A funny bit on Hemant’s post about AA and Ed Clint and the lawsuit. One branch of the conversation somehow turned to harassment, when one wag (nymmed “whatever”) joked that the fashion for conspiracy theories started with my documentation of harassment. Others disagreed and it went on as such things do.

Martin Wagner to Whatever

So people are harassing her on Twitter (which you admit), she complains about it (understandable), and your reply is that she has it coming. Glad we got your number on all this.

Whatever to Martin Wagner

        So people are harassing her on Twitter (which you admit)

No, I admit to no such thing. Ophelia calls it harassment. I call it a lot of shitty little comments designed to get Ophelia worked up. And it evidently works all too well.

Hahahahahaha – isn’t that great? No, it’s not harassment, it’s a lot of shitty little comments designed to get someone worked up. Totally different thing.


  1. says

    I know, even says you make it “easy” for them… So its fine to punch that kid at school as long as they react or have a punchable face. Its their own fault for not being able to stop a group of bullies beating them up!

    They are not usually this transparent although Vacula got close with his “advice” for dealing with harassment.

  2. says

    “Whatever” has been one of Tim Groc/Commander Tuvok’s socks, at least around here. I’m entirely unsurprised at the complete inability to use the word “harassment” in a sentence.

  3. screechymonkey says

    Sounds like a fun game! Can I play?

    “That’s not a lake; it’s just a lot of raindrops all hanging out together.”

  4. MrFancyPants says

    Haha, what a moron. Because “to harass” actually means “to eat ice cream on a sunny day while strolling along the river, reading a the Little Book of Calm”. Clearly no harassment going on here.

  5. jenBPhillips says

    Wow, that comment section is sincerely fucked up. And Hemant’s ‘huge hat tip to Ed Clint’s reporting?’ seriously?

  6. doubtthat says

    I see it as hope.

    I didn’t think it was possible in the 21st century, but clearly these folks have never been forced to sit through a harassment avoidance seminar. Perhaps simply learning that all the things they deny are harassment are, in fact, pretty much the definition of harassment your employer or school or whoever will give you avoid being sued, will cause them to realize how insanely misguided and inaccurate their nonsense has been.


  7. Vall says

    ” Ophelia calls it harassment. I call it a lot of shitty little comments designed to get Ophelia worked up.”

    That reminds me of something I heard Vacula say to Dan Fincke in that video they did recently. Dan was trying to pin down a definition that should be straightforward, but Vacula was very evasive, desperate to avoid moving the conversation forward. During the exchange Vacula said “Is it evidence? Or reason to start believing it’s true?”

  8. says

    Not only don’t they listen to those being harassed, they don’t listen to their own brain as it types out a clear example of said harassment. Talk about a self goal.

  9. leftwingfox says

    This is one of the two common ways horrible people justify their shitty behaviour.

    -Either they say “harassment is bad”, then proceed to define harassment in such a way that virtually nothing fits their twisted definition anymore.

    -Or they have no standards outside tribalism: their behaviour is totally acceptable, yours can never be. Harassing you makes them Brave Heroes. Criticizing them back or blocking their harassment makes you an FTBully.

  10. Wowbagger, Designated Snarker says

    From Nineteen Eighty-Four:

    Then the face of Big Brother faded away again and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:

    Interesting that in checking that quote, I also came across this one:

    The program of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching”

    Replace Goldstein with either (or both) Ophelia’s name or Rebecca Watson’s and you’ve got pretty much the Slymepit party line.

  11. piegasm says

    So, it’s not harassment; it’s just [a collection of words which mean harassment]? Glad we cleared that up, then.

  12. says

    What the hell is wrong with these people? They’re not even pretending to be reasonable. It’s like something out of the creationist playbook: “It’s not a beneficial mutation; it’s just a genetic change that provides a reproductive advantage to the organism in a way never seen before in this species.”

    It’s completely different!

  13. leftwingfox says

    leftwingfox, have you actually seen any of them choose between those options?

    Not consciously, and I’ve often seen them combined by a single person at various times.

    It’s just that when reading the evangelical literature Libby-Anne posts, and seeing the catholic scandals, I get the impression that many of these religious groups create impossible definitions for sexual harassment which is applied to it’s own members.

    Meanwhile the Slymepitters are hypersensitive to anything vaguely approaching harassment as long as it’s happening to an insider from an outsider, and utterly dismissive of it when it happens the other way around.

    That’s just my take on what I’ve observed though.

  14. says

    Some misguided people call the animal on my lap a cat. But I know better. I call it a small, furry quadruped which says “meow” a lot and always finds itself on the wrong side of any shut door.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *