CFI rebukes a whole lotta jerks


CFI has made an official statement about Melody Hensley, PTSD, and harassment, calmly pointing out the facts…which entirely support Hensley, and reinforces the assessment of certain vicious fucking loons who’ve been running a long-term harassment campaign of being…well, vicious fucking loons. Loons with a lot of time on their hands. Loons who troll.

I stand with Melody, as I have all along.

Comments

  1. says

    Positive news about the skeptical community’s treatment of women? It’s been so long, I barely remember how to react. Thank you, CSI, for doing the right thing here!

  2. Markita Lynda—threadrupt says

    …and not before time.

    It’s telling, is it not, that the weblog entry rebuking the jerks for denigrating Ms. Hensley allow no comments. I wonder what we’d see if comments were turned on. Would the jerks insult the CFI in the face of the facts? Frankly, I’d like to see the experiment tried.

  3. gussnarp says

    If Ron Lindsay is making a public statement in support of a woman’s statements about harassment, then you’d think even the worst MRA would have to acknowledge the truth of it.

  4. says

    gussnarp, oh they will just move some more goal posts and continue to deny deny deny. Even Stephen Colbert couldn’t convince them.

  5. gussnarp says

    @marilove (#5) I know, I know, it’s just so depressing. I can’t even imagine the level of self deception they have to engage in. Well, I guess I don’t have to imagine it since they seem to vomit it up in every comment thread that remotely approaches the topic.

  6. illdoittomorrow says

    gussnarp at 3-

    No, they’ll just wail at the loss of a fallen hero who sold out/was gotten to by the conspiracy.

  7. Sili says

    I guess Lindsay’s accountant has finally convinced him that catering to MRAs is not in fact a viable business model.

  8. freemage says

    This is… very good. The tone was just right, and there was no waffling on any of the major points. Nice to see one in the Win column. (No, I’m not expecting the ‘pit and their fellow-travelers to stop the abuse because of this, but I still think this will make it that much easier to deal with the trolls on various forums–it’s a nice, handy, one-link response.)

  9. twas brillig (stevem) says

    CFI’s statement:

    it is not social media itself that has caused Ms. Hensley to suffer a stress disorder, rather it is the abuse she has received from some individuals via social media.

    Ohhhh, so rather than recognize the abuse that caused the PTSD, the abusers misdirect the blame to the instrument used and claim it is ridiculous to blame that instrument as causing the issue. Another fine example of cognitive dissonance. Does anyone blame the phone for all the obscene phone (er… prank ) calls one receives?

  10. sezit says

    I appreciate this statement:
    “It is not the use of Twitter itself, or any social media, that caused Ms. Hensley’s problems. It is the abuse she received via social media.”
    its rediculous that this point needs to be clarified, but a similar thing happens in the conflation of sex and rape.
    I heard a quote the other day that nailed it:
    “If someone hits you over the head with a frying pan, we don’t call it cooking.”

  11. Thomathy, Such A 'Mo says

    I’m glad that CFI has done this. It is too bad, though, that this has had to be said at all and after so much hate has already been spewed by hypersceptics et al. vicious fucking loons.

    I do wish that comments had been left on, though I doubt anyone would have been surprised if the depths to which the vicious fucking loons descended were deeper yet than they’ve been. But, we don’t need to look very far to see what might have been said at the CFI post if comments were allowed.

    It’s on that point that I wonder how anyone, in the face of such a sober rebuke (and explanation), not dedicated to hate, could continue to heed, give way or support these vicious fucking loons?

    I thought it was the rest of us who were supposed to be the echo chamber? It seems, rather, that the floor has fallen out on the vicious fucking loons and they’ve yet to notice that they’re the ones in the cavern.

  12. says

    Thomathy @13:

    It’s on that point that I wonder how anyone, in the face of such a sober rebuke (and explanation), not dedicated to hate, could continue to heed, give way or support these vicious fucking loons?

    I’d ask Nugent why he does so, but I hear he deletes comments and doesn’t respond to questions.

  13. Thomathy, Such A 'Mo says

    sezit @ #12. I like the last one, but I think it could be improved.

    ‘If someone puts you in an over, we don’t call it cooking.’

    I only say improved, because the conflation is stronger in that cooking does happen, just it’s really murder. And it’s the apparent overlap that allows such conflations as sex/rape to have any strength at all in the minds of some. It’s a terrible flaw of reasoning, difficult to illustrate because the overlap doesn’t actually exist. The things being conflated aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive (like putting a person in an oven is both cooking and murder), but only one of those things is significant (like putting a person in an oven is first and foremost murder).

    Having written that, I’m not entirely sure that it was an enjoyable exercise thinking in that way. Maybe just keep that other analogy, I’m going to wash up.

  14. Thomathy, Such A 'Mo says

    Tony!, I’ve heard that someone here does that too. Gosh, it’s almost like they are hearing echoes and aren’t at all self-reflective. Hmm …

  15. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    If Ron Lindsay is making a public statement in support of a woman’s statements about harassment, then you’d think even the worst MRA would have to acknowledge the truth of it.

    I wouldn’t think that. I’d think most MRAs will just lament that the SJW cabal has made such inroads.

  16. AtheistPowerlifter says

    Apologies that I don’t know who Melody Hensley is, or anything about the history of this story.

    But the statement by CFI (and blogs like this putting it out there) is excellent for a number of reasons. One of them being this – I admit that when I read that someone developed PTSD from social media, my reptilian brain immediately said ‘give me a break”. Then I read the release and understood fully how this can happen.

    I’m not going to try and find examples online of the abuse she suffered because I don’t want to see it. If it’s like anything else you see these days on blogs and in YouTube comments (why do I read the fuckin comments) it’s likely deplorable and dehumanizing…especially in relation to articles and videos written by/posted by women.

    What in the fuck is wrong with people? (*pours mid day whiskey)

  17. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    So which number “Literally Who” does that make Ron Lindsay? Oh wait, I’m confusing elitist misogynist douchebag groups again. Carry on.

  18. Lady Mondegreen (aka Stacy) says

    It’s telling, is it not, that the weblog entry rebuking the jerks for denigrating Ms. Hensley allow no comments.

    Oh noes–the assholes’ precious freeze peach! Won’t somebody please think of the peaches. /s

    Would the jerks insult the CFI in the face of the facts?

    Sure they would. It’s what they do.

    Ron and the rest of CFI have enough experience with them to know what to expect–nothing but specious, spiteful noise. No point in indulging it.

  19. says

    Would the jerks insult the CFI in the face of the facts?

    Hell, during the 1st Women in Secularism conference, they created a spoof Twitter account of CFI, which was very difficult to tell apart from the genuine one and posted nasty anti-feminist bullshit from it. So yeah.

  20. chimera says

    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! Good news!

  21. says

    Well better late than never we suppose; shame it took them this fucking long. Next they should send out a press release announcing that obsessive harassment and trolling is strongly correlated with narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies.

  22. DLC says

    I thought it was a well thought-out statement that explained the situation and gave support to Ms Hensley.

  23. Lady Mondegreen (aka Stacy) says

    (I have some insider knowledge. Not scads, but enough to feel very good about this.)

  24. ck says

    throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble wrote:

    So which number “Literally Who” does that make Ron Lindsay?

    Ron does not qualify as a “Literally Who”, for a vast number of reasons, such as the fact that he’s not a woman. Well… come to think of it, that’s pretty much the only reason he would not qualify.

    Oh wait, I’m confusing elitist misogynist douchebag groups again.

    I don’t see any point not to, since the overlap between them is so high.