Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
If you're a whiny middle-class college-educated white baboonTigzy wrote:And this is harassment how, exactly?
A small sampling of losers worthy only of half-assed mocking derision.Skeeve wrote:Oh, and I have to say, I'm not digging on these people:
LeftSidePositive
Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the FreethoughtBlogs Star Chamber
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
screechymonkey
hyperdeath
Utakata
Matt Penfold
The Pint
Seriously, who the fuck are they?
Legally it could be simple assault.Tigzy wrote: Right...so if I'm reading this correctly, a man she didn't know tried to hug her, and she had to put out a hand to stop it from happening. Given that she would no doubt have made it quite clear if the man would have ignored the hand, I think it's safe to assume the guy took the hint.
He tried to hug her, she put up a hand, he got the message so he didn't hug her.
And this is harassment how, exactly?
no. There's security camera footage of him really existing, apparently. He's the new Mr. X.Søren Lilholt wrote: P.S. Is 'Hug Guy' the new 'Elevator Guy'?
Oh its, much much worse than that:Søren Lilholt wrote:
1. Someone wearing a t-shirt saying they felt safe and happy.
2. Someone making a standard gesture of friendship to a fellow attendee.
Pure Chaucerian poetry.
With that shirt? No. Unless he was this "skeptic" and was trying to deny it. Otherwise, it would be factually correct. How that could be taken as an insult...Skeeve wrote:Oh, and I have to say, I'm not digging on these people:
LeftSidePositive
Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the FreethoughtBlogs Star Chamber
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
screechymonkey
hyperdeath
Utakata
Matt Penfold
The Pint
Seriously, who the fuck are they?
Also, I missed this big PZ fail: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-222296
Anyone see the problem with his "shirt"?Hmmm. I could legitimately get a t-shirt like this:
I’m a doctor
Not a “skepdocâ€
Not a “doctoral skepticâ€
Just a skeptic
But that would be petty and an obvious snipe at an intelligent and well-spoken person who goes by the name “skepdocâ€, so I can’t imagine why I would.
Unless I really wanted to be an asshole.
The trap worked? How is that a problem?EveryMan wrote:Oh its, much much worse than that:Søren Lilholt wrote:
1. Someone wearing a t-shirt saying they felt safe and happy.
2. Someone making a standard gesture of friendship to a fellow attendee.
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/hug-me-at-tam/
Anyone see the problem?
Optimus Primate wrote:I'm just gonna leave this here: Sometimes, talking about sexism IS the problem.
Let me help by reposting her shirt:Badger3k wrote:With that shirt? No. Unless he was this "skeptic" and was trying to deny it. Otherwise, it would be factually correct. How that could be taken as an insult...Skeeve wrote:
Also, I missed this big PZ fail: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-222296
Anyone see the problem with his "shirt"?Hmmm. I could legitimately get a t-shirt like this:
I’m a doctor
Not a “skepdocâ€
Not a “doctoral skepticâ€
Just a skeptic
But that would be petty and an obvious snipe at an intelligent and well-spoken person who goes by the name “skepdocâ€, so I can’t imagine why I would.
Unless I really wanted to be an asshole.
You've been doing a fine job - but there's no need for frustration. Sit back, take stock of the whole thing, and just look at the comedy of it all.reasonabel wrote:The thing is, these people haven't examined their arguments thoroughly at all. Not even a slight glance. They're actually resistant to that to an extent that it makes a mockery of any claims to skepticism. People have been telling me that i'm ignoring their arguments when I post a response they go away to be replaced by another shithead.
I actually agreed with most of their points in numerous threads, but if I disagree on one or two points I disagree with them all. This isn't normal human interaction, its interrupting an echo chamber. I'm sure most of you already know this, but I had to get out some frustration.
Legally it could be simple assault.EveryMan wrote:
Careful, dude! You'll be getting Justicar back in here soon with his 30,000 word screeds...EveryMan wrote:
Legally it could be simple assault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#United_States
Basically, giving the implication that you are going to touch someone that doesn't want to be touched.
Btw, next time you see a kid playing the "I'm not touching you!" game, make sure to point out that they are engaging in criminal behavior.
Look about 7 posts upthread. hehLsuoma wrote:
Also, this is one of the UD definitions of a skepchick:
Without having good independent evidence of what actually happened, it is possible it was an initial case of mistake identity. Embarrassing for both but not an attempt at harassment.Za-zen wrote:The hug was obviously a potential rape situation catch up on feminism 101 ffs
:lol:You'll be getting Justicar back in here soon with his 30,000 word screeds
Sacha, That sounds like the 'law of attraction'. Have you been reading The Secret? :)sacha wrote:As I have said numerous times, you get, what you expect.
I loved the video Justicar, but go ahead, be anti social.Za-zen wrote:Justicar is no doubt lurking, and throwing peanuts at his screen becase he wants to join the fun, but ego is a bitch. Come on in justi the waters fine! Or do we all have to send you love letters?
The new feminism: making women so weak and helpless that everything - everything - gets them upset, in tears, and helpless. Good job, Skepchicks.Tigzy wrote:Oh fuck - the second 'harassment' incident has just arrived: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-403111
Right...so if I'm reading this correctly, a man she didn't know tried to hug her, and she had to put out a hand to stop it from happening. Given that she would no doubt have made it quite clear if the man would have ignored the hand, I think it's safe to assume the guy took the hint.uajamie
18 July 2012 at 4:41 pm
Thanks for all the support, everyone.
I would like to clarify that they have been taking my report of the original harassment incident very seriously. It was quite minor (a man I didn’t know tried to hug me without warning and I had to actively back up and put my hand out to stop it from happening). However, the security consultants made it clear that any unwanted touching is considered assault and they considered me a victim and would investigate the incident fully. Now, honestly “assault†seems like a strong word for what happened, but it’s clear that they are taking it seriously. They have been going over security footage and have inquired about witnesses. They made it clear they’re going to try to identify the man involved.
If anything, they are going a bit overboard. Their treatment of me has been disrespectful, but saying that, they are clearly taking reports, even minor ones, very seriously and following up and investigating. They also have made it clear that I did nothing wrong and was right in reporting it. They never made me feel like I was being blamed for the harassment.
It’s the stressful way they dealt with me that I’m still pretty upset with, not the handling of the case.
He tried to hug her, she put up a hand, he got the message so he didn't hug her.
And this is harassment how, exactly?
I had forgotten that incident, that was the sort of thing I was alluding to several pages back when I mentioned the kid in Halifax. People get offended for many sorts of things, as Dawkins says "I get offended when people wear baseball caps backwards, or chew bubblegum." (paraphrased)StueNever wrote:I think the real issue is that Surly Amy asked Harriet Hall to take her T-shirt off. That's plain-as-day sexual harassment, you can't ask people to remove articles of clothing. So when people ask if there was sexual harassment at TAM, there should be an emphatic YES! And it was conducted by none other than a Skepchick minion.
Anyone remember back when PZ visited the creation museum and the security there asked an atheist attendee to take off their shirt because it was offensive for one reason or another and then the person was kicked out? Guess which side PZ was on then?
The word you are looking for is hypocrite.Times...they are..ahhh changin'...
Oh, and Julian was already on freethoughtblahgs under juliannedbrains.
What happened in my field was the women disappeared shortly after they got the "baby rabies" and decided to become a SAHM.sacha wrote:Nooooo, it's because of the patriarchy!
As I have said numerous times, you get, what you expect.
I've seen that shirt, and my comment still stands. Dr Hall is being factually correct, and making a statement, and it is not insulting to my mind. If Dr Hall had been associated with the Skeptchicks at one point and is now disavowing herself of their group, then perhaps that is a bit...not really. Not sure what you're trying to get at - I know the baboons think it is insulting, etc, but I have to really stretch to see that.Skeeve wrote:
See it?
Well, to justi's credit, he is an ex-cop and that is the law. That his brain happens to naturally produce methamphetamine is irrelevant. :mrgreen:Lsuoma wrote: Careful, dude! You'll be getting Justicar back in here soon with his 30,000 word screeds...
That's a good point. Despite the jibes I've already given, Amy's presence here would certainly make difference to my approach. In that instance, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, take heed of what she said, and any resultant challenges (if any) would certainly be delivered in more sober tone. Or at least, I'd make such efforts. But that's just me; I personally believe what separates us from them is that a good number here might be more willing to take stock of themselves and self-assess should the moment call for it - for no other reason, perhaps, because we know that the baboons would not.Dilurk wrote:Has it occurred to anyone else that we may becoming the bullies we are attacking? Maybe we are as bad to pile on and all laugh at Amy for freaking out over a T-shirt? What would you guys do if Surly Amy somehow chose to post on here to defend her side? Would you be willing to give her a listen?
I'm not saying criticism isn't necessary, but there comes a point where the point has been made and there is nothing more useful to be said.
A. I find this hugely entertaining. Many of us have to deal with people like this in our day jobs and venting here provides us a safe and much-needed outlet.Dilurk wrote:Has it occurred to anyone else that we may becoming the bullies we are attacking? Maybe we are as bad to pile on and all laugh at Amy for freaking out over a T-shirt? What would you guys do if Surly Amy somehow chose to post on here to defend her side? Would you be willing to give her a listen?
I'm not saying criticism isn't necessary, but there comes a point where the point has been made and there is nothing more useful to be said.
If we had gone to her website, made tons of comments, gotten on twitter, laughed at her there, made up stories about her...then, maybe there would be something to consider. A few people discussing it and laughing (or spewing) here...I am skeptical. If Amy wanted to post here, she's welcome to it. I would listen to her side, but since the stories changed already, it would take some evidence to overcome the first (and second) impressions of a spoiled brat who got her ego bruised. It would take actual evidence of harassment, because what she's given so far doesn't approach that. As others said, there is no right to not be offended. She's welcome to it, but as a person, I can't really respect someone who whines and cries that much after they hit puberty. That assumes she isn't special needs and has some physical or psychological problem. That might change the picture.Dilurk wrote:Has it occurred to anyone else that we may becoming the bullies we are attacking? Maybe we are as bad to pile on and all laugh at Amy for freaking out over a T-shirt? What would you guys do if Surly Amy somehow chose to post on here to defend her side? Would you be willing to give her a listen?
I'm not saying criticism isn't necessary, but there comes a point where the point has been made and there is nothing more useful to be said.
John Greg wrote::lol:You'll be getting Justicar back in here soon with his 30,000 word screeds
Ya, he really has this thing about unwanted touching being some kind of serious crime worthy of an epic of rage.
You know, I thought these morons at FfTB had just about reached the limit of profound stupidity with Bunnygate, but really, this teeshirt business, and the kind of things the loyal FfTB commentariat are saying are so beyond rational, so deeply supremely stupid, that, well, what can you say? The stupidity in FfTB doesn't just burn, it's a fucking nuclear holocaust.
"Wee wanna harassment policy right now that makes us totes safe damn you and why are you making us safe in ways we don't like and just because we didn't tell you we wouldn't like it doesn't mean you didn't know we wouldn't like it because we know you're all mind readers because when Harriet Hall used a lower case "s" to represent a lower case "s" we didn't know it 'cause we can't read and you knew we wouldn't know it and couldn't read and that's why DJ Grother made that teeshirt even though we know he didn't but he's a mind reader and knew we wouldn't know that he knows we know he wouldn't 'cause we know he knows we don't know. Anything. At. All."
Nabbed a screencap, just in case.Za-zen wrote:Lousy eunuch demonstrates why violent threats are acceptable, when god is on your side huh?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-72052
Somebody grab a screenie
It did occur to me that my totally unnecessary mocking of Amy's Etsy stuff could be very well construed as bullying. I felt bad about that, I try to be a better person than that. And if SA came here to discuss that would be fine. I personally would be direct, but civil. That would never happen though, because those people consider Slimepitters to be totally beneath them.Dilurk wrote:Has it occurred to anyone else that we may becoming the bullies we are attacking? Maybe we are as bad to pile on and all laugh at Amy for freaking out over a T-shirt? What would you guys do if Surly Amy somehow chose to post on here to defend her side? Would you be willing to give her a listen?
I'm not saying criticism isn't necessary, but there comes a point where the point has been made and there is nothing more useful to be said.
You have to ask some serious questions about Ophelia Benson's role in all of this. Wouldn't a true friend look at Amy's note and think, "Oh...hmm. Maybe we should discuss this first?" But no, she just charges straight in and publishes, making Amy look like a complete loon in the process.Badger3k wrote:That assumes she isn't special needs and has some physical or psychological problem. That might change the picture.
I love how Canuck gives his side all the credit for TAM having harassment policies (as if they've never had them before). Christ, these people are duplicitous.Za-zen wrote:Lousy eunuch demonstrates why violent threats are acceptable, when god is on your side huh?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-72052
Somebody grab a screenie
That's a good point, but Ophelia did say she had Amy's permission to publish her mewlings.Søren Lilholt wrote:You have to ask some serious questions about Ophelia Benson's role in all of this. Wouldn't a true friend look at Amy's note and think, "Oh...hmm. Maybe we should discuss this first?" But no, she just charges straight in and publishes, making Amy look like a complete loon in the process.Badger3k wrote:That assumes she isn't special needs and has some physical or psychological problem. That might change the picture.
The derision towards Amy is inevitable, but the more I think about it, the more angry I feel towards Benson for putting it out. It smacks of thoughtless prioritisation of her own blog hits over the welfare of another human being.
Dilurk, I suspect you havent been on the original slimepit, and therefore dont understand the spirit of it. There is no collective agenda here.. everybody is on his/her own. Its an anything goes kind of env. In this particular case, I am not just piling on Surly.. I am piling on the entire infrastructure that supports this. I am venting my frustration at the system. consider what would happen if the system evolves in its current direction and supports policies like the ones FfTB demands. Who are the people who pay the price.. Its Men. Like that Monopod Guy. Like Me. In the larger society, men like this Cab Driver who was casually accused of sexual harassment. Men get incarcerated etc.Dilurk wrote:Has it occurred to anyone else that we may becoming the bullies we are attacking? Maybe we are as bad to pile on and all laugh at Amy for freaking out over a T-shirt? What would you guys do if Surly Amy somehow chose to post on here to defend her side? Would you be willing to give her a listen?
I'm not saying criticism isn't necessary, but there comes a point where the point has been made and there is nothing more useful to be said.
http://slymepit.com/staticimgs/sc20120718.jpgZa-zen wrote:Lousy eunuch demonstrates why violent threats are acceptable, when god is on your side huh?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-72052
Somebody grab a screenie
Misocetaceany.reasonabel wrote:"Person 1: To be honest i'm a little scared of whales"
Person 2: "Oh, well just think of them as fatsos who never left the pool"
Is that a light-hearted response or an attempt to maliciously "fat-shame" and denigrate a group of people. Genuine question, I need a sanity check here.
reasonabel wrote:"Person 1: To be honest i'm a little scared of whales"
Person 2: "Oh, well just think of them as fatsos who never left the pool"
Is that a light-hearted response or an attempt to maliciously "fat-shame" and denigrate a group of people. Genuine question, I need a sanity check here.
In FfTB eyes, calling someone a 'fatso' is an ableist insult, and so beyond the pale that the baboons get rage tears in the corner of their eyes. According to them, making an ableist remark means you are a demon, or something.reasonabel wrote:"Person 1: To be honest i'm a little scared of whales"
Person 2: "Oh, well just think of them as fatsos who never left the pool"
Is that a light-hearted response or an attempt to maliciously "fat-shame" and denigrate a group of people. Genuine question, I need a sanity check here.
