I see where Thunderf00t gets his name: he puts his foot in it hard. And that’s unfortunate, because before building up his credibility in in his new digs here at freethoughtblogs, he’s launched into an embarrassingly clueless defense of his privilege to chew on women’s legs.
I’m tempted to tear every sentence apart, but the structure of his post his so flimsy I’ll just knock out a few of the rickety bits.
Now first let me say from a strategically point of view sexual harassment at conferences really is a non-issue
And then he tells us the conference scene is unimportant because, for instance, the youtube and blog scene is much, much bigger.
He is incorrect. From Thunderf00t’s point of view it is a non-issue. From a strategic point of view, the position that we want the atheist/skeptic movement to grow and include more diversity, it’s a major problem that must be addressed.
This has never been about TAM, either. The argument encompasses meetings, but also the larger geek and atheist culture, which turns out to be pretty damned sexist. You do not correct the broader problem by turning a blind eye to the specifics; it doesn’t work to say that you reject misogyny, but oh, that meeting there? It’s OK if you hit on women there. It’s OK if you abuse women in a bar; bars are free-range markets for men to exercise their will.
Further a female friend of mine who repeatedly attends many such events has informed me that the most recent TAM was the best ever in this fashion.
I’m sorry, Thunderf00t, but with that you demonstrate that you’ve completely missed the point.
It’s an anecdote. So?
But also, it’s one that everyone involved in this fracas agrees with. This and many other blogs have enthusiastically supported TAM over the years, I have specifically pointed to TAM as a model conference for getting a more diverse audience, and Skepchick has been raising money to send more women to it. We’ve pointed to their anti-harassment policies last year as a good thing, we’ve applauded the balance of speakers, we’ve actually said nothing but good things about the meeting.
Until this year, when DJ Grothe screwed up bigtime. He announced that the attendance of women was down this year, and blamed it on individuals and blogs who had actively promoted the improvements in the conference. Then, denying that sexual harassment ever occurred at TAM (it has, as has been amply demonstrated) and dragging his feet over doing anything to continue the formerly good policies made it clear: he’s not interested in supporting women’s issues after all.
That’s what has people disgusted with the meeting this year: the management seems determined to unravel all the good will that has built up over the years, because rather than dealing with a common problem in this culture, they’ve decided to pretend the problem doesn’t exist. As Thunderf00t has.
The level of the warning suggests the issue is far more problematic than it is in reality.
Thunderf00t does not get to determine how other people respond to threats; only the threatened people get that option. And his solution, which is to ignore all threats except the ones where you get to bring in the FBI and have them arrest someone, is so laughably black-and-white that it suggests he is entirely oblivious to the situation.
For instance, I had multiple, daily death threats from a well-known internet troll, Dennis Markuze, for over a decade. The intensity of his obsession made it clear that there was a serious problem here, as did the escalating intensity of his behavior. I reported this guy to the local police, the FBI, the RCMP, and the Montreal city police…who did nothing. Nothing at all. It was only last year that his local police finally took him in for much needed treatment.
So often the FBI solution is no solution at all. And I’m saying that as a man — the first response women get when they try to bring in authorities to deal with harassment is doubt and denial.
But also, I know that Thunderf00t does not call the police every time someone says something rude, stupid, or threatening to him: there are other responses besides lying down and pretending it didn’t happen.
You can point and laugh.
You can block them, if it’s on the internet.
You can refuse to associate with them in real life.
You can ask friends to back you up.
If it’s a conference that you suspect will be full of assholes, you can turn down invitations to attend.
You can try to change the culture that tolerates such abuse, if you’re ambitious.
These are perfectly reasonable, rational responses. They are better responses than bluntly dichotomizing every situation into do-nothing vs. “drag their legally beaten carcass around the walls of Troy”.
The VAST majority of people at these conferences are civil, honest, respectable folks.
Nobody has said anything different, and in actual fact we’ve said that TAM tends to be better than your average crowd of random human beings.
But here’s the thing. The instances of harassment are rare and usually (not always) effectively dealt with…but there’s a massive culture of internet bravos who want to diminish and demean the concerns. There is an attitude that women are there not as colleagues and respected partners in the goals of the movement, but as eye candy and sex toys, so please please please don’t you dare suppress my right to hit on women all I want!
Unfortunately, Thunderf00t expresses that same sense of privilege.
Giving people a list of things they are and are not allowed to do in the bars in the evenings gives the impression that this is not a conference for grown-ups but an expensive and repressive day/night care where your every action will be vigilantly vetted for dis-approval by the conference organizers. Put simply this sort of thing is a killjoy for the civil, honest respectable majority. If I want to chew on some womans leg in a bar, I don’t want to have to consult the conference handbook to see if this classes as acceptable behavior!
The people who have been arguing for better harassment policies are not killjoys — you apparently don’t know Rebecca Watson or Greta Christina very well if you think that they aren’t enthusiastic participants in the bar and party scene.
If you want to chew on some woman’s leg, no, you don’t have to consult the conference handbook.
You have to fucking consult the woman.
That’s the message. Not that you will be policed by a mob of impersonal killjoys, but that you damn well better appreciate that that woman is a person who has just as much right to be there and to demand some respect for herself as you do. And that if you fondle someone because you think you have that right, there will be people who have the back of your target and who will tell you NO you don’t get to dictate to that person how she will participate in your games.
If she wants you to nibble on her leg, or she wants to nibble on yours, fine, have fun.
But let’s be clear on this: the women at a conference are not your buffet.
Cristina Rad does it right. She asks if something were an instance of sexual harassment. In this case, a companion was nagged with requests to participate in sexual activity until she felt she had to move away to escape it.
Yes, that is sexual harassment. Undeniably so.
But here’s the contrast with Thunderf00t’s argument. He seems to think it’s either something you ignore, or something you call the FBI to handle. I think every rational person would agree that no, you don’t call in the FBI or the local police to handle a nuisance hitting on you at a bar. But that doesn’t mean it’s something that should be encouraged or tolerated — no means no. It would be nice if conferences encouraged intermediate levels of reaction, somewhere between “Bye, I’m not attending this event” and “Boom, I’m calling in a swat team.”
This attitude that if a situation doesn’t require the police to beat on someone, it should be tolerated, is exactly the kind of position that creates a safe space for pick-up artists and their ilk — they’re given the latitude to push right up to the point the nightsticks are hauled out.
I’m more than familiar with assholes like you who assume they have “tacit consent” unless they get “GO THE FUCK AWAY” screamed into their faces.
In short – you are a disgusting pile of shit.
Show that discretion isn’t available under the guidelines, or shut the fuck up. What is required with or without guidelines is consent. Which any man of courtesy, as you describe yourself, would expect to have before making a move to touch a woman. Deliberate touching without permission is assault, which you need to keep in mind. Your pettifogging shows your lack of context for the need for such guidelines, which makes me think push the envelope now.
Ahh… finally we’re getting somewhere.
Substitute “boobs” for “balls” and you have pretty much the essence of what we’re trying to encourage here.
So what’s the problem again? Whose life is going to be ruined?
But really Mike, I mean, some men find great enjoyment in having their balls fondled by strangers. Who are you to ruin their fun?
I personally am very interested in how Mike suggest we do this. Please, enlighten us on how we can ‘teach people not to be victims’
It’s not about your fucking use of English. The problem is that you’re not giving the correct conditions in which you have consent. Unless you have consent, there are a lot of things you should not do. In other words, if not X, then you should not Y. You shouldn’t assume that you have consent unless you’re told otherwise. You’re saying you can do Y; and then after you’ve already done it, if there’s no consent, you shouldn’t do Y again. But that would fucking useless, because you’ve already done Y. You shouldn’t have done Y the first time, because you needed consent just as much then as you would any other time.
How charming… your emphasis had nothing to do with what I said.
Let me get this straight:
– you openly say you don’t know what TF is saying and ask for a paraphrase.
– you take a quote which obviously refers to rape threats, and use it to describe TF’s stance on sexual harassment in general. Exactly like PZ does (I’d return the “idol/god” favor, but I recall graduating grade school long ago, and will display conduct befitting that fact).
– you label me as an illiterate troll, despite your (both confessed and demonstrated) inability to understand TF’s text, and your open trolling with terminology as I quoted above.
For further demonstration of your incompetence in literacy, I refer to:
– your inability to type “too badly broken”.
– your failure to include a space between “idol” and “god”.
– your bad form in using the word “semi-illiterate” when “semi-literate” would have been a superior choice.
If you’re going to try to bait and troll random people, please do it without looking like a shining icon of failure… this is some friendly advice.
Oh, but never mind that, clearly the important issue is whether some dood’s REPUTATION will be ruined! Because he’ll be going along, doing his consensual thing with his consensual ladyfriend, and then suddenly the Harassment Police will show up and he’ll never work in this town again!
Or some similarly cartoonish situation will happen. And all because we didn’t think of the poor men and the ticking clock that they all have at conferences, which when it goes off means their one chance at getting laid is gone and they have to return to their homes and masturbate to Ayn Rand until next year.
Ah, but what do I know? I just hate my own gender, somehow.
As for the quote itself, it’s accurate: If a threat is genuine, authorities should be involved. If a threat isn’t genuine, there’s no need to do anything about it; empty threats are simply words with nothing behind them.
Truth be told, TF’s hyperbolic options are bad form, and overly dispassionate, but that 2-option menu is a perfectly valid approach.
inorite? its like, one is sexual contact without consent and the other is….
the same thing, to a different degree. You complain about the comparison but provide no reason why it isn’t valid.
Actually private groups, like my professional organization, and my company, can and do define how they expect those who participate to interact. Only a true fuckwits or liberturds (both evidenceless scum of the Earth), expect the only group making rules to be the government at any level. Social interaction, U R doing it wrong.
Hold on… so you’re equating physical rape with sexual dialog?
What a piece of work. In case there was any doubt about where this shithead is coming from I noticed this choice observation buried in one of his barely readable screeds:
Go back to MRAville you flaming fucking idiot.
Seriously the attitudes I see make me think that we should just do a blanket ban on any sexual interaction at conferences. Period.
Attendees are clearly not mature enough to handle this. Wait until non-convention hours
do you understand what “to a different degree” means? (PROTIP: it is the opposite of equating. )
maybe you should look up what “spectrum” means and use your brain to think about how perhaps, maybe, different behaviors could exist on a spectrum, and how that may help aid in understanding the range of possible behaviors as related.
SamStrange: I like the nym!
BUT MAI BALLZ WILL ASPLODE
And the difference would be relevant how? I can only see the good old “defence by nitpick”. The main point here is that TF does not understand the practicalities of the situation (nor the code of conduct in bars I might add, but that’s another issue.)
Consensus around these parts, among people who are used to communicating in written language, is that TF is a really crap writer.
And I might have sort of lied. The kind of “giving you the benefit of doubt”-lie. As I haven’t seen any content in his text that is supposed to be reasonable, non-sexist or even remotely coherent.
Ah, the good old tu quoque. It’s not very becoming you know, especially when badly done.
1: Tpyos is my motor. Learn to deal with it. If a typo is humorous or gets in the way of communication it’s ok to call attention to it, otherwise you’re just being boring.
2: Notice the strikethrough? It means something. The meaning makes a space irrelevant. (plus as a bonus refer to point 1)
3: Did it ever occur to you that I perhaps meant to communicate something with the choice of words?
Are you suggesting that men shouldn’t be able to get their dicks wet? MISANDRY.
Ahahahaha, TF also has decided being called a sexist is GROUPTHINK!!!!!!
Wahahahahahahahaha XD
Oooh, didn’t catch that one, but for some strange reason the seven colours of surprise have yet to manifest on my skin.
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
Read #4
I’m suggesting that the caliber of attendee at Skeptic cons apparently is less mature than that of comic cons. I am literally saying I trust the person dressed as male stripper Optimus Prime to be more mature than any given skeptic now.
This is… unique. You criticized my writing therefore you must be angry about not having a book published? Interesting leap of logic there.
If you’d quote what you are responding to your risk of strawmanning your opponents would be far lower. Also, you need to define some terms. What’s “interaction”? Murder, importing automobiles, and going on a date all qualify as “interaction.” Some of those are regulated by the government, and some aren’t.
Morality… what does that mean? Again, we could be talking about anything from murder to vandalism to drug use to in vitro fertilization. Why so vague?
Oh, blegh. Libertarian tell. No wonder.
No, but it does serve to socially marginalize you and discourage other jackasses from behaving like you.
Yes, it is: unwanted touching is assault. You initially got into trouble because you strawmanned harassment policies in the predictable way, by claiming that tacit, or nonverbal consent signals, would fall outside the definition of consent in harassment policies. That is not the case. Either you were ignorant or lying initially, and I haven’t seen you ‘fess up to being wrong about that.
More importantly, people are having informed and civil discussions on how to apply these policies, what details need ironing out, and so forth. Sadly, you wouldn’t be capable of participating in them because you haven’t done your due diligence and are apparently quite ignorant of the policies’ actual content and the evidence about how they work when implemented in the real world. Certainly you’ve provided zero evidence of abuse and lives being ruined, as you claimed before.
Being a minority doesn’t automatically confer protected status. Creepers like you are, thank goodness, a minority among men, but that doesn’t mean the majority is wrong in (attempting to) ostracize them.
This would seem like an obvious reason to change the system itself.
Changing the system so it’s not predator-friendly?
Erm… is that different from changing the system so it’s not predator-friendly?
False dichotomy. Many people do both. Some people who intervene in person don’t frequent blogs. Some people who frequent blogs never go to conferences. Etc., etc. Stupid.
So, we can do any number of things in response to harassment, except to standardize how we deal with harassment? Standardizing how to deal with harassment is “whining” and “making it someone else’s problem”? That doesn’t follow. If that’s not your argument, it’s time to clarify.
Harassment policies make it clear that if harassment occurs, AND, of course, if it’s not dealt with in the moment (you falsely assume that all harassment has witnesses, as if sexual predators never isolate their targets), then it’s the harassee’s responsibility to report to event organizers, and the organizer’s responsibility to do whatever is necessary (which, most of the time, will be giving the offender a warning not to do it again).
Sounds like a reasonable expectation. But remember to crank it down just another notch for those gatherings featuring or otherwise fetishising Penn Jillette.
Hey jerk, back off!
Myeck: You are making assumptions about me… you know what they say about assumptions, right? They make an ass of “u” and mptions.
You sound like you’ve never had anyone flirt with you ever.
I can’t tell you how many guys and gals I’ve talked to who are in ANGUISH over when it’s “ok” to touch someone in a social setting or dating situation.
You can ask, but that’s as romantic as asking a girl if she’s allergic to latex condoms. I’m not implying that you have a RIGHT to go hog-wild and start groping someone when you first meet them here.
However, people communicate with touch too, and different people have different comfort zones in regards to that which include LOADS of varying factors. Being aware of how the person you are talking to communicates and responding in kind is far less creepy than asking them in mid conversation, “Do you mind if I touch your knee?”
Seriously, has ANYONE ever asked that question to anyone? Ever?
From a practical standpoint, how often do you guys ask every single person you meet about their “touch preferences”?
@ Nerd
An excellent point which I can’t refute. I’ve been derailed several times defending claims about me that were just untrue, so allow me to clarify.
Also, let me reiterate your point so it’s relevant:
cm, thanks! It looks good, don’t it? *does catwalk*
But, but, social responsibility! Individual cases! Handwaving!
Perhaps the elephant in the room is that there’s a certain philosophical bent that skepticism welcomes that fosters the social maturity and responsibility of 11 year olds. I’m not going to name names (because I’m a passive aggressive asshole) but I am going to say that it’s the one that throws a temper tantrum at the idea of someone telling them what to do.
And since I already blasphemed against Hitch let me just say that Jillette’s cripple bashing is shameful.
Cross posted from TET:
Thunderfoot’s quadruple-downed on the stupid. Get your bingo cards out: His latest post is titled
He’s just aksing the question.
And Mike? You’re a douchebag and a creeper.
I’m not making assumptions; I’m reaching conclusions.
See saying that you’ve proven yourself to be a predatory sexist asshole pig child is a conclusion. Saying that you probably have a neck beard is an assumption
Aaaaand I’m outta here.
You haven’t shown that the guidelines will won’t take this into account. Typical liberturd scum. You want to do anything you can get away with, without regard to the effects of your predations on other people…
Citation needed. Your word as a liberturd is considered lies and bullshit, which is all liberturds offer in discourse. Try google scholar for academic citations to back up your theology.
Why would someone be kicked out? For being a predator, like liberturds and PUAs are. Otherwise, a warning/retraining for first offenses is the norm.
Once again you are doing what TF did–pretending that “consent” does not encompass nonverbal signals such as body language.
Also, the idea that specifically asking isn’t romantic–is totally false. I speak from experience.
Ah young TF, the star apprentice has turned against the master. The Vader to PZ’s Obi Won.
@malignor
Your formatting is too sufficiently atrocious for me to parse out. Do you want to try to provide a dyslexic friend TLDR version?
((Oh noes! I asked Liberwanks to accommodate a disability! I tis teh oppressor!))
Wow Mike, you are more deluded than I thought. I doubt reasonable debate will ever get through to you.
That sounds awful. Now, I’ve dated some and I’ve had some one-night stands, and I’ve never had that problem. It’s always been totally obvious that my date was absolutely craving my touch, whether the signals were verbal or not, it always really obvious.
I must be some kind of freak.
It’s a liberturd. They, like godbots/creobots, preach their theology and never listen in return. Debate implies they might be wrong, and they have a religious belief they aren’t wrong.
Nope. I assume that they don’t want to be touched until they clearly demonstrate otherwise. Sometimes I want to hug people and I say, “Mind if I hug you?” Usually the answer is yes. I know I don’t like it when strangers hug me without permission. It’s just the way I am.
There are more women at nerd cons, AFAICT, yes.
Are you starting to get the point, fuckwit?
Seriously, for the sake of humanity such people should refrain from romantic or sexual interactions until they figure it out. These people are not mature enough to handle prom.
Just a hunch
Yes, governments do that.
Yes, laws are made that way
No, not quite. I claim that government has a special role in establishing norms when said norms necessitates formal sanctions.
An example of an informal sanction is you being shunned by polite society for being a libertarian monster and a sexual predator (yes, redundancy, I know).
An example of a formal sanction is you being thrown into jail for sexual assault.
Congratulations! You’ve outshrunk libertarianism and have descended into right-wing anarchism. Ayn Rand would be proud of you.
For the rest of us, we just hope you don’t hurt too many people before you’re inevitably thrown into jail.
Damn, what is it about some guys who just refuse to even consider that there’s TWO (or more) people involved in any relationship?
My bad… I had the wrong quote blocked here.
Once again you are doing what TF did–pretending that “consent” does not encompass nonverbal signals such as body language.
Also, the idea that specifically asking isn’t romantic–is totally false. I speak from experience.
Actually, you did imply that pretty clearly. If that wasn’t your intention then you should be mad at yourself about your atrocious communication skills.
You realize that such a level of generalization is just as looney as hyper-tunnel-vision?
People are people.
Although I’ll say one thing you may like:
the internet-skeptic world is filed with shallow thinking bandwagon jumpers, aka hangers-on. It’s reasonable to estimate that an internet-advertised atheist convention would attract many of these hangers-on.
That said, such a convention would have a higher proportion of people whose social lives are affected by online culture.
Fill in the blanks.
Yes, hives in the hum-hum are superromantic!
Security? Naw. I prefer to wait until we are both washing our hands in the bathroom. Then, if you have a problem with it, I’ll tell you you’re a killjoy and ask you why you’re overreacting so much. I’ll make fun of you and playfully imply that I’ll wait until you’re too drunk to object next time.
Then, if you do complain to the security guard over there, I’ll just tell him you’re too wasted to know what’s going on. Since I’m a regular, he’ll believe me before he believes you.
I go to Ren Fairs and Nerd Cons. I don’t feel comfortable going to any skeptic con. No I think it’s an accurate view of the situation. I might have considered going to a con, but the reaction has showed me that a good number of people there are ones I do not want within touching distance. I would rather go to a comic con where people seem to get that they’re there to have fun and hook ups are optional rather than skepticons that are apparently confused with idiots who would get banned from swinger clubs.
Nerds throw substantially fewer hissyfits over harrassment policies, and those policies have been in place at major nerd cons since I was 18. So no, actually, this is completely fair.
How fickle is your dickle if a slight interruption like “i’m allergic to latex wait” ruins the mood for you. What are you like Pandas?
Sure thing. How about I paraphrase each paragraph in numeric order?
1. I’m glad you didn’t equate them. Just making sure.
2. No need to be so hostile.
3. There are many kinds of sexual harassment, of different severity.
(Threat of Rape) < (Rape).
4. If the threat is legit, and there's risk it'll be followed up, get authorities involved. If not, action is optional.
now anecdote is not data and there are problems in fandom…but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone complain about harassment policies. And the comic con ones include such patronizing advise as reminding attendees to bathe! The only time I personally saw someone bitching the general response was “don’t act like a Comicbook Guy”
So nothing of value. I mean literally. Nothing of value.
Also…why the fuck would you feel the need to specify the threat of rape < rape? That's just creepy.
And I think I will remain hostile thank you very much. I'd prefer to minimize any chance someone like you would touch me or my friends/family.
I completely agree. I think dudes are getting the idea that it isn’t romantic to display basic human caring for your partner from tv writers instead of women.
malignor @ #32/532:
In case you were not aware: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/01/pharyngula-standards-practices/
Not to mention, the idea that not using insults or harsh language equals rationality is stupid. And suggesting that idea makes you look stupid. Are you stupid, stupid?
Wouldn’t dropping such facade mean that we do away with false pretenses of civility and false modesty?
On the plus side it has Facade from Jekyll and Hyde running through my head.
Well, malignor was the one who was shocked that someone would put sexual harassment on the same continuum as rape.
As if they are totally unrelated, etc.
There’s this hyper-focus from TF and his supporters on government intervention. This isn’t the issue. The issue is behavior that isn’t illegal but is still distasteful and creates a hostile environment for women and LGBT folks.
Seriously, isn’t the issue that people want the cons to govern their own house? This is keeping gov out. Hell if these people are so opposed to this, how are they on line? Software license agreements are more demanding!
I say what I think, nothing else. Pharyngulites, as a group, are rude. So is the blog owner. its the culture here. It has nothing to do with being irrational, it has everything to do with being honest.
anyway, you went into a tirade about rape and sexual harassment when the problem was very simple. You said there was a problem mentioning rape in discussions about sexual harassment. You haven’t provided a reason as to why the arguments about sexual harassment (which isn’t just words, it includes groping or filming or many other things) are not applicable to rape. I’ve seen a shit ton of people in the TF camp say “hey we aren’t discussing RAPE or anything” when they have the same arguments applied to more egregious behavior, but no one has said *why* it should be excluded. If you have a reason, please share.
Oh, I just noticed another little nugget from our “friendly” little right-wing anarchist.
He goes from:
And then into:
His mama and papa sure did raise a little fool!
Cute, your nitpicking really highlighted the fact that of all the things I did say, the things you care about are the things that are least important.
Namely stopping harassment.
We can debate all we want about the proper way to interact with people, the proper way to turn a phrase, and even which political ideas are the most ridiculous (for the record I like some libertarian values, but more often than not most libertarian supporters are extremists. Taking EXTREME points of view is just… stupid. When it comes to politics, I vote for the candidate that seems the most rational… which looks like it’s going to be Obama this year).
At the end of the day, you can make all sorts of assumptions about me to. Go for it. I’ve got nothing to prove to any of you, and I can rest easy in the fact that for every one of you twits that makes a snap judgement about someone who disagrees with your point of you, there are 10 people who have gotten to know me and like me for who I am.
Not a few of them would probably disagree with some of what I said to, but at least I know that they aren’t likely to twist my points into extremist assumptions simply to pander to the crowd.
However, the main “thrust” of my posts, that I have reiterated ad nauseum which only ONE of you commented on, was that there are better ways to stop harassment than redundant rules being put together by convention organizers.
Instead, you focused on trying to insinuate that I harass women.
For the record, none of YOU were clear about whether nonverbal communication was acceptable as consent. Is it? Those of you that disagree with me, how many of you think nonverbal communication is acceptable – because that was certainly what I was describing.
I apologize if my communication was somewhat imperfect, but it is no secret that the slightest miscommunication from a dissenting opinion in a crowd likes this acts like chum in the water.
Everyone is frothing at the mouth to take a bite, without ever having a good idea of what they are biting into.
From my point of view, what you guys wrote implied that nonverbal consent was NOT a form of consent – emphasized by exclamation marks and italics in some instances.
If the truth be told, I mostly agree with that view. Nonverbal consent doesn’t count by itself, however mutual escalation of physical contact is a fair metric in my opinion.
Again, when you are dealing with an individual, you are paying to attention to what they are telling you based on more than what they say.
Nerd, you wanted citations, while not a paper, it’s a nice article on one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110520092735.htm
That’s a good basis for the premise that people get internally rewarded and externally rewarded for breaking rules.
http://www.eorthopod.com/content/rulebreakers-in-scoliosis-treatment
That is an example of how even when you HEALTH is on the line, people will break the rules, and that some systems are better for having people follow procedure than others.
And I don’t need to do your homework for you on studies which demonstrate that awareness training for teens is more effective than abstinance training for preventing teen pregnancy and STD’s, do I?
FFS people… the main point is that these “rules” being proposed are not fundamentally different from the rules with legal enforcement that are not being used.
Yes a private company CAN make their own rules for interaction… but why should they when it would be more effective to cooperate and raise awareness about the rules that are already in place?
I never said such a thing.
I claimed that TF’s paragraph, quoted earlier, was addressing rape threats, and rape threats alone. This is how PZ was being absurd, was by incorrectly taking that paragraph as TF’s stance on all forms sexual harassment. In short, PZ messed up and filled half his argument on a strawman.
How the hell did “government” get invoked in the first place anyway? That’s a sure sign we’re dealing with hyperbolic doucheweasels.
Oh gawd, your lies are so fucking obvious it’s despicable. Have you no shame?
Then why the hell was that paragraph included in a rant about sexual harassment policies??
So, if I understand the idiot right-wing anarchist troll correctly (It is kinda hard, especially when it apparently addresses several people at the same time without attributing them properly): Rules are occasionally broken, so therefore we can’t have them.
Because that point is stupid.
Harassment policies are standard for cons. Again the comic con one has a clause that amounts to “AND BRUSH YOUR TEETH YOU FUCKING SLOBS” and no one bitches nearly as much as you are.
Quotes, you lying little fuckwit, or get the fuck out.
Straight from the foot-in-the-mouth-of-thunder himself.
I read it as, there are laws, and the rules aren’t super different from the laws, so why have them?
Which, for the record, is what TF described as a misinterpretation of his position.
Didn’t everyone go through this ALREADY? With that weird lawyer McGrew or something? I didn’t participate, only read the thread later.
I see that mike hasn’t actually been keeping up.
Also, mike, are you going to apologize for assuming cipher was man AND implying she (a rape surviver, you idiot) has chlamydia?
You’re an idiot, and a terrible human being. Ugh.
He didn’t imply it. He gleefully talked about how it burns.
Frankly, I find the hypothesis that Mike is a harasser himself to be more plausible than the alternative.
It’s not like the harassers self-identify.
That would certainly fit it’s pattern.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/25/misogynists-can-think-women-are-tasty-while-not-recognizing-that-they-are-human-beings/comment-page-2/#comment-380503
The implication in that quote was that the situation I explained did not involve nonverbal consent.
Why do they always think we care about this shit?
I mean, a cruel remark to a rape survivor about how much their chlamydia must burn IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
No, but I know of some low-brow psychological tricks that are surprisingly effective.
Mike – answer these questions please:
(1) Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate?
(2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?
(3) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
(4) Have you ever had oral sex with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
Good point. I couldn’t bother to re-read the quote. Gag.
Honestly, he should be banned for that alone.
Yes, because Cipher as a username is highly gender specific.
She doesn’t get kudos for being a rape survivor either, or any special treatment for that. Both my mother and my sister were raped, as was an ex girlfriend of mine, so I realize that can be traumatic.
But as many of you pointed out, being rude is part of the culture of this blog – yet you get your panties in a twist when someone you DON’T LIKE is rude, huh?
Because Tfoot is not only absolute crap as a writer but also mush-headed and incompetent as a thinker.
He couldn’t help himself. Poor dummy. He couldn’t think clearly enough to see that it was misplaced.
And to give him the tiniest benefit of the doubt, he may have as much trouble seeing what he wrote through the fog of Creationist All Caps, Random Bolding and Distracting Color Changes as we do. So difficult to parse, even if he wanted to …
god damn TF is an insufferable ass. He told us all the shut the fuck up about sexism but feels that we should all cry him a river about having been “bullied” by FTB. He gets to publicize his perceived mistreatment from a place of concern but women don’t?
So, mike, why did you assume Cipher was male? That right there is very telling. And then you don’t even acknowledge the mistake when it is brought up to you (more than once). Also telling.
Why would you make ANY KIND OF COMMENT regarding someone’s STD status? That was some disgusting bullshit right there.
And you can’t even apologize for it?
Wow. Yeah. Something tells me you’re an abuser and a harasser.
mikealbanese the disgusting shitstain:
It’s true, I am – assumptions based on nothing more than the extensive displays of vile fuckstickery that have appeared under the “mikealbanese” banner.
mikealbanese the walking dungheap:
Yes. Yes I do. Fortunately I have the luxury of making assumptions based on the very extensive evidence you yourself have provided.
mikealbanese the human chanchre:
That is very true. IF you define “flirting” as trying to grab my boob or my ass on first approach.
No, wait. A few guys did start off by grabbing my ass back in the day. I really didn’t have a word to describe them then. Luckily, I have learned the term “Mike Albanese” if it should happen again.
There’s this blockquote thing… ah, never mind, you’re a predatory fuckwit. I shouldn’t have high expectations of you.
Yepper. That’s what I got from that too, upon reading it. You did NOT make it clear that you were talking about a situation where you had clear (though nonverbal) consent. It’s just like what TF did with his leg-gnawing picture: took a situation where there was consent and made it seem as if there wasn’t consent in order to falsely accuse the supporters of harassment policies of wanting to ban consensual interactions.
Frankly, that sort of elision and slippery language about consent is typical of harassers. You are not helping the case against you being a harasser any by continuing to defend what you wrote there.
I will note that I have REPEATEDLY stated, as has pretty much every single person who supports harassment policies, that consent can come in many forms–although we want to encourage people to put more effort into getting explicit consent, NOWHERE has it been said that non-consensual interactions would be banned. Over and over and over and over and over and fucking OVER again. In this very thread, even. And on Greta Christina’s blog and on Richard Carrier’s and Stephanie Zvan’s and Jason Thibault’s and so on and so fucking forth.
Your ignorance is completely willful. There’s no way someone who WANTED to be informed about this debate could remain ignorant about these VERY BASIC elements of the debate.
Hence I conclude that you are either massively dumb or a dirty fucking liar.
Since you’ve demonstrated yourself to be skeevy and use weasel words when talking about consent, I’m leaning towards the latter.
And your status as a probable harasser is a conclusion, not an ad hominem, and it’s not a distraction from the discussion because we can hypothesize that your totally irrational opposition is based on selfish desire to avoid TRUE rather than false positives when harassment policies are instituted.
So don’t even fucking go there.
Congratulations. You actually managed to LOWER my opinion of you.
Gratuitous cruelty and abusive language that may be triggering to trauma victims != rudeness
Try again, asshole.
On second thought, don’t. Just fuck off.
so the meaningful distinction between rape threats and sexual harassment is…? It seems to me like a rape threat would be sexual harassment anyway.
Right, good point.
Of course, threatening rape is nominally illegal in most places (not that the cops would take you seriously or anything but still), so that would sort of fall under TF’s original post in which he appeared to imply that people should either call the cops or ignore it. But then he walked that back, saying that it was a misunderstanding of his point.
yeah its like these fucking uppity veterans in my neighborhood keep complaining about how my setting off fire works year round debilitates them for days and days. pfft. Where do they get off, demanding special treatment?
…you’re a real fucking class act, mike.
You filthy little puke.
You say you are closely related to rape victims (mother, sister, and ex-girlfriend) so you must have some idea how common rape is in the real world, not just in disembodies statistics. But in spite of that, you insist it’s your right to have any kind of fun you want by grabbing titties without asking first!
Because asking first would make your dick soft. No, that’s not cool.
And after all, you promise you’ll only keep doing it UNLESS she says no, and that makes you totally different from a rapist or a sexual assaulter. See, girls, nothing to fear. Totally not a rapist.
Boy, you don’t have a clue.
Go die under a bridge.
Only for highly creative interpretations of the concepts of “highly”, “gender”, or “specific”.
Mike Albanese, did you ask their permission before posting that on a public forum on the internet?
Or did you just throw it out there to try and win an argument?
Who do you really care about?
I think it’s a circle of one.
Indeed, sexual harassment IS an implied rape threat, by definition.
And it is, in fact, because of the implied threat of rape, that sexual harassment is a considered to be harassment.
And if he didn’t, and if his ‘nym contains any reference to his real name, then what he has just done is expose personal private information that may allow for actual real-life identification, of at least 2, possibly 3 rape victims, without their consent.
What a putrid specimen this is indeed.
I respectfully disagree. If they cared about themselves they wouldn’t let themselves sink below the lowest standard possible for a halfway decent human.
So the correct answer is “no one”.
He is a right-wing anarchist after all. A shit-ton of nihilism kinda comes with that territory.
Yoikes! I slipped in a “he” there – blame it on my MRA roots.
I tried to get a bet going that Thunderf00t’s next post would be accusing FTB of group-think or being a hive mind or complaining that his free speech wasn’t being respected. Too bad that I couldn’t find any takers.
Gnumann, I don’t think you need to worry too much about the niceties of Mike Albanese’s gender identification.
After all, he already told you that you can say whatever you want UNLESS he tells you to stop.
Well, to be nit-picky, he only told you that a dude can say whatever he wants unless the dudette tells him to stop. But, sauce for the the gander, ya know …
I wonder if he lives in Georgia. A way too easy search came up with some stuff and which brought me to a FB page and argh :(
An MRA and a libertarian. mikealbanese really doesn’t give a shit about other people.
Ewww, Mike is super-disgusting, and also magnificently oblivious. Loved that “hands off my balls but I can touch teh boobiez anytime” line, with the point whooshing by just a few million miles over his head. Such artistry. If it weren’t for the super-disgusting part, I’d say keep his as a pet for the zombie thread.
Marilove, good to see you here. You’re doing great work.
A small aside
@Gnumann: Because Ig Nobels aren’t prizes for bad science. They’re also for quirky and funny things. Funny is the main criterion. But very often funny things are also true and interesting and worthwhile, despite initial appearances.
Then why the hell was that paragraph included in a rant about sexual harassment policies??
I’d like to point out that paragraph structure alone is an explanation; your very question answers itself, simply by your choice of words.
so the meaningful distinction between rape threats and sexual harassment is…? It seems to me like a rape threat would be sexual harassment anyway.A rape threat is a certain category of sexual harassment – it’s the utterance of threats to commit a felonious act. Fondling is assault, tenacious propositioning is “classic” harassment… there are lots of kinds of sexual harassment. Why not address a few different categories separately?
The law is certainly meaningful; it sure as heck affects my day to day life.
Then there’s the whole thing about pregnancy, or communicable diseases, or genital damage, or violating cultural boundaries. Those happen from rape alone. I think that’s pretty significant.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Cultural boundaries can only be violated by rape? What culture are you from?
Would you kindly go get stepped on by a Big Daddy?
Not to mention, the idea that not using insults or harsh language equals rationality is stupid. And suggesting that idea makes you look stupid. Are you stupid, stupid?
Wasting blog space with pointless, hyper-reactionary garbage, spewed from an adversarial, emotional and oversensitive (or shock-value seeking) mind is precisely irrational, be definition. The added baggage risks exaggerating things out of proportion or obfuscating the point trying to be made. A rational argument is as clear and efficient as can be conveniently made.
To provide a demonstration:
Waving that half-baked policy around like some fucking flag is just a weak excuse to vomit all over the intertubes with your childish bullshit. Ever wonder why universities and circles of the academic elite don’t talk like this? Because it’s pointless, distracts through offensiveness, and betrays a lazy-ass mind. If you gave half a shit about getting your point across, you’d meet the intended audience part way, and rub both your brain cells together to write something simple and clear, without bogging down your post in what can easily be described as “keyboard masturbation”. That’s right, keyboard masturbation, because it’s obviously for self gratification, and it belogs out of sight, along with your (what I’m guessing as) shriveled and rotting genitalia. That said, take that policy and shove it up the orifice of one of your parents or grandparents … preferably the dead ones, so you can do something less shameful with that shit-encrusted shovel you keep swinging around.
See?
Cultural boundaries can only be violated by rape? What culture are you from?
I’ll answer these in reverse order.
Q2: None which is applicable.
Q1: Some (backward and probably insane) cultures value virginity and/or celibacy, and make no concession for being raped.
malignor: Umm, yeah. Thou needest a cluebatting.
Your bold policy of quoting in link instead of blockquoting, which shows you can do HTML as you actually used a longer code than that for blockquoting, combined with the fact that what you said didn’t make a single lick of sense has made me block you. Please go away and try commenting when you don’t sound like a gibbering budgie bird
I actually found it easier to do the quote in link, simply because I hate typing “blockquote”. “a href” is so much simpler.
Yes, because the quoting is for your benefit.
Listen shitstain, if you had anything of value to contribute to the conversation you would find the commentariat here to quite amiable. You are getting flamed because you are vomiting up the same tired ass bullshit that every other simple minded, woman hating, privilege-blinded, Ron-Paul-fellating victim-blaming, mansplaining douchebag who has wandered through here before.
You could easily clear up any “misunderstandings” you may have about the issue by doing a little homework (you could start with Jason’s Timeline post, I’d link it if I thought there was any point) but you clearly are not interested in a real discussion, nor is there any point in having one with you. You’re right, it is for our amusement. And also to vent the fully justified rage and frustration you and your kind cause those of us who give a fuck about the rest of humanity. So that’s what you are, cupcake: A punching bag, a chew toy. Indistinguishable from the rest and utterly disposable.
shitstain… simple minded, woman hating, privilege-blinded, Ron-Paul-fellating victim-blaming, mansplaining douchebag… cupcake… A punching bag, a chew toy
I’m sorry, you must have me mistaken for someone else. I’ve said nothing to suggest the allegations behind such labels (except maybe the cupcake; some people think I’m very sweet).
So far, I’ve only criticized PZ’s blog post for using strawman arguments, and pointed out why. If he were to, for example, point out that TF’s characterization of the event as a predominantly orgy-like party is in poor taste, I’d agree with him. If PZ posted that TF was abominable in live debate, I’d back him up 100%. TF may or may not be a terrible writer; I’ve not really read enough to come to a conclusion. I’m pretty sure TF is a good scientist, and I know he’s good at making YouTube video where he picks on creationists (easy prey), but I digress. Instead of all these other things, PZM focused much of his attention demonstrating his misunderstanding of one paragraph, and chasing that imaginary rabbit down the hole to nowhere.
If that’s ground for the labels above, perhaps the issue is the love-tinted glasses of PZ you may be wearing. I would apologize for daring to say something besides praise for him, but we live in a world where having differences of opinion is useful… so I won’t apologize.
FFS, you do realize that the quotation is for the benefit of others right?
Or to put it more simply, since I like it better I will not run all posts through bad translator.
———————————
“After the legal mumbo jumbo? Just because the message is not that bad. Jesus Christ is a person stupid selfish”
Don’t you have a tabbed browser and a middle mouse button? Click it with the middle mouse button, and *poof* you magically can see the post I’m responding to in full.
You can go one better: CTRL+PgUp and CTRL+PgDn to flip between the tabs.
Convenience at its finest. I’ve believed in “write once, read many”, and internal links are a splendid way to capture that, with easy to follow references.
malignor, we get it that you’re too stupid and/or sexist to understand that your hero Thunderfool made a stupid statement about sexual harassment (and yes, fuckwad, despite your idiotic protestations, he was talking about sexual harassment). Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation or are you just going to continue to whine about your misunderstanding of Thunderthud’s misogyny?
“It is not me, it’s really simple, post in the forums. There are many just tenaille butt. It could be that there is no discrimination between sexes, claiming horribly wrong, at least a little underground?”
malignor, you’re an obnoxious ass.
“without bogging down your post in what can easily be described as “keyboard masturbation”.”
That is some fucking irony, right there.
OH NO I USED NAUGHTY WORDS.
You know, if you don’t like the way people communicate here, that’s totally fine. Hit the red ‘x” on your browser! Done.
Do you honestly think that anyone here gives any kind of shit what you think of them?! I mean damn. You sure are wasting a lot of energy lecturing and wagging your finger at people who realllly don’t care.
“In my opinion the law on seat sur, Nancy. Liu, why Green? Fuck”
TF may or may not be a misogynist. That’s irrelevant to PZ’s mistake.
As for my hero… which hero? Stephen Lynch, or William Shatner, or Sarah Silverman, or …?
~sigh~
I can see I’m wasting my time among people who have zero reading skills.
Enjoy your circle jerk of name-calling and ignorance, may you one day grow out of it, and I hope you’re each more productive to society in other avenues.
Good day.
As far as flounces go, I give it 2/5.
Sammiches, anyone?
Yeah, that was really anti-climatic.
“Don’t let the door hit your ass on the road”
What makes you think I didn’t just say that, so I can chuckle at the “aftermath”? It’s fun playing with you kids.
As a suggestion, why don’t you say something on topic? We’re so tangential that I’m having a hard time furthering the core discussion.
Besides, I have billable time to document for work right now…
And marilove… I’m using Chrome; the “X” is blue.
… unless I hover the pointer over it. Then it’s red. But it’s blue most of the time.
Oh I’m sorry I thought you left?
Apology accepted.
While going over my meetings schedule at work I thought of a question that may get us back on track:
Other than a general “feeling” from the post and pictures, what exactly in TF’s dialog suggests he’s a misogynist? Like… imagine we’re in a lab, and you have to nail down hard factual evidence to prove your case.
[meta]
Naked troll trolls.
—
29 June 2012 at 11:21 pm
Good day.
—
29 June 2012 at 11:42 pm
What’s your point?
Also, stay on topic. This isn’t the Malignor forum (although…)
Hahahahaha.
I thought he’d come back.
They always do.
[proper blockquotes added]
What a surprise, it missed the point. I suppose the subtle rhyme scheme I worked in there was also wasted.
Oh for pity’s sake… me, me, me… why is it that when I join a community, everyone wants to talk about me, at the expense of the subject at hand?
Here, have a hand-out:
In my household, the hierarchy goes thus
tier 1 – my wife
tier 2 – my daughter
tier 3 – myself and my dog
The apathy which blesses my ability to gather the LOLs online has also resulted in my not wanting to bother with making decisions. As such, my wife and daughter, who both know what they want, make all the choices while I just find a way to enjoy myself as I help them get what they want. It actually works out pretty well, since my wife’s constant fulfillment causes her conscience to get the better of her (with a little nudge from yours truly), resulting in her wanting to do something for me. This usually results in me hanging out with my friends, or taking a few hours to play videogames, or fixing something up around the house (read: breaking shit).
Please look through that and determine where I fit on the scale between misogynist and feminist.
Well … that was a non-sequitur.
Way to stick the flounce, brah.
Oh, and on that scale you mentioned: it sounds like you’re a lazy fuck who expects his wife to care of everything and then be grateful for it.
There was supposed be another word in there.
dysomniak, I got the point with all it’s flair, but understand that I simply don’t care. Nothing personal, I mean no offense, but you’re as important to me as a balloon is dense. So by all means insult, degrade, offend and attack… it’s just empty words, like water down a duck’s back.
Okay, I confess: I like the assault, cuz I laugh at the childish words choked with faults in both meaning and presumption, though I applaud your gumption. So try again, and stick around for awhile and know that I read your harshest words with a smile.
Weren’t you leaving?
Are you drunk?
There. I blockquoted… happy?
dysomniak, you just told me alot about yourself with the above response.
The first half is bang-on, 100% correct; I am a lazy fuck. I say so on my cover letter and it gets me swarmed with annoying job offers.
The second part, though, is telling in both the assumptions you make and the conclusions you draw. You, sir, are a misogynist. See how your unfounded assumptions result in you imagining men looking down on women, and women being the dupes? You’re overcompensating for your own guilt, maybe… hard to tell since I’m no psychologist… only got 2nd year in psyche before I graduated.
O_o
Yeah, he’s drunk.
Actually we were talking about whether Hitchens was wrong. More to the point, whether somebody being wrong makes them automatically intellectually dishonest or inconsistent. Its gotten way out of hand now though, so I can see how you’ve made that mistake.
I actually would say that harm is an objective measurement you can take at the time. Its relevant to your opinions on the economic embargo exactly because you have to factor in Hitchens arguments for the Iraq war to have a meaningful discussion on his views. He made a judgement call, and decided that war to remove the Iraqi regime would result in less harm over the long-term.
Unfortunately, we’re never going to know whether he was justified in that argument because we can’t run the scenario again.
OMG I am seriously LOLing.
Oh! I missed the thing where you said “to care of everything”… you missed out the word “take”. Something in your mind disassociated the female figure from the word “take”, as if women cannot “take” in your mind. So to you, maybe they’re submissive, weak, lacking initiative.
Terrible.
I, for one, understand that women are quite capable, having trained alongside them for over 10 years in martial arts. Some of the most fearsome people there happened to be female, especially the four Tan sisters (from Malaysia). Admirable, hard-working, overachievers, and dedicated to their family (each other and parents). Back then, in my training days, I was proud to call them friends.
Too bad it was 1-sided.
;p
That comment was funnier the first time you posted it.
What did I post twice?
Oh no, thats not what I actually said. Everyone. Thats not what I said. dysomniak has somehow altered my post to make some point. I’m still not sure what that is. Just bringing it to your attention.
Detectives are looking it to matter.
That’s irrelevant. Wouldn’t this imply no one is ever wrong about making any “judgement call” about anything that happens outside a controlled laboratory environment?
Godwin alert: Since we can’t run the scenario again, is it true that we could never know whether Hitler was justified in killing lots of Jews?
You can argue that Hitler was wrong. He wasn’t being intellectually dishonest or inconsistent though. That guy really hated Jews.
Nevermind.
I have to wake up early tomorrow, take care of the daughter’s breakfast so my wife can shower first. We have a day trip to the rockies tomorrow. I wanna be mr. happy sunny shiny pants guy, and lord knows I need more beauty sleep…
That said, I’m gonna shoot imaginary guns at images of human beings online for awhile, then crash. Normally I’d rub one out, but there’s a chance that the missus will be interested in some grown-up stuff tomorrow, and I prefer to focus on her, not be tainted by thoughts of day-old pr0n.
TTYL, it was fun today.
[meta]
malignor, you do get everyone fully realises you’re a trolling troll, right?
Thanks for a disgusting and unsolicited peek into your crotch-life, malignor. May it rot and fall off.
Fucking right I can, but this isn’t about what I can or cannot argue. He was wrong.
Gah! Do I seriously need to cite quotes of fucking Hitler being dishonest?
But of course, Hitchens wouldn’t hurt a fly.
Flounce #2. Any bets on how long this one will last?
That was a lot of gibberish, man.
I suppose you’ve got some evidence that Hitchens hated the ordinary Iraqi people then? Some form of writing on a par with Mein Kampf that clearly lays that out?
Don’t blame me. You godwinned this argument. How about we both agree to shut up about Hitler and the second world war?
The support of a civilian-killing imperial venture is insufficient then? ’cause I really don’t care who’s interests he claimed to have at heart, just what he advocated for.
For fuck’s sake, nothing he said would need to be on a par with Mein Kampf.
Your point was that he made a “judgment call,” which involved other people’s lives. Some would die, but he thought that in the end, what he was advocating would overall be better than the alternative. Do you think Hitler didn’t try to justify his actions that way, that it was all just pure, unjustified hate with no “dishonesty” about it whatsoever?
I note that you didn’t concede that Hitler was dishonest.
Anyway, pick any other war-monger. Name one that helps your case more than it would me.
Yawn, we’re not leaving it out then. We’re going there. We’re going to seriously make a bunch of comparisons between Hitchens and a mass murdering psychopath.
No, actually I can’t be bothered. Put your arguments in another form if you want to continue talking because I cannot stand arguments that have to up-the-ante to the point where disagreeing makes you literally hitler.
You don’t need to up-the-ante to the point where I’m saying anything like that. And you still haven’t addressed the main point I was trying to make, so I’ll say it again:
Not being able to run the scenario again doesn’t mean we can’t know that someone’s “judgment call” was wrong. It doesn’t matter whether that “someone” is St. Hitchens, you, me, or fucking Hitler. The severity of what they did does not matter. Whether they were dishonest, whether they were a genocidal maniac, whether they were only a cheerleader for a war, whether they really hated people or not — none of that makes any difference to the “logic” you offered about not being able to do it all over again.
Whatever gets you excited; go ahead and dream.
And: you’re welcome ;)
Thats more like it. That was your main point?
In this case it does though. You’re using harm as an objective measure remember. The only two other political options were to do nothing and continue the economic embargo that was starving the populace, or lift the embargo and allow the regime to continue killing a large ethnic minority group.
Hitchens (pbuh) at least made the argument in those terms, and wasn’t being dishonest in his reasoning.
Mainly the suggestion that his rational analysis (speculation) is more important than women’s lived experiences and that women should keep quiet about harassment because other women are not rational enough to make a proper assessment of the threat level if they hear these stories. He apparently is, though.
No, I don’t think it does, and nothing you’ve said has explained why that would be true, in this case or any other. It’s just one non sequitur piled on top of another, reasonable fellow.
Hitchens wasn’t a state, so his options aren’t the political options of the US or another country. And for that matter, I don’t think their options were nearly as limited as you suggest either.
But you know, this is very far off-topic. If you have something to say which isn’t a non sequitur, say it, but I’ll leave it at this.
No, but those were the political options he could have advocated. He could have advocated that the Baath regime should turn into nice people, but what good would that have done?
I’ve noticed that you seem very reluctant to argue on specifics and prefer a broader brush. Examining logic only works so far when you’re talking about current events or history. In any case its been interesting and fun talking to you if you want to leave it there.
malignor @#109
But it isn’t a waste. There are issues that deserve an emotional response. The idea that everything should be argued without an emotional attachment is ludicrous, as there are issues that are sensitive to some, and the emotional reactions that stem from these issues add to the argument.
By way of example, I’ve always understood, in an academic sort of way, why inequality was bad. But I did not really understood what inequality was, for many, until I read the very passionate stances (here and elsewhere) that people took to fight against injustice that was actively harming them and others.
Does it work for everybody? Of course not. But as it has been said ad nauseam, different approaches work for different people, and thus, your blanket statement that such arguments are irrational “by definition” is wrong, because there are instances in which such emotional appeal adds to the message.
See above regarding “efficient.” Furthermore, a rational argument doesn’t lose rationality only because there are added epithets in it. If the reader chooses to ignore a rational argument because there are insults embedded within it, that is not the argument’s fault.
This “half-baked policy” is how things are done in Pharyngula. Not “all over the intertubes.” Because (shocker!) there is more to the Internet than this blog, different spaces have different rules.
And to reiterate, these topics can make people angry. And this anger should be expressed, because it underlines how important this issue is to some. This does not detract from the argument, and to call it childish bullshit is stupid, because:
a) being childish isn’t necessarily a bad thing
b) expressing anger when arguing against systemic injustice SHOULD make people angry
c) expecting people to act like goddamn Spock clones when arguing is the quintessential expression of privilege, because those who are not impacted by issue X can more easily argue about it dispassionately
Since we’re bringing up academic elites, would you mind providing citations for your claim that rude language is “pointless, distracts through offensiveness, and betrays a lazy-ass mind”? Because otherwise, it sounds like unsubstantiated opinion, which is ALSO a big no-no in academia.
That makes the assumption that one wants to meet the intended audience halfway. That is not always a good idea, because halfway means you’re giving up ground that you cannot afford to. Hell, a fuckton of social change came from shifting social norms away from certain ideas, and that sure as hell did not happen by being nice.
You know, that was surprisingly easy to understand. No bogged down argument there. Stupid argument that makes several unsupported assumptions regarding a) motive, b) propriety and c) the reason why I brought up the policy. But you know, nice imagery all around.
What’s the deal with reification and idiots? (Actually I know the answer to that one so I shouldn’t be asking.)
This twee little twit obviously haven’t experienced the life within a faculty though…
146
Yes I am aware of that, and you said his position was as good as any other because outside of science no judgments can be made. I was asking specific questions to see if you thought objective measurements of harm were meaningless or not, because if you did think they were meaningful then there are ways to judge his positions and their rationality.
You keep trying to make this into something where people pick sides instead of discussing the actual fucking issue. You have to try very hard to weasel out of so many direct questions, so I am done. Have fun with your misguided hero worship.
…because no one at a university has a lazy mind, right? What a god damned joke. The academic class you refer to does service for the economic/political elite all the fucking time. Check into what counts as academia in countries with very different politics; why would western countries be any different? Our academics have justified atrocity and tyranny just like any other. As if I should have automatic respect for people because they speak nicely and have degrees instead of fucking listening to what they have to say.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19670223.htm
members of academia rarely live up to their moral responsibility, considering how much privilege they enjoy.
Unreasonable hero worshipper is back. Reasonable people don’t worship other people. They acknowledge real flaws other folks have.
I know that I prefer people as friends who tell me when I’m doing or saying something that they think I should rethink. Rather than yes people who affirm everything I say.
I think Thunderf00t could have worded some parts of his post more clearly. The first time I read TF’s post, I admit that I found it somewhat insensitive, but I never saw it as being remotely as clueless as PZ says here. After rereading TF’s blog, it’s clear that PZ has either misunderstood or misrepresented major points of the TF post. I am very surprised to see such a low quality work from PZ. He normally takes the time to get it right, and I feel like this time he rushed it and got it wrong.
In fact, I think both bloggers have done a fairly terrible job working toward a reasonable solution in these past two posts. The two things that I heard again and again from women was 1) harassment happens, it sucks, but it’s pretty much fantasy to think it won’t be there, so 2) once reported, the response is important. When the harassment happened in the conference, it was reported to the conference lead and they were basically ignored.
Once things have moved to the bars, the conference coordinators may have limited authority to respond to complaints, however they should still must make every effort to get the situation resolved. They can and should feel free to delegate this authority, but keep on top of the situation to make sure it’s not dropped.
I agree with TF that canonizing a sexual harassment policy may actually make things worse, I do understand that this was something that the women wanted.
@Seganku: Could you please do everyone a favor and explain what Thunderf00t meant since he did such a poor job?
Harassment policies are made. They are not a religious text.
But if we overlook the backhanded swipe there – how would a clear policy make things worse? And worse for who?
I can understand that it makes things worse for the predators, but that’s kinda one of the main features – not a bug.
Thunderf00t just got schooled. Well done PZ.
This is hilarious and I might steal it.
Nah.
It sounds more like myside bias, system justification, sunk costs of having made a prior public commitment, possibly a limited ability to bodily simulate experiences which others describe, and probably some motivated reasoning.
All sorts of stuff sane people do all the time.
It really wasn’t meant to be a backhanded swipe, but I can see how it might have been interpreted that way. My apologies.
Nice way to twist something I said into it’s opposite. Ha! I haven’t had a chance to see the harassment policy yet, but I’m simply playing Devil’s Advocate. A list of prohibited behaviors might be exploited. A creep might familiarize himself with the list and take care to do everything except that which is on the list. They might then use the policy as their shield, pointing out that nothing they did was on the list. It would make their behavior no less creepy and disgusting, but now they have a documented policy to hide behind. A more generic policy, as TF proposed would even apply to the situations where “I know they’re doing something wrong, but I don’t know what it is”.
I would be interested in reading the harassment policy if anyone has a copy. Thanks :)
PZ was out of line and in an obnoxious way. PZ attributed to TF several points of opinion that I see zero evidence that TF actually holds. Seeing PZ act like a Creationist is disturbing to me; calumny is not a valid argument.
Adults are expected to behave like adults, and they are expected to know what socially acceptable behavior is. Putting a policy of expected behavior in writing and having conference attendees read it is just…. stupid, for three chief reasons:
1) If an adult does not know how to behave properly, a piece of paper is not going to educate the person as some kind of magic crash course in how to be a decent human being;
2) If an adult refuses to behave properly, a piece of paper is not going to make the person start behaving;
3) Acceptable behavior in a bar is vastly different than acceptable behavior at a conference, and if an adult does not already know the difference, a piece of paper is not going to educate her or him.
From a personal point of view, I have attended a clothing- optional religious gathering, yearly, for the past 22 years; around 1,000 people attend every year, and more than half of them are women. Nudity is common at the gathering, and so is the consumption of alcohol. Yet we have no “anti harassment policy,” no “anti harassment guidelines,” no dicta by which attendees are required to memorize and obey—- we only have one mandate, and that is to agree to behave like a decent adult human being, or be forcibly ejected from the gathering.
In this community, at this gathering, people who harass others are promptly ejected and not allowed to return; members of the community police themselves, and any time someone steps over the line, members of the community step in and correct the unacceptable behavior.
It is assumed that every adult will act like one. This includes the person being harassed: it is expected that unwanted sexual come-ons will be dealt with in an adult manner by the person on the receiving end. If she or he has little or no skills in dealing with the issue, she or he always has members of the community nearby to help.
Sexual harassment is a problem everywhere; detailed policies mandating what behavior one may and may not engage in is odious: it treats adults like little children.
Wow, five responses to one idiot. And that’s just the stuff tht doesn’t seem to duplicate what someone else said. And I’m not even counting the one I redactred for being over the line.
mikealbanese @ 856:
Nope.
I will grant that in many jurisdictions this is, sadly, the legal standard, but walking around behaving as though people are in a default state of consent — behaving, I suspect, as though women are in a default state of consent — doesn’t speak well for your manners.
ibid @ 885:
Since you’re opposed to formal harassment policies, I can only assume you mean “dealt with” by roving bands of large violent people who don’t bother with the niceties of fact-finding.
Hey, large violent people who don’t bother with the niceties of fact-finding, I think I overheard someone saying mikealbanese harassed someone!
ibid @ 975:
If you would, please, kindly point out an actual conference harassment policy that prohibits consensual interaction. Not “well, it could say …” (because hypothetical situations are not proof), not “find it yourself” (because you’re the one making the claim), an actual thing. So we’re all on the same page here.
ibid @ 985:
Except for the part where you said exactly that.
ibid @ 1027:
Not often in robot lawyer language like that, but in general, all the time. Often successfully.
Time to send this clueless mangina a wakeup call: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5OdQGbVNa4
necroscience,
Fuck you and fuck off.
Thanks.
necroscience’s URL
So, treating people decently emasculates men? Ass hole.
I am fairly new to the skeptics scene and have no allegiances to PZ or TF. I was looking forward to going to some critical thinking/skeptics conferences this last year. I have to say that all of this public debate about the personal interactions of a few people has really turned me off to the idea. I think as a professional organization these things should be handled at the same level as they occur: personal. Honestly I am uninterested in taking sides; my only real point is that focusing on such negative things is poison to your real message, and airing all of your dirty laundry, ie getting so personally involved and arguing amongst each other in such hyperbolic ways publicly does nothing good to gain attendees such as myself. As a dispassionate observer it just seems like the participates do not have enough skeptic/critical thinking material to talk about and soap opera style are finding material where they can. It just not material that interests me in the slightest, and why really just recently I have become much less of a follower of folks like PZ and TF. I really cant see a winner in this, everyone looses.
PZ myers obviously has no clue about women in general. These women who are thinking that every guy who asks for their phone number are rapists, probably have some issues themselves, and they should consult a doctor.
“freethoughtblogs” is already begins to look like some religious cult. That’s bad.
the123zed, your trolling is futile.
And give your post,you need to be treated like you are a child. You aren’t an adult with that attitude, as adults have no problem with such guidelines.
That allows harassers to keep to harassing. There needs to be written guidelines to let both them and their victims know what is and isn’t acceptable, and proper training of those who will enforce said guidelines. Those who don’t like guidelines I always see as predators. Otherwise, why would they object to reasonable guidelines used by almost every professional organization?
Prima facie evidence of why guidelines are needed to keep people who prefer to be left alone from being unnecessarily bothered. You are your own worst advertisement…
Don’t people get tired of flogging that poor horse corpse? (That was a rhetorical question.)
I want to add a new entry to the internet arguements list. The “no sides guy”
Seriously, you think this is clever? You think this fools anyone? You think no one sees that your doth protest too much about how impartial you are is bullshit and how you respond to only one side of the argument? You don’t fool anyone
Most adults who don’t have Asperger’s Syndrome do fairly well with nonverbal communication. This is why we are able to traverse through crowded malls, streets, sidewalks, conventions etc. without consulting each person about our traverse route. This extends into personal interactions as well. Some interactions are more risky than others such as “chewing on the leg,” however most adults in that setting would have a context and an implied consent prior to doing such a thing which was clearly the case with TF. Occasionally non autistic adults miss those cues and nonverbal communication fails at which point it is up to the other party to say “stop,” or some equivalent. Then the behavior MUST stop on pain of death or ejection from a convention setting. If you are an adult who doesn’t understand nonverbal communication and needs a list of things he/she shouldn’t do with out explicit consent then you probably shouldn’t attend a convention.
On the flip side, if you’re an adult who is afraid to attend a convention unless they issue a laundry list of things adults can and can’t do without explicit consent, you probably shouldn’t leave the house.
jemby, your trolling is lackluster.
jemby-specimen:
Anyone who is worried that there is an anti-harrassment policy because it will cramp their style shouldn’t be going to conventions, either.
BTW, you probably shouldn’t be commenting here given your stupid framing in terms of hypothetical clueless or fearful adults, yet here you are.
Thunderfoot did not indicate an understanding of the need for consent, implied or otherwise. He indicated that there are things he gets to just do in bars, because “It’s boys n girls have fun in bars!”
No, it’s up to the person who’s acting to make sure they have consent. It’s not the job of the person who’s being imposed upon.
And this idea that the default should be nonverbally pushing boundaries until someone gets upset is fundamentally wrong.
This is a strawman and evidence of your dishonesty. The reason for having a policy is not primarily to deal with people who have difficulties with nonverbal communication.
The reason for having a policy is so that victims of harassment have recourse when they are imposed upon by someone who doesn’t care about boundaries. Such a policy would still be necessary if everyone who has difficulties with with nonverbal communication stayed at home — the major harassers are not those people who simply have difficulties.
So we need to have policies about harassment in any case. If those policies give useful guidance to well-meaning attendees who have nonverbal communication, making their participation easier and more enjoyable for themselves and everyone else, that’s just a bonus, but it’s not the purpose of having a policy; it’s not the reason why policies are needed; it’s not at all the reason why policies have been requested.
On the contrary, anti-harassment policies have been requested by people who know what kind of recourse they need for their own safety, and whenever they find a convention which has policies and enforcement they find adequate, they can feel safe to attend.
jemby5 started hir latest whine with “Most adults”. It’s true that “most adults” know how to behave in social situations. However there are “some adults” who are not members of the “most adults” group. These are the ones who show the need for guidelines and rules on behavior.
Likewise “most adults” know not to break laws. But there are “some adults” who do break them. As a result, societies establish police and judicial systems to deal with the “some adults” who break the laws “most adults” follow. Unless one is a strict anarcho-capitalist libertarian or other sociopathic misfit, “most adults” agree on the necessity of these systems and even the laws they enforce.
… If those policies give useful guidance to well-meaning attendees who have difficulties with nonverbal communication, …
I’ve commented twice on FTB’s and I imagine I will eventually reach your disagreement thresh hold, at which point I will be banned. However, until that happens I will respond to the last 4-5 comments.
Harassing, stalking, and assaulting someone is already against the law. That law’s jurisdiction extends into the facility holding the convention. So, there is a level of redundancy to the proposed list of Thou- [men]- shall- not’s. Fuck anyone who does anything against a man or women’s will, sexual or otherwise. But, if you feel you need a legal document on top of the one which carries the force of law, so be it. Also, if that is what’s standing between droves of women attending these conferences and the proverbial sausage fest, so be it. Issue the fucking thing. However, I don’t believe that that is any where near the case.
Your leader in this campaign to turn skeptics conventions into sterile HR meetings, Rebbecca Watson, lacks the conviction that she so gallantly preaches on panels. In the recent Skepchick panel she said there are a number of “prominent” atheists who sexually harass women but didn’t bother to give us any names. She is therefore complacent in their behavior and in fact enables it by allowing their anonymity to continue. Or she could just be making shit up to bolster her point. And in a rather amusing display of irony/hypocrisy one of the panelists (a guy) said men are women whose brains have been damaged by testosterone. A cute joke, but one that forfeits any moral high ground they were vying for by holding a panel on how to keep women’s’ feelings from being hurt online.
I notice a lot of you guys [all genders inclusive] like the words misogynist, troll, and privileged. I’m currently writing a glossary for FTB:
Troll = (1) An online persona who posts opposing view points on FTB; (2)A male with feminist views not identical to Rebbecca Watson’s.
Misogynist = (1)Any male displaying sexual interest in a female. (2)Any online persona posting content inconsistent with P.Z.’s political views.
Privileged = (1) Richard Dawkins; (2) Born with a penis; (3)Any male online persona that does not immediately see the cogency of Rebbecca Watson’s views on feminism as they are expressed on youtube.
Which doesn’t make your point. Extra protection is needed for a safe environment. Besides, sexual harassment is not a personal crime, but rather put onto employers and organizations. Which is why they should have codes of conduct.
This is a totally unsupported and fuckwitted OPINION. Why would any antiharassment policy do anything except make it easier to throw out predators. Unless you are a predator, and you known it? Nothing in a harassment policy says consenting adults can’t do anything, but the key word is consent, which you ignore. Not making your case.
Fixed them for you, as you don’t understand what we are saying. You are too stoopid and blind for that to happen. When you mature, you will realize you can’t do everything you want to whom you want when you want.
jemby5,
Are you also against anti-harassment policies in workplace?
Shorter jemby5:
P.S. Rebecca Watson is a bitch.
jemby-specimen:
So, when are you gonna get around to doing that?
P.P.S. PZ is a mangina
Gotta like the attempted (if flaccid) framing of the issue as women against men, policies against men, anti-troll derision against men etc.
Boring, as all the anti-harassment policy trolls follow the same script. Haven’t heard anything new from day one. The sad part is they all think they are “original”. Cookie cutter sameness.
Oddly no one addressed Rebecca Watson’s failure to out the alleged prominent atheists that sexually harass women at conventions.
What is the FTB view on porn? Seriously, what do you all (and by all I mean the 3-4 people who read my comment) think of the porn industry? Is it ok to watch it? Are women or men who engage in it being exploited? Perhaps, only porn that depicts women as submissive is wrong? I’ve never heard Rebecca or P.Z. comment on it, so I think this one issue you guys could take the lead on. Blaze some trails.
Because it has nothing to do with the argument of your fuckwittery. And you are obviously trolling if you thinks such a pathetic attempt at diversion will work here.
Irrelevant to your argument that harassment policies aren’t needed. More side issues to prevent you from examining your predatory behavior and ideas.
There also is no FtB consensus on porn.
And what do you think would have happened if she had ‘outed’ these people? There are crocodiles. You don’t need to be told the names of every crocodile to stay out of the river.
Anti-Harassment policies, which are to reduce the chances of men and women and every other possible identification being harassed, and if they are harassed to have a clear knowledge of how they report the harassment are important to have because they make sure that everyone knows where they stand. They don’t prevent consensual interaction because that is not harassment. If one person in an interaction is not enjoying it, then it is not consensual.
jemby5,
So, anti harassment policies are useless at conferences, are they also useless in the workplace? For someone accusing us of being inconsistent, you should at least try not to be inconsistent yourself.
Notice how the troll is afraid to argue the real issues. Like his disrespect for women and their personal space, prima facie evidence for his misogyny.
jemby5,
Your fixation on PZ and RW is really cute. Go ask Greta Christina about porn. Then put the same question to Taslima Nasrin.
(what r u saying pz is not the sum total of FTB???)
jemby5,
Given there have been codes of conduct covering aspects of our lives for years, your claims simply are not credible. You will be aware of this, so you need to explain your lack of honesty.
I am so fed up with the misogynist idiots going on about how a anti-harassment policy will mean people are too afraid to say or do anything at conferences that I am not going to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.
So jemby5, I consider you a would-be rapist until you can prove otherwise.
On Greta’s comment thread, there was someone claiming that two friends hugging would be violating the policy, as evidence that the policy is ridiculous.
These people really don’t deserve any benefit of the doubt.
That was JJ Ramsay. He is an idiot with expertise in missing the point by the widest margin possible. He is banned here. It would not surprise you, I imagine, to learn he is a libertarian.
Under Obamacare, a panel made up of minorities will execute citizens over the age of 72!
Under WatsonLaw hugging and smiling will be grounds for The Cold Shoulder!
If I was running the blog I would ban you for passive aggressive whining indicating you’re just here to troll and get banned as a badge of honor.
This whole subject has been fun, and I feel I’ve purged much of my hatred but it always gets refilled on FTBs. It is nice for a change, however. I used to get into long drawn out debates with theists and creationists, but their was never any real investment in it. These discussions, in contrast, always bare fruit and its the rare place where theists and some atheists actually find a vast common ground. Especially when you engage someone on either side of the isle that is emotionally invested in their stance.
One realizes how short a repertoire every discussion has. Eventually its a chess game out of book. Every move is memorized. Every response is expected from both sides.
As for the porn discussion, I was trying to change the subject out of boredom. I think I could get some mileage out of that one, some more hate purging if you will. I’ve never actually heard a self-proclaimed feminist’s view on porn and assume there would be a fair amount of emotional investment either way.
No blog is an island.
The troll admits he is a troll, but being as stupid as it is the wanna-be rapist cannot just come out and admit it.
And you chose the response of not responding to us when asked pointed and pertainent questions. That, of course, was noted by us and will be by the lurkers. You cowardice in not responding is prima facie evidence for the moral bankruptcy of your alleged position. And nobody sees otherwise.
No, you were avoiding responding with truth, that you are a predator. Besides, we have talked porn around here without reaching a consensus. You appear to fear presenting your ideas, probably because they are so juvenile.
wanna-be rapist? Are you calling me a fraud? Good day sir!
And I sure could use some advice on walling in a custom shower frame.
The difference between you and me seems to be that I have access to both the Internet and the library.
Bless you heart, jemby5. Fuck off.
It would appear there is more nectar in this peach after all…
As far as enacting harassment policies at conventions, I believe I’ve capitulated to the idea. It will happen regardless and I find its presence to be of little consequence either way. Harassment policies in the work place? Sure, why not?
The issue at hand was whether or not harassment was endemic at atheist conventions warranting the drafting of a code of conduct. No evidence suggests it is, only allusions from Mrs. Watson about nameless prominent atheists and the occasional elevator folk.
You girls [I like to change it up from “guys” every now and then] are a bit tedious with your torch and pitchfork mob pronouncements of would-be rapist, wanna-be rapist, misogynist [a classic], and predator.
Actually, there was a lot of evidence presented earlier at this blog. By the women being hit on. So your fuckwitted OPINION based on ignorance is utterly and totally rejected, as it should be.
And fuckwitted and ignorant trolls are so predictable based on their lack of intelligence, evidence, tone trolling (despite their trolling) and totally misguided thinking that anybody is interested in their fuckwitted blatherings…Care to play some more?
Your allusion to tedium is textbook irony. So there’s one literary device you’ve mastered.
I would like to think that I’m sensitive to the feelings of women. It’s something I strive for every day, just as I strive to be sensitive to all people.
Yet there was one time I totally missed the cues.
Bear with me, I have to describe the layout of the room because it’s integral to the story. Five of us are hanging out in a circle. It’s a large room with little furniture besides some seating around the perimeter. There are 3 women and 2 men. I was sitting in a couch near the door and the other guy (call him Bob) was standing closer to me than anyone else in the room, but it put him roughly in front of the door. He’d been the last to arrive and was left without a seat. He might sit on my arm-rest to rest his feet. He wasn’t right in front of the door. One step to the side would give anyone a clear shot to the door. And he while he was a bit dense at times, no one would say he was anything but harmless.
About 20 minutes into the conversation, one of the women (call her Alice) started getting upset. It was unusual for her and we all noticed immediately, but didn’t understand why. Very quickly, she became flushed. It seemed like she had a problem with Bob. Bob tried to lighten the mood and identify the issue. Then Bob’s girlfriend screamed “Bob! Get out of her way, NOW!” and Bob instantly lept away from the woman and she bolted for the door.
The time from the first signs she was upset to the leap was only a few seconds, but I don’t doubt it seemed much longer to Alice.
I go back over this in my head at times, 20 years later, wondering if I could spot the problem now. Probably, but only because I’d seen it before. Naturally, when she started feeling trapped, her personal-space bubble increased in size. If she’d taken a step towards Bob and the door, Bob would have moved out of the way for her, but because her bubble was now larger, she couldn’t do that.
“fuckwitted,” a novel neologism but I think you may overuse it to the point of it being a crutch. I imagine you heard someone you thought was funny say it and quietly worked it into your repertoire. Now you can’t wait to insert it into every comment, like a child showing the adults her favorite toy.
I suppose if someone says they were harassed then they were harassed. If we are merely going by hear-say and self report, then I’de like to submit a *text book irony smirk* few items for your consideration. Just recently at a Skepchick panel, men were referred to as women with brain damage caused by testosterone. The “text book irony” being that it was recently Turing’s B-day, the Father [parent perhaps – gender neutral, right?] of modern computing was treated with estrogen to “cure” his homosexuality. He grew breasts and fell into deep depression. But, thank god he got the estrogen in time, because god knows what the testosterone would have done to his brain had he not.
@Seganku
Your story sounds like satire. Damn Poe’s Law!
And you think tone trolling is an adult, rather than pathetically juvenile, activity. And it changes nothing, since your OPINION is still fuckwitted, hence worthless to us.
Yawn, worthless and inane story, meaning nothing, and off topic. What a loser…
Right.
The rest of your comment demonstrates that although you have mastered irony, you don’t really understand what it means.
I was interrupted writing earlier, but I see our little idiot, fail, and self-confessed troll is still with us, so I’ll stick this in anyhow.
At least they got one thing right. Of course, mr white male privilege years 2000-2012 is not exactly hard to spot.
For the lurkers wondering about the relationship between sexual harrasment issues and the law (as this is nearing something that might look like a halfway decent point):
There are to- tree levels to this (at least).
Firstly harassment isn’t really criminalised, not unless it’s really bad. What’s very nice about being a private (factual or legal) person is that you get to set limits that are narrower than the law. If someone like Jembynumbers comes to your house and insisit on being a disargeeable person, you can throw them out. Even though they haven’t done anything illegal.
Secondly, there’s the resources, the priorities and the onus of proof in the criminal justice system. When we rely on it it’s because we in certain situation have got no other choice. But it will always be a last resort because no country has a perfect justice system.
Thirdly, and frankly this one is the most important: The target audience for the harrasment polices are ingroup. Throwing them to the criminal justice system has some rather nasty consequences for them. Since they are ingroup, we don’t really want to do that. We just want them to behave or chastise them as mildly as possible when they don’t. Harassment polices allow organisers to give sanction without any legal difficulty afterwards. The clearer and more inclusive the policy is, the less risk for the organisers. As the trolls have discovered, this leads to written policies that could, given a very wide interpretation, ban activities that no-one wants to ban. This is of course solved by a professional implementation of the policy. Done through the mythical and magickal practise of “staff training”.
First-time offenders might meet such horrible sanctions as being told “don’t do that”. Things might never be the same again!1!
Charming.
@jemby5
Harassment is endemic almost everywhere. Including atheist conferences. Nobody has even remotely tried to claim that it is worse at atheist conferences, just that it isn’t any better. But it could be. And if we want to claim to be rational people then it should be. That is the point that you are missing.
Wait wait wait
You are actually earnestly engaging the person who said
As if they’re talking in good faith?
Mostly I’m doing it for the lurkers.
Wait, this thingy jokingly said they are a rapist?
Probably thinks Tosh is hilarious *spit*.
I think jnumber should now move to TZT or vacate the premises. Possibly while wearing a crown made from decaying porcupines.
*peeks into thread to monitor troll stupidity*
Oh, it’s just Gumby’s inbred Appalachian cousin Jemby.
I hear ze is quite talented with a banjo.
I like the new meme. That crown of rotting porcupines puts a nice accent on the fake martyrdom.
And the nectar runs dry…
It’s been fun and predictable my anonymous online personas. No love lost or gained. Hate always keeps pace.
It is time to move onto another thread. Perhaps I’ll see some of you, unknowingly, at a conference. Just look for the “wanna-be rapist” engaging in “text-book irony.” I will know you by your rapid nods of indignation and reverence as RW delivers her latest list of online rape threats from “hundreds of atheists.”
Another Slimer here for their rite of manhood.
Also winning by losing, pity riposte and Hotel California
Yep. How dull. Not even remotely interesting.
And why should she be receiving any threats, if it wasn’t for idjits who don’t recognize proper social boundaries. Like you. Trolling, that is lying and bullshitting to get reaction from other people, is not a socially acceptable outlet for a mature a socially aware person. As you show so adeptly, by your lack of rational and non-BS discussion.
@ jemby5 It’s not satire. It was a very real person getting upset and because it was my friend I was upset. It was my apartment and should have been a safe place and she obviously didn’t feel that it was at that time.
I’m not implying that I don’t care about people I don’t know, I’m saying that I knew this woman to be a normal, nice person that wasn’t prone to creating drama.
Seganku
Don’t worry about jemby troll. Ze is just trying to qualify for a slime-scout merit badge.
(Why don’t these trolls ever bother to look up the law?)
Incorrect. Sexual harassment is not against the law.
Since the rest of your argument is based on your false premise, you are fractally wrong.
This is dishonest; mutually consenting people can hook up just fine at conventions with anti-harassment policies.
Welcome to Savage Death Island.
I can’t say with any confidence that if I were a woman in her place, I would do any differently than protect myself.
I’m not sure it’s a cute joke, but I am sure it’s not hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy means saying “don’t do X” and then going and doing X.
Making jokes like that at the expense of men does not directly contribute to patriarchy. Therefore it is not hypocrisy.
You should study privilege, since it’s the most important concept there. All men have male privilege. We can’t just decide to stop making society confer male privilege upon us. Try google; this is worth understanding.
“But here’s the contrast with Thunderf00t’s argument. He seems to think it’s either something you ignore, or something you call the FBI to handle. ”
I’m not especially invested in the reputations of either of you but i have to say this is a REMARKABLY fallacious statement on your part PZ, and I think you know it. That you made it and others like in in this post does your reputation as a rationalist some damage. Truth is we all think emotionally first. But you know that, being mindful of it i’d have thought would be a priority for you. Not here it seems.
Just catching up with the whole elevator gate fuss that’s brewed up out of Rebecca Watson’s unwanted attention. I saw the first youtube post about it she made and then have been away from my feeds for a time.
I think she was right to suggest the fellow who followed her into the elevator was inattentive and stupid. But calling that incident an example of something sexist or misogynistic rather than just dumb is over reach. It was not done against woman kind or out of hate of them. It was the ill-considered probably drunken actions of one admirer of hers.
She did prove there is sexism in the skeptics community with all the overblown vindictive replies she received. And for her i’m sure hundreds of them was more than a bit much. I for one don’t know how folks in your very public rolls deal with it all sometimes.
But all the same, hundreds out of a community numbering in the tends of thousands if not more, is not a rampant problem. It’s a problem, one that’s worth talking about. But writing strong arm policies and blindly arguing against allies and peers over?
All thunderfoot did is underline the math and called for cooler heads.
He DID NOT dismiss the issue, or suggest there is NO sexism. Just that the problem does not call for the kind of strong arm policy response it’s gotten. And now i hear you’ve exiled him from the blog?
Oh yes, cooler heads prevailing here, indeed.
Way to go PZ, nice contribution to the train wreck.
As an avid reader, disappointed.
Gee, what else can it be? Honest mistake? I don’t think so Tim…
How is a code of conduct/sexual harassment policy considered strong armned tactics, when they are ubiquitous in the workplace and at meetings? Methinks you doth protest too much.
No, he dismissed the problem, which isn’t calling for color heads. It is putting his head in the sand. You know that.
Gee, I don’t think so Tim.
Avid reader, no. MRA troll from the slimepit, nice reading and regurgitation of their trolling script. No citations to back up your claims. Nothing but OPINION pretending to be deep (or rather micron shallow) thought.
The “FBI” part is obvious hyperbole. Thunderfoot does believe it’s something you ignore or call the police to handle.
It is sexism — because thinking that it’s okay to follow a woman away from the crowd and proposition her for sex in a confined space where it is difficult for her to get away is sexism — but
I don’t see where Watson called it sexism. Please point to where she did so.
You are wrong. And you are a lying piece of shit.
You do not understand what sexism is, and you are incapable of judging the degree of the problem. You should stop mansplaining.
You are a liar. No one has written “strong arm policies”. Stop lying, you piece of shit.
Like you’re doing right now? Piece of shit.
You are a liar. And you don’t know what the fuck math you’re talking about. You piece of shit.
Anger is an appropriate response to sexism and mansplaining. You are a condescending piece of shit. Fuck you.
Yes, he did dismiss the issue of consent. And he lied, claiming that PZ wants to stop people from having fun.
You are a lying piece of shit.
No one claimed that Thunderfoot claimed there was no sexism in the world. You are being a dishonest piece of shit.
You are a lying piece of shit, since there has been no “strong arm policy response”. Piece of shit.
Lying piece of shit.
That is also a lie. You are a liar, and if you got this from Thunderfoot then he is a liar. He is not banned here. He was fired from his position at FtB, but he is not banned from commenting.
You are a piece of shit liar.
Oh yes, totally a rational reply.
More rational than your vapid and scripted fuckwitted and wrong screed. Boring.
@salgoodsam
nyayayabooboo
What’s the matter, piece of shit, can’t you muster the fucking rationality to parse? There’s rationality in there as well as personal insults. The presence of personal insults doesn’t make the rationality vanish.
Why the fuck are you so emotionally wound up that you can’t ignore the personal insults and respond to the rationality? What’s your fucking problem, shitheel?
Who the hell is Tim? You will if you bother to look it up, the pen name links to a real person, who is actually exactly not anything you called me.
Lots of name calling and snap reactions here. Guess i’ll be writing off the the comments from here on it. Have fun being stupid folks.
“2 + 2 = 5.”
“You are a lying piece of shit. 2 + 2 = 4.”
“Oh yes, totally a rational reply.”
Lots of tone trolling.
Says the stupid asshole who doesn’t bother to respond to substantive counterarguments yet keeps on proclaiming his ostensible rationality.
What’s the matter, fuckbrained worthless goddamn piece of shit, you can’t think straight? Being called worthless makes you unable to parse goddamned English? Poor you. How fucking tragic.
I cannot swing a fucking dead cat in any goddamn area of skepticism or atheism without someone basically trying to bully me off! And congrads! They win! They can have their shitty club house.
Tim, the Toolman Taylor. A famous quote of doubt from Al Bourland on an old TV show. Essentially calling you a liar and bullshitter, as was evidenced by your slimepit script and attitude.
Translation, all I had was attitude and bluff, but you beat me hands down.
If you had real evidence, you could have tried “this is what I think, and this is the evidence (link to evidence) to back it up.” For example, a link to honest evidence showing women prefer a conference without harassment policies compared to one that does…
PZ – “He is incorrect. From Thunderf00t’s point of view it is a non-issue. From a strategic point of view, the position that we want the atheist/skeptic movement to grow and include more diversity, it’s a major problem that must be addressed.”
You have eloquently missed thuderfoot’s entire point – perhaps eliberately, since it is so obvious? Growth AND diversity as coequal goals? Welcome to liberal, left-wing world 101 – how to chew off your own foot in 10 easy lessons. Those are not and should not be coequal goals of the athiest/skeptic movements and by conjoining them you are exhibiting a remarkable lack of judgment in your prioritizing. You are saying that without diversity, the movements lack merit, which is logically and rationally flawed on its face. Thunderfoot’s obvious point was that by making the issue appear to be bigger than it is, you are diverting resources and attention away from the key issues – which IS to make the movements grow. By diverting attention and resources you are actually undermining your primary goal (or what should be the primary goal) of growth. And your response is that of a wounded animal – to lash out wildly and emotionally.
PZ – “As Thunderf00t has.
The level of the warning suggests the issue is far more problematic than it is in reality.
Thunderf00t does not get to determine how other people respond to threats; only the threatened people get that option. And his solution, which is to ignore all threats except the ones where you get to bring in the FBI and have them arrest someone, is so laughably black-and-white that it suggests he is entirely oblivious to the situation.”
Ummm, no. You are simply wrong here – factually, logically and legally. A “threat” must be credible. That is, the response of “I feel threatened” must be reasonable, what a reasonable person would perceive as threatening under the circumstances. If I walk up to you, PZ and say “hey, look at this cool green rock that glows in the dark” and you shiver, run screaming and collapse in fear” most people would wonder if maybe, just maybe you might have overreacted just a bit. And again, it’s pretty obvious what Thunderfoot’s point was: if you then take out ads on TV radio and newspapers warning of the imminent threat to all human existence from phosphorous rocks, you have made whatever slight threat that existed seem like the imminent immolation of planet earth.
OVERREACTION = FEAR MONGORING. FEAR MONGORING = DIVERSION OF SCARCE RESOURCES TO ADRESS A NONEXISTENT THREAT. DIVERSION OF SCARCE RESOURCES = IMPAIRMENT OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF ACHIEVING ONE’S GOALS. QED
PZ – “This has never been about TAM, either. The argument encompasses meetings, but also the larger geek and atheist culture, which turns out to be pretty damned sexist. You do not correct the broader problem by turning a blind eye to the specifics; it doesn’t work to say that you reject misogyny, but oh, that meeting there? It’s OK if you hit on women there. It’s OK if you abuse women in a bar; bars are free-range markets for men to exercise their will.”
What planet are you from? Because here on planet Earth, nearly the whole damn male population is sexist. That is not just the speciality of a few Muslims in the middle east. Evolution has set us up that way – we are by nature aggressive, predatory hunters. You are a biologist and should know this. Our fight or flight response says “fight” when we perceive weakness rather than a threat, and submissiveness (including lack of aggression) is perceive as weakness and thus an excuse to exercise dominance. YES we have higher intelligence and can control these impulses, and those who cat are called rapists and jailed. But the impulses still establish the framework within which male-female social interactions occur. And that framework can be seen from our earliest literature, when Odyssious came home to find a host of suiters pining for the hand of his wife: men ask, women answer. That is not misogyny for heaven’s sake – it’s humans behaving like humans. Get beyond the sixth grade, will you?
That male-female, ask-answer interplay is one of the two primary reasons bars exist (the other is to provide a social place to drink to much and behave badly). No, this does not mean any woman going into the bar is available or should expect whatever she gets. It means that any adult, intelligent woman knows at some point she will get some version of this interplay, from outright being hit on to simply flirting or being challenged (either mentally or physically). I don’t know any woman who doesn’t have a pretty good idea how to handle it or any man who can’t follow the normative rules and take no for an answer. And if she can’t, it is nearly always handled by the social pressures of the crowd to back off. That’s the way adults behave. It’s called being mature. Men ask, women answer. And if you think you can legislate this aways by rules you are an imbecile, pure and simple. Workplaces have them: doesn’t really work, and doesn’t even apply to after hours bar-activity among equal level colleagues.
Should have edited the last few sentences in the last paragraph a bit better; what it SHOULD read is as follows:
I don’t know any woman who doesn’t have a pretty good idea how to handle any man who can’t follow the normative rules and take no for an answer. And if she can’t, the jerk is nearly always handled by the social pressures of the crowd to back off. That’s the way adults behave.
darwinwasright:
Your appeal to your ignorance as a way to attempt to make a point is as stupid as your previous efforts at opining.
(There’s clearly a fuckload of stuff you don’t know)
Stupid, stupid programming you have; people ask, people answer.
Harassers target women who don’t have good defense mechanisms against aggression and manipulation.
This is why, when faced with a woman who fails to be submissive, men forgo writing thousands of obstinate blog comments and instead opt to flee in terror.
Incidentally I would like to congratulate darwinwasright on
his or herhis superb thunderf00t parody, it really hit the mark! There were ALL CAPS and everything.