Kristina Hansen demonstrates her aversion to bullying again by turning me into an Amish crone in a bonnet. Hahahahahahahahaha she is one witty blogger.
Butterflies and Wheels
Gnu atheism, women's rights, internationalism, universalism, and gossip
Kristina Hansen demonstrates her aversion to bullying again by turning me into an Amish crone in a bonnet. Hahahahahahahahaha she is one witty blogger.
Not only does she lack perspective, she’s very bad at depicting it too.
Is she an Italian lady doing art restoration?
Err, Spanish.
Why are you even blogging about this? Does it bother you? If it does bother you then whoever made it has scored a point. If it doesn’t bother you then why blog about it?
In all seriousness though this is extremely vanilla satire. Do you think the politicians moaned whenever they were mocked on the show “Spitting Image”? And if they did moan did anybody listen?
If you put yourself into the public eye expect stuff like this. It’s really not that bad.
Shut the fuck up, #4.
Josh. You are a massive, cheese encrusted bellend of the highest order but I forgive you for not reading what I said at all.
I can’t be mad at such a little pissy-pantied idiot as yourself. You entertain me so much.
There are several reasons to blog about it. One is the mismatch between the rants about evil Freethought blogs or evil Femistasi or evil Atheism plus, and the fact that a lot of the ranters do stuff like this and I (at least) don’t.
It’s related to this whole metadispute about bullying that’s going on. What is bullying? Definitions vary. I certainly think venomous photoshopping qualifies.
Bless your heart.
Oh, I guess it was a mistake to answer hannanibal seriously.
It’s bad satire. If you read the post accompanying it, it’s a bad analogy. It’s not bad as in Ophelia’s self-confidence will be crushed forever, but bad as in pathetic.
Thanks for the sane, reasonable reply Ophelia. It does you credit.
Yeah, this is definitely worth blogging over if for no other reason to to criticize a truly bad example of photoshop skills.
Also,
From what I remember, because it amuses/I want to is still a legitimate reason to blog about something isn’t it?
Oh, knock it off hannanibal. And drop the more-in-sorrow-than-anger pose. You’ve been shitting all over feminist concerns around FtB. The only reason Ophelia would bother to reply to you, I’d guess, is that she didn’t know it.
Yes, shut the fuck up, hannanibal. It’s a pattern of gross misogyny coming out of Kristina Hansen that is being documented in real time. Why on earth are you upset that the target of this Bumblebee specimen is pointing it all out?
I think “for the lulz” is reason enough. Lulz 4eva.
Well, she sure uses Photoshop like a true master of MSPaint.
[stuffy voice] I reserve the right to post any jeering photoshop of me I feel like posting.
Apart from the really bad Photoshop, what’s even supposed to be the message? I mean, the badly done Jesus thingy had at least some point. OK, it was a stupid point, but, what’s that supposed to tell us? That you’re one of those submissive women? Or that you act like you were one of them? That you’re just old an plain? I have no idea…
The post of Hansen’s reveals that she has a misfiring pattern detector, too. Or I guess it shows how out of touch she is with reality.
LOLZ HURRRRR 9000 HOURS IN MS PAINT GUISE!!!
I don’t think the photoshop is the problem here–the problem is what Hansen is writing, and how astoundingly full of wrong it is. She starts by quoting Ophelia’s piece on the Amish, and then selectively highlights to try to imply that FtB is guilty of the same things, while willfully refusing to see the difference between rational rules and irrational ones.
So, without further ado, is exactly why everything Kristina Hansen says is wrongedy-wrong-wrong:
(Ophelia’s text in the blockquote, Hansen’s selective emphasis in bold (as in the linked piece on her blog, where it’s red), and my dissection of just what the fuck is wrong with it outside the blockquote.)
Yes, because being obsessive about the cut and style of clothes is TOTALLY THE SAME THING as objecting to clothes that have offensive messages printed on them. Here’s a clue–if you say something hurtful, people are going to take exception to it whether or not you say it on a blog, on a sign, in an email, on a T-shirt, on a cape, on a peplum, on a bustle, or on a cravat. The point is the MESSAGE, not the clothes, FFS!
And another thing, I’m pretty sure if some GodSquadder went around with a shirt that said “Marriage=1 Man+1 Woman,” these same atheists would call said GodSquadder a total asshole (and rightly so), and it would not strike them as an “Amish” preoccupation with clothing style!
You know, shunning someone for having a difference of opinion about a magical skydaddy or about the usefulness of ipods is not exactly of the same moral weight as shunning someone for doing something that DEMONSTRABLY HARMS ONE’S FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS. This is not difficult. For more, here is the Pervocracy and Captain Awkward on the moral obligations to enforce consequences (up to and including shunning if need be) of people who are hurtful and/or dangerous to others.
I haven’t seen any evidence of this. In fact, Crommunist has written quite extensively on how he used to believe a lot of this self-entitled masculinity type crap. He’s learned, and he’s welcomed with open arms. In fact, the atheism+ forum even has an education section where people can “step out,” ask stupid and possibly offensive things, and will be treated patiently and kindly. It’s a huge mistake to confuse refusing to deal with people who are STILL BEING HARMFUL with never forgiving people who are trying to do better.
What surveillance is Hansen talking about? Because the only surveillance I can think of is what DJ and the TAM staff subjected Surly Amy to. I also have to laugh at this because of the way Elevatorgate et al obsessively storifies what we write, and the way Jack Rawlinson et al go nuts cataloguing every possible vaguely-incendiary or not-quite-nice thing a commenter in favor of A+ has said!
Great job conflating prying into people’s private lives with looking out for the safety of one’s fellow human beings in a public space. Also, “watching and reporting” has somewhat different ethical connotations when one is looking to report someone for dancing or talking on a telephone, versus reporting someone for harassing one’s fellow human beings, making threatening statements, invading others’ personal space, etc., etc., …
Sending rape and death threats is not “any infraction.”
Taking upskirt photos is not “any infraction.”
Threatening to kick someone in the cunt is not “any infraction.”
Subjecting someone to a year of cyber-abuse is not “any infraction.”
Groping conference attendees is not “any infraction.”
So, nice try, but no.
(And a side note, most harassment policies have a first-line strategy of talking to the person and educating for minor infractions, so the idea that everyone will get thrown out is ludicrous. That’s there to be used on those who commit egregious violations of others’ autonomy and boundaries, or who have a REPEATED pattern of hostile/predatory behavior.)
Since when is your-right-to-swing-your-fist-stops-at-my-nose “tyrannical”?
Since when is we-expect-you-to-treat-others-with-basic-human-decency “tyrannical”?
Since when is you-can-say-that-on-your-blog-but-not-on-mine “tyrannical”?
By what possible definition is “we want the atheist community to be welcome to a more diverse set of people” cold-hearted?
Moreover, where exactly someone who viciously attacks a father for expressing solidarity with his daughter get off calling others “cold-hearted”?!
No one’s asking for rigid obedience. In fact, Stephanie Zvan explicitly invited the people styling themselves as “equity feminists” to make a rational case for their views and why they would further the cause of social justice. They all failed miserably.
“Don’t use a telephone under any circumstances” is a stupid rule.
“You can only touch others when they want to be touched” is not a stupid rule.
“The only permissible mode of transportation is a horse-drawn buggy” is a stupid rule.
“Don’t send rape and death threats” is not a stupid rule.
So, nice try, Kristina Hansen. Thanks for playing, but I’m sorry you don’t win a prize this time.
You really have to read the post to understand how out of touch Hansen is. She basically goes through a post done here on the Amish, and then highlights phrases that, in her mind and the hivemind at the slimepit, fit with what some of us have been advocating, so that we are just like the Amish! LULZ!!!
.
.
.
*rolls eyes*
Way too late, again. Thanks LeftSidePositive!
I love how believing social justice matters is equated to “rigid obediance to stupid rules.”
LeftSidePositive@21…And then there’s the surveillance
What surveillance is Hansen talking about? Because the only surveillance I can think of is what DJ and the TAM staff subjected Surly Amy to.
Let’s clear up some of the mischacterized information about the surveillance issue you mention and Amy.
First, prior to any action being taken regarding surveillance, Amy was introduced to the Hotel Security Director
Second, when the discussion of the surveillance was reviewed with her because she said she had felt threatened, she did not decline her table being under surveillance
Third, because she felt there was a threat, the hotel also needed to ensure if there was an issue they could react immediately not only to protect Amy but other convention attendees
Fourth, that was the only place Amy was going to have surveillance, if she walked away from her table she was no longer under observation
Last, before the surveillance was discussed with Amy, she had already said she was thinking of leaving
Just thought for the purposes of clarity and accuracy this information which was conveniently left out of the original posts should be added to ensure accuracy.
Elliott, that is most definitely not the way Surly Amy understood the experience:
Frankly it doesn’t seem like she perceived she even had the option of declining your surveillance!
Here I thought the “surveillance” was aimed at us responding to their constant vitriolic attacks on videos, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. I had no idea that DJ Grothe, one of the principle instigators in all of this by his own volition, actually used surveillance on the Skepchicks and others without their consent! Creeeeeepy! I sure hope Amy does not work to send people to TAM anymore. TAM is now toxic. Please, send people to a better event where creeptastic stuff like that won’t happen.
Crazy idea, but try ignoring people you don’t like rather than creating a blogpost each time?
But, I suppose, each hit goes to the $, so you’re really just perpetuating it for profit. Ho Hum.
Lucy Grey,
Your simplistic thinking has been debunked many times.
Oh, and then great job impugning the integrity of people speaking up against harassment by saying they’re “just” doing it for money. Did it ever occur to you that people have a right to speak up against mistreatment of themselves and others, and that fixing injustice in our movement is slightly more important than blog hits?
Btw, the assertion that controversy drives blog hits and income is bullshit, too.
Why? Mocking their idiocy is so much more amusing.
*eyeroll*
Yeah, she’s making a fortune thanks to fools like Hansen.
TAM is now toxic. Please, send people to a better event where creeptastic stuff like that won’t happen.
Seconded.
Funny how Ophelia is frequently accused of blogging for money when she’s never given any indication of that. While bloggers like Dan Fincke (who’s blog I love) who actually do never have their posts sniped at like this.
September 15, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Elliott, that is most definitely not the way Surly Amy understood the experience
I know, I have read Amy’s account before but again for the sake of clarity and accuracy,
1) there were no undercover harassment people there
2) someone may have told Amy there were 19 people secretly monitoring for harassment but that is false
3) nothing was hidden anywhere regarding the policy. ( Note: we can agree or disagree that it should have been more prominently displayed but it was not hidden) It was in the FAQ in plain sight. In addition there were easily identified volunteers wearing buttons as well as a table that was staffed during the con hours.
4) as I stated, before any surveillance occurred, Amy was introduced to the Hotel Security Director who came to visit her immediately and reacted immediately once he was contacted because she felt threatened
5) the rest I stated in the prior note
Two additional issues now to examine.
1) It has been stated several times on several blogs that when someone complains about harassment that their complaints aren’t taken seriously. That clearly was not the case here. Not only was it taken seriously, an immediate reaction was deployed to ensure not only the safety of the person being harassed but anyone who might be an innocent bystander if act materialized into a physical interaction.
If there had been no reaction to protect Amy on the part of the hotel, i am sure we would be having an entirely different discussion.
2) if you believe that what I am saying is accurate because you have no obligation do do so, and the story you cut and pasted is fundamentally different than what I have offered, don’t you as a critical thinker and skeptic at least have to doubt the motive for a story so conveniently lacking in critical fact.
27… Please go back and retread my note. Your response is inaccurate. Can’t remember who said this but…You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to make up the facts. Nor is anyone else.
elliot1, I read your note, and I read Amy’s comment, and I will take her word over yours. I can’t believe anyone is defending intimidating usage of surveillance technology. Way to backfire on the whole harassment policy implementation!
I’m sorry, but I can’t take Kristina Hansen seriously on this.
When Hansen decided to write a blogpost on Ophelia Benson’s Amish piece, how exactly did she get a hold of it?* Because either she herself watching Benson’s blog (surveillance) or someone else is doing it for her (watching and reporting). It seems to me that Benson didn’t run off and email it to her, tweet it to her, or go post it on Hansen’s blog.
*According to Hansen’s post, one of her twitter followers sent her a link to it. Thus, the “bishop’s wife” watched and reported so that the “bishop” could go off on the person who had gone out of line (Benson; and she didn’t even go “out of line” on that post!), and Hansen sees no irony in this.
So, where can I find your post to Hansen that says the same thing to her? Because surely you aren’t just telling Benson that she should ignore Hansen when Hansen is directly quoting Benson’s articles, but not tell Hansen this when Hansen decides to write about Benson in response to a post that had nothing to do with Hansen?
Eliott: you are derailing this thread. Moreover,
1) “Taking something seriously” at the expense of the comfort of the person being victimized is a massive fail. The idea is you’re supposed to LISTEN to the experiences of people getting harassed, and not dictate to them.
2) People can have honestly different perceptions of things based on the limited information available to them, but the fact of the matter is you chose to run an event; no one chooses to be harassed. This means it’s your responsibility to communicate correctly, not the victim’s responsibility to understand what you want, since she is an unwilling participant in this and understandably wants to get back to her life. If the person you’re supposed to be protecting is under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that she has no choice but to be monitored, YOU HAVE FAILED. If your harassment policy is so obscure that people are left to believe what others tell them about harassment policies, YOU HAVE FAILED. More importantly, this sounds a hell of a lot like you’re calling Surly Amy a liar. Would you like to rephrase that? What the hell do you mean by “doubt the motive for a story so conveniently lacking in critical fact”? You’ve just taught me that TAM will respond to complaints about how attendees are treated by questioning their motives, which is an excellent reason for me to never want to go to TAM as long as people like you are involved.
(Oh, and as a critical thinker and a skeptic considering motives, I must admit I’m aware of no reason why Surly Amy would benefit from recounting her TAM experience inaccurately since she will be deluged with hate from the interwebz either way, but I can think of lots of reasons why a TAM affiliate would want to do damage-control for the reputation of their organization and not have to admit to missteps. Two can play this game, you know!)
Wait – so Ophelia Benson should ignore Kristina Hansen; but Kristian Hansen has no obligation to ignore Ophelia Benson?
It sounds a lot like asking someone to turn the other cheek instead of suggesting that the person that did the hitting in the first place not hit.
eliott1 @32:
TAM had no publicly available harassment policy. The only hint there even was a harassment policy came from a single tweet, which most attendees never saw. Thus we could reasonably conclude there was a “undercover harassment policy” and those enforcing it were “undercover harassment people.”
I and others have gone looking, and never found any evidence of this policy being publicly available. Can you back up your assertion with a link?
For future reference, there’s a shorter way to write that: bitches be lyin’.
M. A. Melby,
I’m sure Lucy Grey will chide Kristina Hansen for trying to get more hits by writing silly posts about Ophelia’s posts. Right, Lucy?
Giliell:
The “message” (such as it is):
Her ridiculous post was in response to Ophelia’s post ‘Big Amish Brother’. Of course Kristina’s response was vapid and didn’t even address the substance of what Ophelia was talking about. Instead she tries (and fails) to draw attention to the imagined similarities between the Amish community and FtB/Skepchick. She doesn’t offer up any constructive criticism of Ophelia’s post. She doesn’t think through these supposed similarities. She doesn’t attempt to offer any justification for why she thinks FtB is like the Amish community. Her entire post was void of any substance. The only purpose behind it was to SURPRISE make fun of/bully/satirize/annoy/pester Ophelia (and of course FtB and Skepchick). You’d think the annoying Bumbleheaded twit has nothing *else* to blog about.
Lucy Grey:
Is it your opinion that the only (or most important) issue is that Ophelia doesn’t like Kristina?
Have you been following the rantings of Ms. Bumblebee? She’s now harassing Jen McCreight and her father and is indulging in exactly the type of behavior she purports to condemn. Perhaps what Ophelia is doing is drawing attention to someone who is actively causing harm to others through bullying and harassment; all the while acting like she is doing nothing wrong.
Have you given thought to the possibility that Wooly Bumblebee should be the one to receive your sage advice?
When my daughter was in high school, she had a tiff with a fellow student, who drove by our house and threw a milkshake at our garage door. I didn’t see it until the next days and had to scrub off the dried sticky goo.
I suspect the girl thought she found a clever weay to “get back at” my daughter. No, it made her look petty, stupid and juvenile.
Now I know what happens to these pea brain high school girls when they grow up. The become Kristina Hansen’s and Paula Kirby’s.
How do you know Ophelia is creating a blogpost “each time”? How do you know she’s not getting this shit every damn day and it’s just the occasional bit of derp she’s choosing to make public?
Have you noticed that while Ophelia’s blogging about a post that actually references her, Hansen and her ilk are blogging about posts of Ophelia’s that have nothing to do with them? And not to engage the topic under discussion, either. Hansen didn’t address the substance of Ophelia’s post. She just made a strained attempt to further her narrative (FtBullies! Feminazis!) and ridicule Ophelia. It’s creepy when a bunch of people spend a lot of time doing that to someone. Why shouldn’t the object of the stalkery misrepresentations want a record of it?
And finally I’ll ask the same question others have asked: why don’t you go ask them the question you asked Ophelia?
eliott1,
Unless you are a mind reader you cannot possibly know that.
If you are a mind reader, well, there you are–TAM–you know the drill.
Do you think it’s possible that somebody under a great deal of stress might have had a different POV than a coldly objective third party? Do you think it’s possible there might have been some miscommunication somewhere? That Amy, being upset, might have misunderstood something, or somebody might have explained something less than clearly? Might that not be a more reasonable hypothesis than “she understood so she must be lying?”
CMIIW, but I seem to remember Amy saying she felt like people were sincerely trying to help, but that being under surveillance like that just added to her stress. Which, oddly enough, also does not strike me as an extraordinary claim.
I have found out that I get much higher blog hits than usual if I am criticizing a popular blogger. I made a blog post criticizing Greg Laden and a couple criticizing Thunderf00t and they received ten times as many hits as my regular stuff.
I doubt that my relatively unknown blog sent that many hits the other way (to the posts I was referencing FROM my blog).
Just sayin’.
Now this one is just silly. That hat is not your style at all. You looked awesome in that red robe thingy the other week; stick to that one.
What? Is this not the Ophelia Fashion Advice thread?
Other people have done an excellent job of replying, but I’ll just give my own version of a reply to Lucy Gray’s “try ignoring people you don’t like rather than creating a blogpost each time?”
It’s not that I “don’t like” Hansen. It’s that Hansen set herself up as an opponent of bullying, and is a vicious bully herself. It’s that several formerly sensible people enthusiastically praised Hansen’s plagiarized blog post on bullying. It’s that Hansen is an obsessive cyberstalker who is monitoring and harassing several people. It’s that Hansen’s post is wrong in every way I can think of.
Also – “each time”? What a joke. That would be hundreds of posts a day.
M. A. Melby #46
This is probably true. Due to your comments I’m not inspired to visit your blog.
Yeah, that bit about surveillance is pretty hilarious.
Here’s my experience with “surveillance”:
The Slymepitters monitor Pharyngula and obsessively catalog the comments there for future use. For example, I once wrote that although I thought rape jokes are pretty awful generally, there are some that succeed because they mock the tropes of victim blaming and rape apologia, and gave examples, both from The Onion.
This has been transformed into an entry on “Phawrongula” wherein it is revealed that I totally think rape jokes are totally awesome.
I once tweeted that I might possibly delay informing social services that I got a job in order to make sure I got the IUD that I would not otherwise be able to afford (no health care through any of my jobs, for like ever now). Kristina Hansen picked up on this, then contrasted it with another tweet, in which I expressed a desire to create a more fair economic system in order to accuse me of hypocrisy.
Most recently, some random person named Justin Templar on Twitter started tweeted some random shit about Atheism+ to me (something about feminists with box cutters) and included a random comment I made while watching Doctor Who. The Doctor says he’s a Sagittarius, probably, and I tweeted that I thought that was cool. On that basis, Justin, and now a couple of his friends, are trying to attack me on the basis that obviously if I think it’s cool that a fictional character shares a star sign with me, I must believe in astrology.
It is fucking weird as shit. I definitely feel surveilled now. Maybe these people aren’t reading my Twitter feed obsessively, 24-7, but it is starting to feel like it.
Yeah. I noticed she has comment moderation on. That would be interesting if it weren’t so effing predictable. Oh the tyranny! Quick someone post her dads address so we can all tell him what a stupid slutbag nazi she is.
Ophelia, I just want you to know that I fully support you on the sexism issue, and I’m sorry you’re having to endure this tirade of juvenile abuse from sexist idiots.
That’s awesome, because I’d rather not attract people who would take time out of their day to hand someone a vague insult instead of engage with them honestly. By all means – stay away!
My point was that, in my experience (if someone actually is being motivated by blog hits) criticizing a popular blogger tends to bring them in – especially if that criticism is linked in that bloggers comments or a blog post.
My point was, if that was part of the motivation for the exchange between Kristina and Ophelia, it would be a stronger motivation for Kristina than Ophelia (most likely).
Of course, motivation is nearly impossible to know – so there’s not a lot of use speculating. Someone brought it up though, so I just mentioned what my experience was related to that.
Uh, this is Ophelia’s blog and she can write about whatever she damn pleases. If you don’t want to read it, move the fuck along. It’s really that simple.
Furthermore, I am sick and tired of people telling the victims of harassment to ignore it. FUCK THAT! These people are not merely trolls. They are obsessed, mean fucks that need serious psychiatric help. Anyone that could do what bumblefuck did to Jen and her father is beyond redemption.
If Ophelia or any of the other FtBloggers had plagiarized as she had, they would have been torn to shreds by those people but they have no problem giving her a pass on it.
Am I mad? Yes, I am mad. Too many women have been subjected to too much bullshit for too long and too many people are giving it a free pass.
EllenBeth knows whereof she speaks.
comment 51 needs deleting.
No, it’s sarcasm, not literal advice.
leni @ 51: I can verify Wooly Bumblebee censors posts she disagrees with. For some reason, this comment never made it past moderation:
It’s deeply ironic, for two reasons. One, Wooly Bumblebee was threatening to invoke Copyright law against anyone transcribing her videos. Secondly, in her “The Atheism Plus and FTB rule book” we find this tidbit:
The dissonance is thick with this one.
@ Jose- It was indeed sarcasm, I thought it would be obvious but I suppose tags never hurt. Sorry for the confusion.
HJ Hornbeck:
Yes, I demand my free speech at your blog! 😉
I left a comment I think Sat night and it wasn’t up Sunday morning when I checked. I didn’t go back because I’m averse to giving her more traffic and I don’t actually care if or how she responds. I was a bit curious to see if she let it go through, but not enough to keep checking.
It is her blog and she certainly has the option of not giving a platform to ideas she disagrees with or finds otherwise distasteful. I couldn’t really care less, I just thought it was ironic that she was mocking someone whose blog gets notably more traffic and criticism while moderating all 8 of her potential commenters.
Just made me roll my eyes a bit, lest I be accused of accusing her censorship.
As for the plagiarism, I don’t know anything about the circumstances. I might be willing to accept that she perhaps forgot to quote it as we all make mistakes, especially if she corrected it (which it doesn’t sound like she has, but I don’t really know). But that Amish thing is so unforgivably stupid that there just isn’t a reasonable explanation for it, except that she’s a complete jackass with an 8th grade level sense of humor. And she’d still be a jackass without the plagiarism or moderation so it’s a bit neither here nor there for me. Icing on the jackass cake, I guess.
@Ophelia, thanks for cleaning up my silly typo 🙂
leni @59:
You’ll be happy to know she’s set up a forum for comments, probably to ease her moderation burden. I’ve already re-posted my plagarism comment there; time will tell if she deletes that too…