Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Zenspace]

I don't think Svan's picture is airbrushed.
Her husband is a portrait photographer and I guess he did that one for her.

Sorry, but I reckon Steffy looks pretty damn fine in that pic. Course, her husband could just be an exceptionally skilled photographer. Still, that look in her eyes there - if nothing else, I can almost admire Greg's taste in women.

I'll file the bolded bit under 'to each his/her own' and leave it at that. The photo is standard portrait fair, nothing fancy - minor processing adjustments can do quite a bit. I do a fair amount of portrait work and that photo is firmly in basic setup/processing territory.

[justinvacula]

Now let me be clear Justin:

I think you've spent a lot of time keeping this shit fresh and stirred up, for some of the same reasons I think THEY also keep it fresh and stirred up. I don't think you have more than a half-meter's moral high ground here, and that's being somewhat generous.

I would hope you go and as much as humanly possible ignore the fuck out of them if that's possible for you to do. But, given the way you are actively seeking out attention and notice for this kind of crap, you'll pardon me if I've little hope of that happening. But I've some hope. I like being wrong about stuff like this.

If you have suggestions for how I ought to handle this stuff, what i should reply to, what I should write, or whatever else I am all ears whethere here or off-list. It is clear that ignoring the nonsense does not fix the problem, so I shine the light of reason on irrationality. Many tried ignoring. Many tried calling for civility. Many tried diplomacy. It's all failed.

I remain active in these matters because of the destructive nature of the #FTbullies. I care about this community/movement and have invested a great deal of time in it. I don't want to see people like PZ who have much influence go unchecked. Addressing the nonsense, I think, has actually led PZ and crew to lose influence and reputation...which is a great thing.

I don't intend to do anything to be kicked out of the conference. As I said, I have an obligation to my donors and want to report on the material. I have material to cover, radio shows to broadcast, and speeches I want to hear. PZ and crew make themselves more ridiculous when they talk more and engage in more witch hunts.

[ReneeHendricks]

BOOP!

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0063094

My brain contorted into knots trying to figure that out but I agree it's gotta be WOO-HOO! worthy!

[justinvacula]

Good stuff, Abbie!

[ReneeHendricks]

After reading all the crap recently, I propose that Women in Secularism Conference #2 should change its title to "PZ, Zvan, and Ophie Think Vacula Has Kooties So Neener-neener".

How do they get their heads off their pillows with such large egos impeding them??

[Cunning Punt]

Don't worry about that.

I haven't seen a post from any of them regarding proximity. Maybe Benson's "stay away from me" facebook message? I think it's pretty reasonable to assume she meant "don't try to engage me in conversation".

It means "When I whine about you on my blog, stop refuting me. Just stop."

[Cunning Punt]

Before I even attempt to read back through pages of stuff on the board, I wanted to say my guy had his last radiation treatment today. Lots of vomiting going on but now we can get to the healing part of all this. Thanks all for the well-wishes and thoughts :)

Now I can get back to pointing and laughing at the hypocrisy :D

Hopefully it's all better from now on.

[Steersman]

BOOP!

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0063094

Impressive as hell – congrats.

Although more than a little depressing too (making it all about ME! :-) ) – more complicated and intricate than a thousand Gordian Knots. Seems that deciphering HIV is looking to be more of a challenge than doing so for Linear B, the Rosetta Stone, and the Enigma machine put together.

[welch]

Now let me be clear Justin:

I think you've spent a lot of time keeping this shit fresh and stirred up, for some of the same reasons I think THEY also keep it fresh and stirred up. I don't think you have more than a half-meter's moral high ground here, and that's being somewhat generous.

I would hope you go and as much as humanly possible ignore the fuck out of them if that's possible for you to do. But, given the way you are actively seeking out attention and notice for this kind of crap, you'll pardon me if I've little hope of that happening. But I've some hope. I like being wrong about stuff like this.

If you have suggestions for how I ought to handle this stuff, what i should reply to, what I should write, or whatever else I am all ears whethere here or off-list. It is clear that ignoring the nonsense does not fix the problem, so I shine the light of reason on irrationality. Many tried ignoring. Many tried calling for civility. Many tried diplomacy. It's all failed.

I remain active in these matters because of the destructive nature of the #FTbullies. I care about this community/movement and have invested a great deal of time in it. I don't want to see people like PZ who have much influence go unchecked. Addressing the nonsense, I think, has actually led PZ and crew to lose influence and reputation...which is a great thing.

I don't intend to do anything to be kicked out of the conference. As I said, I have an obligation to my donors and want to report on the material. I have material to cover, radio shows to broadcast, and speeches I want to hear. PZ and crew make themselves more ridiculous when they talk more and engage in more witch hunts.

dude, we've been trying to give you advice for some months now. There's a difference, perhaps subtle, between commenting on and observing on things and sticking yourself in the middle of it. You also have this tendency to say things that just make many of us here wonder what the fuck you're on about.

For example: "brave hero radio". Really? Really?

Or your "just waaaay too long" points about the non-enforcement of certain conference policies. You started out really well. You made some pretty pointed points that did a good job of showing how stupid some of this shit can be. But then you couldn't stop, and you had to keep calling out every single damned violation and went from astute commentor on the absurdity of the whole thing to that old lady who views herself as the guardian of the homeowner's association, and is always quick to leave passive-agressive notes because you haven't mowed your damned lawn regularly enough. You basically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory there.

For example, parts of your response to greta's thing on policies are just dumb:

If these conference policies were so important, one would think that organizations and individuals touting these policies would take this “very real problem” seriously and take some time to craft something that is apparent to all, practical, enforced, and is not ‘excused away’ upon failure by the ad-hoc defense of “obvious intent.” Should not policies clearly spell what is expected and – regardless of what it written – be enforced as written? If organizations release policies, they should be followed. If the “obvious intent” is really so obvious, the words-as-written should match the intent. Since Christina distinguishes obvious intent from what is written — noting a contrast — it is very clear that there exists a disconnect.

there's a disconnect in the enforcement of every policy. Fuck, I know for a fact that as long as I'm not speeding in a school zone, and keep my speeding to within 10MPH of the posted limit, I'm largely going to be ignored. That's not uncommon in many towns or counties. Hell, if it's a busy day, FHP will ignore 15 over as long as you're not driving like an over-agressive asshole. By that statement's logic, every law, regulation and policy should be strictly enforced to the hilt. We *all* know this isn't going to happen. This kind of thing is common across the board where you have any kind of laws/policies/etc. Intent, is quite often used more than the letter, and most people start to realize that as long as there's a bit of sense behind it, that's a good thing.

Can you imagine how long a basketball game would take if EVERY possible violation of the rules was called? Shit, you'd miss the speed of baseball at that point.

Policies written and endorsed by atheist/skeptic organizations – particularly American Atheists spearheaded by David Silverman – are not enforced by organizers who, time and time again, turn a blind eye to violations and do not enforce what they had so cherished and promised to enforce. Rules-as-written do not matter, as we see from Christina’s defense of conference policies, and alleged “obvious intent” is what matters.

No shit. Welcome to how things work about everywhere. If you wanted to make a point about bad policies, you completely crapped on it here.

The entire post, really, is a mess. it seems you really just want to take shots at Greta, but keep trying to work in the weakest argument ever about policies, and it starts to look like you never actually go outside.

and that's just the one post. You had what, two posts, and how many tweets about it?

It's not that it's harassment. It's that you beat that goddamned horse until it's a horse-shaped stain, and then you beat the bloody dirt. I'm not saying don't point out the absurdity or what have you. But fuck dude, brevity, try it more.

[Skep tickle]

BOOP!

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0063094

My brain contorted into knots trying to figure that out but I agree it's gotta be WOO-HOO! worthy!

Woo hoo! First author, too!

Small thing but it caught my eye - I only see one use of a title in the whole paper* and it's to call you "Miss Smith". Was that how you submitted it, or is that their editorial style?

*caveat, I skimmed

[Skep tickle]

Before I even attempt to read back through pages of stuff on the board, I wanted to say my guy had his last radiation treatment today. Lots of vomiting going on but now we can get to the healing part of all this. Thanks all for the well-wishes and thoughts :)

Now I can get back to pointing and laughing at the hypocrisy :D

I really hope this ends the saliva problem for him.

It's all healing from here! Hopefully any cells that might have been even considering malignant transformation have had the bejeezus beat out of them and are toeing the party line now. :naughty:

[Cunning Punt]

I've also been scratching my head about the "Brave hero" thing. Why copy what is a pretty lame moniker in the first place? It's not brave to write stuff on the internet in a country where you won't be arrested for it, and at worst certain people will assume you are the same person as the other "Brave Hero".

[justinvacula]

I've also been scratching my head about the "Brave hero" thing. Why copy what is a pretty lame moniker in the first place? It's not brave to write stuff on the internet in a country where you won't be arrested for it, and at worst certain people will assume you are the same person as the other "Brave Hero".

It's a joke. Karla and I don't take it seriously and believe that we ought to laugh once in a while. The show was inspired by @elevatorgate's hashtag which was a descriptor of those who disagreed openly with #ftbullies. I find his contributions to be extremely valuable (although I wish he would tone the language down a bit, but whatever...) and found this fitting to honor.

[Skep tickle]

I am not backing down and/or staying home. I refuse to let bullies dictate my actions and modify my behavior. I also have an obligation to my donors - to attend the conference and report.

I agree with Justin. Let them make fools of themselves when he is nothing but polite. If they have an issue with his presence, they can choose to stay home.

I'm the only one that finds the fact that we're having this conversation utterly ridiculous? Do PZ Fatass and Prunella seriously fear the mere presence of Justin Vacula? they really think he will get over their little convention and throw acid at their faces? Are they willing to not return a fucking handshake?

Now he's being compared to Mabus. From near the (current) end of the Pharyngula pre-emptive warning thread:

Isn’t this exactly what Mabus did? When he got locked out of blog comments and e-mail lists and couldn’t use those “easy” methods to get his communication to his targets anymore, who didn’t want to communicate with him–didn’t he decided to escalate it to stalking people at conventions he knew they’d be at?

[justinvacula]

Or your "just waaaay too long" points about the non-enforcement of certain conference policies. You started out really well. You made some pretty pointed points that did a good job of showing how stupid some of this shit can be. But then you couldn't stop, and you had to keep calling out every single damned violation and went from astute commentor on the absurdity of the whole thing to that old lady who views herself as the guardian of the homeowner's association, and is always quick to leave passive-agressive notes because you haven't mowed your damned lawn regularly enough. You basically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory there.

I'm holding them to their own standards and pointing out the hypocrisy. This happened to be an interest at the time (and still is). When the adherents of policies -- touting how important they are -- violate them and have poorly written policies it is worth noting. Excessive? Perhaps, but that was my focus at the time.

[Guest]

At this point, with all the idiocy going on with CFI, it might be worth it to let them think I'll go to the next CFI event in tallahassee. Which I wouldn't, for the same reasons I didn't go to any of the other ones they've had, even the events with La Watson herself: I think they're a bunch of boring fuckwits, and I sure as shit won't pay to be stuck in a room with those turgid tits and their soporific speaking styles.

But, if I think I can troll them a bit into thinking I'm going, (without any real effort on my part mind you), that could be fun.

It is clear that merely announcing your intention to go is reason enough for the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

heck even WITHOUT announcing any attention, the reply to welch in that thread is waily and gnashy

[welch]

Or your "just waaaay too long" points about the non-enforcement of certain conference policies. You started out really well. You made some pretty pointed points that did a good job of showing how stupid some of this shit can be. But then you couldn't stop, and you had to keep calling out every single damned violation and went from astute commentor on the absurdity of the whole thing to that old lady who views herself as the guardian of the homeowner's association, and is always quick to leave passive-agressive notes because you haven't mowed your damned lawn regularly enough. You basically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory there.

I'm holding them to their own standards and pointing out the hypocrisy. This happened to be an interest at the time (and still is). When the adherents of policies -- touting how important they are -- violate them and have poorly written policies it is worth noting. Excessive? Perhaps, but that was my focus at the time.

and you miss the point completely.

What you are describing is what we, the unschooled masses call "normal fucking life". There's not a cop out there who enforces every fucking law to the letter. Given some of the more absurd laws on the books that just never got taken off the books, that's a good thing. It would also make it effectively impossible for anyone to, at any time, do anything but fill a jail cell.

You also missed the point that your initial observations were to the point and kind of funny. Really, by themselves they did a good job of saying "So, about these policies? You realize that rather a few of them are really impossible to enforce, nor would you actually want to enforce them."

But two or more essays and god knows how many tweets later, the reaction is "YES JUSTIN, WE GET IT, NOW CAN WE MOVE THE FUCK ALONG. HORSE IS DEAD. YOU HAVE BEATEN IT. THOROUGHLY...oh fuck, there he goes again. Just don't make eye contact, and maybe he'll forget we're here."

You may want to ask a friend who is not involved in this to act as an editor for you. You really need one.

[welch]

At this point, with all the idiocy going on with CFI, it might be worth it to let them think I'll go to the next CFI event in tallahassee. Which I wouldn't, for the same reasons I didn't go to any of the other ones they've had, even the events with La Watson herself: I think they're a bunch of boring fuckwits, and I sure as shit won't pay to be stuck in a room with those turgid tits and their soporific speaking styles.

But, if I think I can troll them a bit into thinking I'm going, (without any real effort on my part mind you), that could be fun.

It is clear that merely announcing your intention to go is reason enough for the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

heck even WITHOUT announcing any attention, the reply to welch in that thread is waily and gnashy

wait, what? ( I don't read that shit, I've so many better things to do.)

They actually took me SERIOUSLY?

<he man>I HAVE THE POWERRRRRR</he-man>

"quickly robin, to the batcave, we have to create a fake fundraiser to SEND ME TO A CFI EVENT THAT I SHAN'T BE GOING TO, NOR WILL I CLAIM I AM GOING.

Batman, do you mean?

Yes old chum...it's time to bat-troll them"

[Skep tickle]

Greta Christina boards the anti-Vacula train by claiming to welcome disagreement.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... hy-debate/

Bolding as in her original:

In the skeptic and atheist communities, we often wring our hands over how much infighting we do. ...

Yet at the same time, one of the things we value most about our community is our willingness to disagree: with our leaders, with our heroes, with one another. We understand that dissent and debate are how good ideas rise to the surface and bad ideas get winnowed out, and we relish the fact that we have no dogma we’re all expected to line up behind.

So where is the line between infighting and healthy debate?

I strongly suspect that, much of the time, we draw these distinctions very subjectively. ...

...I’d like to propose some standards for where to draw the line on the “infighting/ healthy debate” continuum. (This isn’t meant to be the final word on the subject, by the way. I’m very much thinking out loud here, I’m sure there are ideas that I’m missing, and I want this to be the start of a conversation rather than the end of one.) ...

Are the participants in the debate willing to listen to people they’ve disagreed with before? A good idea is a good idea. Even if it comes from someone we think is a jerk. If we’re focusing our debates on ideas and behaviors instead of on people and personalities — see above — we need to accept that.

Now, this can be a tricky one. Of course it’s legitimate to not trust someone if they have a consistent pattern of being untrustworthy. And of course, we all have dealbreakers. To give just one of my own examples: I am not willing to engage with people who have used threatening, misogynistic, sexually violent language, against me or anyone else. (Unless, of course, they’ve since apologized and made amends.) And I’m not going to tell anyone else what their dealbreakers should be. We all have to keep our own conscience about that.

But if our list of dealbreakers is long and getting longer — along with our list of people we’re not willing to listen to — I think that’s a good sign that our debates aren’t healthy. If we only engage with people who we’ve always agreed with about everything, we’re eventually going to become atomized, each of us listening only to ourselves. Expecting others in the community to agree with us about everything contributes to the tendency towards tribalism… and tribalism, I think, is one of the key markers distinguishing between infighting and healthy debate.

Are the participants in the debate willing to disagree with people they’re usually allied with? Like the above, but reversed. A good idea is a good idea, even if it comes from someone we think is a jerk — and a bad idea is a bad idea, even if it comes from someone we generally like and admire.

This one can also be tricky. It makes at least some sense to cut people slack if they have a long pattern of good behavior. But if we’re defending ideas and behaviors from our friends that we wouldn’t accept in anyone else — and if our defenses of these ideas and behaviors are turning into rationalizations, and are getting more and more contorted — I think that’s a good sign that the debate isn’t healthy. Again: Our willingness to disagree with each other is a strength, not a weakness. We shouldn’t be afraid of it. ...

End of the first comment:

However, and this is the big “however” in your second point — I don’t extend the same courtesy to the slyme. Reap Paden, Justin Vacula, “vjack” and all the rest have absolutely nothing to say that is worth listening to.

Why? Because they have proven themselves over and over again to be intellectually incapable of understanding the simplest of arguments. They attack person and not idea. They mock and slander without ever trying to bring forth a credible argument. They think bullying and harassment is an effective debate tactic and not an example of abhorrent immature behavior.

Fuck them. I won’t have anything to do with them. And if I miss out on something “important” because of that — well, that’s a risk I’m willing to take. And frankly, the likelihood of that happening is vanishingly small in any event. They’re emotionally immature and intellectually stunted. I’m quite sure the only thing I learn from that type of person is how to not engage in interpersonal relations.

Her reply:

Kevin @ #1: Yup. Not disagreeing in the slightest. That’s a big part of why I wrote this:

“Of course it’s legitimate to not trust someone if they have a consistent pattern of being untrustworthy. And of course, we all have dealbreakers. To give just one of my own examples: I am not willing to engage with people who have used threatening, misogynistic, sexually violent language, against me or anyone else. (Unless, of course, they’ve since apologized and made amends.)”

[justinvacula]

Or your "just waaaay too long" points about the non-enforcement of certain conference policies. You started out really well. You made some pretty pointed points that did a good job of showing how stupid some of this shit can be. But then you couldn't stop, and you had to keep calling out every single damned violation and went from astute commentor on the absurdity of the whole thing to that old lady who views herself as the guardian of the homeowner's association, and is always quick to leave passive-agressive notes because you haven't mowed your damned lawn regularly enough. You basically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory there.

I'm holding them to their own standards and pointing out the hypocrisy. This happened to be an interest at the time (and still is). When the adherents of policies -- touting how important they are -- violate them and have poorly written policies it is worth noting. Excessive? Perhaps, but that was my focus at the time.

and you miss the point completely.

What you are describing is what we, the unschooled masses call "normal fucking life". There's not a cop out there who enforces every fucking law to the letter. Given some of the more absurd laws on the books that just never got taken off the books, that's a good thing. It would also make it effectively impossible for anyone to, at any time, do anything but fill a jail cell.

You also missed the point that your initial observations were to the point and kind of funny. Really, by themselves they did a good job of saying "So, about these policies? You realize that rather a few of them are really impossible to enforce, nor would you actually want to enforce them."

But two or more essays and god knows how many tweets later, the reaction is "YES JUSTIN, WE GET IT, NOW CAN WE MOVE THE FUCK ALONG. HORSE IS DEAD. YOU HAVE BEATEN IT. THOROUGHLY...oh fuck, there he goes again. Just don't make eye contact, and maybe he'll forget we're here."

You may want to ask a friend who is not involved in this to act as an editor for you. You really need one.

I had editors in the past. I'd welcome more. Perhaps someone here would be interested? A problem I had, in the past, was the delay between me writing, sending to editor, having the piece edited, and me publishing. Some of my posts have more immediacy - they ought to be published in a certain timeframe.

[justinvacula]

Anne C. Hanna
April 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Great article, Greta. However, I fully expect the response from the Slyme Side to be, “It’s all FTB’s fault that this isn’t a healthy debate.” It’s almost as if much of that particular debate is turning into a meta-debate over who was mean to whom first.

On an unrelated note, am I the only one bothered by the fact that the “evidence” stamp in the stock photo you used doesn’t actually match its inked counterpart?

Phhh...they're more than welcome to post here. They don't want the debate - even if they poisoned the waters. Take, for instance, the 'Lee Moore peace talks.' While many objected to the concept of peace being a possibility because of the FTB crowd's behavior, many were willing to discuss...and we still welcome anyone to post here. Only Eucli and Mabus are banned, huh?

[Skep tickle]

And I remain amused at the *crickets* that are greeting her posts related to her book. The last one has 1 post - someone thanking her for her kind review of his review of her book.

Sad, in a way: noone has congratulated her (at least not at her recent post outlining where she'll be in the next few weeks) on her upcoming award at the AHA Annual Conference. You know, the conference at which Dan Savage will receive the Humanist of the Year award, Richard Dawkins is a Special Guest, and the behavior policy for the conference (under the FAQs) is this:

What's the AHA's Prohibited Conduct Policy?
In general, prohibited conduct includes any abusive conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with another person’s ability to enjoy and participate in the conference, including social events related to the conference. Additionally, any clear violation of the law will be immediately referred to local police.

[welch]

And I remain amused at the *crickets* that are greeting her posts related to her book. The last one has 1 post - someone thanking her for her kind review of his review of her book.

Sad, in a way: noone has congratulated her (at least not at her recent post outlining where she'll be in the next few weeks) on her upcoming award at the AHA Annual Conference. You know, the conference at which Dan Savage will receive the Humanist of the Year award, Richard Dawkins is a Special Guest, and the behavior policy for the conference (under the FAQs) is this:

What's the AHA's Prohibited Conduct Policy?
In general, prohibited conduct includes any abusive conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with another person’s ability to enjoy and participate in the conference, including social events related to the conference. Additionally, any clear violation of the law will be immediately referred to local police.

that seems like a rather fine policy to me. "Don't be a douche".

[justinvacula]

What's the AHA's Prohibited Conduct Policy?
In general, prohibited conduct includes any abusive conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with another person’s ability to enjoy and participate in the conference, including social events related to the conference. Additionally, any clear violation of the law will be immediately referred to local police.

Nice stuff - and likely only there, I would guess, because people may ask or have asked.

[Skep tickle]

And I remain amused at the *crickets* that are greeting her posts related to her book. The last one has 1 post - someone thanking her for her kind review of his review of her book.

Sad, in a way: noone has congratulated her (at least not at her recent post outlining where she'll be in the next few weeks) on her upcoming award at the AHA Annual Conference. You know, the conference at which Dan Savage will receive the Humanist of the Year award, Richard Dawkins is a Special Guest, and the behavior policy for the conference (under the FAQs) is this:

What's the AHA's Prohibited Conduct Policy?
In general, prohibited conduct includes any abusive conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with another person’s ability to enjoy and participate in the conference, including social events related to the conference. Additionally, any clear violation of the law will be immediately referred to local police.

that seems like a rather fine policy to me. "Don't be a douche".

I like the use of "unreasonably" in it. Oh, say, for example, 1 or 2 people might claim that a 3rd person is interfering with their ability to enjoy & participate just by being at the conference or saying hi to them, but one imagines the level heads at AHA might well decide that that "behavior" doesn't present unreasonable interference.

[d4m10n]

Greta Christina boards the anti-Vacula train by claiming to welcome disagreement.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... hy-debate/

Greta has ticked off so many items on my personal "list of dealbreakers" that it's difficult to admit that this is mostly good advice, I hope she sticks to it going forward.

[Steersman]

I respond to Stephanie Zvan's latest post adding to the most recent #WitchOfTheWeek campaign against me concerning #WIScfi

Stephanie Zvan’s lie machine in action

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... in-action/

http://i.imgur.com/tGVlUBn.jpg

"4.5-page letter with 11 pdfs"?

What the fuck does that even mean? I thought these twats were at least basically computer-literate. What the hell, now they're going to talk about how they "made a blog" today?

morons.

Something rather amusing from that same post of Zvan’s you seem to have referred to:

On the other hand, if [Justin] attends, I will have a much less productive conference. Everything I do or say will be observed and reported on by a hostile party. Sarcasm and even obvious jokes will be off the table. So will unguarded exchanges about challenges, which was one of the most productive parts of last year’s conference.

That’s really tough there, Stephanie, you being obliged to be less dogmatic than you might otherwise have been – no longer preaching just to the faithful.

Seems she is looking at it from a rather narrow if not narrow-minded point of view. Considering the rather questionable perspective she has on skepticism and atheism – as indicated in the following quote of her from the Nugent dialog – maybe it is quite a good thing that Justin is there to keep her at least honest, although it might have been better to find out what she thinks when she “lets her hair down”. In any case, she said:

We may not or we may or we must shape our agendas to appeal to groups of people whose relationships to these various issues are very different from the relationships of the white, cisgendered, educated, middle-class to upper-class men who have shaped the traditional concerns of our movements.

As others, including Submariner, have done, one has to wonder – and she has been remarkably loath to answer – how it is that membership in those various classes has negatively impacted the “traditional concerns” if not the principles of atheism, skepticism and secularism. Seems to be some questionable bias there that should raise a few warning flags.

[welch]

Greta Christina boards the anti-Vacula train by claiming to welcome disagreement.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... hy-debate/

Greta has ticked off so many items on my personal "list of dealbreakers" that it's difficult to admit that this is mostly good advice, I hope she sticks to it going forward.

To bad in her reply to the first comment she shits all over it.

[Skep tickle]

I feel like telling PZ, Ophelia, & Stephanie to GET A GRIP except that it seems likely they already have a grip & they're just trying to tighten it.

Seriously, though, they are acting like Chicken Little, or (amusingly enough) like sheltered theists who've never been outside their religious community & are scared that that atheist walking up to their door is a satan worshipper who is not only going to interrupt their bible study but also wants to drink their blood. :roll:

From everything I've seen (starting with investigating the claims made in that stupid petition to SCA, which is how I got kicked off the atheism plus forum), Justin Vacula is a regular person. He probably puts his pants on one leg at a time, though I didn't actually find evidence to support that claim. ;)

Yeah, I'm really sorry to burst your bubble, FtBers, but Justin Vacula is not actually evil incarnate, a terrorist, or violence-prone.

He's been more of an atheist activist & been more outspoken in public venues than 99% of people in the atheist community, with (as I understand it) particular attention to church-state separation issues.

Sure, he & Amy Davis Roth got into a spat and he posted something he ideally shouldn't have, but her business address actually was (and is) public information. (The search result that comes up for me also includes phone number & a map with a nice arrow on it. I'm not going to do anything with that information, but if she wanted her address to be secret, she should have used a PO Box.)

And during that whole DMCA thing he couldn't post on his own blog, and AVfM hosted a post of his; what of it? If one of you were to give a talk, at - for example - a woo conference in Minnesota in fall 2013 because you were invited, does that mean skeptics should discredit everything you say from then on?

Anyway, it's really fascinating to see you turn yourselves inside out raving about how concerned you are about this one person, a fellow atheist, being at the same conference; you're just drawing more attention & creating drama. (Annnnd what a surprise that is.)

[Michael K Gray]

Re: Justin and his enthusiastic behaviour, which some here seem to consider to be bordering on a zealot with ADHD.

...He probably puts his pants on one leg at a time, though I didn't actually find evidence to support that claim. ;)

Time enough for a repeat of this Aussie classic, comparing Ophelia & her fainting couch crew Mormons to The Evil Count Vacula! (One Rape. Two Rapes, THREE Rapes! Ha ha ha!!) meek atheists:
[youtube]U58wgn-9Y3c[/youtube]
Magic pants indeed.
Justin 'tripod' puts on his pants 3 legs at a time.

[Dick Strawkins]

I remember a few years ago there was a huge internal row on scienceblogs that involved Laden and Svan on one side, and everyone else on the other.
The arguments then, as now, were about how to behave towards others online, about what is acceptable and what is not, and about the ethics of blogging.
The threads are still there now; whatever you think about Laden, he doesn't resort to PZ's cowardly approach of hiding all his previous comments just in case they show his new shiny image in too sharp a contrast.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/ ... -too-sexy/

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/ ... firing-sq/

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/ ... alty-curr/

The threads are interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, the Pharyngula commenters are there in force - attacking Svan and Laden rather than supporting them.
Second, the threads prompted some soul searching by Svan (don't worry, she didn't find it) on her own site in which she wondered why people were calling her a hypocrite - a charge she was (and is) completely blind to.

The fascinating thing is that a couple of the commenters actually tod her straight up what her problem was -
It is that she applies a set of behavioral standards to her opponents in a strict manner - but doesn't do the same to her friends.

Svan couldn't see that this was hypocrisy.
She thought that she was being fair in requiring people to behave in an 'reasonable' fashion and that it was entirely appropriate to censor, ban or expel those that overstepped those bounds - much the same as Greta seems to do with her current post.
On the surface it seems fair.

But what if you apply the standards strictly to one one group and allow those on your side complete freedom to behave as they wish.
That is the problem here.
A lot of us on this side of the fence don't use sexual language in our posts - but the very fact that we converse with those who do is enough to chain us to them and be forever cast into the pit.

Read Greta's presumably main charge against the slymepit.

"I am not willing to engage with people who have used threatening, misogynistic, sexually violent language, against me or anyone else. (Unless, of course, they’ve since apologized and made amends.)”

Try to read this in a way that WOULD exclude dialogue with all members of the slymepit.
Now apply the same criteria other atheist online forums.
Who exactly is left?

It sure isn't going to be anyone from pharyngula porcupine die-in-a-fire squad.
It's not going to be Ophelia Bensons with her kneecapping and vandalising supporters.
Taslima Nasreen?
Greg Laden (OK, that one's a joke)?
She wouldn't even be able to speak to herself if she applied the criteria strictly.

[justinvacula]

PZ Myers
April 29, 2013 at 7:33 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
...
As for Vacula: No, I’m not threatened by him in the slightest. I’m disgusted by him. That’s why I want nothing to do with him; it’s certainly not because I’m afraid. I haven’t threatened him at all, but have only said to stay away from me.

It’s getting rather annoying that he keeps bringing up the fact that I had my picture taken with him a few years ago. Yes, but it says nothing about him. What it means is that I’m obliging when people come up to me, even strangers, and ask to have their photo taken. I don’t know why he keeps bringing up the fact that I was not hostile; it’s not a testimonial of any kind to his behavior.

It does say I’m trusting even when ignorant of the people I’m with. Nothing more.

So, the fact that I met him in 2012 (not a few years ago) and nothing happened which would warrant hostile behavior is totally irrelevant to the discussion... Right. Now he says it is a matter of being "disgusted." Interesting. Apparently one can morally be justified in threatening others with ejection from conference because of feeling disgust. So, since I happen to be disgusted with many of the speakers there, ought I blog about how if they happen to approach me I will make a complaint with organizers on grounds of me being "disgusted?" Give me a break...

[KiwiInOz]

I feel like telling PZ, Ophelia, & Stephanie to GET A GRIP except that it seems likely they already have a grip & they're just trying to tighten it.

Seriously, though, they are acting like Chicken Little, or (amusingly enough) like sheltered theists who've never been outside their religious community & are scared that that atheist walking up to their door is a satan worshipper who is not only going to interrupt their bible study but also wants to drink their blood. :roll:

From everything I've seen (starting with investigating the claims made in that stupid petition to SCA, which is how I got kicked off the atheism plus forum), Justin Vacula is a regular person. He probably puts his pants on one leg at a time, though I didn't actually find evidence to support that claim. ;)

Yeah, I'm really sorry to burst your bubble, FtBers, but Justin Vacula is not actually evil incarnate, a terrorist, or violence-prone.

He's been more of an atheist activist & been more outspoken in public venues than 99% of people in the atheist community, with (as I understand it) particular attention to church-state separation issues.

Sure, he & Amy Davis Roth got into a spat and he posted something he ideally shouldn't have, but her business address actually was (and is) public information. (The search result that comes up for me also includes phone number & a map with a nice arrow on it. I'm not going to do anything with that information, but if she wanted her address to be secret, she should have used a PO Box.)

And during that whole DMCA thing he couldn't post on his own blog, and AVfM hosted a post of his; what of it? If one of you were to give a talk, at - for example - a woo conference in Minnesota in fall 2013 because you were invited, does that mean skeptics should discredit everything you say from then on?

Anyway, it's really fascinating to see you turn yourselves inside out raving about how concerned you are about this one person, a fellow atheist, being at the same conference; you're just drawing more attention & creating drama. (Annnnd what a surprise that is.)

Yet another example of the fact that we got all of the reason-able people in the great schism of 2011, and they got all the reason-disabled.

[justinvacula]

Wowbagger, Designated Snarker
April 29, 2013 at 6:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Huh. I did wonder exactly how much Vacula was being used by the other ‘pitters to do their dirty work, and this confirms it. I now feel a bit (not much, but a bit) sorry for him, since it’s looking more and more like he’s a puppet – and one day he’s going to wake up, shunned by our side and scorned as a foolish tool by the people he thought were on his side, and realise just how much he screwed up by going along with them.

The gig is up. You guys are pulling my strings and I am nothing more than a puppet - maybe a Hoggle sock puppet?

[justinvacula]

Kevin
April 29, 2013 at 11:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I still suggest buttons.

STOP: Justin Vacula Stay Away From Me.

Sell them for $1 each.

You’d make a ton of money.

Harassment!
Hostile environment!
Interfering with my conference experience!!111oneoneone

I ought to write a 7 page letter with 15 PDFs and send it to Melody. How dare they!111oneone

[KiwiInOz]

Wowbagger, Designated Snarker
April 29, 2013 at 6:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Huh. I did wonder exactly how much Vacula was being used by the other ‘pitters to do their dirty work, and this confirms it. I now feel a bit (not much, but a bit) sorry for him, since it’s looking more and more like he’s a puppet – and one day he’s going to wake up, shunned by our side and scorned as a foolish tool by the people he thought were on his side, and realise just how much he screwed up by going along with them.

The gig is up. You guys are pulling my strings and I am nothing more than a puppet - maybe a Hoggle sock puppet?

Perhaps you could have a badge made up saying something like - SlymePit's Useful idiot - or somesuch.

[Dick Strawkins]

Kevin
April 29, 2013 at 11:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I still suggest buttons.

STOP: Justin Vacula Stay Away From Me.

Sell them for $1 each.

You’d make a ton of money.

Harassment!
Hostile environment!
Interfering with my conference experience!!111oneoneone

I ought to write a 7 page letter with 15 PDFs and send it to Melody. How dare they!111oneone

http://i.imgur.com/Mfk1RPG.jpg

[rayshul]

There is nothing that Justin has done in discussion with FtB that he hasn't done while engaging with other crazyfucks in fundamentalist faiths.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I think CFI will have to be very careful in their decisions if there happens to be reports against Justin. They'd better make sure they have all the evidence needed if they take actions. Else, it's going to look quite bad for them.

A bit like Stephanie regretting she won't be able to say certain things because there's a hostile in the room. What, she thinks Justin will take what she says without generous interpretation? That may well be the case, and would be totally deserved, seeing as a lot of people are at the Pit today because something they said was taken with the least generous interpretation. What's sauce for the glaargh is sauce for the shtubuu, and all that...

[Michael K Gray]

I think CFI will have to be very careful in their decisions if there happens to be reports against Justin. They'd better make sure they have all the evidence needed if they take actions. Else, it's going to look quite bad for them.

CFI have gone well beyond "things looking bad for them".
Their reputation for intellectual integrity is in tatters.
They can hardly fall lower.

As for our many frightened 'chicken littles' here urging Justin to take "extreme measures" to video record his every interaction, to have an escort at all times, only emerge from his room with armed guards, to carry visible tactical nuclear-weapons in case of a PZ gumming, and cetera:
Get a Fucking Life.
It is a pissy little hick meeting, for fux sake.

Toughen the fuck up.
Bring back conscription!
Bring back the cat'o'9-tails!

[Dick Strawkins]

I think this idea of anti-Vacula merchandising highlights a hitherto untapped commercial market.

http://i.imgur.com/Pkph4wQ.jpg

[Matt Cavanaugh]

"Mark", (the true authors are unknown), could have been written in 350AD, and still match every bit of extant evidence that we have. I don't believe that date, but it is a possibility. That folk aim for around 70AD is nothing more than backward logic, combined with wishful thinking.

Based on indirect references, the first Markan gospel seems to have appeared c. 145, produced by Marcion, who also gave us the first Pauline epistles. By sheer coincidence, Paul's travels & travails closely parallel Marcion's own. While Mark may be referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70, the more traumatic suppression of the Bar Kosiba revolt by Hadrian also fits well.

There is also precious little evidence of the existence of organised Christianity before 400AD.

If nothing else, the Council of Nicaea (325) is a firm marker for the existence of christianity. If you accept as authentic Book X of Pliny the Younger's letters (I don't), then a vaguely-described cult of "Chrestians" existed in Asia Minor c. 112. The obvious interpolations in Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus aside, the very earliest one can detect christianity is mid 2nd century.

all of the dates of these mss (125~150AD) are based on pure orthographic guess-work by very biased believers

Indeed. Not a single gospel pericope can be reliably dated to prior to the mid 4th century, when Eusebius rewrote what became the canon, and consigned the rest to flames.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

MKG:

Yeah, sure, it's a bit blown over. Personally I'm not much worried about the con itself. One thing that might happen and would be really worth mocking, would be if Myers or Benson cross paths with Justin at some point and he does nothing, maybe a nod or a hand-wave. I would bet they would take this home as a "win". Something like "the little coward didn't even dare address us".

Just a gut-feeling, though, and I may be proven wrong.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

So you want to count civilians killed accidently by drones as murdered, but civilians killed as a result of an invasion of a country and nothing? Sounds legit!

1) Intentionally targeting first-aid responders, funeral mourners, wedding parties and entire villages is not "accidental";

2) I'm not discounting the deaths of civilians killed in dubya's unjust invasion of Iraq as nothing. You put those words in my mouth to deflect my criticism of obama's war crimes.

[Hunt]

I like this part of Swan's post:

On January 22, I sent a four-and-a-half-page letter to Ron Lindsay. Four pages of that letter (plus an additional 11 pdfs) documented the parts of the policy on hostile conduct that Vacula had already declared open contempt for, both with respect to speakers at the conference, potential attendees, the conference itself, and secular conferences in general. Unlike Reinhardt, I’m perfectly comfortable putting my own name on my work.

Bold part: So what, even if this is entirely accurate? There is nothing material about having contempt for a policy. They only thing that matters is whether you follow it or not. Same deal with the actual law. Police don't give a crap whether you like laws or not, so long as you follow them. You are permitted to have all the hissey fits you want.

[Michael K Gray]

"Mark", (the true authors are unknown), could have been written in 350AD, and still match every bit of extant evidence that we have. I don't believe that date, but it is a possibility. That folk aim for around 70AD is nothing more than backward logic, combined with wishful thinking.

Based on indirect references, the first Markan gospel seems to have appeared c. 145,

Sorry, but this is so fucking vague and unreferenced as to be placed in the clear category of "lies you have been told".
Chalk up another victory for the hedges surrounding the mythical Jeebus.
(For the uninitiated: "c. 145" means "circa 145", 'circa' being Latin for "around", "approximately" or "a guess".)
3 shaky unsubstantiated consecutive guesses, multiplying the uncertainty factor to a billion or more.
Fail.
...

There is also precious little evidence of the existence of organised Christianity before 400AD.

If nothing else, the Council of Nicaea (325) is a firm marker for the existence of christianity.

"precious little". Did you spot that? It does not mean "none".

If you accept as authentic Book X of Pliny the Younger's letters (I don't), then a vaguely-described cult of "Chrestians" existed in Asia Minor c. 112.

"Chrestians" has never ever appeared in any Greek text, EVER.
"Chrestus" does appear in Latin, but is means "useful one" or "slave".
Nothing whatsover to do with "Christ" nor "Christus", aprt from in wishful thinking. (Even though 11thC documents seem to have been fiddled-with early TIPPEX to imply the correspondence.) But as they are 11C, may be dismissed as irrelevant in any case to the issue at hand.
(Mara bar Serapion makes the point plain in Syriac)

For fux-sake Matthew, you could at least bring some very basic scholarship with you if you are going to debate me on this subject.
It is as though you have never read the originals in their Greek or Syriac.

The obvious interpolations in Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus aside,

I'm glad that you put these "aside" as they have been recognised as forgeries since the late 19th century.
Don't even know why you mentioned these phony furphies, although I can guess.
(That mentioning them might make you seem slightly more erudite to the casual observer)

...the very earliest one can detect christianity is mid 2nd century.

And this 'confident' (note the use of the passive voice) dating comes from what primary evidence?
P457?
Guesswork?
Wishful thinking?
Carbon Dating?
Speed Dating?
Your arse?

all of the dates of these mss (125~150AD) are based on pure orthographic guess-work by very biased believers

Indeed. Not a single gospel pericope can be reliably dated to prior to the mid 4th century, when Eusebius rewrote what became the canon, and consigned the rest to flames.[/quote]
That assertion is in total conflict with your "mid 2ndC" detection.
If not from Gospels, then what?

I wish to know on what basis you make these extraordinary mutually conflicting claims of certainty.
Feel free to flounder.

Next?

[Dick Strawkins]

http://i.imgur.com/Xn9TyOK.jpg

[Za-zen]

Greta Christina boards the anti-Vacula train by claiming to welcome disagreement.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... hy-debate/

Bolding as in her original:

In the skeptic and atheist communities, we often wring our hands over how much infighting we do. ...

Yet at the same time, one of the things we value most about our community is our willingness to disagree: with our leaders, with our heroes, with one another. We understand that dissent and debate are how good ideas rise to the surface and bad ideas get winnowed out, and we relish the fact that we have no dogma we’re all expected to line up behind.

So where is the line between infighting and healthy debate?

I strongly suspect that, much of the time, we draw these distinctions very subjectively. ...

...I’d like to propose some standards for where to draw the line on the “infighting/ healthy debate” continuum. (This isn’t meant to be the final word on the subject, by the way. I’m very much thinking out loud here, I’m sure there are ideas that I’m missing, and I want this to be the start of a conversation rather than the end of one.) ...

Are the participants in the debate willing to listen to people they’ve disagreed with before? A good idea is a good idea. Even if it comes from someone we think is a jerk. If we’re focusing our debates on ideas and behaviors instead of on people and personalities — see above — we need to accept that.

Now, this can be a tricky one. Of course it’s legitimate to not trust someone if they have a consistent pattern of being untrustworthy. And of course, we all have dealbreakers. To give just one of my own examples: I am not willing to engage with people who have used threatening, misogynistic, sexually violent language, against me or anyone else. (Unless, of course, they’ve since apologized and made amends.) And I’m not going to tell anyone else what their dealbreakers should be. We all have to keep our own conscience about that.

But if our list of dealbreakers is long and getting longer — along with our list of people we’re not willing to listen to — I think that’s a good sign that our debates aren’t healthy. If we only engage with people who we’ve always agreed with about everything, we’re eventually going to become atomized, each of us listening only to ourselves. Expecting others in the community to agree with us about everything contributes to the tendency towards tribalism… and tribalism, I think, is one of the key markers distinguishing between infighting and healthy debate.

Are the participants in the debate willing to disagree with people they’re usually allied with? Like the above, but reversed. A good idea is a good idea, even if it comes from someone we think is a jerk — and a bad idea is a bad idea, even if it comes from someone we generally like and admire.

This one can also be tricky. It makes at least some sense to cut people slack if they have a long pattern of good behavior. But if we’re defending ideas and behaviors from our friends that we wouldn’t accept in anyone else — and if our defenses of these ideas and behaviors are turning into rationalizations, and are getting more and more contorted — I think that’s a good sign that the debate isn’t healthy. Again: Our willingness to disagree with each other is a strength, not a weakness. We shouldn’t be afraid of it. ...

End of the first comment:

However, and this is the big “however” in your second point — I don’t extend the same courtesy to the slyme. Reap Paden, Justin Vacula, “vjack” and all the rest have absolutely nothing to say that is worth listening to.

Why? Because they have proven themselves over and over again to be intellectually incapable of understanding the simplest of arguments. They attack person and not idea. They mock and slander without ever trying to bring forth a credible argument. They think bullying and harassment is an effective debate tactic and not an example of abhorrent immature behavior.

Fuck them. I won’t have anything to do with them. And if I miss out on something “important” because of that — well, that’s a risk I’m willing to take. And frankly, the likelihood of that happening is vanishingly small in any event. They’re emotionally immature and intellectually stunted. I’m quite sure the only thing I learn from that type of person is how to not engage in interpersonal relations.

Her reply:

Kevin @ #1: Yup. Not disagreeing in the slightest. That’s a big part of why I wrote this:

“Of course it’s legitimate to not trust someone if they have a consistent pattern of being untrustworthy. And of course, we all have dealbreakers. To give just one of my own examples: I am not willing to engage with people who have used threatening, misogynistic, sexually violent language, against me or anyone else. (Unless, of course, they’ve since apologized and made amends.)”

Greta forgot to add the disclaimer to her "deal breaker" that calling her a cunt, getting all massogynasty on her is A OK, if she's feeling kinky and wants to be made feel like a nasty lil thing, in a consensual way of course. I wonder what xxxtina's opinion is of the consensual "beating the fuck out of your bitch" (bitch, not gendered) known as "ultraviolence" in the kink community. I wonder if this is where she draws her arbritrary line in the sand as to what is kink, (what gets her off) and what is patriarchy!

[windy]

Kevin
April 29, 2013 at 11:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I still suggest buttons.

STOP: Justin Vacula Stay Away From Me.

Sell them for $1 each.

You’d make a ton of money.

Harassment!
Hostile environment!
Interfering with my conference experience!!111oneoneone

I ought to write a 7 page letter with 15 PDFs and send it to Melody. How dare they!111oneone

Justin, to alleviate their concerns you could wear one of these.

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3100/ ... 00.450.JPG

[Zenspace]

add a few years until they are mid 50's to early 60's and that is visual perfection for sacha.

You need to roll in duct tape, get off some of the pet hair and go out for a good schtupping.

you have no idea just how much I need a good schtupping.

“I do not want to be the leader. I refuse to be the leader. I want to live darkly and richly in my femaleness. I want a man lying over me, always over me. His will, his pleasure, his desire, his life, his work, his sexuality the touchstone, the command, my pivot. I don’t mind working, holding my ground intellectually, artistically; but as a woman, oh, God, as a woman I want to be dominated. I don’t mind being told to stand on my own feet, not to cling, be all that I am capable of doing, but I am going to be pursued, fucked, possessed by the will of a male at his time, his bidding.”
-Anaïs Nin

Sacha, just wanted to take a moment to thank you for posting this very remarkable quote, especially notable given its author. I am a fan of Nin, but had never run across this particular item before. It strikes at the center of something I find lacking in much feminist discourse, in all its many forms: the ability to be a strong, complete, independent individual, while remaining in full possession of one's sexuality as a female. Nin embraced her femaleness in full, shirking none of it or its implications. Rather, she made it a central driving force in her life, societies prescribed rules and positions be damned. Remarkable indeed.

[BarnOwl]

Once again, the followers of PeeZus and Atheism+ are oppressed by their clothing, this time because it lacks pockets and doesn't fit properly:

mouthyb, Vagina McTits
29 April 2013 at 5:14 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Part of it is the thin material used for women’s clothing. I know someone mentioned this earlier, but I find men’s clothing tended to be made to last. Women’s clothing tears if you are not exceptionally careful with it, and since it is so thin, anything in the pockets jabs you in the hip or ass.

A thicker material would allow you to use the damn pockets.

And don’t even get me started on sizing and trying to find something that fits without spending for fucking ever in a dressing room. I already have food anxiety and social anxiety. Nothing helps quite like not being able to find fitting clothing and having zero idea where to start. Also, the ‘women’s section’?

Fucking hideous, unflattering clothing. People wonder why I dress casual or sporty as often as possible. It’s because at least the lines are smooth, and the clothing allows me to move easily. Also, much less fitting bullshit when buying.

Here are a few solutions (not that they want any):

Learn to sew, knit, weave, crochet, or otherwise produce some of your own clothing.

Learn to make simple modifications to clothing you buy in retail stores or at thrift stores.

Observe the clothing choices of people around you who are not dressed according to predominant North American or European patterns. Maybe you'd prefer some of those styles.

Don't support the abuse and oppression of garment workers by buying cheap-ass flimsy clothing at discount stores. Instead of sending money to Ophelia or Greta (neither of whom appear to be reduced to desperate financial circumstances that require wearing cheap flimsy clothing purchased at Target or Walmart), spend it on fair trade clothing from Maggie's or similar.

Almost 200 comments on the post, and most of them are just whining about being oppressed by their clothing.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... e-pockets/

[d4m10n]

Anyway, it's really fascinating to see you turn yourselves inside out raving about how concerned you are about this one person, a fellow atheist, being at the same conference; you're just drawing more attention & creating drama. (Annnnd what a surprise that is.)

Yet another example of the fact that we got all of the reason-able people in the great schism of 2011, and they got all the reason-disabled.

Reason-ablist! Stop thinksplaining.

[Cunning Punt]

I think CFI will have to be very careful in their decisions if there happens to be reports against Justin. They'd better make sure they have all the evidence needed if they take actions. Else, it's going to look quite bad for them.

A bit like Stephanie regretting she won't be able to say certain things because there's a hostile in the room. What, she thinks Justin will take what she says without generous interpretation? That may well be the case, and would be totally deserved, seeing as a lot of people are at the Pit today because something they said was taken with the least generous interpretation. What's sauce for the glaargh is sauce for the shtubuu, and all that...

It's bollox anyway as anything anyone says at the conference will be in the public domain. I assume they will make audio and video recordings and have written transcripts online, so anyone can do a hatchet job remotely if they are so inclined: they don't have to be there.

[BarnOwl]

I feel like telling PZ, Ophelia, & Stephanie to GET A GRIP except that it seems likely they already have a grip & they're just trying to tighten it.

Seriously, though, they are acting like Chicken Little, or (amusingly enough) like sheltered theists who've never been outside their religious community & are scared that that atheist walking up to their door is a satan worshipper who is not only going to interrupt their bible study but also wants to drink their blood. :roll:

From everything I've seen (starting with investigating the claims made in that stupid petition to SCA, which is how I got kicked off the atheism plus forum), Justin Vacula is a regular person. He probably puts his pants on one leg at a time, though I didn't actually find evidence to support that claim. ;)

Yeah, I'm really sorry to burst your bubble, FtBers, but Justin Vacula is not actually evil incarnate, a terrorist, or violence-prone.

He's been more of an atheist activist & been more outspoken in public venues than 99% of people in the atheist community, with (as I understand it) particular attention to church-state separation issues.

Sure, he & Amy Davis Roth got into a spat and he posted something he ideally shouldn't have, but her business address actually was (and is) public information. (The search result that comes up for me also includes phone number & a map with a nice arrow on it. I'm not going to do anything with that information, but if she wanted her address to be secret, she should have used a PO Box.)

And during that whole DMCA thing he couldn't post on his own blog, and AVfM hosted a post of his; what of it? If one of you were to give a talk, at - for example - a woo conference in Minnesota in fall 2013 because you were invited, does that mean skeptics should discredit everything you say from then on?

Anyway, it's really fascinating to see you turn yourselves inside out raving about how concerned you are about this one person, a fellow atheist, being at the same conference; you're just drawing more attention & creating drama. (Annnnd what a surprise that is.)

Well said. I think it's all just drama for drama's sake. It draws attention away from the inconvenient truths about the lack of diversity at their meetings and amongst their precious inner circle, and about their inability or unwillingness to act upon their loudly-proclaimed social justice principles.

If they simply show up at the conference, in the face of possible harassment and threats from Justin (!), they are defying sexism and terrorism and making a stand against oppression! Brave SJWs! And they''re supporting diversity, because ... womynzz!? Or something.

[Ericb]

Kevin
April 29, 2013 at 11:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I still suggest buttons.

STOP: Justin Vacula Stay Away From Me.

Sell them for $1 each.

You’d make a ton of money.

Harassment!
Hostile environment!
Interfering with my conference experience!!111oneoneone

I ought to write a 7 page letter with 15 PDFs and send it to Melody. How dare they!111oneone

Justin, to alleviate their concerns you could wear one of these.

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3100/ ... 00.450.JPG

And to confuse them you can wear it with this:

http://i1.cpcache.com/product/299999134 ... &width=240

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I may have found the origins of this uber-feminism stuff: They watched Father Ted and didn't understand it was a comedy show.

[youtube]NRNjqfG7HKw[/youtube]

[Hunt]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-611392

On backpacks: I can’t always use them, unfortunately, and sometimes I don’t have enough crap to justify wearing one.

Shit whut I keep in the bags I carry:

multi-tool
a police baton
antacids
pens and pencils
a tablet (Galaxy Note)
aspirin
spare pads
caffeinated gum
my meds
spare bottle of water (it’s a desert around here. Stay hydrated or pass out.)
instant coffee
a few packets of sugar for the coffee
anti-nausea and/or bloating pills (my stomach is not a happy camper often)
a window popper (a tool for breaking safety glass)
a granola bar or packet of nuts (I forget to eat often)
lip balm
wallet
phone
keys
spare deodorant (I forget sometimes on the way out of the door)
sunscreen
a few safety pins
a Kindle
shit to grade or projects unable to be stored on the tablet

So, you know, enough shit to merit a bag, if I can remember to keep toting it along.

Wait, no space blanket? You mean to tell me you keep enough crap in your bag to survive a night on Everest, while remaining connected and able to fight off a horny fellow climber, and no space blanket? You know, it CAN get down to freezing in the desert at night.

[Hunt]

You know, I think I've finally figured out why PZ writes posts like that. It's not that he actually believes that things like clothing can be oppression. Otherwise, why no post on 70s bell-bottoms, which would then have been a massive misanthropic campaign to destroy humanity. It's his weird way of flirting with his harem of SJW women.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Atheism Plus practical clothes. I'm all out of facepalms.

[AbsurdWalls]

Even now I like a suit jacket with a couple of outside pockets and four in the lining, and I usually come home from a trip with all six stuffed with something or other.

:( :o :(