Michael Nugent has been accused of being “bullied or cajoled” into his support for women in the atheist movement. It’s strange that people think a small group of bloggers have that much power and influence, and it’s also obvious that anyone making that accusation doesn’t know Nugent at all. So he has written a post denying that he has been pressured, and repeating the seriousness of the problem.
There is also the wider context of sexism in general. If we as men faced this pattern of sick online abuse simply because of our gender, I suspect that we would urgently take action to tackle the problem. If we fail to take the same action when women face this problem, our inaction reinforces prejudice and discrimination against women generally. We may not mean to do that, and we may not even be aware of it, but the impact of our inaction remains the same.
Tackling sexism is a complex problem, with no magic answers. We should rigorously analyze the extent of sexism in our communities, both online and offline, and we should test and refine the best ways to eradicate it. But we must not deny that it exists, or reinforce it with prejudice and discrimination. Instead we should actively work to create inclusive, safe and supportive communities, in which we can live together as equals, regardless of our race, gender, sexuality or ability levels.
And we should work together on this so that, ultimately, we never again have a fifteen year old atheist girl excitedly posting online about her Christmas present of a Carl Sagan book, then reading crude comments about adult men wanting to have sex with her, and having to respond: “Dat feel when you’ll never be taken seriously in the atheist/ scientific/ political/ whatever community because you’re a girl. :c ”
I can tell you why he takes this position, though: because he is a decent human being. That also tells you what I think of the people who oppose this new emphasis on equality in the atheist/skeptic movements.
QFT, 1000 times. I don’t know what’s the matter with people. A strange level of irrationality is being exhibited out there which I simply don’t understand.
Admit it PZ! You pressured him with facts, peer-reviewed literature and the moral superiority from being obviously right.
You should have known this was wrong, real men like TF only communicate by gnawing on women’s legs.
How about we don’t tolerate harassment or abuse or threats. The only problem I have with the guys statement is that it makes it seem like women are collectively shrinking violets who will run away at the first sign of negative treatment. Hogwash, I say.
Thanks for the women’s perspective on that, Edward.
It really sickens me when they claim pro-feminism males are all being bullied into it or that we’re all just pretending for the ulterior motive of sex. It’s like they’re incapable of comprehending sympathy and compassion. I don’t have to be part of a group to get angry when they’re treated unfairly.
Good grief. We’re in a situation where women have begun speaking out loudly and clearly against this crap, and you’re arguing that the problem is we make them sound like shrinking violets? Like Rebecca Watson, or Sikivu Hutchinson, or Heina Dadabhoy, or Anita Sarkeesian, perhaps?
Get a clue, wanker.
No problem. I’m here all day.
Please reconsider that.
The crap that these people direct at women could just as well be directed at their mothers/sisters/daughters. Is that how they actually view the women in their lives? If so, that is seriously whacked out.
Nope. They are definitely not shrinking violets. It’s men who say things like:
…that make them seem that way, which is amusing. We don’t tolerate abuse of women sounds like something out of the 1940’s. We don’t tolerate abuse of people sounds more modern, and tends to make more sense. It also avoids all the sexist connotations that saying we don’t tolerate abuse of women obviously has.
Oh look, a post-sexist.
How entertaining.
That’s brilliant, Edward!
“It’s more sexist to say that sexist abuse disproportionately affects women!”
Oh, goody.
I bed Edward thinks that sexism against men is as big a problem as sexism against women, don’t you?
Edward Gemmer, thank you for proving yet again that you are one of the most stupid person to show up at Pharyngula in recent memory.
Well now you’re just hurting my feelings. I thought we were friends.
.
the problem is we do not have inclusive, safe and supportive communities for anyone regardless of race, gender, sexuality, ability levels or class now !
There is little emphasis on cooperation it is the contrary it is competition. It is winners and losers and heavy resistance from anyone who thinks their advantage is threatened.
uncle frogy
Entertain away. I’m entertained by the notion that somehow abuse and harassment don’t affect men. Is there some sort of biological difference where insults affect women more than men? Please explain that to me.
Edward Gemmer,
I’m curious. If we acknowledge that there is a disproportionate number of white people in the atheist and skeptical communities, would it be appropriate to point that out or would that be racism?
Yes, because women stopped being disproportionately the targets of abuse in 1950.
Not in the slightest. But I am not persuaded that it is specifically as a big a problem in the atheist movement as is the general abuse towards everyone within striking distance. “We don’t tolerate abuse” is great advice. Why limit it to one gender?
Proving with prima facie evidence you are stupid… Try shutting the fuck up. It will improve our consideration of your IQ tremendously, compared to any comment you make. Which will be the equivalent of a genocidal bigot claiming not to be a bigot….
Pull your head out of your ass, and you’ll understand I was giving you some good advice.
Edward, two things:
1. You are credulously assuming that sexual harassment against men is not taken seriously and condemned.
2. You are credulously assuming that sexual harassment against men is as widespread and as systematic as that against women.
Both are incorrect.
Please ask that all the misogynists and sexists who target mostly women, and sometimes “manginas*”.
*Hmm, is it possible that the word holds a clue? Like, the combination of man + vagina, why would someone use that? hmmm, curiouser and curiouser
I promise not to go to a skeptic’s conference and assume every man there exists solely as a holepunch for my v-card, and the ones who don’t want to be are teases that are too ugly to fuck anyway and they’re not real skeptics so why are they showing up at conferences anyway?
No. That would be a fact. Racism would be saying that from now on, we will not tolerate any negative statements towards any black people, but as for white people, fair game.
It’s racist that there’s no White History Month.
I think we’re done here.
Dammit Edward Gemmer, I told you: you’re simply not smart enough to keep up with the conversation here. Please stop wasting everyone’s time and bandwidth.
(1) That does not in any way parallel the current situation. Men are not “fair game.”
(2) You are an idiot.
I get it now. In order to reduce the harassment of an minority, it must be fair game to harass the dominant group.
Poor Edward Gemmer is worries that he will be harassed for being a man.
(Sounds oddly familiar.)
Ah, so the fact that non-white people are targeted for abuse more than white, or that they are abused and insulted in certain ways that have long-standing racist tradition would and should not be acknowledged?
Edward,
Let me try one more time. There is a specific problem online, and within the atheist/sceptic communities, of women being abused and harassed as women. That is the problem Michael Nugent is writing about, so it makes sense for him to write specifically about what our reaction to the abuse of women should be.
It’s really not that difficult, Edward. If you don’t get it, it’s because you don’t want to get it.
I’m not assuming that, and I don’t believe that. But OTOH, I have a hard time seeing that sexual harassment is a specific problem in the atheist community. There are plenty of women who are quite able to express their opinions. What I do see is a general atmosphere of harassment, where everyone is fair game for any reason. A few women have rightly complained, but because they are women is gets lumped into sexual harassment when rightly it is just bad behavior.
If the racial analogy is too far off topic, I’ll discontinue.
It does seem pretty obvious we won’t be getting anything worthwhile out of Edward anyway.
Why do you discriminate against dumb people?
Nobody fucking said that, you flaming idiot. You’re too dumb to keep up. Stop posting.
Because those who, like you, are stupid not because of lack of innate capacity for intelligence but because of willful ignorance, deserve to be excluded from worthwhile communities. Now fuck off.
I get it. I happen to disagree. Disagreement is a wonderful thing. It’s what separates us from nematodes.
Sexual harassment is not particularly worse in the atheist community than in the world at large.
That does not mean that it should be ignored. It presents an opportunity for the atheist community to demonstrate a way in which we do things better.
Why are you being DELIBERATELY DUMB? Then you get the reason we “discriminate”.
See Post #32
I guess we can’t speak out against homophobic and transphobic actions and insults, since that means that straight and cis people are fair game.
I guess we can’t speak out against ableist actions and insults, since that means that able-bodied people are fair game.
I guess we can’t speak out against classist actions and insults, since that means that wealthy people are fair game.
Shall I go on?
The fact that sexism is everywhere and not just in the atheist and skeptical communities in no way prevents people from trying to improve those communities. We have to start somewhere, no? And the best way is for everyone to do it in their own communities, whether that is a group of friends, a knitting group, an online chess forum or a more loosely defined atheist community.
1) Since no-one has said anything of the kind, or anything like the parallel statement with regard to women and men, what is the point you think you are making here?
2) In fact, no, it would not be racism in the sense that that term is used by those concerned with social justice, although it would certainly be an expression of racial prejudice. Those concerned with social justice recognise the asymmetry between privileged and non-privileged groups, and reserve terms such as “racism” and “sexism” for those occasions when expressions of prejudice reinforce existing inequalities. This is often summed up in the phrase: “racism [or sexism] is prejudice+power”.
No, that’s the ability to understand the difference between EVIDENCE OPINION, which we here at Pharyngula have, versus OPINION, which you have. Showing how DUMB you are in not thinking there is a difference.
So, you are dismissive of harassment because you are an iconoclast. And that you are afraid that you will be harassed for being a man.
Good to know.
(What an extremely stupid man. This is an insult not because you are male. It is because you are stupid.)
Edward, why are you prejudiced against nematodes?
Thanks for proving my point that you’re too fucking dumb to participate. Let’s look at post #32 since you are apparently not only willfully stupid but also lazy to boot.
Where in this post does it say that it’s worse than in society in general? Nowhere. Sexism is a problem everywhere, period. Everywhere includes those places where atheists gather.
Does that fucking clear it up for you, you fucking dumbass?
Which refutes your sorry and unintellectual ass. Why did you not shut the fuck up?
Edward Gemmer, you are a fucking idiot.
You know why Michael Nuggent says something like that?
It’s because he, unlike you, listened to women and then actually tried to learn instead of dismissing them. That’s why he knows that this is what actually happens.
I can get sexual harassment out on the street every day. The last one I got was some guy treating me to the sound of him jerking off over the house intercom while I was holding the door for my children. Maybe somebody more intelligent than you can understand that. I can no longer feel safe within the walls of this house, because there’s some sick bastard living here who thinks he’s entitled to make me complicit in his sexuality whether I like to or not.
I’m not a poor violet, but I’m sick and tired of it, I’m worn and I’m actually only 33 years old.
I’d really like to see you and your ilk after being subjected to only 10% of that for only 1 year of your lives.
I don’t need that shit online and in my free time as well. I’m not going to jump hurdles and pay serious money to get that shitty treatment in my free time as well.
+++
As for TF, it’s really ironic how he laments that the real problem is feminists telling women about harassment, because well, it’s really bad if you educate them that they don’t have to say “thank you” when some strange guy tells them that they’re hot enough for him to fuck, they’re indoctrinating those poor women and tell them what to think, but, well, it’s totally different when he claims that those men were bullied into writing those articles out of the blue.
I guess he would be really glad to explain those guys how they exactly were bullied even if they didn’t see it like that.
Stone me, the extent of your stupidity would be quite awe-inspiring if it were not clearly deliberate. Here’s most of my #32 again:
As is quite clear from the emphases, the specificity I am referring to is the specificity of harassment of women as women. I was saying this because you were objecting to Michael Nugent talking about the abuse of women rather than of people. I was not saying this harassment is worse in the atheist/sceptic communities than elsewhere.
No. It should be acknowledged. But in a broader sense, either you are against abuse and harassment or your not. Acknowledging abuse against any subset of people and tolerating abuse against everyone else is divisive and unnecessary.
Which is why it isn’t tolerated.
Idiot.
Pointing out that women are harassed and agitating for it to be stopped. does not constitute declaring that men are “fair game.”
And I’m really curious as to where you get this idea.
Esteleth, does that not sound like the reasoning of a former member of FtB?
As others have mentioned numerable times, abuse against your “everyone else” – whether it is white people or men, is not tolerated. It is simply acknowledged that there are different motivations behind different kinds of abuse, that certain groups feel entitled to harass certain other groups and that this kind of abuse gets deliberately minimized or outright dismissed.
One of the ways to do it is by derailing discussions about it. I suspect you are familiar with that. Khm.
Somewhat, Janine.
Now, who?! I cannot figure this out!.
My ladybrain is overloaded. Off to find cute cat pictures.
My point is that abuse in the atheist community is widespread. Few people say they abuse people, but the evidence doesn’t lie. Since I started posting here a few days ago, I’ve been called stupid countless times, a wanker by PZ Myers (which I wear with pride), and all sorts of other insults. My personal favorite is the insinuation that I’m a virgin or can’t get women to talk to me, as if my ability to get laid is proof of my self-worth. I posted on Skepchick and got called a rapist. If you haven’t been able to tell by now, I can tolerate insults pretty well. But not everyone can, and I imagine I’m not the only person who gets insulted on a regular basis. You can visit any random internet site with an active comment section and see plenty of insults against all sorts of people.
I’m annoyed that this is so widely tolerated in the atheist community. The insults are clearly generated by the fact that I’ve said something with which someone disagrees. Quit tolerating insults based on nothing but disagreement, and I think a large part of the insults against women, black people, and any other group you can imagine would be curbed by a large degree.
Esteleth,
Here you go, a cute cat’s opinion of Edward: http://lovemeow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/3622343299_30f43f29db_z.jpg
/a lady always has a cute cat picture at the ready
…
So, “you’re an idiot” is equivalent to “I hope you get raped to death by wolves, bitch”?
Glad we cleared that up.
Awwww, I love cats! I had a tiger cat named Sizzle who that picture reminded me of.
Not at all. Is it equivalent to “you’re a rapist who shouldn’t be allowed to have children”? Perhaps.
It seems to be tolerated in the atheist community. Encouraged even.
Also, isn’t there a meme going around about “just because it’s not as bad as something somewhere else doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it.”
Edward Gemmer @ #57
The insults are generated by the fact that they are apt descriptors of your posting behavior, not because you disagree. If your disagreement had any real substance instead of pointless whining about the tone of the conversation, you would see your disagreements being addressed differently.
Case in point: You ignored the context of women being harassed and suggested that meant men were ‘fair game’ for harassment, which is something incredibly stupid to say. And thus, you were called on your stupidity.
Citation needed.
Seriously, you are making a very serious allegation. Prove it.
Also, threatening someone with violence is equivalent to threatening someone with violence. Nothing else. If someone threatened to break into your house and castrate you, and you live in a society where 25% of men have endured this, and you know that the conviction rates of the attackers is horribly low, that is equivalent to rape threats.
Shit.
Yet another thread in which a man shows up and decides that talking about him is far more important than actually working to deal with the issues of sexual harassment.
Edward Gemmer, yes, harassment can go both directions. In all directions. Your idea seems to be that if we deal with the least common forms of harassment — that directed up the power hill — that the downhill harassment will magically cease?
Case in point. You fail to say anything at all that supports your assertion that men are apparently not harassed or abused, except to say that I am stupid and apparently anything I say must be wrong because I am stupid and that’s just the way it is. Guess what, even stupid people are right sometimes.
Edward,
You are not being abused. You are being called stupid because you write stupid things.
There’s also a “meme going around” about men who come into threads about sexual harassment of women and derail it into a discussion of discrimination against men, or discrimination against that ONE complaining man, or into a discussion about how we should be discussing ANYTHING ELSE in the world because there are so many more important things going on.
Edward, you came here to prove a point an you are successfully proving a point.
Just not the one you intended
Where has anyone said that men aren’t harassed and abused?
They are.
This is deplorable.
And yet, women are also harassed and abused, at rates higher than that of men.
It must be a reading comprehension fail on my part, but is Michael Nugent’s quote not speaking of sexism as a problem for all regardless of gender? One that requires analysis to solve. Is talking about the most common type of sexism not the beginning of rigorous analysis? Is it not going to need to be dealt with on a somewhat different basis than less frequent but not necessarily less problematic forms? I have a hard time understanding anyone who is incapable of admitting that there is a need to specifically address something as damaging to our society as a whole as sexism that specifically singles out women, unless we address every possible type of sexism. Or of course unless we just never talk about the women at all.
I have repeatedly called you stupid because to not do so would deny the reality of the inanity of your words.
Here is a clue for you why this is not like the harassment of women. I have based my insult on what you have said, not because what I perceive you to be because of a trait you have(being male).
Bloody stupid git.
Edward Gemmer @ #68
Except that I never made such an assertion, and thus, I need not to support it. (And that’s ignoring the fact that such an assertion is clearly false).
Again, I didn’t claim what you say is wrong because you’re stupid. I stated that your suggestion that focusing on women being harassed is equal to claiming men are fair game for harassment is stupid, particularly given the fact that such a claim is blatantly false. And of course, you may not be as stupid as you present yourself. You may just be dishonest.
Is that your plan? To keep on rambling until you say something that’s “right”? Because if so, we’ll be here all year.
Redguard forever
Sorry fuckwitted loser, you must prove your initial stupid and idiotic claim that mene are as harassed as women at cons. Until you show evidence, there is nothing to refute by citation, as the NULL HYPOTHESIS, well supported by evidence, is that women are harassed at a far greater rate then men. PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK IF YOU ARE NOT TROLLING.
Absolutely!
Edward Gemmer would, I’m sure, be SHOCKED to discover that some of the people he’s claiming are ignoring or denying the idea that men can be harassed and abused are…
…men who have themselves been harassed or abused.
Things that are “blatantly false” should be easy easy to disprove. Calling me stupid does nothing to disprove them.
Except you haven’t proved your claims. MAKING YOU A CONFIRMED LIAR, BULLSHITTER, AND TROLL.
You have evidence right there in Nugent’s article.
Nasty case of hookworm
EG: “When you say you care about topic A, what you really mean is you DON’T care about topic B”
Everyone: “That’s a ridiculous assertion.”
EG: “PROVE IT!”
What am I missing here?
Ah, the higher life form parasiting the lower form…
All forms of discrimination and harassment are wrong Edward. But the discussion here is not about discrimination and harassment in general or in principle. This particular thread is a discussion of sexism aimed at women as it has been and continues to be practiced within the atheist community. What the hell makes you think that discussions about sexism and/or harassment should be confined to the issue in general, as you seem to be arguing. Do you mean to say that if we are not going to discuss the topic in general then the discussion is not legitimate; it’s not worth having? To dismiss the examination of sexual harassment aimed at women within our community as you are doing is not much different from saying it is not a problem. No one is asking nor demanding that you take part in the efforts to identify it and end it. But we will rip you a new asshole if you continue to imply that sexism directed at women within the atheist community is not worth our time to discuss, root out and purge from our ranks. Now would be a good time for you to find some corner, go to it, and shut the fuck up unless you are ready to be a part of the solution rather than an asshole.
A willingness to twist reality to conform to your personal bias.
*Trigger warning for descriptions of sexual harassment*
Tell me, Edward, when was the last time you went out in public, endured numerous comments about your looks (positive and negative), were told to “smile” or were touched intimately by complete strangers?
When was the last time you decided on your use of public transportation based when there is (usually) less sexual harassment?
When was the last time you had to consciously decide to wear steel-toed work boots just to go grocery shopping or to the bank because you might have to deal with more than just PUAs, but someone intent on hurting you?
When was the last time you had to decide whether or not to respond to harassment in a firm (or aggressive) manner because you did not have witnesses and/or backup if the person should become violent.
When was the last time you put up with harassment because you didn’t want to provoke a violent reaction?
When was the last time that, while minding your own business, someone grabbed your earbuds out of your ears and yelled, “I’m fucking talking to you!” and — when told to fuck off — proceeded to scream abuse and rape threats at you (until told threatened with said steel-toed workboots), then continued the rest of the ride complaining about miserable stuck-up “people” and how they were just trying to be nice to you and it’s not like they’re a bad or dangerous person.
When was the last time you felt you had to ride the bus until that person left it, then had to listen to fellow passengers tell you not to be so rude and that that person was only trying to be nice and you should be flattered because at your age, it’s obvious you don’t hear that sort of thing often, then had the bus driver tell you that if you were “unruly” like that again, you wouldn’t be allowed to ride the bus anymore?
When was the last time you had to run into a store/bank/shop in order to escape someone who was following you?
When was the last time you had to go through any/all of that and then go online to see the same sort of constant harassment and rape threats against people just like you (both well-known and anonymous)?
The minute that any of that becomes a common, daily problem for white men, I’ll start worrying about them being told they’re idiots on the internet, you dismissive, arrogant, willfully stupid idiot.
This is why we call you stupid, Edward: because you write extremely stupid things.
You made the claim that those who call for an end to sexist harassment of women for being women would be totally fine with any sort of harassment of men. You made the claim; the onus is on you to provide support for your claim. The problem is, you can’t, because it’s completely false. It is not our job to prove you wrong when you say wrong things, it is your job to provide evidence that you are correct. Otherwise, why should anyone believe that you are correct? Nobody has ever suggested that harassing men is okay. You pulled that idea out of the ether. You can’t support it. Now you’re trying to weasel out of being incredibly fucking wrong by saying, “Well, you can’t PROVE I’m wrong!” Yes we can: we can note that there is zero evidence for your assertion and we can further note that, when asked to provide evidence for your assertion, you were unable to do so. That is not iron-clad proof that you are wrong, but it does strongly suggest that you are wrong.
I hear things in caps are more likely to be true.
I’m a white man, and clearly insults against me are tolerated. So you’re claim that harassment of white men isn’t tolerated being “completely false” is a bit of an exaggeration.
And still no citations to show you are anything other than a lying and bullshitting troll. Time to put up or shut the fuck up. That is, if you honesty and integrity, like the Pharyngula regulars. Further claims without evidence confirm you lie and bullshit. Make up your mind cricket. Choose wisely. But I doubt you will, as you are that stupid.
You are being insulted for being obtuse, not for being a white man.
1. You are not being insulted because you are a white man but because you are stupid
2. Insults used against you are not gendered or sexual
3. You have not been threatened in any way
I’m a white male old fart. My insults to you are because you deliberately stupid. We both know that. Why don’t you wise up? OH, that would mean shutting the fuck up like any evidenceless fool should do….
Oh, I’d be MORE than willing.
It’s reality that’s so damned unwilling.
I really don’t get the “Pharyngula is prejudiced against straight cisgendered white men” thing.
I mean, you do realize whose blog this is, right?
Addendum to 1:
Or rather, because you are writing stupid things. It may be that you are not really stupid, just pretending in order to derail a discussion about sexism.
And I hear that it is far easier to object to someone’s tone than the actual meat of the argument.
You really do not understand harassment, do you? You are being called an idiot because of your comments on this thread. You are not being called an idiot because you are a white man. If you were being insulted, or threatened, because you are a man, that would be harassment. If you were being insulted, or threatened, because you are white, that would be harassment. But no, you are being insulted because you (a) write idiotic things in your comments, (b) you deliberately misunderstand every single argument in ways that confirm your bias, (c) no matter how many times it is explained to you, politely and impolitely, you still repeat the same stupidity, and (d) you insist on responding to the tone of the response rather than the actual content.
The second you get insulted for being a white dude, we’ll let you know, Edward.
I mean, Jesus fuck, do you think none of us have argued with &/or insulted women?
Not only are we bigots, we have the power to see what you look like solely through typography!
The bloody stupid git is too stupid to have noticed that I have pointed out that I am insulting him because his is a bloody stupid git and not because he is a man.
Must not be able to read for comprehension. Which is more proof that Edward Gemmer is a bloody stupid git.
Bloody Stupid Johnson could take lessons in stupidity from Edward Gemmer.
I doubt it. Go to any random Christian, conservative website and see how people are treated who disagree with them. It will feel familiar.
Well, and here’s me picturing you all this time as a chihuahua-warthog cross with a severe case of mange. Just shows how wrong you can be.
Jimmy steals Alice’s lunch.
Teacher says “Jimmy, why’d you steal Alice’s lunch? Now she’s hungry.”
Jimmy says, “D.B. Cooper stole a whole lot more than that, and there’s starving children all over the world – why do you go after me and not them? Why are you singling me out and allowing all that other bad stuff – I do it and it’s bad, but for them it’s fair game. This is harassment.”
Teacher: “DAFUQ”
Crispy Christ onna Stick. Gemmer, you spread your loathsome brand of idiocy all over the Piero Corsi thread and now you’re going to do it here? Fuck off already. This thread isn’t about you or your deep wish for *jazz hands* Whoopsie, biological! *jazz hands*.
Let me be clear. I am not at all claiming that the insults are because I’m a white man. I am saying the insults are because I disagree with you. As an atheist and a feminist, it is amazing to see the differences people will parse out to justify their insulting behavior on an atheist, feminist website. But I still love you guys.
Citation needed, but then, you knew that, but didn’t make one anyway. Loser troll response, not that of a rational and intellectual adult to have a conversation with. But then, you knew that before you acted like a fuckwitted idjit.
That’s 100 comments directed by Edward’s trolling.
Funny how the bloody stupid git is ignoring my words.
He must think I am a liar.
How about if I started insulting PZ Myers because he is a white man?
Edward. Here is an example of actual harassment* against you, a white man:
Shut the fuck up you stupid dick-brained cracker. I’m going to find out where you live and cut your penis off. Everyone knows that men are only good for fixing cars. Get back in the garage and fix my car, you testosterone-addled honky!
For contrast, here is an insult based on the content of what you write:
The things you write are extremely stupid. From this I conclude that you are actually quite dumb, or being dishonest. Shut up and fuck off.
Now, I know you’re going to ignore this because not ignoring it would break your pattern of ignoring everything that suggests that you’re wrong, but hopefully any lurkers will gain some edification. Also, you no longer have any excuse: you can’t claim ignorance about the difference between bigoted harassment and content-based insults anymore. Any further claims that you are being harassed because you are white and male will be met with nothing but derision.
*I tried to come up with some insults that were roughly analogous to what I have experienced on the net as a woman, but there really aren’t any parallels, which tells you something about how fundamental the sexism involved in this sort of harassment is to our language and culture.
*headdesk*
We can read your old comments, you know. You can scroll back up and see what you wrote there. Like, “I’m a white man, and clearly insults against me are tolerated.”
Esteleth:
Pfft, PZ isn’t a middle-aged cis white man, that’s just a suit. He’s actually an awesome octopus squid hybrid with dancing chromatophores and extra tentacles. That’s why he types so fast, ya know.
It is not because you disagree. It is because you said nothing of intelligence.
Not too far off though
Liar: the insults are because you are acting exceptionally stupid. Simple disagreement does not earn insults. Disagreement based on stupidity and lies does. Stop lying and stop being stupid, and the insults will cease.
Unfunny stupid loser thinks its funny. Try again.
I just got a free toaster
That will happen when you finally cite the academic literature to back up your claims. Keep in mind that which has already be shown from the same literature is considered the NULL HYPOTHESIS. Just like evolution, with a million or so scientific papers, is considered the NULL HYPOTHESIS in discussions with creobots. Funny, they are as stingy on scientific/academic evidence as you are….
I hate lying. Where did I lie?
I hope you’ll get a free kick out of here.
Edward Gemmer is as witty and he is intelligent.
Wow!
Me, too.
Every assertion, like men are as sexually harassed at cons as women, as one example. You talk, you lie. That is your well deserved reputation, gained by not supporting your claims with third party evidence. The null hypothesis on you OPINION is that it is nothing but lies and bullshit. Well documented. You have some ‘splainin’ to do Lucy”.
Rememebr, I’m stupid, but societies seem to follow the same trends. I represent criminals, and they are often asked to be locked up for (name the crime). Historically, people were ostracized based on (name the behavior). On internet sites, people are routinely banned. It’s a very normal thing. I don’t think I’ve insulted anyone intentionally, but clearly you wish me banned. Why? It’s a serious question.
Abject and deliberate stupidity. As you know. If you are a lawyer, you aren’t as stupid as you act. You should know better. Why don’t you? Or is your EGO in the way?
Yo, Ed! I’m feeling left out.
Once again: do you think none of us have argued with &/or insulted women before? And how insulting someone for having shitty ideas is totally different than harassing people based on their gender?
It would seem that a certain bloody stupid git is ignoring what I am saying.
(Wonders why that would be?)
You hate lying? That statement must be yet another lie, because you have lied a bunch already.
Lie #1: That someone suggested that abuse and harassment don’t affect men.
Lie #2: That someone was trying to persuade you that sexism is a bigger problem in the atheist movement than it is in society in general.
Lie #3: That women who complain about sexual harassment are not capable of telling sexual harassment apart from “just bad behavior,” whatever that is.
Lie #4: That post #32 supported your claim that someone was claiming that sexism is worse in the atheist movement than elsewhere in society.
Lie #5: That abuse—actual abuse, not the milquetoast insults you are complaining about—is tolerated here.
Lie #6: That the insults made against you are because of the simple fact of your disagreement, not because of the remarkable lack of reasoning ability you display in those comments or because of your dishonest, willful ignorance of the points that clearly show your points to be wrong.
Lie #7: That insults against you are made because you are white and/or male, not because of the remarkable lack of reasoning ability you display in those comments or because of your dishonest, willful ignorance of the points that clearly show your points to be wrong.
I’m getting bored now. Is that enough or would you like me to go on?
Remember, physically unattractive people are typically the dumbest.
Just a small question for my personal education, asked because this blog does not provide the option to search for posters previous comments on other threads:
Has this Edward person being posting in a similar style on other threads here latetly?
Yes.
EG cannot and will understand the difference between evidenced opinion, where one can cite the academic literature to back up the conclusions, and opinions from the gut lacking support to gain them as conclusions, not just ideas. Then there is delusional thinking as a second alternative, where the OPINION comes from fantasy. It appears EG has the last, where everything is imaginary, and reality is immaterial and irrelevant.
Sally:
It seems you where right, what a total shocker!
Freodin:
Yes. He initially popped up with mouthfuls of shit in the Piero Corsi thread.
Citation needed of course. Or you lie and bullshit.
I know! Someone fetch the smelling salts please, I feel faint.
*The Pullet Patrol™ EMs rush in with a portable fainting couch, smelling salts, and tankard of grog*
[meta]
Trolling.
Holy shit, Edward Gemmer might get the “bore of the month” award, and it’s merely the first day. What a chore it is to read this load of bullshit. At least the usual trolls manage to be amusingly stupid in some degree.
Damn, it has only been a couple of days but I already forgotten how that thread also became all about him.
(Starts screaming at myself for self censorship)
<blockquote.Once again: do you think none of us have argued with &/or insulted women before? And how insulting someone for having shitty ideas is totally different than harassing people based on their gender?
Well I’m sorry! I don’t know if you have argued with or insulted women before. If I had to guess, I’d guess the insults against women are far less likely than insults against men, and when they exist they occur more frequently when the extent of disagreement is higher; for example, a Christian woman would be insulted here far more than an atheist woman.
My feeble attempt at channeling Edward:
I don’t know why people in the USA are yapping on about gun control, slaughtered children, etc., when the obvious answer is that we should just be nicer to each other, especially to me.
I’m not sure where all the criticism of Edward is coming from. It seems to me that he’s one of few who refuse to make a sexist distinction, and, as the original feminist movement pushed for, liberate everyone regardless of their gender, treat everyone as a human being, not as a female human being or male human being.
Everyone else is getting paid per the fiscal cliff agreement that was just reached. Why aren’t you?
Not what I’m seeing. Maybe you should share your hallucinogen, as it appears to be a good one…
EG:
You dispute this?
“If [you] had to guess”?
Oh, fail.
Gee, PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF SENSE OF HUMOR, WHICH IS THE FEEBLE ATTEMPT. Citation needed, and you, of course, won’t be bothered to show you aren’t lying and bullshitting. Typical of trolls and fuckwitted idjits…
I think you missed something, texasaggie. The bloody stupid git has argued that stopping that harassment of women mean that it is open season on white men like him. Nothing at all sexist going on there.
I love it when people are nice to me, but honestly I like being insulted. Most people don’t. My main contention is that the points for the movement with regards to women, i.e. if we treat them like garbage, they will be less likely to join and it’s not right anyways, apply towards everyone. Now, men and women are the only two categories here, but even if there were 3 or five or ten I think it would apply that no one likes being treated like garbage.
Being boring and trolling are both potential reasons for banning.
Doing these on more than one thread makes it worse.
Texas Aggie:
Click the link I so handily provided @ 134. Maybe you’ll figure it out.
Janine:
There’s nothing slightly racist going on, either. Nuh uh, not at all!
Really? You deny that GLBTQ persons are ever harassed? What an interesting insight.
But, see, Edward, you seem to be assuming that we want to include EVERYONE. We don’t want to. We want to alienate some people–namely, idiots like you, and bigots. It isn’t actually possible to include women and not alienate misogynists. You have to pick one or the other. If you want to be inclusive of misogynists, well, do it somewhere else.
How about them lies, by the way? Gonna respond to that, you coward?
Janine:
Texasaggie doesn’t have the best history in regard to feminism threads here.
Now, show us academic evidence that men are treated like “garbage” at a rate that even approximates that for women. PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP IF HAVE HONESTY AND INTEGRITY. WHICH BASED ON YOUR PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE SAME, SAY YOU HAVE NO HONESTY AND INTEGRITY. YOU MUST BE A LAWYER….
ð
There’s no denying, though, that the clockwork regularity of these inane claims is telling. First, the ubiquitous employ of these grossly inadequate catch-all assertions shows the anti-feminist contingent’s utter lack of substantive criticism*. Second, such blatant misappropriation of ‘bullying’ lays bare their blithe narcissism: a noxious cocktail of oblivious entitlement coupled with callous disregard for people who’re actually bullied. Finally, the sophomoric reduction of feminist men to caricatural liars-in-hope-of-sex is such obvious projection: it speaks not only (once again) to the absence of any real rebuttal to our claims, but even more pathetically to the imagination-bereft objectification of women at the festering core of their worldview: if they can’t** conceive of agreeing with feminism for any other reason, then clearly no other men could do so.
This Groundhog Day of know-nothing oafishness is so dull, so banal in its crass cluelessness, that it’d merit no further examination….. if it weren’t for the fact that it dominates such a depressingly wide spectrum of otherwise-unrelated pursuits and conversations: atheist fora, to the continuing dismay of all those who had expected a bare minimum of rationality therein for some reason***, and even less subtly in gaming culture (my own niche, for the most part, sad to say). Oh, and the trifling detail that the sexism underlying this behavior still goes deep into the everyday realities of modern life, wage inequity and all the rest.
* Indeed, even the capacity for such, it seems…..
** Or “won’t” — damned if I know which is more accurate…..
*** We the naïve…..
Chigau:
At the moment, posting so godsdamn much is more annoying to me, 5, 6, 7 EG posts in a row. (Such interestin’ initials, eh?)
Have you sent an alert or are you enjoying the show? (I haven’t sent one.)
Not exactly. I think my position would be as such: women have been discriminated against historically. Minorities who disagree with the majorities have been discriminated against historically. In the atheist movement, minorities and women have been discriminated against. Much (not all) of the discrimination against women is actually discrimination against disagreement.
texasaggie @143: “It seems to me that he’s one of few who refuse to make a sexist distinction”
It’s the same sort of refusal to make a distinction that gives racists cover for racist comments and behaviour, and (in their own fevered minds) lets them call you the real racist. It’s bullshit on its face. Post-racist, post-sexist my arse.
Lily-livered lying coward… I do see a banhammer in EG’s future.
I noticed the initials too, Caine.
Ah, thanks, Caine, for the link… my google-fu is totally lacking. Now I can at least follow PZ’s initial reaction.
But I do indeed wonder… what do you (all) think you are going to achive in responding to him in this way?
If he is indeed a troll – meaning, he is intentionally disrupting the course of this thread – he is, with your (pl) contributions, a very successful one. He managed to turn the commentary on an interesting topic to a only roughly related, and obviously rather infuriating, one.
Well I’m not trolling. I feel I’ve been pretty honest about my feelings and point of view. And honestly, if my POV that harassing and/or abusing people is wrong is trolling, then I’m not sure where I’m at. As far as boring, that’s a judgment for you to make. I hate being boring.
Citation needed loser fuckwitted lawyer. If you can’t prove your case, or argue with law, one must fall on the mercy of the jury. But your problem is that the jury is smart, onto your loser tricks, and not sympathetic to your idiotology. So, why continue other than abject stupidity? You lost with your first post….
Your lies are transparent, Edward. You are not as dumb as you appear to be; you are trolling.
No. I do not deny that. GLBTQ person are discriminated against routinely. Why? I’d argue, because their lifestyle is different from the vast majority of others, and disagreement naturally lends itself to insult and banishment.
Which if it can’t and won’t be evidenced is irrelevant. Your OPINION doesn’t sway a flea here, but rather the EVIDENCE you bring to bear to support your OPINION. And with no evidence, your OPINION is *POOF* dismissed as abject stupid fuckwittery. What part of that don’t you understand, so I can explain it to you words of one syllable or less….
SallyStrange, it is possible that the bloody stupid git is as stupid as he appears to be.
Great Lakes beer is awesome! I recommend the Burning River
Fixed that for you loser. What part of CITATION NEEDED don’t you understand?
Now this is just wrong.
I apologize: I won’t treat you with insults… not my style. But here you are simply wrong… some of the discrimination against women might stem from “disagreement”, but
a) most of it is simply misogynist… it is aimed at women simply for being women
and b) even the “discrimination for disagreement” gets sexist as soon as it is know that the disagreement is with a woman.
I know that being insulted does not make you well disposed to admitting your mistakes, but a honest person should do it nontheless.
Freodin:
Sharpening our fangs and keepin’ them all sniny. This is the purpose of chewtoys.
More seriously, it doesn’t actually matter, the exchange with EG. It doesn’t matter if he’s a troll or a genuine idiot or a willful idiot. What does matter are all the people who are reading. Yeah, the lurkers. We hear, on a regular basis, from those who have spent time reading here and used to be blinded by privilege or happily sunk in sexism without giving in any thought, etc., who have had their minds changed by reading exchanges such as these. Short form: fighting the good fight is always a good thing.
This caught my eye, too.
But looking back at the OP, that was the topic.
(not that we must ignore everyone else)
—
Caine, I haven’t sent one.
I have a feeling PZ is following this thread, so I don’t want to be a noodge.
So sad when a bloody stupid git tries to be clever and thinks he has a point. Get back to me when you have been kicked out of your home as a teen or get beaten up just because you disagreed.
Avoiding EVIDENCE again. What a lying and bullshitting loser.
We also hear from lurkers who claim that they have learned argument that they can use to help them against their harassers.
Chigau:
Yeah, same here. I have a feeling EG will get his in time.
As someone who is very intimately connected with the black community, let me tell you; the idea that racist equals horrible has been useful politically but is not very accurate. People naturally assume differences based on race. This is not because race automatically infers some difference (aside from physicaly appearance), but because people are hardwired to recognize patterns and physical appearance is one such pattern. So having racist tendencies is not necessarily a terrible trait. Instead, what I prefer to focus on is education and people’s ability to overcome their tendency.
It is possible, but I find the rank dishonesty hypothesis to be more plausible, based mostly on his fairly sophisticated sentence structure and the way he determinedly introduces false ideas into the conversation, then studiously ignores what people say to rebut his false ideas in favor of introducing yet more falsehoods.
Given your history of lying, bullshitting, and lack of EVIDNECE, there is nothing you can tell us without citation that will be believed. You brought this state of skepticism upon yourself with your deliberate stupidity. Now, either fess up, or *POOF* dismissed as lies and bullshite.
Slavery was also just a disagreement.
Janine:
This is true too. Gotta keep fighting, keep those fangs sniny.
True, SallyStrange, I also suspect that he is also just shit kicking. I just prefer to threat him as if he is stupid. He has worked so hard for it.
So far, the only truthful thing he has said has nothing to do with the thread Great Lakes is a good brewery. But he gets no points for that.
Oh do tell.
What is a ‘GLBTQ’ ‘lifestyle’?
I will say I don’t disagree. However, if insults against anyone are tolerated and encouraged, how can you discern whether insults against women are specifically a problem, or just a sympton of the larger problem?
Chigau, if he tried to define that, it would be open season to harass him for being straight.
This question was already answered. Your insinuation that you still do not understand the distinction between insults and bigoted harassment and abuse is yet another lie.
I bet the black community is as proud to have you representing their interests as women are.
Slavery was not a disagreement. It was the philosophy (in America) that people who were different from white Europeans were fundamentally inferior and thus best suited to working menial jobs for no pay. It still comes down to discrimination due to differences.
Chigau:
Well, we’re all the same, yep. That’s why there’s a ‘Q’ tacked on the end. All us queer types are just…queer, ya know?
Gemmer:
Freodin’s #163 offers the essential argument for your banning: to preserve actual discussion of the original topic. Instead, the thread’s devolved into a tiresome showcase for your sub-remedial understanding of the issue, the trumpeting of your ersatz enlightenment — post-sexism wankery — in ramshackle rapid-fire posts delivered with the cloying affectation of agreeability that is your calling-card.
(But the regulars seem to be enjoying you as a chew-toy, so fuggetaboutit, I guess….. I think SallyStrange has the hammer for this nail, but what do I know?)
Funny how he claims that it is difference and not hierarchy.
Academic EVIDENCE fuckwit. You know, the stuff you avoid like the plague….
Edward Gemmer
You learned all of your Anthropology and Sociology in lawyerschool, didn’t you?
Oh shit.
I read your correspondence course and I STILL don’t get an A?
Very complicated. It is the lifestyle people pursue based on their sexual desires that does not conform to “man attracted to woman, woman attracted to man” that is the majority. Controversial, I know.
ALL the people who are reading this? Really?
I am a lurker. I hadn’t read the Corsi thread up to the start of the Edwardian debate. I met him here for the first time, read his comment, thought it was wrong and quite irrelevant. And saw him insulted by (what an honour) PZ himself. And on and on and on. For nothing. For stupidiy?
Being insulted for my views – stupid or not – does not make me reconsider. Seeing others being insulted for their views does not make me reconsider. It makes me angry. It makes me wanting to fight for the insulted one. AND I DISAGREE WITH THIS GUY!
In this way (and in this way only), I can understand the internet communities where they rant about the Freethoughtbullies or whatever: you are their chewtoys. You are the ones they think are stupid and can be insulted.
Perhaps I am alone in that… or perhaps there are other lurkers like me who are simply afraid to be insulted here if they were to post against this custom. But couldn’t we possibly agree that our disagreements, our justified doubts, our requests for evidence can happen without calling each other “wankers”?
I wish. we were stuck learning about fee simple.
Citation, not your OPINION, required. Until then *POOF* dismissed as a fuckwitteed claim… When will you learn? Oh, that’s right, lawyers are incapable of learning….
Freodin,
That’s you. Plenty of other people react to these things differently – we know because they have said as much, many times.
Sorry you don’t find it to your liking, but there’s a whole internet out there where insults aren’t tolerated. Hell, right here at FTB there are several blogs where that’s the case. Try Greta Christina’s blog if that’s your style. Personally, I hang out here because I LIKE the rough-and-tumble style of discourse. If it changed to suit your liking I’d no longer read or post here. Funny how that works, eh?
That is in fact quite easy. Just look if an insult against anyone is made against the person or against the argument. Just look if an insult is made only when this person is female.
Different methods works for different people. You do not like it, move on. There are others that this does work for.
Works perfectly for all the women out there. They could just go off to find some female friendly communities, can’t they? What are they all whining about?
I disagree. Sexist insults are often deployed against men. Mangina, for example, is a sexist insult that exists specifically to insult men.
If the insult is based on the premise that there’s something inherently wrong with femininity or femaleness, then it’s sexist.
Freodin:
Well, you’re posting against ‘this custom’ and there’s no queue lining up to insult you, now is there? Sort of makes your argument fall down.
We have people here who never cuss or insult in their arguments and they are all OMs and respected by all us cussing and insulting types. Yes, a lot of new lurkers here are unaware of the history of a certain commenter, however, expecting all of us who have been dealing with one load of shit after another for thousands of posts to be more concerned about a newbie not knowing the history is simply not on.
We know who we’re talking to – if there’s uncertainty, a person can always ask (as you did) or simply read more. If that still isn’t enough, hey, no one is being forced to read or participate here. There are plenty of spaces on the net where surface civility* is required.
*We tend to spit on this, because it’s often those who are civil on the surface who say the most vile things one could dream up. Better to cuss, insult and say something of substance here, because it’s substance which matters, not style and not tone. You’ve been around way long enough to know that.
Freodin, honey, are you looking to prove your point by inviting insults with asinine statements?
Black people and women always agree on everything! Oh wait, that’s not right…
What a nonsensical statement. Typical of those unable to stand up and acknowledge their dishonesty as expected from responsible adults. But typical of liars and bullshitters.
Freodin @ #198
I doubt you’ll find many people here that disagree with that. In fact, there’s a lot of veteran commenters in Pharyngula that are polite and seldom (if ever) insult people, no matter how hideous their opinions or idiotic their arguments. The problem is that you seem to suggest that there’s something inherently better about polite disagreement over rude disagreement.
That is known as tone trolling, and it’s not welcome here because it makes the mistake of focusing on the delivery of an argument rather than the argument at hand, which is a bloody stupid thing to do. If you prefer to do the non-insulting, non-confrontational thing, good on you, go forth and be polite.
But to simply assume (based on your personal experience) that that’s a better approach is unfortunately wrong, as there are many here, myself included, who have benefited from the commentariat’s vitrol because it helps highlight a very important fact:
Issues of social justice are very much real, they are not merely an academic exercise or a source of intellectual discussion. There are people who are actively being hurt by opposition to social justice. People who suffer and die because of opposition to social justice. People who’s right to be treated as a human being are in danger because of opposition to social justice.
And therefore, people who oppose social justice should make you really fucking angry. And that anger should show up. Because this isn’t some vacuous philosophical argument. This is about people’s lives, and people’s suffering.
Just so I’m following correctly, what did you say that has caused the difficulties here?
I’m a tough grader.
@ Freodin:
“Wanker” is a substantive insult in this case. It specifically denotes the pseudo-argumentation that’s colloquially known as ‘mental masturbation’.
It’s too bad you launched from this into a contrarian defense of Gemmer, and less understandably of the anti-FtB brigade. Insults alone do not a chew-toy make; your analogy doesn’t hold water.
A slymey dog might gnash hir teeth at falcons flying overhead: that doesn’t make the birds chew-toys…..
Sally:
Apparently, this is ALL ABOUT ME! day. Yeesh.
Oops! Must be something wrong with all of the women who are regulars here.
Well YOU tell ME.
After all, you’re the one claiming expertise and telling US we’re supposed to listen to you about what racism is based on your authority as “someone who is very intimately connected with the black community.”
Caine
re: Gay Lifestyle
I was also thinking of all those middle-aged and even elderly couples who have recently been permitted to marry.
Most of them have boring, middle-class, working-stiff lifestyles.
Not ‘different’ at all.
I don’t think so Tim. You lack the concept you are wrong, which makes your grading nothing but OPINION THAT AGREES WITH YOU…
Freodin was making an analogy. Because apparently people who prefer politeness to insults are a marginalized and historically oppressed group in society.
Ze Madmax:
Indeed. It’s our lives on the table, not a philosophical wankfest.
Arren:
Another indeed. That’s naught to do with the composition of a chew-toy.
Hm… mangina would be used towards men holding a certain position… or acting in a certain way. I admit I have heard that term now for the first time, so I am not quite sure where it would be.
Of course you are right… I got carried away with my feminist side and limited my argument to women. That was incorrect. But I think me general point towards Edaward is still correct: if the insult is aimed at the gender of the person instead of the argument, it is a sign that it is a “specific problem”, as Edward called it.
Actually, these are not equivalent.
I have been insulted for being stupid here.
Do you know why I was insulted for being stupid?
Because I was being stupid.
Do you know how I made being insulted for being stupid go away?
I stopped being stupid.
Neither you nor Edward is making any sense to me regarding this alleged point. Do please explain.
Janine! There are no women on Pharyngula.
Chigau:
Nuh uh! They’re all differenty!!1! So sayeth an idiot.
Fuckwitted idjit or deliberately stupid isn’t aimed sex, but the argument itself. AS EG well knows, but prefers to lyingly and bulshittingly pretend otherwise. When will honesty and integrity finally appear? Oh, that’s right, it claims to be a lawyer, ergo never….
I was thinking more along the lines of a tired office worker watching reruns on a Friday night wishing there was someone beside them to snuggle and later retire to bed with, and how you can’t really know what their lifestyle is like unless you know who they are fantasizing about.
Get off of it Freodin, Edward Gemmer has not been insulted because of his gender. It is because for the last four days, he has made stupid and/or disingenuous arguments. His claim that the insults are gendered based is based on his claim that acting on the harassment of women will allow for the harassment of men.
And that is, unless I am mistaken, a profoundly anti-feminist argument.
Nerd, I do wish you’d break the habit of using “it” to insult people. Edward is clearly male-identified; misgendering him in a dehumanizing way has too much splash damage to make it worth it.
Okay, I’ll try to remember that for this case.
Sally:
Seconded. Stop.
Thanks Nerd. *hands over tankard for a grog refill*
I am not speaking for the black community, or the female community, or any community. I can only speak for myself. And for myself, I find diversity to be generally a wonderful thing, and efforts to limit diversity or generally mistrusted by me. For example, banning people who disagree with the majority on an internet website is an effort to limit diversity in said community.
I certainly hope the EG here is not this one.
EG, you’re rambling vacuously.
Anyway, since you’ve claimed you don’t exactly dispute that “If we as men faced this pattern of sick online abuse simply because of our gender, I suspect that we would urgently take action to tackle the problem”, why do you attempt to gaslight the pattern of sick online abuse towards women when people take action to tackle the problem?
Why, that is just like parents kicking their queer child out of their home.
Gee Edward, why aren’t you talking to me anymore? Was it something I said?
Thanks, Nerd.
Ah, I see. We have to tolerate smegmarmalade-covered douchecanoes because having standards is intolerant.
Funny how in “100% free speech zones” to conversation is dominated by those who have society-wide privilege.
Yikes! That is pretty fucking disturbing.
Fine, show your diversity includes EVDIENCE to back up your fuckwitted OPINION. Until then, banhammer the unevidence and *POOF* dismissed (per chirstorpher hitchens). What part of that are you having trouble with? Your alleged diversity with unevidence OPINION is nothing to be proud of.
Can’t speak for Freodin. For myself, I believe that when trying to insult someone, you will go for anything that you don’t feel is off-limits. If being male isn’t off-limits, you will insult that. If being female isn’t off-limits, you will insult that. I think it is possible that someone can insult a woman, using clear sexist insults, more because they wish to insult them and less because they wish to insult women. In other words, not every sexist insult is based in the idea that said insulter hates the gender of the insultee
[OT]
EG:
Banning valueless or toxic trolls, however, is the sign of a healthy community.
EG:
Simple yes or no question.
If a fifteen year old atheist boy posted about receiving a book by Carl Sagan, would he have been “reading crude comments about adult men wanting to have sex with [him], and having to respond: “Dat feel when you’ll never be taken seriously in the atheist/ scientific/ political/ whatever community because you’re a [boy]. :c ”?
Mmm, maybe he is just that stupid. I’m sincerely torn. Nah, he’s still dishonest. If he weren’t he wouldn’t be ignoring my post enumerating his lies.
All of this flapping of asscheeks and yet the troll will not address the fact that I told him that my insults and not based on his gender.
Dishonest bloody stupid git.
Edward Gemmer
Was that another joke?
I’m not! Abuse towards women in any community is an awful thing. It should not be tolerated. My only point is that abuse should not be tolerated, period, regardless of whether the target is a man or a woman.
Chigau, he tries to joke. He fails. It must be because of disagreements.
Citation needed. Or, more lies and bullshit that can and will be *POOF* dismissed as fuckwittery. Why are you so averse to showing EVIDENCE? Right, you are a bigot, and your lack evidence is explained by parsimony, the simplest explanation….
EG:
Simple yes or no question.
If a fifteen year old atheist boy posted about receiving a book by Carl Sagan, would he have been “reading crude comments about adult men wanting to have sex with [him], and having to respond: “Dat feel when you’ll never be taken seriously in the atheist/ scientific/ political/ whatever community because you’re a [boy]. :c ”?
@223 Sally
Edwards point was, as far as I understood it, that if insults are generally tolerated, you cannot tell whether a harrassing and insulting behaviour results from misogynist positions or from a general nastiness.
I tried to point out to him that insults or harrassmenst that are aimed at the gender of the person (female in our case) are much more likely to come from the first than the second.
If I say “Your fucking stupid stupidity shows that you are a fucking stupid wanker”, I am just, err, not very polite.
If I say “Oh, just shut up you mouth-cunt, you bitch and go make me a sandwich”, I am more likely a misogynist.
Remember, the idea that being opposed to sexist insults against women means that it’s open season on men is a lie. Why did you lie?
Ogvorbis, how dare you try to ask a question of Edward Gemmer just because he is a white man.
I’m not sure I understand the question, but no, it isn’t ok (to me) to insult someone based on their views about Carl Sagan or atheism or most other things. However, if your goal is to offend somebody, are their many limits you will respect? I’d argue you will only respect the limits that others set for you. For example, insults based on race are clearly taboo in the United States. If you are insulting someone in the United States, you will steer clear of those insults, not because of how they feel to the person you’ve targeted, but how the blowback will come back on you.
Freodin, Edward Gemmer has argued that stopping the harassment of women will make it open season to harass men. Using that as his platform, he argued that the insults that he has recieved is because he is a white man.
Why are you missing this?
Liar.
All gendered insults, even masculine-derived gendered insults, are severely frowned upon here. As are terms that objectify people. Insults, however, are quite appropriate in certain circumstances (such as severe and repeated deliberate obtusity), just not ones that use a persons gender or disability.
Edward Gemmer is a slimy little fucker.
EG obfuscates:
And not every insult is couched in the form of a compliment — so what?
Well then, unless you hold that not every sexist insult is abusive, your point implies that sexist insults should not be tolerated, period, regardless of whether the target is a man or a woman.
:)
@223 & 227
Perhaps two posts that might show that righteous anger is not the best state of mind to post from. I didn’t imply that Edward was insulted because of his gender nor that he correctly claimed so. I didn’t aim that post at the insults at all. It was adressed to Edward who claimed that you could not (hardly) distinguish between the two variants of insults.
Citation needed, as you appear to have no limits. Why are you so averse to citations? Right, you are pushing an envelope that an intelligent person wouldn’t push.
Because Ogvorbis is a White Male. Fair question…
Your honour, the witness is engaging in deliberate obtusity. The question is:
In other words, if a boy had made exactly the same post, would adult men (or women) have been propositioning him for sex or belittling him and his voice in the atheist community in the comments?
Now answer the question, please.
Freodin, I dare you to read what the slimy little fucker has written at #254 and not claim he is arguing in bad faith.
I don’t know. If your goal is to just make the target feel bad, you may say things you don’t necessarily agree with. When looking at the history of racism it is clear that many people characterized black people on more than just skin color, i.e. the way they talked, whether they were a “good Negro” or not, etc. If you are looking to insult someone, why would you care about things such as race or gender except to avoid blowback against yourself?
@ Janine #253
Well, at least I got a laugh out of this thread.
Edward is not being honest.
Speak for yourself, asshole. Some people actually care what others feel.
At least up until they prove themselves to be reprehensible.
Blowback? For bigotry and sexism in the USA?
That’s right! Here in the USA we DO NOT TOLERATE such things.
Possible kinds of blowback:
1. your own cable news or talk radio show
2. a political party catering to you.
3. A good shot at being elected President of the United States.
These are not SURE things, mind you… the blowback you get might only result in you being elected to the Senate.
I’ve got it! Edward ignores everyone who correctly cottons on to the fact that he is a dirty fucking liar. Solution: everyone call him a liar and he will have to ignore everyone, which means he will have to stop posting.
Well, it’s worth a try anyway.
That’s not my argument at all. My argument is that many (not all) of the insults against women in the atheist community are linked to the general acceptance of insults against everyone. If you stop tolerating the insults against everyone, you will drastically reduce the insults against women.
@255 Janine
Well, the first part of that statement I must have missed. As I have read it, he argued that it is the allowing of all harassment that is the sole (or at least main) reason for harassment of women. This would be wrong also, but at least an argument as I have read it. If you could point me to the post(s) where he made or implied your version, I would be grateful.
His claims that he is insulted for being a white man are simply false. I didn’t miss it – I just saw no need to point that out in addition to all the others who did.
Freodin, I hardly think anyone here feels righteous anger towards you.
I’ve seen it. It ain’t happening at the moment.
The mood currently seems to be more on the level of “slightly grouchy at the prospect of having to scoop turds out of the cat box.”
Sally:
It’s been clear, since the Corsi thread, that EG is filthy liar who prefers to roll around in smegmarmalade rather than think.
EG digresses:
What sort of question is that?
For the same reason that we always care (or not) about things such as race or gender, whatever reason that may be.
Duh.
Liar.
You felt compelled to point out that abuse against men is bad, because people were talking about how abuse against women is bad. If you did not think that people here thought that it would be okay to abuse men but not women, why did you feel that you had to make that point? You are lying. Your original argument was based on a lie, and now you are lying about your original argument.
The vitriol with which racism and sexism and any kind of bigotry are greeted with help maintain Pharyngula as a safe space for marginalized groups. Your point is wrong. You are wrong. But then, you are also a dirty fucking liar, so who knows if you even believe the bullshit you are spewing?
Add History to the list of things Edward Gemmer learned in lawyerschool.
Point of contention. I am not claiming I am being insulted because I am a white man. I am claiming I am a white man who has been insulted. Two different things.
@264 Edward
And now consider why someone would make a target feel bad. How a target is selected. Take note of trends. Which targets are selected? Why does someone insult a negro, a homosexual, a woman?
And then you should see that the people who target blacks are mostly racists, those who target gays are anti-gay and those who target women are misogynist. There are not simply generally nasty people who insult everyone who crosses them.
Yet you present absolutely zero evidence, ergo *POOF* argument dismissed, like any case in without evidence. Gee, one would think a lawyer would understand the need to provide evidence to back its claims. The word of EG is worthless, as he is a proven liar and bullshittter.
This makes no sense at all. Why would I lie? I feel I’ve been pretty consistent that I feel abuse is bad, whether against men or against women. My point is (and has always been) that abuse is tolerated, and trying to proect some arbitrary group against abuse is pointless if you are going to tolerate abuse in the first place.
Whooopie shit. Your color is irrelevant to your deliberate stupidity, and you know that. What an abject loser.
You do realize that the posts you wrote a couple of hours earlier are still visible, right?
Because you’re a troll who thinks that other people are as stupid as he is.
Again, where is your EVIDENCE to support your claim. Nothing but your lying and bullshitting OPINION. Try again, with a link to real evidence….
So sorry fuckface, I misread you. If we stopped insults, it would stop insult to all minorities.
A cure that does shit about the conditions people live under. Be at least we would all be polite.
Edward Gemmer:
In other words, if a boy had made exactly the same post about getting a Carl Sagan book, would adult men (or women) have been propositioning him for sex or belittling him and his voice in the atheist community in the comments?
Now answer the question, please.
Oh For Fucks Sake!
I just spent 20 minutes reading this thread and Edward you are an obtuse, ignorant, asshole. Sexism against women FOR BEING WOMEN is a problem at conventions. There is evidence at the link in the OP. Read it. See for yourself.
As for your stupid, insulting, fuckwitted comparison of bigotry to disagreement…there was a rash of suicides by gay teenagers last year because they were bullied and harassed. That’s not disagreement. That is bigotry and homophobia.
God. Would you just stop talking? You’ve already diminished the concerns of women and queers. Whats next? Are you going to tell someone who is mentally disabled that ‘retard’ is not an insult? Or why don’t you tell us how Stop N Frisk isn’t being used to discriminate against blacks and hispanics?
Boring troll is boring.
Off to do something more interesting, like cleaning the mud from my sneaker treads.
(a large tree in my yard blew down, I cut it up with my chain saw and piled the logs in the driveway, all in just the time this EG person has taken up. So far.)
Contention accepted… but…
… why bring that up? Why mention it at all? People ARE without question being insulted form being black, women, gays, vegetarians, nerds… even for being white men. You were not. You were insulted for making false (and in some points indeed nonsensical) arguments. So why not argue against that but bring up some completely unrelated point?
Yes, and you conflate ordinary insults with bigoted abuse in order to diminish and trivialize the concerns of women. You’re helping maintain the sexist status quo. You suck as a person.
Because Edward Gemmer is a troll. He is not interested in an honest argument. And this is how we treat such people.
In real life, sure. On the internet, I’m not so sure. People feel free to insult others based on nearly anything. Race and gender are usually off-limits, but not always. Mental capacity is still fair game, based on what I see here. Why is it ok to call someone stupid, a virgin, an idiot, or whatever else you can think of simply because they disagree with you? It’s a trait that describes people across all sorts of lines – you can be insulted on a religious website just as quickly as an atheist one.
And this particular argument would make it a crime to, say, blaspheme because it would insult the religious. No, this does not lead to the desired effect. The principle that everybody should be nice and not insult each other works to maintain the status quo.
We want better than the status quo. We should not insult people for who or what they are, but it is very important to be able to criticise the arguments people make. There is nothing inherently wrong with insulting someone for the positions they hold – ridicule leads to change.
Shucks, ev’rybody!
If’n we’d just conduct ourselves proper, like they did in Mayberry, then by golly all these messy problems with “arbitrary” groups would up and disappear!
Gee whiz,
BeavGemmer — thanks for the eye-opener! We’re all mighty obliged to you for setting us straight.The derailment of an important topic has now hit absurd levels – I’ve sent an alert.
So Thunderfoot saw a group of people taking a position he disagreed with, and so claimed those people were being pressured into it.
Rather like the way creationists try to explain away the scientific consensus on evolution by claiming scientists are pressured into supporting TOE.
I used to like his videos on creationism, but the last year or so really has exposed him as a dreadful, deluded whiner no more willing to examine his prejudices than those he made his “internet name” lampooning.
Edward Gemmer:
One more time: if a boy had made exactly the same post about getting a Carl Sagan book, would adult men (or women) have been propositioning him for sex or belittling him and his voice in the atheist community in the comments?
And this time, please no deliberate obtusity. You understand the question. Stop pretending otherwise.
And you have been willing to compare this to the difficulties that LGBT people go through.
But, hey, let us have you dictate the terms of the argument. All the better to obscure the real harassment and more the real women go through everyday in their real lives.
@286
I’m sorry that I have to enter this lists for “tone trolling” again.
So “retard” is an insult? And you think it is wrong to call a mentally disabled person that?
But “fuckwitted” is not an insult? Or it is, but it is all right to tell something who acts in a certain way that?
Perhaps you can do the one, but not the other, because one is aimed at what a person IS, the other at what a person DOES?
You (and others here) might be of that opinion.
But I have to ask: who gets to decide that?
Mission accomplished. Gemmer has taken a thread about how women ought to be respected as equals and invaluable contributors to atheism, and turned it into a thread about how he, a white man, is so damned oppressed.
It would be a brilliant maneuver if it weren’t simply what these assholes always do.
Still not one whit of EVIDENCE to support EG. Terminal loser…
EITHER PUT UP THE EVIDENCE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. YOUR OPINION IS NOTHING TO US.
Then let’s get back to the OP.
“Instead we should actively work to create inclusive, safe and supportive communities, in which we can live together as equals, regardless of our race, gender, sexuality or ability levels. ”
How are we going to do that?
EG:
And the actual point is that there’s a special kind of abuse specifically directed at women that is quite different from the insults you are receiving here.
Specifically:
So you don’t deny the seriousness of the problem, you merely think it’s futile to do anything about it other than stopping all abuse always (including insults of any kind).
Your special point is that it’s futile to speak out about this?
(Such helpfulness!)
Freodin @198:
Edward Gemmer deserves the criticism and insults he is receiving. This is a science blog. Logic, reason, and evidence are valued here. Edward has stormed in here, twice now that I am aware of, giving us his unevidenced opinion, treated as fact. If he has read PZs OP and the link therein, he has poor comprehension skills. He has been asked repeatedly to provide evidence and has not. he makes continued ignorant comments, despite having the opportunity to educate himself. He whines about how this is just a disagreement, which means he does not grasp the seriousness of sexism in society, nor the harassment women face at conventions. He makes light of the struggles for equality faced by women.
Why the hell should anyone be nice to him, when he is part of the problem?
****
Btw,
If you do not like the style of Pharyngula, go read some Dan Fincke. This isn’t the best place for people concerned with tone over content.
Both are insults. But “retard” is frowned upon here, it is an insult based upon a train beyond that person’s control. A person chooses to be a “fuckwit”.
In fact, Edward Gemmer has established himself as the gold standard ot fuckwittedness.
‘sigh’
of
There’s a good reason you’ve been called stupid Gemmer.
So, you would defend someone who thinks black are inferior to whites, but who considered ‘racist’ an insult? Seriously, I’m asking here – if someone is being racist but won’t tolerate any suggestion that they were being so, would you argue we must stop ‘insulting’ them?
Now, does that same token apply to someone being not racist, but intentionally obtuse? Should we refuse to call someone who’s lying a liar because they object to the term?
Or do you think we can differentiate between an insult based on something someone has no control over, and which is not shameful (such as being black, or white, or male, or female, and so forth), and an insult based on something someone is deliberately doing, and which is shameful (such as playing dumb, or lying)?
I can.
If you can’t, that’s not really my problem.
And if you can, but are pretending you can’t, that’s repulsive. And worthy of insult.
You know this thread is not about you, don’t you, Edward Gemmer? Well now none of the threads will ever be about you, because the banhammer has smited you.
Retard is an ableist insult, and should not be used at all. Personally, yes, I think it’s wrong to call a mentally challenged person retarded.
Of course fuckwitted is an insult. Being a fuckwit is generally a case of someone refusing to think or face reality. This also applies to those who can’t be bothered to tell the difference between opinion and argument. Another good example would be all the fuckwits we get here who insist that ad hominem = insult.
Please note, Freodin, that I attempted to get Edward Gemmer to interact based on the OP and he engaged in deliberate obtusity. In other words, he lied, claiming that he misunderstood the question. This is why he is being insulted.
People who disagree, who hold other opinions, are quite welcome here providing that the commenter can support his or her position with data. What EG has been doing is lying and trolling.
And for evidence, I offer his #254.
Yay for smiting!
Now Edward Gemmer can spin himself a tidy story about how disagreeing with someone is like an LGBT teen being kicked out of their home.
Damn you, PZed! He never honestly answered my question.
Or any question, for that matter.
Never mind. Carry on.
Aww seems I missed all sorts of excitement over here today O.O
You were doing a valuable service elsewhere.
Consider yourself excused.
“Instead we should actively work to create inclusive, safe and supportive communities, in which we can live together as equals, regardless of our race, gender, sexuality or ability levels.
Well, first thing, let’s stop equating the words and actions of those people OPPOSED to those goals with the words and actions of someone who swears at someone else because the someone else was being an asshole.
Edward:
Why have you told so many lies?
PZ Myers @308: “the banhammer has smited you”
“Smitten” sounds better. Just sayin’.
Drat. I am currently hding my breath to see if he addresses SallyStrange’s list o lies.
Jafafa Hots:
Got there ahead of me. We have to keep fighting the good fight, on the ‘net, on the ground. We have to keep educating – ourselves and others. We have to refuse to back down, refuse to be silenced. If someone is going to focus on how that’s all fine, but if you can’t do it in a veddy, veddy polite way, it’s pointless, there’s only one thing to say: they aren’t helping.
@310 Ogvorbis
Being obtuse…. yep, definitly. Trolling… maybe, my definition of troll is rather high. Lying… always difficult to define.
His argument was ridiculous and his defenses weak. I completely agree. He didn’t respond to my questions either, he evaded.
But worthy of insults?
The community here seems to have agreed on a standard, where you can and where you cannot insult. I disagree on that standard, but accept the general procedure. I simply don’t understand it.
It has been claimed here that people have been changed in their views by that style. I cannot see that… but perhaps this position could be supported with data? ;)
Damn
late again
Rob:
So…”The Banhammer hath kissed you”?
[OT]
Freodin:
There are actual Commenting Rules, you know.
(Either you understand the rules, or you don’t — but to claim you know them but don’t understand them is perverse)
Your social idiocy is not my problem
Freodin, perhaps these will aid you:
If you are doing either of these things, you are not helping.
How strange that this lurker fan sounds like someone covered in slime concern trolling.
So. Being obtuse, ridiculous, evasive, with no defense while deflecting the topic from one of social justice to “but what about meeeeeeee?!??” is not worthy of insult?
Glad we agree on our goals, Feodin.
Sure hope the view is good from the sidelines.
Ing, Freodin has posted on and off here for quite a long time. Generally in disagreement, but they’ve been around. I find it much more interesting, given how much Freodin disagrees with the commentariat, they still keep reading and posting. We must be interestin’ or something.
Caine @323, that sounds like the sort of thing an Old English poet might write. A euphemism for something much more dreadful. Even more appropriate in this case, since Edward was obviously self-smitten.
Is the discussion of the merits of insulting people on topic or should we move it to the ‘Dome?
Rob:
Agreed. I think PZ should adopt the banhammer kiss.
Rob Grigjanis #318
I think ‘smitten’ is better for ‘having a crush on that cute barista where I get my morning coffee’.
‘smited’ sounds more barbaric and thus suited to the Banhammer™.
Tony:
It’s somewhat on topic. It comes up in every freaking thread we’ve ever had about sexism or feminism, it’s an ‘argument’ which always takes place and has to be dealt with. If it’s not a Freodin, it’s a noelplumidiot, and so on.
I can feel the intentions are totally good, really, but even if you don’t believe in Hell, the saying remains true.
Your argument is worthless drivel,
Oh hey, its’ the infamous “they” who deserve their abuse because they are different. /sarc
Seriously EG, fuck you for your homophobic fear-mongering.
Lol, the horde is known for being contentious and arguing for days on all manner of subjects.
No idiot, you are banned for consistent trolling. Enjoy the smiting!
[OT]
http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/smite.html
I’m not unconvinced of most of my original statement.
Chigau @333: I’m a cranky bastard, and “smited” sounds wrong to me. I’m not even sure why. “smote” only works as in “PZ smote Edward with his Banhammer”. Surely, the “smitten” you speak of isn’t so different from “struck by a blunt object”. Based on my personal experience, anyway.
Yes. His deliberate obfuscation, his determination to make the thread about him, and his lies (as listed above) made him a valid target for insults. Logic and persuasion are useless when one is dealing with someone who is arguing dishonestly.
The standard is simple and has been explained elsewhere.
You are conversing with one right now.
I am a perfect example of why a take-no-prisoners approach to social justice is a valid tactic (not the only one).
A few years back, I was one of those who laughed at rape jokes, laughed at the idea that women were treated as second-class citizens, used gendered insults, did not take seriously the existence of rape culture. My real awakening came during the 3d4k marathon thread regarding Rebecca Watson and her statement, “Guys, don’t do that.”
Such a simple phrase. And yet, as we can see from the OP and from the “The Company You Keep” thread, there are still those who contend that, for a woman to, in any way, set limits to the acceptable behaviour of men is anathema.
The question I asked of EG was a serious question. Would a boy, an atheist, posting how happy he was to receive a Sagan book have been subjected to the invitations for sex and belittling comments? I think that almost all can agree that no, a boy would not have been invited for sex by adults. This is a perfect example of extant sexism within the atheist movement.
Which is exactly why people like EG show up to derail these threads. Any actual discussion of sexism within the atheist community means that men (like me) are exposed to the reality of our attitudes. To the damage that endemic patriarchal misogyny does. To the unfortunate relict of religious culture. And I was one who ran smack dab into that reality. And it scared the hell out of me because I read, interspersed with comments I might have made, rampant sexism, rampant misogyny, rape threats, arguments from absurdity.
It meant that I had to change. I became aware of the latent sexism I absorbed through the culture in which I was raised. And I am trying so very hard to change myself.
More important, I am much less willing to tolerate sexism around me. Verbally hammering my son and my daughter when they use the gendered insult ‘bitch’. Verbally chastising coworkers (at a forest fire) for referring to a transgendered person as an ‘it’.
I have screwed up here and been hammered for it. I’ve even gotten very defensive (after all, I’m a white, college educated straight male so I must be right, right?) when I’ve been hammered. And insulted.
But, you know what? It fucking works! For me, for others. Not for everyone. But, last time I checked, there are atheist/science blogs on the web than just this one.
To put it another way, was Malcolm X wrong and Martin Luther King right? Which approach was the one correct way to approach civil rights?
@329 Caine
Given all of my posts here… how would you assume to know “how much” I agree or disagree with the commentariat?
@Freodin
Gee you apparently mostly whine and then complain people think you disagree mostly. Cause apparently you expect people to have clairvoyance
Tethys:
I recently started Manhood in America and homophobia was addressed in the introduction:
– Michael Kimmel, Manhood in America: A Cultural History.
*Manhood and the American Renaissance by David Leveranz.
Ferodin: We know you disagree with the commentariat here because you’ve been disagreeing with the commentariat here. Maybe not on topics, or real world issues, or philosophy, but you have consistently disagreed with how Pharyngula posters interact with other people.
Anyways I’m glad to be free of Edward Gemmer, in his initial appearance he demonstrated that he considers actual evidence to be secondary to arguing.
Freodin:
I read your posts. Got any more tough questions?
@342 Ing
Consider it like being at a soccer game and complaining about the vuvuzelas… and then having Mr. Ing comment: “All you do is whine! If you don’t like soccer, why are you here?”
Do I have to proclaim loudly and repeatedly how much I like soccer in order to be allowed to dislike vuvuzelas?
@ Caine (173)
I channeled my inner Bluebottle, and “smited” just sounded right.
Freodin:
How about you come up with one fucking analogy that actually works? Your shit analogies are already littering the thread and you seem to have little or no point to make, outside of simply complaining about the commentariat’s tone.
Um yes. Someone who is constantly accentuating the negative will not be seen as a fan. A thing called hatedom exists. People can’t fucking read your mind.
For example if I only show up to a Twilight forum to complain about plot holes and the dysfunctional relationship, guess what people would assume I hate the books. They’re right but if even if they were wrong they’d have no reason to suspect I actually like the books if all I ever talk about is how awful they are.
PZ:
Isn’t your inner Bluebottle impressed by the gothic dread of “The Banhammer hath kissed you”?
Atheist Powerlifter:
Thank you!
The Goon Show excuses everything, especially verb tenses. *backs out periodically bowing*.
After reading this thread, I must agree with EG and his supreme argumentation. After all, it was the insults and the constant sexual harassment against me, a white straight cis middle-aged male, the ogling of my body, the suggestive looks, the thinly veiled offers of sexual encounters, that led me to finally stop going to atheist or skeptic conferences. That man has a point!
@rorschach
Hey breeder, ball or gtfo!
Not surprised at the final outcome. It was almost like EG wanted it as a badge of honor.
Sorry Caine! Blockquote fail.
Also @Sally comment 110…..you said : *I tried to come up with some insults that were roughly analogous to what I have experienced on the net as a woman, but there really aren’t any parallels, which tells you something about how fundamental the sexism involved in this sort of harassment is to our language and culture.”
This really really struck home to me. As a white male, I can’t even think of a insult that would be damaging. It’s not easy anyway (honky? or “cracker”…don’t even come close to the resonance of the many many racial and gender slurs).
My favorite Uncle (who happens to be gay) was at a our Xmas dinner…he was telling me that he and his partner avoid certain stores and streets due to subtle and not-so-subtle harrassment.
One should never lose sight of their privlege and always consider this.
Thanks for reinforcing my strengthening feminism.
AP
Yeah, very few people know that the thundering voice of the Mighty Banhammer sounds exactly like Bluebottle.
Rorschach:
And you never said a word about it, either, in approved ManlyMan™ style.
The annoying sound of a large blueish fly? Or am I missing something cultural?
That sounds like something Grytpyppe-Thynne would say.
[meta]
Great. Levity in the face of grave affairs is tolerated, nay — encouraged!
;) ← ObWinkie
PZ:
Fine, you silly boy.
Thanks for the kind words, AtheistPowerlifter! Good to know I’m helping in some small way.
I dig lifting. :)
Ogvorbis @361: Why “writted” is the past tense of “write”, plus cultural background;
As EG said, all sexism is equally bad, and I would like that against men discussed more here and now please!
(no, Im going jogging actually)
Oops, picked the same link as Myers did earlier. Didn’t notice that. Pardon me, my ami. Mon card.
@EG:
I notice that you use the terms “insult” and “abuse” interchangeably. Are you really that stupid, or do you just favor bait-and-switch tactics?
Oops. I somehow missed the banhammer ringing. Belay my question to EG.
was Malcolm X wrong and Martin Luther King right? Which approach was the one correct way to approach civil rights?
Both were right. I’d say that in general, King is viewed as the more noble and tragic character, but I’d say both of them are remembered well. Interestingly, The excerpts of King’s speeches that we hear the most are the pieces that reach out more – but King was hardly an accomodationist. Malcolm X wasn’t either. The best way to approach civil rights is on every front, with conviction.
Sally, Caine, Ing, John, and the whole lot of you that keep working the cases of the guys like EG: thank you. I don’t know where you find the patience.
It’s sad how few people actually read King’s famous speech. It used to be hard to find a recording on the web, but the full text is easy to find and it’s frankly amazing. I used to tell the employees at my company that they could either come to the office and work on MLK day, or re-read the speech as their only assignment for the day. Turned out that was violating some human resources rule or other :(
Everyone likes to quote-mine the crowd-pleasers but here are some bits that are relevant, too:
Damn.
That was my point, Marcus Ranum. People like EG are the ‘easy’ ones — the dissembling, the obtusity (I’m going to keep using that until someone notices!), the games, make EG an obvious roadblock. Ones similar to Freodin, who agree with the goals of feminism but (and this is not a direct quote of Freodin, but an approximation of some who have been similar) claim that people like me are too strident, too loud, to confrontational, to wiling to burn bridges, that, for me, give me pause. On the one hand, they are (or profess to be) allies but they seem wedded to a one-size-fits-all approach to social issues. This is why I made the point about Malcom Ex and Dr. King — there are many paths to progress, many tactics.
I’m not saying that I agree with accommodationism. How can I accommodate someone who’s reaction to a girl’s happiness about a Carl Sagan book is to offer to rape her (and yes, it would, in almost every state, be rape)? But this does not mean, as Freodin seems to be arguing, that we all need to approach the fight for equality, the fight for human rights, in lockstep politeness. There is a place for rage. A place for verbal hand grenades. A place for passion.
Ogvorbis:
Without those things, there’s no Move in Movement.
I recollect reading a statement by Stokey Carmichael, I think (although my google-fu is not allowing me to confirm that today) to the effect that “Those businessmen are willing to let Martin in the door and talk to him because they know if they don’t I’ll show up, and they surely don’t want to see me at the door.”
I’d say both types of activists are *required* for progress to be made, because nobody’s motivated to talk to polite and reasonable unless there’s an alternative out there promoting “Burn, Baby, Burn.”
Ogvorbis @373: “There is a place for rage. A place for verbal hand grenades. A place for passion.”
Actually, there’s no progress without it. Try to think of a political movement that got anywhere on politeness alone.
crowepps:
Every single progressive movement has had to reach a Network moment, where a prime message is “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!”
Damn, my writing sucks tonight. Sorry. I really am agreeing that politeness will not advance a movement. Honest.
Ogvorbis:
We know, we’re all agreeing with you. ♥
Ogvorbis
Caine
Fucken A!!
(in Canadese “Fucken, eh‽”)
Ogvorbis, yeah, what Caine said. Your writing was perfectly clear. Didn’t you notice my pom-poms?
Another (mostly) lurker who wants to say, again, that I strongly agree with the way things are done here. I just don’t get what the problem is with treating the nasty trolls who come to our community* with the disdain and ridicule they fairly beg for. The folks who complain about this deserve scorn as well, especially when they refuse to accept the sensible arguments for the insults and ridicule. It’s not your house, so don’t tell the people in it how to treat uninvited, abusive invaders.
Besides, I love the insults. This place makes me laugh just about as much as it makes me cry!
*And I consider myself part of this community because nowhere else — nowhere — do I feel such a passionate sense of belonging.
Paul K:
You are part of this community. You may not post as much as the other regulars, but when you do, your posts are a joy to read and you argue very well.
Thanks, Caine. Coming from you, that means so very much!
Good for Nugent. stick to your guns.
Rob Grigjanis said,
I wish I could remember what threads I saw that contained attempts at finding such a movement. All I remember is that they were laughably ahistorical examples. I believe I remember someone bringing up suffragettes as an example of polite progress.
Travis:
That never fails to amuse. Instant history fail, that one.
Caine @ 343
YAY! Its a great book. I’m thinking about using one of the later chapters (the one about superheroes as an expression of frustrated gender enforcement) in my 101 class this quarter.
Did you read Kimmel’s awesome essay on the Sandy Hook shooting? His basic premise is that all the handwringing about how Newtown was a “good neighborhood” and that kind of thing “doesn’t happen here” reveals a kind of ugly racism and complicity in the pathologizing of violence as something that happens to (and is committed by) people of color. It’s a great read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kimmel/the-unbearable-whiteness-_2_b_2350931.html
There is a huge difference between insulting someone’s argument and therefore dismissing them and what they have to say and insulting someone for who they are (gender, sexual identity, ect), and so dismissing their argument. The former is done here with vigor (rightly, imo); the latter, not so much.
I think people that believe we should be kind and take every stupid argument seriously are the same people who say, “But its your job (minority person) to educate me about why I’m being offensive right now!!!” Different branch of the same tree. It’s about thinking that everyone is entitled to the use of my time and energy. I don’t have to read everything that John the Other writes to know he’s a misogynist asshat. I don’t have the provide a point by point rebuttal to his obvious canards and falsehoods. THE ONUS IS NOT ON ME, AS THE MINORITY BEING TALKED DOWN TO, INSULTED AND TREATED AS LESS THAN, TO EDUCATE BIGOTS. I have a limited amount of time and energy and *I* get to decide how I use them.
And if I want to use them by calling EG an idiot because of his idiotic views, instead of proving “proof” that I don’t think men should be harassed, then that’s my prerogative. Get off your fucking cross and rebut him yourself if that’s what you think his posts deserve. But don’t complain that I won’t spend my limited patience extending charity to a gross and tiresome troll.
You don’t get to tell me how I can react to my own oppression.
Cyranothe2nd:
I’ll say. I’m barely into it and I’m loving it. I was telling Mister last night that the whole book is gonna be pink by the time I’m finished (before I started, I got out my highlighter, pen and notebook.) It’s slow going, because I’m taking my time with it, rather than trying to get through quickly. I just got to this bit:
This is absolutely fascinating. I had no idea. I do wonder if echoes of this sense are connected to the insistence on depriving women of bodily autonomy.
I have not. I’ll go do that now. Thanks for the link!
I sometimes wonder about the whattabouthemenz response to the notion that we should deal urgently and robustly with the abuse of women?
If they came home from a nice relaxing weekend away and the kids/in-laws/pet-sitters have trashed the joint, do they scream at the offenders and get the cleaning gear out or do they quietly moan about that annoying stain on the carpet behind the sofa that’s always been there, never noticed it before? When you’re faced with plates stacked high with rotting food, wet towels mouldering on the floor and filthy sticky stuff what-isthat? maple syrup on the new dining table!! you fill the sink with soapy water, load the washing machine and get out the cleaning cloths. And shout. A lot.
Maybe while you’re in this process you’ll get the chance to deal with an issue you’ve been putting off, but mostly you want to get the place decent. We’re pretty reasonable in most groups at noticing the equivalent for race and for some of the worst of sexual identity slurs, but it seems to me that many people want to go on with their activities not bothering to hold their noses about the nasty, mouldy detritus of sexism and misogyny that surrounds them. After all, you don’t notice the awful pong if you live with it long enough.
Cyranothe2nd:
Sing it! QFMFT.
Cyranothe2nd:
I’m going to +1 that post 389 times.
mildlymagnificent:
Well, we all live in it. We all grew up in it. So, it’s not so much getting used to the awful as it is noticing it and deciding to do something about it, especially when it doesn’t affect you very much on a day to day basis.
A person has to be willing to take the red pill, after all.
Caine:
That quote has me intrigued. Sexual dependency equivalent to economic dependence on wages…?
Or they could simply take advantage of someone else doing the noticing/taking the pill on their behalf.
Just because you haven’t noticed, seen, tasted or felt something yourself doesn’t mean you can’t respond with “Oh, really. You’re right. We ought to clean that up right now.” The responses these EG people seem to take are along the lines of ‘Well it’s never bothered me and I don’t see why I should help you clean up. You’re just being fussy.’
Of course, the tone trolls are the equivalent of the worst cultural relativists. “If you just keep your voice down and keep offering clean, fresh-smelling linen, they’ll get the idea eventually. It’s not nice to tell people their living room is squalid, now is it?”
Tony–Kimmel’s premise is that the performance of masculinity in America was built on the notion of rugged individualism and autonomy. As the frontier shrunk and such autonomy because more and more impossible to achieve, men reacted in various ways–usually by a combination of retreated into “men-only” zones and in wish/fantasy fulfillment (superheroes, action movies, etc) and, of course, by striking out at women as the enemy, rather than blaming the cultural trope that defined manhood so rigidly.
That’s a lot for me to unpack. Taking several classes on such a subject would be enlightening. Even a discussion group would be enjoyable.
@ Tony–and that’s not even the whole of his premise! (He thinks that there were 2 competing views of manhood, but that one “won out”)…
It would be cool to get a Pharyngula book club together!
Tony:
Yes. I can see that line of thought, because men felt that being subjected to factory labor was akin to the situation of a woman, dependent on a man for social standing, sexual needs and of course, a roof overhead and food on the table. The whole thought was one of emasculation. With that passage, Kimmel is addressing a period in the 1800s, around 1827 to 1830.
After that part I quoted, he goes on to say:
Tony:
Read the book! I’d find it really enjoyable to compare notes with a man reading it too. If money’s tight, grab my email address from here and drop me a line. I’d be happy to buy a copy for you.
Considering how much employers of the time were able to control every aspect of their employees lives, I can quite see the ‘dependence’ being offensive. Of course, the real comparison to control over your company provided housing, your access to ‘buy’ company supplied goods with company printed vouchers, and, in the case of mine workers in South Australia’s copper industry, compulsory church attendance on Sundays – for the whole family – or sacking on Monday, was more like slavery than like family relationships.
The idea that employers and employees ‘negotiated’ on an equal footing for a cash transaction exchanging hours worked which benefited both was an abstract notion that had little to do with real life in many workplaces.
Caine:
I appreciate that, but I think I have more to learn about a metric fuckton of stuff before I could fully grasp the ideas in the book. I’d be the guy in the book club sitting quietly in the back ferociously taking notes while the more well read and/or educated people dissected the book.
mildlymagnificent:
Oh yes, I agree. As I continue reading, there’s a constant fear of “feminizing influences”, of being thought of as indulging in “feminizing luxury” and so forth, when it came to the construct of American masculinity. It’s quite eye-opening, reading about this fear and just how damn intense it was at the time. It changed everything, including the complete political landscape and why there’s still this insistence on particular brand of “manliness” for someone to win the presidency.
Sorry for resurrecting this bit from hours ago, but it’s true. Lurking in the Pharyngula comments has made me a better person. More importantly, it’s helped me to understand that being a better person is something you work at, not something you are.
Kind of late to the party, but this classification may be of interest:
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-14-kinds-of-sexist-commenters-20120607-1zyii.html
[meta + OT]
Tony,
How do you think people become well-read and educated?
(Stretch yourself! Here’s a tutor offering you free tutelage.)
Little Jim: Oh, he’s fallen in the dungeon.
Caine
Very interesting when you compare it to the European experience where people mostly moved from one kind of control (feudal landlord) to another (capitalist employer) without that “free illusion” of the American history. We’re not as close in culture as many people want to believe.
No, no, no. Don’t you get it? You’ve got a disagreement. That means you’re supposed to insult each other. You can’t just resolve things in a friendly manner.
I demand a minimum of three insults per side and a permanent ban of that at least one of you.
I got intrigued, so I checked to see if Manhood in America is at the university library.
It is! :D
It is checked out.
And, because this is a university library, its return date is … June 4, 2013.
ARGH.
Thanks Caine and Cyranothe2nd for the reading recommendation. Manhood in America added to my library queue. And if anyone wants to organize a book club/reading group, please count me in!
Only up to 280, but holy F*.
Trigger warning, but the above is too stupid not to respond to with condescending sarcasm:
Which is why the civil rights movement did absolutely no good whatsoever since queers were still bashed. In fact, I quite frequently hear that nothing has changed for gay men since trans women still face abuse. Which is why this best friend I have over here who is Black keeps saying that Obama isn’t actually president and is really a house negro constantly whipped -literally, physically- by his masters. You know, because crazy-blaming still happens.
It’s true! You can’t make a difference against one type of bad behavior unless you simultaneously make a difference against all of them!!! *
*Note that I am not accepting the insults=abuse frame of EG. I am merely pointing out that his argument is so stupid it’s hard to believe that *he* believes it.
All caught up with this thread, and wow. I said it in the Lounge and I say again, the commentariat here is wonderful. I’m still a lurker on these sorts of threads, because while I can often identify that someone’s argument is wrong, I still cannot dissect it and articulate it as well as I would like (also I lack the time). I agree with all those above who insist that many people have had their minds changed through the insulting (to some) argumentation that goes on here.
On my part, it has actually been more helpful to see people attaching emotion to arguments, and not staying within the bounds of ‘polite discourse’, because (to me) it only shows the importance of the arguments being presented – if it’s worth yelling about, then it is obviously past the time to speak politely. If one side has been pissed off, I don’t see why the other side should be sheltered from the rage. You know, like when I ask the Husband politely 5 – 10 times to assist me in some small menial task, and, upon raising my voice (slightly, I assure you) on the 11th, he tells me to Stop yelling. If a louder tone of voice is the way to make myself heard, I’ll go with that, rather than endless unheard repetition, thank you very much (poor analogy, I know). Either way. Fuck polite discourse, if someone’s worried about tone. It’s been long enough, arguments should be even louder and with added rage, not quieted down…
Also. Thanks for the reading suggestion re: Manhood in America. I think it might give me some insight into why I think masculinity here is viewed differently than from where I come from. I’ll have to read it first, though.
Oh (off-topic) and Caine @323 re: smitten/kissed
I tried to find a youtube link to the penguins of Madagascar fame landing in Africa, since Rico has an amazing line with kissing+landing the plane in a rather destructive fashion that seemed appropriate, but there doesn’t seem to be one. Don’t know if you know what scene I mean.
This is why I love this site. Piss-poor showings like those of EG are utterly obliterated.
I, too, have been dead wrong on occasion here on Pharyngula, and thanks to a hefty dose of moar lurking and just-fucking-listening, I have learned so much.
Also, thanks to Caine and Cyranothe2nd for the recommendation of Manhood in America. I shall read it as soon as possible. It could be an invaluable resource to refer to when explaining to others what the patriarchy is, and why homophobia really is a fear and not merely bigotry.
rq:
I don’t, but I get the idea!
I thought the Michael Kimmel stuff was already vaguely off-topic, so I decided to comment on him in ThuderDome.
Giliell:
The more I read, the more I realize we aren’t close in culture at all, at least not in terms of masculinity. I’m still reading of the early days, after the American Revolution, but before the Civil War. One of the major things fought against was the idea of British masculinity, the ‘Genteel Patriarch’. There was this ideal of being the ‘Heroic Artisan’, the plain, simple, homespun man, a genuine ManlyMan™. Sneaking about in the background, though, was the ‘Self-Made Man’ and it’s this concept which wins out in the U.S.
On the topic of sexism, I think this is a really neat approach to getting men to think about how they approach women: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sillygwailo/sets/72157632394651733/