasons and evidence. Invoking their racial/sexual/ethnic/class identity, whatever it might be, is not considered a substitute for argument.

    Either he just doesn’t fucking understand what he is talking about, much like yourself, or he is intentionally trying to defend privilege in the name of True Skepticism.

    radfem positions are multifarious and ever-changing:

    Translation: This word doesn’t mean anything to me and I’m just using it as a vague, nebulous term of demonization, and doing so instead of just using “feminism” like run-of-the-mill right-wingers so that I can maintain plausible deniability.

  423. David Marjanović says

    That and him defending himself by comparing RW to North Korea (remembering that he was attacked first!!).

    what

    That’s a textbook example of the tu quoque fallacy. It is evil to belittle the horror that is North Korea; it cannot be justified by “remembering that he was attacked first!!”.

  424. anteprepro says

    Fucking borkquote.

    So the conference was about SECULARISM right, so his point is excellent.

    Women in Secularism” is a conference just and simply “about SECULARISM”. Right.

    Could this asshole be any more obvious?

  425. Anri says

    andywatson, watch closely:

    No you are not getting the point. Ron Lindsay is against abusers, everyone is, but the point is, if you impotently shout “stop abusing!” across the “internet”, gues what happens!? Yep, that’s right, it’s going to make abusive internet garbage swell up for the next week or 2.

    Do I have to explain why these two sentiments, so close to one another, strongly suggest someone who isn’t actually reading, or thinking about, when they post?

    Moving on to the ‘substance’, what’s actually being done isn’t randomly shouting ‘stop abusing!’, as you could see if you actually read and understood stuff regularly. It’s telling people that certain kinds of speech is hateful, harmful, and is not just in good fun. It’s point out to people that they are being part of a global, ancient, horrible problem.
    And here’s the thing: it’s not impotent.
    It works.
    Bit by bit, little by little, social pressure is the way to cure social ills.

    If you marginalize people who abuse others like this, they have to either be satisfied with being on the margins or stop doing so.

    That’s what it does, as regular as clockwork, as people in general don’t like being told what to do,

    Ok, we need to get one thing straight right now: the only thing that causes abuse is abusers being abusive.
    That’s it. That’s all.
    Anyone who is being abusive towards someone else is doing so because they are doing so, they were not forced into it by their target. That’s classic victim-blaming, and hits the trifecta of being wrong, repulsive and a tried-and-true method of putting down women.
    Please quit, if you want anyone to take anything at all you have to say seriously.

    and particularly by self-righteous people that hypocritically defend Adria Richards even though if the genders were reveresed they would hypocritically defend the women making the dick jokes, and who try to get people fired from their jobs. That’s wrong.

    I haven’t defended anyone making dick jokes. Ms. Richards was wrong for doing so, she shouldn’t do that sort of thing, and she should be ashamed of herself for doing so.

    There were, of course, a number of people (here, for example) who said exactly this about the same topic. But again: reading, understanding – unfortunately required to get that fact.

  426. David Marjanović says

    The position that a man should not be able to politely invite a woman for a drink, be that in a bar, a bus, or an elevator, that’s radfem (as if the genders were reversed, it would of course be completely ok for the woman to invite a man for a drink in an elevator).

    RW wasn’t invited for a drink, but for “coffee” in the dude’s hotel room – after she had just left the bar, where they could have had better coffee; at four o’clock in the morning, when it would have been logical to assume that she wanted to sleep rather than caffeinate herself or, uh, keep herself awake by other means; after she had just said, in earshot of Elevator Guy, that she wanted to go to sleep now; after she had given a talk, which Elevator Guy had heard, in which she said that she didn’t like this kind of invitation. Guys, word to the wise, don’t do that.

    If the genders were reversed, it still wouldn’t be A-OK; on average, the threat level of the situation would be less, though, because it’s usually easier for a man to rape a woman than the other way around.

    Any more questions?

  427. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Treestump,
    Ron Lindsay went out of his way to offend attendees at a conference his organization sponsored! He could have simply said “Welcome”. He could have endorsed the goal of women having a place in skepticism. None of this would have in any way excluded or silenced men. Instead, he scolded the participants before they’d had the chance to participate! That is a pretty egregious affront not only to the participants but also to the organization he heads.

  428. anteprepro says

    How the fuck do you know Elevatorgate guy’s intent and why the fuck are you expecting women to behave in a way in which they are perfectly aware of someone’s intent before reacting to their actions?

    If it is ok for a woman to ask out a man in an “enclosed space”, but it is not ok for a man to do the same, then that is disgusting, it leads to this position where “all men are potential rapists” and that view is as disgusting as the concept of “original sin”. To tar men in this way is a disgrace.

    BAAAAAAAAAW. Lower the fucking incidence of rape, and help us reach this glorious fantasy world where rape is a rarity and where it is equally committed by both men and women, lower the rates of all physical violence committed by men, and violence committed against women, and THEN cry about how unfair it is for women to worry about being harmed by men. For fuck’s fucking sake, you are either clueless or fucking amoral. Fucking faux-egalitarians.

  429. David Marjanović says

    His INTENT was decent

    …but that was impossible to tell for sure till he didn’t follow her when she got out of the elevator.

    I don’t know about you, but most people aren’t mindreaders. Elevator Guy should have taken this into account instead of blithely assuming that RW was able to read his mind.

  430. Tethys says

    I keep wondering why someone did not walk up on stage, take the microphone away from RL, and say “Now it is time for you to listen.”? Yes, it would have been rude but no ruder than the drivel he was spouting

  431. anteprepro says

    actually, it’s pretty definitely evil to say that North Korea is evil and a “horror”. What do you *really* know about that country apart from absolute drivel on American media that is utterly polarised to portray them as an Evil Empire? Critical Thinking! North Korea is no more evil than America is evil. In fact, there is a very very good argument to say that America is far more evil (look at the numbers of civilian men, women, children murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan by American Imperialism and American bullets, grenades and bombs, or are their lives “collateral damage for a worthy cause”). What you said there is stunningly ignorant …

    What is it with trolls lately stumbling across some semblance of a good point? Have I just been paying too much attention around the time of day when the clocks were broken?

  432. David Marjanović says

    actually, it’s pretty definitely evil to say that North Korea is evil and a “horror”.

    WTF. 11 words, and you can’t read them? I said it’s evil to belittle the horror, not that NK is evil.

    I did say that NK is a horror, though. I stand by that, because it’s quite obviously true.

    What do you *really* know about that country apart from absolute drivel on American media that is utterly polarised to portray them as an Evil Empire?

    LOL. I haven’t got any of my information about that place from American media. See, I’ve never lived in the US for more than 2 months at a time. This is the Internet: you’re not in Kansas anymore.

  433. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    I think everyone understands the context of the story. As long as his INTENT was polite, then you’ve utterly failed to understand the concepts of decency, reasonableness, ethics or morality. If a man sees that a woman has left her handbag in a restaurant and picks it up to take it her and waves at her smiling to give her it back down the road, and she maces him in the face because she assumes he is going to attack her, then she is a nutjob product of an insane world. His INTENT was decent and he did nothing wrong, but the radfem position says she is right, AND if the position was reversed and a man maced a woman in the face for doing the same situation, then the man would be in the wrong. Hence, radfem positions are ANTI-equality.

    Fuck the facts of the story! What matters is that according to me, treestump, any women should just accept the fact that any random unknown man must have the best of intentions. BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT DECENCY! The woman should know the intention of any random stranger.

    Also, stop this bullshit that we all think it would be hunky dory if a woman did this to a man. No one is saying that.

    Fact free ranting about RADFEMS. This is the essence of a #bravehero. Justin Vacula would be proud of you.

  434. David Marjanović says

    What is it with trolls lately stumbling across some semblance of a good point?

    It would have been a good point if I’d said that NK was evil, let alone if I’d said it was more evil than some other place.

    NK is hardly a threat to anyone outside its borders, in stark contrast to the US. Inside, though, it’s horror.

  435. anteprepro says

    It would have been a good point if I’d said that NK was evil, let alone if I’d said it was more evil than some other place.

    Heh. Nevermind then. He would’ve had a good point sort of it if it weren’t for his typical trollish inability to read the things that he is tearing into

    (Though perhaps I should start reading a tad more carefully now myself!)

  436. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    The position that a man should not be able to politely invite a woman for a drink, be that in a bar, a bus, or an elevator, that’s radfem

    But no one is saying that. Really and truly; no one is saying that.

    The position that a woman is allowed to make dick jokes on twitter (as Adria Richards did a week or 2 before her hate attack), but that same woman is offended if any man ever makes such jokes,

    But that isn’t what happened. Adria Richards’ so-called dick joke was a response to a friend of hers on Twitter. Here’s the actual conversation:

    Dave Hall: “I made it to US and A. I’ve received my traditional TSA welcoming – having my nuts fondled.”

    Adria Richards, responding: “@skwashd you should put something in your pants next time…like a bunch of socks inside one…large…sock. TSA agent faint”

    Context matters. It’s not fair or accurate to say “Adria Richards makes dick jokes on Twitter” and elide the fact that a) It wasn’t even the kind of joke it’s being made out to be; it’s a response to a friend’s tweet about the overly aggressive airport security pat downs b) The “big dongle” joke that Richards objected to happened in public at a professional conference people were attending as part of their jobs.

    It’s just not true to say Adria Richards Makes Dick Jokes—->delete context—->Therefore Sexual Jokes At A Professional Conference Are Just the Same—>Richards Is Not Allowed To Object To Sexual Humor in Inappropriate Venues

    This is very frustrating. There are no “radfems” claiming men can’t flirt with women. It’s not true that cornering a woman in an elevator at 4 am after she made her wishes clear is “politely inviting her to coffee” and that she’s nuts/hysterical/a harridan to point out calmly and without malice that such behavior isn’t a good idea.

    These “radfems” don’t exist. They’re just ordinary women making very reasonable requests; requests that you too would make if you were in their position.

  437. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    treestump, Great, we have a solution. Why don’t you guys move there!

  438. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Josh, you should know by now that context means nothing to treestump. The facts means what he demands them to be. (And women should know that the intentions of a random man is always decent. The uestion that is RADFEM!)

  439. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Hugs to you too, Theo! I too have been sparse ’round here.

  440. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Treestump, the tornado reference was to Glenn Becks speculation that the atheist interviewed in OK was part of a conspiracy. It is no more an unreasonable claim than the one you are making. Also, please skip the ableist crap. Don’t use words like “insane” to describe malicious lies and fear mongering.

    As to the US having policies that could be described as evil; I agree. Drone bombing weddings and detaining people indefinitely without trial cannot be described as ethical. I’m not particularly proud of my country right now. But defending North Korea is just bizarre. Claiming that American media is plotting to make North Korea look bad is inaccurate. There is stunning ignorance here, but it’s coming from you.

  441. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The Elevatorgate person did nothing wrong.

    Yes he did. He propositioned essentially a stranger at 4:00 am in an enclosed space. You are wrong to defend such inappropriate behavior.

  442. anteprepro says

    Clueless git sez about Women In Secularism:

    Women in Secularism. It’s about Secularism, but from a women’s perspective.

    Women In Secularism says about itself:

    We find ourselves at a crossroads.

    Around the world, the forces of religion and superstition are reasserting themselves, working to contain and even reverse the progress made in the cause of women’s basic human rights.

    And within the freethought movement, nonbelievers and skeptics are passionately debating the role of social justice, particularly in regard to gender equality and incidences of hostility toward women.

    Which is the best path forward? How can we best advance both women’s rights and secularism? How do we set priorities? What changes can be made to the secular movement to ensure true gender equality?

    A powerful roster of speakers and panelists will tackle these questions and much more at the second Women in Secularism conference, presented by the Center for Inquiry.

    It’s almost like the primary focus of the conference is women! But, no, it has the word “secularism” in it, so that immediately trumps the word “Women” in the title of the conference. All about “secularism”, “women” just an afterthought, because that’s how it should be, right stumpy?

  443. anteprepro says

    Context matters, and in both cases the context is clear: they are both dick jokes.

    *Facepalm*

    Is there anything else left for you to fail at?

  444. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If MRA’s exist, then RadFem’s exist. How dyu like them apples?

    Gee, what a mind at work. So not making your point with such non-sequiturs.

  445. throwaway, extra beefy super queasy says

    such as blind support for Adria Richards

    You do realize that ‘blind’ in this case means ‘without the facts at hand’, so are you trying to say that anyone who supported and supports Adria Richards right to complain about the comments made at the conference do not have the facts available to them? Are you saying that they don’t interpret the facts the proper way, as you do (such as the decontextualization of the twitter dick joke in order to paint her a hypocrite…)?

    Those are of course rhetorical questions. Of course you think that. You’ve said as much. And this is why communication with you is doomed to failure: you accuse others of (false sense of) superiority, yet here you are, supporting a tu quoque analogy with a tu quoque literal, misrepresenting events at a conference, misrepresenting what the elevator incident was all about… Your agenda is quite clear, clearer to me than this conspiracy theory you are ascribing to PZ and Xvan and Benson is. You do not see anything OTHER than radfem in anything to do with feminism.

    I’m wondering how you feel about women getting favored for custody at this point. Well, how does that sit with you?

  446. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Treestump, making a bawdy joke with your friend on twitter that punches up (at the TSA agents intrusive behavior, not demeaning the friend) = not harassment.
    Making sexual jokes toward a person in a professional setting (especially one that punches down) =harassment.

    That’s not hard to wrap your head around if you aren’t trying desperately to be obtuse.

    It is not the gender of the people that make the difference, it is the setting and the content that make the difference.

    Happy to clear that up for you. Anything else you need explained?

  447. Tethys says

    Context matters, and in both cases the context is clear: they are both dick jokes

    OFFS! Must you prove that you don’t know the difference between content and context?

    Making jokes about the TSA with a friend….no problem.

    Making dick jokes with a rapey subtext at during a presentation about women in tech…..problem.

    If your so stupid that you can’t find a qualitative difference between talking to a friend and being harassed by strange men than perhaps you should move to North Korea.

  448. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    If MRA’s exist, then RadFem’s exist. How dyu like them apples?

    And we should let the MRAs define what a RADFEM is. (Just about any outspoken women who does not support MRAs.)

  449. Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

    Nobody said radical feminists don’t exist, did they? They did ask you to describe their positions and you could not do it. You chose to declare them impossible to describe. Funny, I’ve had God described to me in the same fashion. Guess what? He only exists in imaginations too.

  450. Tethys says

    LOL…Jackie beat me to the comparison.

    Please substitute you’re for your in my previous post.