If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

JackRayner wrote:*groan*

How many more times do we have to go through this BS?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 9b66a9.png

Source

You know, I don't even have a problem with some of that shit, but that's not the point. None of that has anything to do with not believing in/rejecting deities . Why do atheists keep trying to play this "We're moral/more moral!" game?

[And no, I don't give two shits if it's a quote from so-and-so. And don't even get me started on how stupid I think this "monument" is.]

Living not far from that monument, it's the most amazing job of trolling fundies EVER. The amount of drama a fucking bit of granite is causing is glorious. Simply glorious.

AnonymousCowherd wrote:

JackSkeptic wrote:

Gumby wrote: Do you have an issue with my use of Hitler's head? Is this crossing a post-WWII legal line in some countries like Germany where you may reside, or does it make you uncomfortable because of possible Jewish heritage or something? Normally I'm of the prevailing Pit attitude that just about anything goes here and people who complain can fuck off, but in this case I certainly can understand discomfort. It's something I just didn't consider when making that avatar, probably because I'm just a dumb gawd-and-guns bible thumping unsophisticated Merkin who thinks the world ends at Murka's borders. Or so some people here seem to think.

If you and Lsuoma want, I can make him another avatar no prob.

While I have no dog in this fight it may well be the Swastika which is considered verboten in Germany. Using it in any way can get people into deep trouble an that may extend to a person viewing a forum which allows it. There are limited exceptions but they would not apply here. Anyway I may be wrong.

There's just something wrong associating that face you just want to slap with something attractive.

Clearly you've never been in a relationship before.

More from Ann Brusseel - I played this clip on Brave Hero Radio and have now uploaded it.

[youtube]mlNwoR5w45U[/youtube]

sKepptiksowat wrote:Lsuoma and the few pit sycophants are hypocrites, plain and simple.

A little bit of dissent/criticism and the troll accusations fly? Ironic.

Banning someone for threatening to use a sockpuppet? Wut?

Putting someone in moderation for dissing the pit? You must be joking.

Flipping out over a joke about giving orders? Ego.

Pedantic fainting couch bullshit about slurs? Embarrassing.

Is there anything more fftb-ish? Same coin different side.

There's more but I ain't got time for dat.

Bubble: You're in one.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/sca ... crite.jpeg

Nothing to do with dissent (about what, exactly)?t or dissing the Pit. Where's the fainting couch? Anyone talking about 'rage tears' or any shit like that. The issue, as should be obvious to anyone without an agenda, is the combativeness right out of the gate and the repeated blatant attempts to push boundaries, not to mention the stuff about Wonderist knowing what he was in for. The troll practically came out and said that he was going to stir shit. He made it obvious that he wasn't here to participate in any way. It it was about dissent your bitter 'n twisted backside would have been gone long ago.

KiwiInOz wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:At the risk of starting an IT Poo Fling, I have a pressing tech question for the 'Pit. OHH NOES!!!11!!

I have a MacBook Air with a Thunderbolt Port, and I want to use it for a Q & A session via Skype in the lecture hall, because webcam. Currently, I have no way to connect said computer to the projector in the lecture hall. Is this Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter the thing I need to buy to interface my Mac with the projector? The VGA-side connection looks like the one that works for my old MacBook Pro (which has a version of OS X so ancient that it's not Skype-compatible), with the lecture hall projector.

Have you tried turning it off and back on again?

That's the limit of my IT knowledge burned out in one bright shining supernova.

That's the limit to the IT knowledge of every IT manager I've ever worked with.

KiwiInOz wrote:

karlaporter wrote::clap: A round of applause for JV's diligent conference coverage. He takes a lot of flack, even here. But where credit earned it should be recognized IMO. He indeed did NOT misstep in the Capital of Eire.

He did do very well. And kudos.

(Most of the flack is good natured, and Justin handles it with aplomb)

He does handle it with aplomb - though there are some ridiculously dramatic rotten twittersphere tomatoes being lobbed his way:

bhoytony wrote:Speaking of anal rape, I'm watching Spain being royally fucked up the Gary Glitter by Brazil.

Was watching that over breakfast. But... Up the Rabbitohs!

Barael wrote:

JackRayner wrote:*groan*

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 9b66a9.png

Source

You know, I don't even have a problem with some of that shit, but that's not the point. None of that has anything to do with not believing in/rejecting deities . Why do atheists keep trying to play this "We're moral/more moral!" game?

[And no, I don't give two shits if it's a quote from so-and-so. And don't even get me started on how stupid I think this "monument" is.]

Hear hear. The quote is apparently from Madalyn Murray O'hair, which I actually held in somewhat higher regard before this. The whole "atheist (must do) does this or that" is pretty face-palm worthy in light of recent developments, regardless of whether you actually agree with her edicts (and like you, I mostly do). Maybe shouldn't be too harsh on her though seeing as she was fighting a much steeper up hill battle in her time than any of the New Atheist did, let alone parasites like Priest Myers.

That's fair. I still find myself disagreeing with the whole "we're moral too!" game. The whole thing seems childish to me, though I guess "I don't need god to be moral" is a lot easier for the layperson to follow [and more palatable] than "morality is subjective"...

welch wrote:Living not far from that monument, it's the most amazing job of trolling fundies EVER. The amount of drama a fucking bit of granite is causing is glorious. Simply glorious.

Well, when you put it that way, I guess I can appreciate it a little more... :think:

Linus wrote:Hai guise. Kool website.

Once upon a time I was browsing around somethingawful's "debate and discussion" forum and found myself in some feminism mega-threads. It was there I became acquainted with what I'll call SJW culture/ideology. I followed these threads with a sense of morbid fascination, because it was like being in some sort of bizarro world. Accusations of privilege, mansplaining, triggering rape victims, derailing, not knowing "feminism 101" and "making the thread about men" were thrown around with little to no discernable rhyme or reason.

At first my thoughts on the experience were just like "damn, somethingawful is a weird and fucked up place". But then I started seeing some of the same lingo, tactics and ideas used in other places. On veggieboards. On a popular video game streamer's channel. On Joe Rogan's podcast. The Warren Farrell protest in Toronto. And in following the discussion of the TAM controversy on the JREF forums I became acquainted with FTB and later on atheismplus. So... I'm still not sure quite how "mainstream" this shit is as far as self identified feminists, social justice, civil rights and humanist activist type people go, but it is apparently more prevalent than I initially realized. Which is weird because before like a year or two ago I don't think I'd ever really encountered this culture/ideology as far as I can remember.

Does anyone have any insights on where this brand of SJWism comes from?

....

I don't know one specific 'rule' or 'concept' that covers it. I have noticed that all social movements (eventually) become co-opted by power seekers and are (frequently) hijacked by other movements. These power-seekers tend to act as if/proclaim they're working toward some type "ideal," "fair" or "Utopian" society. However, once you get past the egalitarian facade, you'll often find their nothing more than closet totalitarians who are looking to accumulate power, wealth and prestige for themselves.

Mostly these movements/factions self-destruct. However, that self-destruction process (which usually involves enforcing ideological purity within its own ranks and is quick to move against its fellow travelers in purity purges) can be messy and effect a lot of innocents. Especially those who caught on fast, denounced and were driven off or targeted as the 'external enemy.'

In extreme cases, these groups can throw-off terrorist groups (not that I'm thinking you're going to see that with feminism, but it has happened with other kinds of political ideologies that follow the Utopian path). The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and the Red Brigades in the 1970s are classic examples of Utopian splinter-groups that combined the moral certitude of their closed and pure ideology combined with violence that was considered 'necessary' to bring about the revolution as well as 'cleansing' of society.

You might want to read up on "Elite Theory," "The Iron Law of Oligarchy," "Mass Society" and other theories. They deal more at the government level of countries, but many of these concepts can be brought down to small groups. Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 have, to some extent, used these kinds of ideas/observations to portray those societies and their corruption of ideals, as did Vonnegut, most noteably in his short story Harrison Bergeron (and to lesser extents in other works). Both Islandia and Utopia dwell upon the unintended consequences of pursing the Utopian ideal. I'm sure there are many more such stories/books in both the fiction and non-fiction literature that illustrate these concepts.

(Utopia, btw, is a god-awful read as so many classics are.... Islandia is ok at first, but bogs down about halfway through.)

Cunning Punt wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:At the risk of starting an IT Poo Fling, I have a pressing tech question for the 'Pit. OHH NOES!!!11!!

I have a MacBook Air with a Thunderbolt Port, and I want to use it for a Q & A session via Skype in the lecture hall, because webcam. Currently, I have no way to connect said computer to the projector in the lecture hall. Is this Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter the thing I need to buy to interface my Mac with the projector? The VGA-side connection looks like the one that works for my old MacBook Pro (which has a version of OS X so ancient that it's not Skype-compatible), with the lecture hall projector.

Have you tried turning it off and back on again?

That's the limit of my IT knowledge burned out in one bright shining supernova.

That's the limit to the IT knowledge of every IT manager I've ever worked with.

that's because the ones who know shit are somewhat discerning in who they will work for :-P

JackRayner wrote:*groan*

How many more times do we have to go through this BS?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... 9b66a9.png

Source

You know, I don't even have a problem with some of that shit, but that's not the point. None of that has anything to do with not believing in/rejecting deities . Why do atheists keep trying to play this "We're moral/more moral!" game?

[And no, I don't give two shits if it's a quote from so-and-so. And don't even get me started on how stupid I think this "monument" is.]

It's misogynist - uses the normative "he."

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

Aneris wrote:So here is an example of what I would consider as "rape culture", contrast this with Watson's complains a few posts above. Warning, Graphic Images taken from Advertisement.

I'm not agreeing with all headlines they make, and some images are less clear than others (again, slippery slope issue) and the bulgarian one (afaik) is taken from an awareness campaign. ... and just as I type this, someone tweets back that "some are no problem", which I find a dubious way of looking at it. Value judgements like these aren't math. If they are halfway decent, people draw (slightly) different lines, but some slight difference can't be the reason to appear defending the whole set.

Not so easy ... the vast majority of those I am more than happy with.

Most qualify easily as art ... and like it or not, art is in the eye of the beholder, the purpose of art is to challenge, inspire, tempt, shock, or cause some other visceral emotion

Most are well within the bounds of BDSM fantasies, and I personally know women for whom many of those pictures qualifies as their ultimate fantasy.

A few of them are dubious, but I am more than happy to put my doubts aside as they are all out of context, and the only context they sit within is the article which is trying to create sensation. I would give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether they are legitimate art or not. Many pieces of art shock and repel me. Most pieces of art I would personally say are junk/garbage, but each to their own


The other pertinent thing is that most of the advertisements there are selling to women, not to men.

As a service top I have a whole different perspective on many of the photos.

I will say I find most of them boring but some of them were really stupid. That one with the purse over the woman's head. Putting a belt around a person's neck. What an incredibly stupid thing to do. You use a collar so the sub can't choke if you fuck up. Rule #1 is if the Top has a problem, like a heart attack, the sub must never be in actual, physical danger.

karlaporter wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:

karlaporter wrote::clap: A round of applause for JV's diligent conference coverage. He takes a lot of flack, even here. But where credit earned it should be recognized IMO. He indeed did NOT misstep in the Capital of Eire.

He did do very well. And kudos.

(Most of the flack is good natured, and Justin handles it with aplomb)

He does handle it with aplomb - though there are some ridiculously dramatic rotten twittersphere tomatoes being lobbed his way:

Fuck me, but those women are ridiculous. This is what today's feminism does to women? What a bunch of self-pitying fearful twaddle. Whatever. They can keep feeling like terrified victims (or pretending to be terrified victims in order to perpetuate the well poisoning). The more they try the more Justin should just be himself.

karlaporter wrote::clap: A round of applause for JV's diligent conference coverage. He takes a lot of flack, even here. But where credit earned it should be recognized IMO. He indeed did NOT misstep in the Capital of Eire.

The game's not over until the neutrally gendered, possibly obese (or not) person sings... ;)

karlaporter wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:

karlaporter wrote::clap: A round of applause for JV's diligent conference coverage. He takes a lot of flack, even here. But where credit earned it should be recognized IMO. He indeed did NOT misstep in the Capital of Eire.

He did do very well. And kudos.

(Most of the flack is good natured, and Justin handles it with aplomb)

He does handle it with aplomb - though there are some ridiculously dramatic rotten twittersphere tomatoes being lobbed his way:

So apparently a (female) speaker suggesting that mens rights should be included in human rights reduces an attendee to tears and Justin Vacula gets the blame. Is there a latin phrase for something like "comedy of idiots" that I'm having trouble remembering?

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... n-ireland/

OMFG, I can't believe no one noticed the lack of policy before. Justin, that's some awesome stuff there. Love you man. LOVE YOU.

karlaporter wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:

karlaporter wrote::clap: A round of applause for JV's diligent conference coverage. He takes a lot of flack, even here. But where credit earned it should be recognized IMO. He indeed did NOT misstep in the Capital of Eire.

He did do very well. And kudos.

(Most of the flack is good natured, and Justin handles it with aplomb)

He does handle it with aplomb - though there are some ridiculously dramatic rotten twittersphere tomatoes being lobbed his way:

Those are worth posting directly:

Also, exactly when did Damion become such a fucking tit?

karlaporter wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:

karlaporter wrote::clap: A round of applause for JV's diligent conference coverage. He takes a lot of flack, even here. But where credit earned it should be recognized IMO. He indeed did NOT misstep in the Capital of Eire.

He did do very well. And kudos.

(Most of the flack is good natured, and Justin handles it with aplomb)

He does handle it with aplomb - though there are some ridiculously dramatic rotten twittersphere tomatoes being lobbed his way:

Those women are just too stupid for words.

welch wrote:http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... n-ireland/

OMFG, I can't believe no one noticed the lack of policy before. Justin, that's some awesome stuff there. Love you man. LOVE YOU.

They did end up posting conduct guidelines, Justin wrote about them here:
http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... uidelines/

and talked about them in the first of his 2 shows from Dublin

(They seem quite reasonable; not clear whether or not the 2 women who tweeted their concern tried to privately have the conference staff make things more comfortable for them, and of course Rorschach's tweet about Justin as "MRA drone" does seem to be in violation of the policy)

Gumby wrote:

karlaporter wrote: He does handle it with aplomb - though there are some ridiculously dramatic rotten twittersphere tomatoes being lobbed his way:

Fuck me, but those women are ridiculous. This is what today's feminism does to women? What a bunch of self-pitying fearful twaddle. Whatever. They can keep feeling like terrified victims (or pretending to be terrified victims in order to perpetuate the well poisoning). The more they try the more Justin should just be himself.

It's this kind of crap that just sets me off. The image these women put out is that women are all a bunch of weepy, scared-of-our-own-shadows, ready to faint at moment's notice bunch of complete pantie wastes (yeah, I went there). By constantly crying about how unsafe they feel in completely fucking safe atmospheres, they are doing so much more harm than any good they could ever hope to achieve.

Thanks, asshats.

Metalogic42 wrote:

Aneris wrote:...

I'm not ashamed of what I said - in the future, if you mention something I said, attach my name to it please. And I'm not defending all of them (as I said on Twitter); although I would say that anyone claiming that their wrongdoing is based on these ads would have done wrong anyway, some of them are distasteful in a culturally independent way. Others, however, are based on cultural tropes and aren't examples of violence/objectification. The problem I have with the linked article is that it's applying the same standard to every image, culturally dependent or not, tropes be damned. Arguing against something for the wrong reasons can be just as bad as arguing for it.

Don't freak out ;)

Now that chrome ate my comment, another attempt. There are premises that I don't share. For example, the implication what these ads "do" is an aspect that was secondary for me, so far. But the idea that somone uses advertisements as some sort of manual is too simplistic. The industry is paid for promoting a particular lifestyle around brands and it can indeed promote the wrong ideas. Certainly, the corporate world believes that advertisement makes people "want" to emulate what is shown to them. To which extend which elements influence whom is something we can hardly estimate and it is strictly beside the point.

JackRayner makes a valid point that the images were selected for schock, yet he seems to have a different assumption on what I mean with “rape culture”. I use the term loosely to define attitudes in some sub-cultures where violence against women is trivialized. I assume that’s different in each country, but it manifests here especially among low income and less educated men, who have a very visible macho attitude and also treat “their girls” like shit. They see those ads not as an artsy statement, the ads are an idealized from of their attitudes (which is how avertisement can and often does work).

Here is also were I disagree with @DeepInsideYourMind, who argues that it is essentially just art and therefore fine and dandy. The target audience aren't artsy people who appear to reflect alot about what is presented to them. And once it comes to art, we have to pay attention to the exact poses and what is displayed there. Choking of women and similar imagery are domestic violence territory. I don't believe that anyone looks at it and thinks “awesome”, this is a too simplistic view on how advertisement works.

The main point with Metalogic42 though comes close to the sharpshooter fallacy or some sort of statistical fallacy. Is the issue that some members of the set are selected to make a particular (wrong) point, or is the point overall correct and just the members of the set are arguable? Now, for that we would need to know what everyone understands of what "the point" was. If the point was that "advertisement gloryfies violence against women" then this point was made, even though some people would have picked some other examples.

Once that is determined, the issue was with the reply. I’d like to use a non-Godwin example that should nonetheless illustrate it. Provided someone made the following statement: “The Nazis invaded Europe and killed millions of people”. A response like this one certainly would raise some eyebrows: “Wrong, wrong! All wrong. They didn’t invaded Europe, as the German Reich was itself a part of Europe, you can’t technically invade something you are part from”. Maybe this point is lost on someone who has difficulties with getting the nuances of communication (i.e. Asberger conditions etc), but otherwise it should be clear what is meant.

It boils down to priorities. If the meaning of the overall point is correct (which is far less trivial than it seems, requires interpretation etc.), then it is in the interest to go along with it, and point out inconsistencies in the detail. Otherwise, the reply will be understood as adversarial (in regards to the statement, but see definition issues).

Skep tickle wrote:

Those are worth posting directly:

They're equivocating. When they say they're worried because they thought it was a safe place and it isn't, they know you'll think that means they are worried about some sort of assault, but they're using that stupid definition of safe space which means a place where no one will disagree with them.

PZ walked out on what im assuming is Catherine O'Brien talk. Perhaps JV can confirm

karlaporter wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:

karlaporter wrote::clap: A round of applause for JV's diligent conference coverage. He takes a lot of flack, even here. But where credit earned it should be recognized IMO. He indeed did NOT misstep in the Capital of Eire.

He did do very well. And kudos.

(Most of the flack is good natured, and Justin handles it with aplomb)

He does handle it with aplomb - though there are some ridiculously dramatic rotten twittersphere tomatoes being lobbed his way:

I don't mean to attack random people, but I do wonder how people extroverted enough to go to conferences and meet new people can so easily feel attacked. The "no one can say anything not nice about me anywhere on the web" gang won't do these people any favors.

welch wrote:http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... n-ireland/

OMFG, I can't believe no one noticed the lack of policy before. Justin, that's some awesome stuff there. Love you man. LOVE YOU.

LOL! I heard him talking about policies at the top of the first podcast. I hit the snooze button. Should've paid attention!

welch wrote:Also, exactly when did Damion become such a fucking tit?

Always

welch wrote:

karlaporter wrote::clap: A round of applause for JV's diligent conference coverage. He takes a lot of flack, even here. But where credit earned it should be recognized IMO. He indeed did NOT misstep in the Capital of Eire.

Indeed, he seems to have done a great job of it.

Can I put in a shoop request for conquering General JV riding into the Slymepit (aka Rome) on a chariot for his triumph with slymepitter of choice beside him whispering Remember you are only mortal".

I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

JustAtheist wrote:

PZ walked out on what im assuming is Catherine O'Brien talk. Perhaps JV can confirm

Listen to the wimmen

Aycenne wrote:I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

I'm not sure how seeing some images makes it unsafe, could you explain?

karlaporter wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:

karlaporter wrote::clap: A round of applause for JV's diligent conference coverage. He takes a lot of flack, even here. But where credit earned it should be recognized IMO. He indeed did NOT misstep in the Capital of Eire.

He did do very well. And kudos.

(Most of the flack is good natured, and Justin handles it with aplomb)

He does handle it with aplomb - though there are some ridiculously dramatic rotten twittersphere tomatoes being lobbed his way:

Wow. Are these wilting violets scared of their own shadows?

I foresee a documentary entitled: Justin Vacula. The Man. The Myth.

Aycenne wrote:I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

Are you comfortable with sharing what kind of images they were?

Unsafe, as in triggered flashbacks. Feelings of being trapped, doom, panic attacks etc. Rarely happens unless images are very traumatising, speaker herself was close to tears. Utterly no mention of it beforehand, not even a hint it would be covered.
Justin seemed like a totally nice guy when I met him, which is why i couldn't believe how flippant he was of something that is very real and painful for me.

Aycenne wrote:I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

And if you feel we rushed to judgement (I'll admit I do that a lot) it's only because people have treated Justin like he was a threat, going so far as to insinuate that he is a rapist.

Women being tied up, beaten etc. Quite graphic. Am very outgoing and confident, so to elicit that kinda effect they were pretty serious.

JAB wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:

Those are worth posting directly:

They're equivocating. When they say they're worried because they thought it was a safe place and it isn't, they know you'll think that means they are worried about some sort of assault, but they're using that stupid definition of safe space which means a place where no one will disagree with them.

It reduced her to tears because JV was in the same building? Maybe she should seek therapy if she can't handle being within a few hundred feet of someone who has a minor difference of opinion with her.

(I know that sounds mean, but if people genuinely live their lives experiencing such strong emotional reactions to what most people would consider a non-event then they have a psychological disorder. But for some reason it's acceptable to remark on how someone has a broken leg, but call into question their mental health and it's taboo. If people treated (socially/culturally) psychological issues in the manner they treated traditional medical ones then the world would be a happier place.)

But I suspect she's actually an attention whore and the tweet was simply to garner sympathy (mostly faked sympathy) from others in order to generate an emotional high. A leech, draining emotional energy from others to feed her addiction.

Aycenne wrote:Women being tied up, beaten etc. Quite graphic. Am very outgoing and confident, so to elicit that kinda effect they were pretty serious.

Well I'll fess up to speaking without having enough information. Apologies.

i still fail to see what this has to do with Justin commenting on anti-harassment policies.

Aycenne wrote:I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

I also made that assumption, and my judgement of the that specific twitterer is incorrect. Sorry to whomever I misconstrued, for whatever it's worth.

However, the gist of my post still applies to an awful lot of the crap you see about people not feeling 'safe' at conferences/around Vacula etc etc.

Thank you. Neither me or Becca have a problem with Justin, were both surprised at how he seemed flippant is all.
We also had never heard of him before this, so this whole thing about us being scared of him attacking us is nonsense.

Kareem wrote:

Aycenne wrote:Women being tied up, beaten etc. Quite graphic. Am very outgoing and confident, so to elicit that kinda effect they were pretty serious.

Well I'll fess up to speaking without having enough information. Apologies.

If I may, you still don't have "information", merely the OPINION of one person. Which, without EVIDENCE, can be *FLOOSH* dismissed per the Hitchens quote.

Kareem wrote:

karlaporter wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:
He did do very well. And kudos.

(Most of the flack is good natured, and Justin handles it with aplomb)

He does handle it with aplomb - though there are some ridiculously dramatic rotten twittersphere tomatoes being lobbed his way:

I don't mean to attack random people, but I do wonder how people extroverted enough to go to conferences and meet new people can so easily feel attacked. The "no one can say anything not nice about me anywhere on the web" gang won't do these people any favors.

IIRC, the entire conference was 120 people. A half-assed movie premiere has more people. So it's not like it's a big crowd.

Aycenne wrote:Thank you. Neither me or Becca have a problem with Justin, were both surprised at how he seemed flippant is all.
We also had never heard of him before this, so this whole thing about us being scared of him attacking us is nonsense.

OPINION with no EVIDENCE. *FLOOSH* dismissed as irrelevant.

Aycenne wrote:Unsafe, as in triggered flashbacks. Feelings of being trapped, doom, panic attacks etc. Rarely happens unless images are very traumatising, speaker herself was close to tears. Utterly no mention of it beforehand, not even a hint it would be covered.
Justin seemed like a totally nice guy when I met him, which is why i couldn't believe how flippant he was of something that is very real and painful for me.

Thanks for clarifying. A meme has been developed and propagated by some that Justin Vacula is the antichrist and that no woman can feel safe in his presence. It is complete and utter bullshit. Eppur si muove.

FWIW I agree that the speaker should have put up a warning about images that may distress some people as a matter of common courtesy.

Aycenne wrote:I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

I'm sorry you felt this way. I'm not even sure what images you're referring to, as Justin Vacula is generally speaking, a fluffy little bunny. I sincerely hope you weren't triggered by JV or somebody else from this forum. I think we need a little more context. What images made you feel he was being flippant toward you?

It is my hope that you are able to feel secure and safe in the future. I'm glad that you weren't scared of Justin Vacula.

Images, even violent images, stop at the other end of the computer. Unfortunately flippant images work the same way.
http://cdn.dottech.org/media/2013/01/sm ... r_eric.gif

Aycenne wrote:I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

I think this shows how lousy twitter is at conveying anything complicated. I wish you and others wouldn't use it in such a way that it could accidently affect others reputations.

I may be wrong but weren't the images in question from mass media campaigns?

Parody Accountant wrote:

welch wrote:http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... n-ireland/

OMFG, I can't believe no one noticed the lack of policy before. Justin, that's some awesome stuff there. Love you man. LOVE YOU.

LOL! I heard him talking about policies at the top of the first podcast. I hit the snooze button. Should've paid attention!

Ah, didn't listen to those. Was going by his post.

Hemisphere wrote:

Aycenne wrote:I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

I also made that assumption, and my judgement of the that specific twitterer is incorrect. Sorry to whomever I misconstrued, for whatever it's worth.

However, the gist of my post still applies to an awful lot of the crap you see about people not feeling 'safe' at conferences/around Vacula etc etc.

I too assumed it was because of Justin's presence (the linking to his post about no conference policy and inclusion of his twitter handle seemed to suggest that).

Did you tell conference staff about your experience and concerns? Even if there is nothing they can do to un-show the images, but rather to give feedback for future conferences (they say at the end of the conference policy that they welcome such feedback).

KiwiInOz wrote:

Aycenne wrote:Unsafe, as in triggered flashbacks. Feelings of being trapped, doom, panic attacks etc. Rarely happens unless images are very traumatising, speaker herself was close to tears. Utterly no mention of it beforehand, not even a hint it would be covered.
Justin seemed like a totally nice guy when I met him, which is why i couldn't believe how flippant he was of something that is very real and painful for me.

Thanks for clarifying. A meme has been developed and propagated by some that Justin Vacula is the antichrist and that no woman can feel safe in his presence. It is complete and utter bullshit. Eppur si muove.

FWIW I agree that the speaker should have put up a warning about images that may distress some people as a matter of common courtesy.

Anteater guy, until you've seen these alleged images, which is what we scientists call EVIDENCE, the OPINION of one person can be *FLOOSH* dismissed per the Hitchens quote.

Aycenne wrote:I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

You're quite welcome for expecting people who aren't you to read your mind and ignore rather a lot of context and shockingly, get something wrong from a twitter post.

See how easy it is to play that game? Yes, clearly your words were misunderstood, however, given the utter lack of context, this is hardly surprising or shocking. As someone who has dealt with multiple forms of trauma across decades, unfortunately, the rest of the world is not going to know what will trigger you or not. At some point, one must become responsible for one's reaction to life, and it's bumps. I think you'd be rather put out if I expected you to compensate for all the things that might trigger me. Fortunately, I don't. I expect those are, literally, my problems to deal with and so I do.

Let me see if I've got this right. Somebody showed some shocking images (I'm assuming this was one of the speakers). Justin writes a blogpost about the hypocrisy of certain speakers not calling for an anti-harassment policy when they have been very vocal about this in the past.
Now Justin is once again the bad guy. I don't see the connection.

Aycenne wrote:Unsafe, as in triggered flashbacks. Feelings of being trapped, doom, panic attacks etc. Rarely happens unless images are very traumatising, speaker herself was close to tears. Utterly no mention of it beforehand, not even a hint it would be covered.
Justin seemed like a totally nice guy when I met him, which is why i couldn't believe how flippant he was of something that is very real and painful for me.

Because he's not you? How is anyone who is not you supposed to feel what you feel to the same degree? It may be, and this is a bit kooky i know, that Justin didn't realize how badly you were affected.

Or, he's a cold, uncaring bastard. I suppose either explanation is likely.

I was planning on giving feedback at the Q + A next day - but got more upset that night and ended up not going in. Didn't expect anyone to be looking at my twitter tbh, a 20 year old student!
Also if anyone actually looked at my twitter timeline, you'd see that I explained what exactly my issue was as I have here.
I'm pretty good at avoiding grpahic images/preparing myself for them in certain spaces. I naively assumed that at an Empowering Women conference that they would make provision for survivors (1 in 4 women) and just at least give a heads up. It was the first talk on a Secularism and State panel, I REALLY wasn't expecting it!

bhoytony wrote:Let me see if I've got this right. Somebody showed some shocking images (I'm assuming this was one of the speakers). Justin writes a blogpost about the hypocrisy of certain speakers not calling for an anti-harassment policy when they have been very vocal about this in the past.
Now Justin is once again the bad guy. I don't see the connection.

Justin wrote about the (seemingly) lack of a harassment policy which means there was no guarantee that certain imagery would be used, such as the triggering images.
I'm guessing.

Random observation. I've noted a few times recently, that FTBers take over "our" keywords and try to turn them around... I can't find more examples off the top of my mind, but remember this one.

Avicenna wrote:I have kept out of the “FTB/Slymepit” malarky mainly because it has never been personal. [...] What? No Jennifer McCreight? I am shocked! She is a founding member of the “Witches of FTB”.

Latching onto the Witch of the Week meme? Since Thibeault also complains about our "mythologies", it seems the other sides of the stories (i.e. outside of the FTB hivemind main story arc) are being heard. They are pretty good at immunization, so it is to be expected they come up with ways to use established facts everyone has heard of (Grothe, Ellen Beth Wachs, Dawkins, Shermer etc.) and appropriate them for their cause.

By their own ideology, McCreight can't be a witch, since she belongs to the "establishment", the (semi-)prominence with speaker roles and other perks, i.e. the privileged position (another underlying irony in this whole drama, with even more religious undercurrents, i.e. Christian majority that nonetheless styles themselves as being persecuted).

Aycenne wrote:I am twitter user @aycenne - feel I should clarify. Some shocking and traumatising images were used very early on with no warning. As a trauma survivor did not return as did not feel secure or safe. Was disappointed that someone who attended and I thought cared about women's empowerment was so flippant.

But thanks for completely miscontruing my words and thinking I was attacking Justin directly/scared of him.

Thank you for clarifying. This is exactly the reason I was tweeting with you about it, trying to get an understanding. It was not possible to know about that on Twitter, the virtual experience is not the same. I absolutely meant no disrespect and I am very sympathetic to your status of trauma survivor. I have no desire to cause anyone pain, wish you the best and if I have hurt your feelings in any way.. you have my sincere apology.

Aycenne wrote:Thank you. Neither me or Becca have a problem with Justin, were both surprised at how he seemed flippant is all.
We also had never heard of him before this, so this whole thing about us being scared of him attacking us is nonsense.

Not from our point of view and our context. It wasn't true in your case, but it would not be the first time people have literally demanded extra security because of his mere presence, or that he not be allowed in the building at all.

But, as you're clearly not aware of that context, it would be unfair to take you to task for not understanding our reaction when there's no possible way you could understand why we would react in such a way.

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

KiwiInOz wrote:

Aycenne wrote:Unsafe, as in triggered flashbacks. Feelings of being trapped, doom, panic attacks etc. Rarely happens unless images are very traumatising, speaker herself was close to tears. Utterly no mention of it beforehand, not even a hint it would be covered.
Justin seemed like a totally nice guy when I met him, which is why i couldn't believe how flippant he was of something that is very real and painful for me.

Thanks for clarifying. A meme has been developed and propagated by some that Justin Vacula is the antichrist and that no woman can feel safe in his presence. It is complete and utter bullshit. Eppur si muove.

FWIW I agree that the speaker should have put up a warning about images that may distress some people as a matter of common courtesy.

Anteater guy, until you've seen these alleged images, which is what we scientists call EVIDENCE, the OPINION of one person can be *FLOOSH* dismissed per the Hitchens quote.

http://www.hdwpapers.com/thumbs/south_p ... nny-t2.jpg

Aneris wrote:Random observation. I've noted a few times recently, that FTBers take over "our" keywords and try to turn them around... I can't find more examples off the top of my mind, but remember this one.

Avicenna wrote:I have kept out of the “FTB/Slymepit” malarky mainly because it has never been personal. [...] What? No Jennifer McCreight? I am shocked! She is a founding member of the “Witches of FTB”.

Latching onto the Witch of the Week meme? Since Thibeault also complains about our "mythologies", it seems the other sides of the stories (i.e. outside of the FTB hivemind main story arc) are being heard. They are pretty good at immunization, so it is to be expected they come up with ways to use established facts everyone has heard of (Grothe, Ellen Beth Wachs, Dawkins, Shermer etc.) and appropriate them for their cause.

By their own ideology, McCreight can't be a witch, since she belongs to the "establishment", the (semi-)prominence with speaker roles and other perks, i.e. the privileged position (another underlying irony in this whole drama, with even more religious undercurrents, i.e. Christian majority that nonetheless styles themselves as being persecuted).

Wait, I thought you couldn't be a witch unless you were a literal witch. Crommunist, help me out.