Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

[Altair]

Altair's in at 3), this is a relatively easy one.

The comment I was thinking of is this one from KacyRay. The "trenchant" {cough, splutter} comment from this JediVerse character was, IMO, mostly dealt with by the subsequent comments (it sadly wasn't when I first saw it, so I thought I'd have to do a line by line fisk, I'm fucking glad I don't!).

If you want something more specific, please ask.

Sorry for the late response, somehow I missed this one when I was reading and only found it after you mentioned number 4 and I did a search. (This will be a long post with a lot of quotes, but I think it's needed)

I didn't follow that link the first time it was posted, but now you got me interested. Let's see how it was dealt with.

Nice long speech.

Now, are you in favor of signing a petition protesting the harassment of women in the atheist movement, or not?

No argument or rebuttal from Carrier, just "nice long speech". Doesn't make him look good.

Okay, so it should be ignored then? Nothing should be done? Conference organisers and the heads of atheist and sceptic organisation should not be informed of and/or take seriously the idea that a few women may be subjected to sexual harassment?

Nice strawman from Monahgan there, unless he could quote where JediVerse said it should be ignored.

I think if there is sexism in gaming it should be looked into and the reasons explored (like the fact that the vast majority of gamers are male so game developers are writing to appeal to their audience and don’t consider the finer ethical points of whether a female playing it might feel marginalized), and if it is found that yes there is sexism in the industry then awareness needs to be raised

Monahgan is not looking good either, since JediVerse said actually the opposite of ignoring it or doing something. He just qualified doing something with "if its found that yes there is sexism..." which is the part many SJW's don't like since it involves asking for and providing evidence.

Monahgan answers JediVerse question about why the movement for "equality among the sexes" is called feminism thus:

History and because women and how they are treated in society are the primary focus of study.

He has just acknowledged that "women and how they are treated in society are the primary focus of study". To me, this sounds incompatible with a movement looking for equality among the sexes, YMMV, though.

Yeah, male circumcision is not comparable to female circumcision. If it were it would involve the removal of the glans and stitching the foreskin shut… all done by your grandfather who has no medical training.

Type IV

A variety of other procedures are collectively known as Type IV, which the WHO defines as "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization." This ranges from ritual nicking of the clitoris—the main practice in Indonesia—to stretching the clitoris or labia, burning or scarring the genitals, or introducing harmful substances into the vagina to tighten it.[2] It also includes hymenotomy, the removal of a hymen regarded as too thick, and gishiri cutting, a practice in which the vagina's anterior wall is cut with a knife to enlarge it.[20]

I see what Monahgan is doing, but throwing such an absolute statement ends up hurting his own argument, since, as you can see, Type 4 of FGM is sometimes even milder than male circumsicion.

But, here’s the thing, male circumcision has been condemned by feminists in the atheist community too but you weren’t listening then either were you, because it aligned with the feelings of even sexist males and so wasn’t blown out of all proportion by them trying to shout the feminists down.

I agree with the part that male circumcision has been condemned by feminists, don't agree with the part about shouting feminists down. On internet, you can't shout anyone down, people have to read you on purpose.

You agree that half the population faces the threat of sexism but you don’t consider that a problem worth seriously addressing?

Second strawman from Monahgan. He has other points, but let's try another commenter for the sake of keeping the post varied.

With that said, how is the identification of purported sexism in songs and video games relevant to the discussion of whether we should oppose the harassment of females? There is only one way the former could be relevant to the latter: when the former is seen as justification for not doing the latter.

I see another way the former could be relevant to the latter, and that's using the suposed sexism in songs and games to show that sometimes the label "harassment" is being applied to events and situation that in some people's opinion do not warrant such a label. This would be debatable, of course, but is another interpretation that Jesse doesn't take into account.

I agree that we would benefit from an ungendered term for the fight against sexism, gender roles, and related issues. However, I have not heard, or been able to come up with, a term that pleases the ear and which is specific enough to refer to these issues and no others. I have long liked the term ‘equalist’, but the meaning seems too broad to be used effectively to address specific issues and it is open to abuse, much like the word ‘respect’ has been abused to mean “don’t dress too sexy”

Here Jesse is actually agreeing with JediServer, which is good but actually lends strenght to at least a part of his argument.

With that said, your argument implies that we should not take the time to oppose the harassment of females because the problems that males face are more dire

Again, strawman. JediVerse never said that harassment of females should not be opposed. Actually JediVerse never used the word harassment in his post. He used the word sexism, and actually indicated that it should be dealt with "if it was found".

Fathers who have not got custody of their children would be far far far better off supporting A+ and so called “radical” feminism than hanging around with a bunch of angry impotent misogynists and rape apologists (MRAs)

Using sex shaming (impotent) and conflating MRAs with rape apologists with no evidence, nice. Also, no evidence as to why "Fathers who have not got custody of their children would be far far far better off supporting A+ and so called “radical” feminism". Nice comment there (any surprise it's by oolon?)

A main goal of feminism which you seem to be totally ignorant of is to break down the gender stereotypes that assign men and women roles that irl fuck them up. Men are capable of being the primary caregiver to a child just as gay/trans/etc people are

I've never seen a feminist protest or campaign to tear down roles that fuck men up. A google search for "chivalry or equality" shows there's actually a number of feminists who would like to keep "chivalry" alive, which is a gender role that traps men and benefits women. So the situation is not as clear cut as oolon paints it.

Oh and if you didn’t get it “feminists” are not just concerned with sexism towards women, it just happens that women come off worse in our patriarchal society.

Again, I see no evidence of this assertion.

What's the point of this post? That, while JediVerse's post was not perfect or bullet-proof (for example, the male circumsicion angle was badly used, since many feminists, including Ophelia Benson oppose it), neither were the arguments presented against it. I don't agree with your impression that his argument was demolished.

Again, thanks for posting a link to a specific event, I prefer to discuss things like this than talk about generalities.

[Karmakin]

Fuck, hit submit too early.

2) "The belief that "privilege" and power differentials are always uni-directional and all-encompassing is entirely incompatible with the concepts of intersectionalism."

That I'd agree with.

Personally I don't agree that the posters you mention do think of privilege and power differentials that way exclusively. I do think that the waters have become sufficiently muddy that, yes, signal does get lost in noise. Things have become very polarised and it's hard for everyone me very much included, to see past that sometimes. If they have fucked up, they have fucked up. Have you ever fucked up?

3) "A+. Quite frankly, this was just a NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE reaction to me. "

Fair enough, to each their own. It's not "with us or against us" as far as I'm concerned. I don't mind where you focus your efforts. I like the concept of atheism+, i.e. I'm an atheist that's concerned with issue X, issue Y and issue Z. I see what they're trying to do. I know what you're getting at with the "People's Front of Judea" angle, and yes, this is a factor. But here's a question, why not let them have their space? I think there's a little too much paranoia about things going on.

4) Hey, guess what, I learned too! Aren't I a special snowflake! I read and went out into the wider world too and realised just how far up my arse my head had been.

Sadly though I am genuinely not sure what you're talking about. I think your impression of "feminism" is nothing like mine, it's seems a strawfeminism from what you're saying but you were very precise so I can't be sure. Gimme a book title and I can go read. Egalitarianism sounds like a good thing on the face of it, but all the egalitarian ideals I know about are contained within the incredibly diverse set of ideas that comprise feminism.

#2. I'm not surprised that you agree with me TBH. Truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised if one of these days you (and others) will be on this side of things as well. Like I said. I suspect that if me and you (and again, a lot of people here) were to talk about the issues that we'd probably agree on a LOT. I'd even go as far as to say that some of the primary players in this don't really belong in the SJW movement based upon their beliefs/attitudes, and it's a very tenuous presence. Jen is a good example of this.

#3. Why not give them their space? Personally, I do, to be fair. I don't go to the A+ forums. I don't think I've ever been there outside of clinking on links to specific threads, and I think the only thread I've really read there was the Dillahunty "curious" thread. Personally, I think if they want a safe space they should create an invite only forum, and lock it all off that way, but I think they don't want their own space. They do want to influence people, they just don't want the repercussions of such. They want to be above the fray, but still drop intellectual bombs on people.

Doesn't work that way. Shouldn't work that way actually. The words that come to mind for that are entitled and privileged. Quite frankly, it's the same song and dance that we're used to from religious groups, who want to criticize but not be criticized themselves.

#4. Feminism is not a monolithic ideology, although the academic feminists/neofeminists WANT it to look that way. Quite frankly, I think Egalitarianism is an evolved form of equality feminism. So yes, I am still a feminist myself, although I think the term itself is probably misleading and sexist. So I don't use it anymore.

It's not a strawfeminist. People really do make and act upon these arguments that power really is unidirectional. Things like sexism/racism requires institutional power. These are pretty common things. You missed in the last thread. Most of us here generally agree with equality feminism, like I suspect you do like you're writing.

We're not the opposition here.

I don't read very many books on the subject, but I can recommend some blogs (well, Tumblr's actually...the SJW conflict seems to be the thickest there)

http://permutationofninjas.tumblr.com/
http://just-smith.tumblr.com/

I suggest the Resources/Quick Reference page on both to get links to detailed articles about egalitarianism. I don't agree with everything on those sites, of course, but for the most part I think they're more progressive than the SJW's.

[Louis]

If the racism and/or sexism you admit to is 'trivial' - then perhaps it simply isn't worth worrying about? Excessive policing of a persons words is often, in my experience, a silencing ploy. A speaker who doesn't want to respond to criticism can quote mine for something - anything - that can be taken as racist or sexist or bigoted in some other way - and then yell that loudly in place of addressing the point their critic was actually trying to make. Such behavior is endemic at FtB, A+ and Skepchick - but not here. Here, you will have noticed, people actually answer critics properly.

Different sense of the word "trivial". As in "uncontroversial/obvious".

I agree, in fact I said as much above in regard to civility, that policing words can be a silencing ploy. It isn't universally so, however. Sometimes someone does say a bigoted thing and needs to be called on it. That is part of the answer to the person. If too much "ahhh they're bigot just ignore them" goes on at FtB etc for you, DON'T POST THERE. I haven't noticed ALL people here to be vastly better, sorry to disappoint you, people tend to be people. SOME of the people here have been superb. I'll try to focus on them.

[Tfoot]

Hi Louis,
Please do be a sport and tell me why Im a
-'in Tfoot's case a shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag"

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

[Tkmlac]

In keeping with the whole "threat" thing going on whereby the likes of Ophelia and PZ are in constant peril from the likes of us Slymepitters, I issue this warning to our accusers

I am going to make you a cup of Tea one day.

Quake in fear.

When you least expect it I will arrive with a nice steaming hot cup of Assam or Russian Caravan and I will give you a cup of Tea, possibly with biscuits if I'm feeling particularly bellicose.

You have been warned Baboons - I'm on my way.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaargggghhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahahahahahaaaaaa

One thing I haven't perfected in my new venture into tea is biscuits. How do I pick a good biscuit? I'm a US American, is there any hope for me?

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

It's generally agreed here that this sort of shit is at best unnecessary and at worst unethical (available freely by Google search or not). And how do you know they got the right Jerry Conlon?

Unethical implies reasonably foreseeable negative consequences as a result of such a post. What would those be in this case?

Emotional distress, maybe? I cannot see how a ******* war vet who goes by his real name would be upset about people knowing these particular details.

I seriously doubt that Jerry would take this 'doxxing' any harder than Ophelia would take that classy cobweb comment of yours, so presumably hurt feelings aren't really the issue. So what is?

I'm going out on a limb to assume that the real issue is that this could lead to more intense efforts, like finding his home and work addresses and contacting his family or employers. But that sounds like the same flavour of slippery slope argument that Ophelia deployed in the stochastic terrorism post.

Can anyone clear up what the real threat to JC is here, in terms of foreseeable harm?

The harm comes in calling a named individual pro-rape. The accusation has become so commonplace in these forum spats that some people seem to have lost perspective on how serious an accusation that can be IRL.

[RichardReed84]

I've tried to crystalize why feminism should not be a part of skepticism.

http://richardreed84.wordpress.com/2013 ... ompatible/

[Apples]

Hi Louis,
Please do be a sport and tell me why Im a
-'in Tfoot's case a shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag"

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

:popcorn:

[Louis]

Hi Louis,
Please do be a sport and tell me why Im a
-'in Tfoot's case a shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag"

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

No worries, sport.

Your arguments on FtB against their very simple brand of feminism were sexist. I can go back and dig through tonne of drivel if I want to, but why bother? Shark jumping: Dude, you used to be so cool! Okay, okay, forgive me I couldn't resist that one. I was, and still am, a big fan of your science videos. You do stellar work, no fooling, I really think that.

The hard on you have for FtB, not so much. So shark jumping and obsessive. Sexist, well I haven't demonstrated it, but I'm sure it will come up somewhere, be patient. Loonbag: the straw men, the focus on the most twisted interpretations of reasonable things, the videos edited out of context to make an almost Michael Moorian (someone I also quite like, although phew do you have to take his work with a bucket of salt sometimes) video about PZ and people. Dude, it's time to get over it.

I'll make one confession, I do feel bad for not having a detailed point by point case prepared for you, genuinely, but since I find it hard to do anything other than laugh at you at the moment, I can't really bring myself to worry about it. Make of that what you will. I'm sure you'll do so whether or not I have a point by point case prepared for you.

[Louis]

...demolished.

Again, thanks for posting a link to a specific event, I prefer to discuss things like this than talk about generalities.

Don't think I said demolished as it happens. Think I said "mostly dealt with". Looks like *I'm* going to have to do all the work myself doesn't it? Fuck a doodle doo.

[debaser71]

from oloon (supposedly)

"A main goal of feminism which you seem to be totally ignorant of is to break down the gender stereotypes that assign men and women roles that irl fuck them up. Men are capable of being the primary caregiver to a child just as gay/trans/etc people are"

Yeah and on pharyngula I was told "what about the menz!!!" and "the patriarchy hurts men too!" when I relayed my experiences as a stay at home dad. That and being told to shove rusty knives and flaming porcupines up my ass. And being called "childmolester71".

[Louis]

Karmakin,

Thanks I'll look into those sites.

[VickyCaramel]

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

I'd disagree with this definition at least in my part of the UK. The word cunt is seldom used just because somebody is annoying or stupid. Being called a cunt implies they are acting like a cunt... being cuntish. Which implies they are being selfish, spiteful, thoughtless and creating unfairness or injustice.
Even if somebody is called a 'lazy cunt' it implies others are having to pick up the slack for them.

Also it seems to be directed at women who would be cause a 'bitch' for the same behaviour. Generally a woman is more likely to be called a fat slag or slapper.

[Karmakin]

There's a lot more to the post, go and read it if you can be bothered. I'll never claim to be the shortest poster!

People I'm protecting? Wasn't aware I was speaking for anyone but me. Who DOESN'T agree with what I said about harassment policies? Who's trying to have what both ways, I need specifics sadly.

Actually, again. I agree with you. Or at least I used to. I do think there's a HUGE caveat there, that I've been coming to realize and that really has changed some of my thinking. And if my caveat is wrong, then I wholly agree with you. But yes, I do think that if women are put off to coming to skeptic/non-belief conferences because they think that being sexualized is something that they don't want to go through then yes something should be done about this. And yes, it's not about "harassment" at that point. It's about having a higher line than harassment. Which to be honest, was my entire point during that whole debate at the time.

Or in short, if this feeling is keeping women away, and if equality is a reasonable goal (I think it is), then there needs to be a zero-tolerance policy towards these behaviors. But there was a LOT of pushback at the time against these things, not just beause ZTP's are often problematic (I agree, they are), but because they were not wanted. If you want specifics, if I remember right, SZ, RW and PZ all rejected the idea of coming up with behavior based policies, because they'd give "wiggle room" for "creeps" (That was PZ's argument at least).

I didn't understand it at the time. But now, after again, learning (which doesn't make me a special snowflake. It means that I grew up socially underdeveloped and it took me longer to learn about these things), I can see now why not. And that's my big caveat.

I do not think that most women look at things that way. Maybe I'm wrong. But from what I'm seeing, is that most women WANT to be flirted with, to be "chased"...as long as it's the right person doing the chasing. Most people, period feel the same way. So that's why we have the harassment policies that exist. We set the standard at unwanted, repeated propositioning, or physical violation. B comes from A.

So at the end of the day. This is simply about privilege seeking and entitlement. That's my take on it. People want their cake and eat it too. It's also what I'm talking about that it's a very simple ideology with very little concern for the gears inside of things and how things work.

[Mark Neil]

Twat and cunt, as prick and cock (and dick, I would add), could be considered sexist, since they do refer to a body part that belongs to a specific gender. It could be interpreted as saying that a cunt or a cock are bad things, and I think that was their original meaning, which is why I said I semi-agree.

I don't see those words as sexist per say. In earlier times, sexuality in general was frowned apon. Sex, and thus the genitals, were a bad thing. This applied to both sexes. Hell, there were devices for stopping a boy having a nighttime erection. So I see it as no surprise the genitals were used as insults. But the fact is, both sexes had this done. It's not like the cunt was a bad thing but the dick was good. It is my understanding that, for something to be sexist, it must be treating one sex different from the other, and I don't see that in genital based insults.

[Notung]

If too much "ahhh they're bigot just ignore them" goes on at FtB etc for you, DON'T POST THERE.

I agree with this - it's why I've not posted on Pharyngula for over a year and a half, nor on the other blogs that have started banning/deleting dissent since I noticed them doing that.

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

I'd like to know this too. I've not seen any reason to think TF is sexist, but I've seen plenty of accusations that he is. Just like with many others. BTW I think many come across as 'obsessive' (but why is it only 'our' side? Surely both!) but I think that's the result of frustration due to false accusations, the stifling of dissent and a feeling of duty to speak out against the strange events of the last couple of years or so.

[Dick Strawkins]

I've tried to crystalize why feminism should not be a part of skepticism.

http://richardreed84.wordpress.com/2013 ... ompatible/

TLDR: Feminism is incompatible with skepticism because it cannot be questioned!

But that's not how the likes of the FTB crowd/Aplus see it.

They claim they do apply skepticism to feminism.

And they define feminism as the 'radical notion that women are people'.

It's a get out of jail card that allows them to avoid the real problem of comparing gender and equity feminism, pro-sex with anti-porn feminism and all the shades inbetween.
It's also the reason why I feel that it is pointless to concentrate on the feminism issue.
I am not an 'anti-feminist'
Because there are so many definitions of feminism obscured by the wish-washy 'women are people' definition, even Paul Elam qualifies as a PZ Myers defined feminist.
The real problem is skepticism.
If we can ensure real skeptical principles are applied to every hypothesis then we will have solved this problem.

[windy]

And there we really differ, that is not pretty much what happened in the Elevatorgate case. The "pretty much" ignore a whole slew of context. What the guy did was pretty innocuous in the "fancy a shag" sense, I agree (i.e. he didn't harass RW constantly and continually), what he did was, in my opinion, a bit clueless. ElevatorGuy just didn't have his observant hat on.

If he had, he's have noticed that RW was talking at that conference about how to make MORE women MORE welcome at these events. Note those MOREs they are critical. I'll quote myself from here

RW had been giving a talk on (broadly speaking) the inclusion of women in the various sceptical/secular movements. One of the problems she highlighted was the sexualisation of women, there was then an extended conversation about how many women feel excluded from these movements precisely because of the underlying current of assumed sexual availability.

By this I mean, that some women found that even within the rationalist community, and at rationalist events, they were exposed to precisely the same sexualisation they found outside. So far so non controversial.

Could you link to a video or transcript of her talk, especially the part where she gives her definition of sexualisation at rationalist events?

By RW's own words, everyone else at the conference behaved fine towards her (source: RW's own Youtube video after the event) Do you think it's reasonable for a woman to feel "excluded" or unwelcome at an event because one person made an innocuous pass at her during the entire time?

[AbsurdWalls]

Twat and cunt, as prick and cock (and dick, I would add), could be considered sexist, since they do refer to a body part that belongs to a specific gender. It could be interpreted as saying that a cunt or a cock are bad things, and I think that was their original meaning, which is why I said I semi-agree.

I don't see those words as sexist per say. In earlier times, sexuality in general was frowned apon. Sex, and thus the genitals, were a bad thing. This applied to both sexes. Hell, there were devices for stopping a boy having a nighttime erection. So I see it as no surprise the genitals were used as insults. But the fact is, both sexes had this done. It's not like the cunt was a bad thing but the dick was good. It is my understanding that, for something to be sexist, it must be treating one sex different from the other, and I don't see that in genital based insults.

Interesting example from Quebec: Tabarnak!

[Metalogic42]

Louis,

I don't think you've answered my questions elsewhere. Sure, you've touched upon the subjects, but I haven't seen any direct answers. Of course, this place moves pretty fast, so maybe it escaped me. So some links to where they've been answered would help a lot. Here they are again, so you don't have to search back for them:

1) Can you link us to this "rambling content" of yours?
2) In what ways were your impressions correct, and in what ways were they incorrect?
3) How do you feel about acid throwing guy's apology, and about the subsequent "doxxing" of ATG?
4) Why is it childish to name names with regard to which pitters you have a low opinion of? Don't they have a right to be able to defend themselves? Isn't this important, given my previous post about your opinion being underinformed?
5) Where, exactly, have you been vilified for not sharing our party line? What do you think our party line is?
6) Which posts here make you think that your point about free speech escapes a lot of people here?

[another lurker]

@Louis: I'm someone, you may remember me, who used to be on the other side. FAR on the other side. So for you, I'm going to lay it out point by point my journey where I went from here to there.

#1. The first step, was the whole harassment policy thing. Now let me make it clear. I think that these policies are a good idea. However. I also think they need to be very clear in terms of what is harassment and what is not. I think they should go by ACTIONS and not feelings. I.E. Please avoid physical contact of a sexual nature while on the convention floor. At after-hours events there would be another (looser, of course) set of guidelines...at least if you want the pristine environment that they seem to want.

Truth be told, I thought it was a lot of "creep" shaming, where by creep I mean people who might not fit typical attractiveness standards or may just not be the most socially developed. The worst thing, is that they want a pristine environment, but they still want the grey area for themselves. Can't have it both ways. I don't even think that the leaders of the movement would have even brought up specific policies if they weren't shamed into it by commentators.

#2. There was a thread at PZ's, I forget what it was about, but it became clear that many of the big commentators had a theory of feminism that was entirely incompatible with my theory of it. Sally, Jadehawk, etc. The belief that "privilege" and power differentials are always uni-directional and all-encompassing is entirely incompatible with the concepts of intersectionalism. I do think that gender bias exists. I think that gender roles, in our society, hurt both men and women. I also think that other forms of power differential exist as well. Class, race, in-group/out-group, educational, etc, and to view any individual situation without taking those into account is quite frankly myopic. It's entirely pointless. It's academic wanking.

I should add that at the time I was (and still am), a fan of Natalie Reed's and Ophelia Benson's writings on the subject, although they've seem to have abandoned them for whatever reason. (Social pressure)

#3. A+. Quite frankly, this was just a NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE reaction to me. I've been on the internet a LONG time, and I've seen this happen before. I recognized the rhetoric, and understood that as someone with an anxiety disorder, I understand that this type of environment is NOT one I want to be in. Judgmental, quick to turn on people, no room for error. No. NOPE. I've seen it before, be it Shakesville or the Slacktiverse, Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Just NOPE.

#4. I learned.

No really. I went into the wider world, decided to shrug off my preconceived notions, and I read. And I found that people made good arguments.

Egalitarian arguments. That the concept of an intentional patriarchy is bullshit, that gender roles evolved out of necessity, and that egalitarians actually did think that as we don't need the roles anymore, it's fine to get rid of them. Wow. I didn't know that. So I read more and more. I read how I was basically lied to directly about the wage gap, when I asked if the numbers given were an Apples to Apples comparison and I told that they were. (That 77% number that's bandied around? They're not) I read how modern feminism is based around bad statistics all around, and a WHOLE lot of enforcement of gender roles.

But most importantly, I didn't find the sexism and misogyny that I thought I would find. What I found was people who, by and large, are BETTER on these issues than the feminists/feminism that I now reject. Go figure.

And as someone who looks at this now from a bit higher up point of view, it's not about the 'Pit vs. FTB. It's about Egalitarians vs. Social Justice Warriors. And quite frankly, the SJW arguments suck. Many of the critics of your arguments? We're not arguing for traditionalism, or maintaining power differentials. We're not a bunch of "libertarians" (many of us here are progressives, in fact).

We are to your left on this, NOT to your right. SJW's are the sexists, the racists, the bigots. And yes, we stand up to that bigotry. Is standing up to bigotry such a bad thing?

I agree. I would say that to some extent, my experiences closely mirror yours.

[Apples]

Hi Louis,
Please do be a sport and tell me why Im a
-'in Tfoot's case a shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag"

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

I'll make one confession, I do feel bad for not having a detailed point by point case prepared for you, genuinely, but since I find it hard to do anything other than laugh at you at the moment, I can't really bring myself to worry about it. Make of that what you will. I'm sure you'll do so whether or not I have a point by point case prepared for you.

http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/110/550/1105504_300.jpg

[ReneeHendricks]

*FINALLY* got our last CGIPC podcast up - Women in Atheism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTbx0Cpel7U

Also, this past Saturday's podcast is up as well - Atheism in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEHaijReN0Q

[AbsurdWalls]

Hi Louis,
Please do be a sport and tell me why Im a
-'in Tfoot's case a shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag"

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

No worries, sport.

Your arguments on FtB against their very simple brand of feminism were sexist. I can go back and dig through tonne of drivel if I want to, but why bother?

I've never seen a case of Christinitis progress so quickly! Is there nothing we can do for him doctor?

[Metalogic42]

I can go back and dig through tonne of drivel if I want to, but why bother?

I am, however, exceedingly keen and willing to look at evidence.

[debaser71]

PZ said it, I believe it, that settles it!

[AbsurdWalls]

I can go back and dig through tonne of drivel if I want to, but why bother?

I am, however, exceedingly keen and willing to look at evidence.

I'll make one confession, I do feel bad for not having a detailed point by point case prepared for you, genuinely, but since I find it hard to do anything other than laugh at you at the moment, I can't really bring myself to worry about it. Make of that what you will. I'm sure you'll do so whether or not I have a point by point case prepared for you.

How embarrassing. Nobody held a gun to your head and made you reply immediately.

[soldierwhy]

PZ said it, I believe it, that settles it!

The FfTB 'scientific' method?

[another lurker]

#3. A+. Quite frankly, this was just a NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE reaction to me. I've been on the internet a LONG time, and I've seen this happen before. I recognized the rhetoric, and understood that as someone with an anxiety disorder, I understand that this type of environment is NOT one I want to be in. Judgmental, quick to turn on people, no room for error. No. NOPE.

This is probably the single biggest beef I have with A+ too. They want it to be some sort of uber-safe space, a fluffy and harmless environment full of trigger warnings to spare the precious flowers feelings but the entire atmosphere of the place is toxic. If you're not 100% versed on the correct way of speaking and behaving they come out with the most hateful invective I've seen since FTB. If I was a delicate soul I think that place would give me a nervous breakdown.

The bolded part is me to a T. It's rather ironic though, how they would hurt genuine 'delicate souls' in their rush to protect their own 'delicate souls'. Part of me wonders if they really are truly 'sensitive' or just manipulative narcissists out to score victim points by 'finding' 'offense' in everything.

Their behaviour reminds me of this:

http://samvak.tripod.com/

[spoiler]

We all fear the loss of our identity and uniqueness. We seem to be acutely aware of this fear in a crowd of people. "Far from the madding crowd" is not only the title of a book – it is also an apt description of one of the most ancient recoil mechanisms.

This wish to be distinct, "special" in the most primitive sense, is universal. It crosses cultural barriers and spans different periods in human history. We use hairdressing, clothing, behaviour, lifestyles and products of our creative mind to differentiate ourselves.

The sensation of "being unique or special" is of paramount importance. It is behind many a social custom. People feel indispensable, one of a kind, in a loving relationship, for instance. One's uniqueness is reflected by one's spouse and this provides one with an "independent, external and objective" affirmation of one's specialness.

This sounds very close to pathological narcissism, as we defined it in the Introduction to this essay. Indeed, the difference is in measure – not in substance.

Healthy people "use" others to confirm their sense of distinctiveness – but they do not over-dose or over-do it. Feeling unique is to the average bloke of secondary importance. He derives the bulk of his sense of identity from his well-developed, differentiated Ego. The clear-cut boundaries of his Ego and his thorough acquaintance with a beloved figure – his self – are enough.

Only people whose Ego is underdeveloped, immature, and relatively undifferentiated, need ever larger quantities of external Ego boundary setting, of affirmation through reflection. To such people, there is no distinction between significant and less meaningful others. Everyone carries the same weight and fulfils the same functions: reflection, affirmation, recognition, adulation, or attention. This is why, to them, everyone is interchangeable and dispensable.

The narcissist employs the following mechanisms in his relationships (say, in a marriage):

He "merges" with his spouse/mate and contains him/her as a representation of the outside world.

He exerts absolute dominion over the spouse (again in her symbolic capacity as The World).

These two mechanisms substitute for the healthier forms of relationship, where the two members of the couple maintain their distinctiveness, while, at the same time, creating a new "being of togetherness".

To ensure a constant flow of Narcissistic Supply, the narcissist seeks to "replicate" his projected self. He becomes addicted to publicity, fame, and celebrity. Merely observing his "replicated self" – on billboards, TV screens, book covers, newspapers – sustains the narcissist's feelings of omnipotence and omnipresence, akin to the ones that he experienced in his early childhood. The "replicated self" provides the narcissist with an "existential substitute", proof that he exists – functions normally carried out by a healthy, well-developed Ego through its interactions with the outside world (the "reality principle").

An abandoning spouse or a business failure, for instance, are crises whose magnitude and meaning cannot be suppressed. This usually moves the narcissist to seek treatment. Therapy starts where self-delusion leaves off, but it takes a massive disintegration of the very fabric of the narcissist's life and personality organisation to bring about merely this limited concession of defeat. Even then the narcissist merely seeks to be "fixed" in order to continue his life as before.

The boundaries (and the very existence) of the narcissist's Ego are defined by others. In times of crisis, the inner experience of the narcissist – even when he is surrounded by people – is that of rapid, uncontrollable dissolution.

This feeling is life threatening. This existential conflict forces the narcissist to fervently seek or improvise solutions, optimal or suboptimal, at any cost. The narcissist proceeds to find a new spouse, to secure publicity, or to get involved with new "friends", who are willing to accommodate his desperate need for Narcissistic Supply (NS).

This sense of overwhelming urgency causes the narcissist to suspend all judgement. In these circumstances, the narcissist is likely to misjudge the traits and abilities of a prospective spouse, the quality of his own work, or his status within his social milieu. He is liable to make indiscriminate use of all his defence mechanisms to justify and rationalise this hot pursuit.

Many narcissists reject treatment even in the most dire circumstances. Feeling omnipotent, they seek the answers themselves and in themselves, and then venture to "fix" and "maintain" themselves. They gather information, philosophise, "creatively innovate", and contemplate. They do all this single-handedly and even when they are forced to seek other people's counsel, they are unlikely to admit it and are likely to devalue their helpers.

The narcissist dedicates a lot of his time and energy to establish his own specialness. He is concerned with the degree of his uniqueness and with various methods to substantiate, communicate and document it.

The narcissist's frame of reference is nothing less than posterity and the entirety of the human race. His uniqueness must be immediately and universally recognised. It must (potentially, at least) be known by everyone at all times – or it loses its allure. It is an all or nothing situation.

[/spoiler]

The above is from: http://samvak.tripod.com/narcissismspecial.html

Sound familiar?

Many of the folks on the 'pit have used the term 'narcissist' to describe the A+/FTB crowd and I believe they are spot on.

[Apples]

From the comments in Rebecca's Skepchick blog yesterday, an argument you hear a lot:

I am not a feminist, and I don’t feel it is integral to current progress, albeit I do feel like it was at one point a contingently favorable development. I am also opposed to comments like that of Jerry Conlon.

I don’t feel like feminist atheists have any conceptual space for people such as myself. Do you think it is possible for me to oppose feminism from being the status-qua of atheists and for me to be opposed to violence, threats and/or cruelty toward women?

Can you name any individuals who have philosophical disagreements with you about feminism and its validity that you do not think are anti-woman or misogynistic?

the response:

If you are opposed to violence, threats, and cruelty towards women, in what way are you NOT a feminist?

It is quite fucking plain that, if the "feminism" that A+ and much of FTB preaches and enforces in fact amounted to "the radical notion that women are people," the 'Pit would not exist, Tfoot would still be getting paid by Brayton, and Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, and Rebecca Watson would never be heard from again.

[d4m10n]

It's generally agreed here that this sort of shit is at best unnecessary and at worst unethical (available freely by Google search or not). And how do you know they got the right Jerry Conlon?

Unethical implies reasonably foreseeable negative consequences as a result of such a post. What would those be in this case?

Emotional distress, maybe? I cannot see how a ******* war vet who goes by his real name would be upset about people knowing these particular details.

I seriously doubt that Jerry would take this 'doxxing' any harder than Ophelia would take that classy cobweb comment of yours, so presumably hurt feelings aren't really the issue. So what is?

I'm going out on a limb to assume that the real issue is that this could lead to more intense efforts, like finding his home and work addresses and contacting his family or employers. But that sounds like the same flavour of slippery slope argument that Ophelia deployed in the stochastic terrorism post.

Can anyone clear up what the real threat to JC is here, in terms of foreseeable harm?

The harm comes in calling a named individual pro-rape. The accusation has become so commonplace in these forum spats that some people seem to have lost perspective on how serious an accusation that can be IRL.

I'm in full agreement on this point, but then the harm flows from the unsubstantiated and libelous accusation, rather than the so-called 'doxxing' itself.

[Jan Steen]

[spoiler]Lastly (and there was much rejoicing) is number 4) which touches on bits of 2). I think the relevant bit is this:

Arguments over individual issues are not relevant. It's about the right to argue over issues and attempts to poison the well in the atheist community. It's about the tactics being used to do that.

To the best of my knowledge, and please present evidence to the contrary, no one is stopping anyone from arguing over anything within the atheist community. You might find yourself unwelcome at this blog or that blog, just like I might, but I think the actual censorship you are claiming is non-existent. I also think it's non-existent or exceedingly rare that, for example, some group or person is banned from any and all conferences and venues. Who is stopping you from going to CFI conferences or some big atheist conference and arguing your case? Volunteer to host a poster session or a break out talk, ask questions of presenters, try to be a presenter yourself etc. Who's stopping you from going to your local Sceptics in the Pub or something similar and airing your views, or even presenting at such? Again, as far as I am aware, no one.

What IS happening is people are disagreeing with you, and, when stupid shit gets pulled because I think we all know it is getting pulled, not letting you (or me) get away with it. What the fuck is wrong with that? I EXPECT criticism. I LIKE criticism. It's how I learn. That doesn't make every critic worth my time. What IS happening in some places is the people who run those places don't want to deal with specific types of criticism or people. For whatever reason. I agree with you that some of those reasons can/could be nefarious, underhanded etc, but I've not seen evidence of such. Pre-emptively banning Slymepitters is PZ's choice as landlord of the Pharyngula Tentacles isn't in my opinion a bad thing, sorry.

I might not find that fair, I might not care about it, but it's undeniable it's his right to do so. Someone I rather like is John Wilkins of Evolving Thoughts, he has a "don't shit on the carpet" type policy, the comments of his blog are pretty civil (in a way that Pharyngula isn't) and pretty thoughtful (in a way Pharyngula is occasionally, noise to signal again). That's a difference of style not one right one wrong. /b/ has pretty much no rules at all and the quality of the conversation there is commensurately fucking atrocious. I'm not an advocate of Structure Uber Alles, but structure sometimes works. The structure of the paper allows the pen to write on it freely, the structure of a brick, less so. I'm not defending PZ to say I don't mind his structure any more than I am criticising him when I say I like Wilkins' structure too. It's horses for courses.

Now there's another side to the coin of "civility" and "structure", they can be used to stifle discussion, as I am sure you note. "Uppity" black people in the pre-Civil Rights Movement southern US had their discussions shut down by just this mechanism. So yes, it IS a double edged sword to be wielded with care. (BTW, I always advocate this, read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" if you haven't, it is truly brilliant and explains what I am getting at here perfectly, better than I ever could)

That is not what's happening here though, again to the best of my knowledge. No one is stopping you speak, no one is asking you to bide your time to be liberated, no one is lynching you. What IS happening is people are disagreeing with you. What IS happening is certain current, long standing social structures are being countered to ever greater degrees. Those structures are in the atheist community etc as well as outside them. We're, sadly we've found, not exempt.

Now IF people are publicly identifying pseudonymous/anonymous posters and giving out their real life addresses, well that's fucking disgusting. IF people are editing people's posts to make them say something different, that's fucking disgusting. IF people are lying about people, that's fucking disgusting. It doesn't matter who does it...well actually, I'll take that back...if someone on my "team" does it (urgh, team, yuck) then to me it is MORE disgusting than if the "other team" do it. I want to associate with the people who don't need to do that. And before you leap and go "well why do you post at FtB then? Hurr hurr" I'm posting here now aren't I? I'm trying to engage you aren't I?[/spoiler]
I'm going to ask you all a question now, a very simple one. Here is Michael Shermer (someone I admire and enjoy the works of very much) saying something that caused consternation:

“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing”

Do any of you think that statement is sexist?

[spoiler]How about this:

“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a white thing”

Do any of you think that is statement racist?

I've changed one single word. The logic, the sense is identical. I've only changed the target. Note, I am NOT asking "do you think Michael Shermer is an evil sexist slimebag who should be put to death in a Feminazi Retraining Camp" I am asking (effectively) if the guy made a simple mistake, just like anyone can do, and make a sexist utterance? It's no great shakes, there's no "gotcha" at the end. Although I'd be really interested if anyone thinks the first one is not sexist and the second one is racist, that would be worthy of examination.

Cheers.[/spoiler]

The statement is sexist if the implication is that women are less capable of doing those things (there being no reason to suppose that women are less capable of doing them). If the implication is that, for whatever reason (societal, psychological), women are at present less inclined to do those things, then it may be a neutral statement of fact. I wouldn't dismiss the second interpretation as sexist, but consider it a hypothesis that needs testing. If Shermer had said "it's perhaps more of a guy thing," he would have made it more clear that he was proposing a hypothesis. So he could have chosen his words more carefully to steer away from the sexist interpretation. Note that the second interpretation is not a tautology, as some of Shermer's detractors have claimed.

Let me ask you a question in turn. Do you consider the following a fair paraphrase of what Shermer said:

Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because “that’s a guy thing”.

[justinvacula]

Kudos to Lewis for engaging in discussion.

[Tfoot]

Well louis, opinions are like assholes, everyones got one.

The thing is I asked you why you thought I was a 'sexist loon who'd jumped the shark' and got blather. Really, if you are going to call someone sexist, you might at least have a reason for doing it.

'The hard on you have for FtB, not so much. '
This one I found particularly amusing. I dont think I've mentioned FTB on my channel for months.
The contrary cannot be said for FTBs though with the following all writing blog post about a petition to have 'leaders of the community make it clear that I am not welcome' (paraphrase).

PZ Myers
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... l-isnt-it/

Ed Brayton (owner FTB)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... -petition/

Stephanie Svan
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... e-counted/

Ophelia Benson
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... -petition/

Richard Carrier
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3018/

lousycanuck
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... feminists/

Crommunist
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... community/

.......
i also found Jen Mccreights tweet incredible
If you're upset I had quit blogging and leadership roles for my personal safety and mental health, please sign: http://chn.ge/RKnya5


I think you've got it the wrong way round with 'The hard on you have for FtB'

Interestingly, assuming no duplicate or fake signatures etc, essentially the entire of FTB only managed to mobilize ~2000 signatures.
I laughed without fear of reprisal and went back to organizing my video contest with 'leaders of the secular community'.

FTB... it goes great with *P O P C O R N* .....
and the slyme pit is a front row seat! :-)

[EdwardGemmer]

If too much "ahhh they're bigot just ignore them" goes on at FtB etc for you, DON'T POST THERE.

I agree with this - it's why I've not posted on Pharyngula for over a year and a half, nor on the other blogs that have started banning/deleting dissent since I noticed them doing that.

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

I'd like to know this too. I've not seen any reason to think TF is sexist, but I've seen plenty of accusations that he is. Just like with many others. BTW I think many come across as 'obsessive' (but why is it only 'our' side? Surely both!) but I think that's the result of frustration due to false accusations, the stifling of dissent and a feeling of duty to speak out against the strange events of the last couple of years or so.

I'd like to get people to divorce themselves from the idea that racism and sexism is per se wrong or evil. I'm a big believer that our minds evolved to categorize things in patterns for quick and easy uses. Race and gender are two very easy categorizations, and it is natural to assume patterns based on them. Only through education and experience do we fix that, but it makes for sense to do it from a ground up rather than a top down way.

So, who cares if bitch or cunt or any other insult is sexist. You're insulting someone, so you aren't exactly trying to be nice to them. PZ likes to call people idiots, which is likely offensive to mentally retarded people. He doesn't care, because he isn't interested in being nice to people.

[BarnOwl]

Oh FFS. From OB's blag:

[spoiler]

Given the first-timeness of the commenter, I suspect the comment was a plant. At any rate, I haven’t threatened anyone. I haven’t even threatened to report him to the police, even though a lot of people have strongly urged me to report him, because Canadian law enforcement sees that kind of thing as a danger to people in general, not just to the recipient. (And he’s Canadian. Ooh I’m doxxing him!! Except that’s on his Facebook page. Visible to all.)
I haven’t threatened anyone. He did threaten me.
I’m very very very very very tired of this shit. My life is shit, thanks to these people. That’s what they want, and they get what they want. I’m a blogger and writer, so the work I do I do online. That means taking “a break” from online isn’t a happy little vacation, it’s being locked out of the work I do. Yes no doubt it’s pathetic contemptible nerdy “work” but I like doing it, and I don’t like being forced out of it by sadistic pseudonymous shits.
But some good does come out of it. Bjarte Foshaug was motivated by the acid threat to send $150 to Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan. He says a friend of his is also going to donate. So Jerry Conlon did some good after all!
But I want my life back. And I can’t have it. That makes me angry.

[/spoiler]

She's had that attention high from the "acid threat" victimhood, and now she's completely addicted.

Listening to all the godbaggery associated with the POTUS inauguration is much less annoying than reading that shit. You'd think I'd have learned by now. Time to go outdoors with the little dogs, methinks.

[AbsurdWalls]

If too much "ahhh they're bigot just ignore them" goes on at FtB etc for you, DON'T POST THERE.

I agree with this - it's why I've not posted on Pharyngula for over a year and a half, nor on the other blogs that have started banning/deleting dissent since I noticed them doing that.

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

I'd like to know this too. I've not seen any reason to think TF is sexist, but I've seen plenty of accusations that he is. Just like with many others. BTW I think many come across as 'obsessive' (but why is it only 'our' side? Surely both!) but I think that's the result of frustration due to false accusations, the stifling of dissent and a feeling of duty to speak out against the strange events of the last couple of years or so.

I'd like to get people to divorce themselves from the idea that racism and sexism is per se wrong or evil. I'm a big believer that our minds evolved to categorize things in patterns for quick and easy uses. Race and gender are two very easy categorizations, and it is natural to assume patterns based on them. Only through education and experience do we fix that, but it makes for sense to do it from a ground up rather than a top down way.

So, who cares if bitch or cunt or any other insult is sexist. You're insulting someone, so you aren't exactly trying to be nice to them. PZ likes to call people idiots, which is likely offensive to mentally retarded people. He doesn't care, because he isn't interested in being nice to people.

Good fucking luck with that!

I think I know what you're getting at, but you might want to change the way you argue it if you want anyone to get beyond the first sentence.

[AnotherLurker]

I'll make one confession, I do feel bad for not having a detailed point by point case prepared for you, genuinely, but since I find it hard to do anything other than laugh at you at the moment, I can't really bring myself to worry about it. Make of that what you will. I'm sure you'll do so whether or not I have a point by point case prepared for you.

Is Louis being affected by a severe case of Greta-Christinits? Or is he really Greta Christina? Discuss.

[mike150160]

...

Now, if you'd been using "pussy" as in coward instead, you'd have a pretty good case, since it, unlike "cunt" and "cock", do refer to negative qualities perceived in women.

....

I'd always assumed that "pussy" as coward derived from pusillanimous?

[Dilurk]

@Louis: I'm someone, you may remember me, who used to be on the other side. FAR on the other side. So for you, I'm going to lay it out point by point my journey where I went from here to there.
{snip}
#2. There was a thread at PZ's, I forget what it was about, but it became clear that many of the big commentators had a theory of feminism that was entirely incompatible with my theory of it. Sally, Jadehawk, etc. The belief that "privilege" and power differentials are always uni-directional and all-encompassing is entirely incompatible with the concepts of intersectionalism. I do think that gender bias exists. I think that gender roles, in our society, hurt both men and women. I also think that other forms of power differential exist as well. Class, race, in-group/out-group, educational, etc, and to view any individual situation without taking those into account is quite frankly myopic. It's entirely pointless. It's academic wanking.

I know I have observed that about 'privilege' and others here have also noted it, but I had no idea there was a good sociological term for it 'intersectionality'. http://www.slideshare.net/dustinkidd1/i ... nal-theory

I did make the observation on here that PZ and others were suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect (tough I did not specifically use that term) in that they were misusing the term 'privilege'. Upon reflection perhaps the use was correct but over all, they do not have a good grasp of sociology in the first place to use the term; thus Dunning Kruger.

I should add that at the time I was (and still am), a fan of Natalie Reed's and Ophelia Benson's writings on the subject, although they've seem to have abandoned them for whatever reason. (Social pressure)

I am biased against Natalie Reed's writings and I would hope by now that it is obvious why.
On Ophelia Benson, I find it ironic she wrote a book with Jeremy Stangroom 'Why truth matters' which was an argument of why 'Modern' vs. 'Post modern' methods should be used.

[another lurker]

I'll make one confession, I do feel bad for not having a detailed point by point case prepared for you, genuinely, but since I find it hard to do anything other than laugh at you at the moment, I can't really bring myself to worry about it. Make of that what you will. I'm sure you'll do so whether or not I have a point by point case prepared for you.

Is Louis being affected by a severe case of Greta-Christinits? Or is he really Greta Christina? Discuss.

Hey! Thats my name! Try 'anotheranotherlurker' or something, so folks don't get us confused or think I am logged in twice:P

[Guest]

Oh FFS. From OB's blag:

[spoiler]

Given the first-timeness of the commenter, I suspect the comment was a plant. At any rate, I haven’t threatened anyone. I haven’t even threatened to report him to the police, even though a lot of people have strongly urged me to report him, because Canadian law enforcement sees that kind of thing as a danger to people in general, not just to the recipient. (And he’s Canadian. Ooh I’m doxxing him!! Except that’s on his Facebook page. Visible to all.)
I haven’t threatened anyone. He did threaten me.
I’m very very very very very tired of this shit. My life is shit, thanks to these people. That’s what they want, and they get what they want. I’m a blogger and writer, so the work I do I do online. That means taking “a break” from online isn’t a happy little vacation, it’s being locked out of the work I do. Yes no doubt it’s pathetic contemptible nerdy “work” but I like doing it, and I don’t like being forced out of it by sadistic pseudonymous shits.
But some good does come out of it. Bjarte Foshaug was motivated by the acid threat to send $150 to Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan. He says a friend of his is also going to donate. So Jerry Conlon did some good after all!
But I want my life back. And I can’t have it. That makes me angry.

[/spoiler]

She's had that attention high from the "acid threat" victimhood, and now she's completely addicted.

Listening to all the godbaggery associated with the POTUS inauguration is much less annoying than reading that shit. You'd think I'd have learned by now. Time to go outdoors with the little dogs, methinks.

If her life is shit now, then should I personally contribute to make it worse in the next months by releasing tantamonious ammounts of trolling on her, from all directions possible? If she is so impressionable, my childlike-me inside barely can resist the urge... the only thing really holding me back is my laziness.

Maybe I could influence 4-chan to get her in their radars? I don't know... seems fun, but seems to imply in doing work... really, the world lacks an evil organization to do this work for me.

[Metalogic42]

I’m very very very very very tired of this shit. My life is shit, thanks to these people. That’s what they want, and they get what they want. I’m a blogger and writer, so the work I do I do online. That means taking “a break” from online isn’t a happy little vacation, it’s being locked out of the work I do. Yes no doubt it’s pathetic contemptible nerdy “work” but I like doing it, and I don’t like being forced out of it by sadistic pseudonymous shits. (link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... y-morning/)

Look, Ophelia. I don't know if you'll ever see this, but if you do, pay attention. Because I'm about to do some victim-blaming.

You're standing on a metaphorical sidewalk, and have been for awhile now. You're looking down the street, waiting for a speeding car to get close. Then you're jumping in front of it. Over and over. Does it suck that you just got liquefied by a semi hauling ass at 90 mph? Yes. But it's your fault.

If you get what you believe to be a credible threat against your safety, the only acceptable thing to do in response is to report it to law enforcement. Every time you draw attention to a treat while not reporting it, you're jumping in front of another car, and making a goddamn spectacle of yourself doing it. You're doing it again, right now.

I'm seeing comments pop up on this blog post of yours as I write this. I fully believe you enjoy your work blogging, and now, after reading these comments, I know why. It's not because you're making a difference, and it's not because people admire your work. It's because people pity you. I can see through it though. You're after as many "we love you, Ophelia"s as you can get.

You mention the "mildew pit" at the beginning of your post, you say "I suspect the comment was a plant". You're implying that the slymepit doxxed him just to fuck with you. Fuck you. Got any evidence? Of course not, because you'd never outright say it. You just want to put the thought in people's heads.

Then you say, "And he’s Canadian. Ooh I’m doxxing him!! Except that’s on his Facebook page. Visible to all." Is that sarcasm? I thought you were very, very tired of this shit. I thought you were extremely upset about all this, and it's wearing you down. How can you make light of that? Oh, that's right, because you're full of shit.

I know what else you're doing with "mildew pit" too. You don't want to say "slymepit" because some of your readers might be curious about it, and go searching to see what we actually say. Can't have that, can you? That won't work, though. Even though commenter "A Hermit" just swallowed the Kool-Aid, PZ makes reference to the slymepit all the time, and there's a tremendous backlog of mentions all over FTB. Nice try though.

[debaser71]

And, for the record, the comments are still missing from Pharyngula.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... lette-rig/

If there is a different sort of html code or something that I am missing, please tell me.

[Karmakin]

I am biased against Natalie Reed's writings and I would hope by now that it is obvious why.
On Ophelia Benson, I find it ironic she wrote a book with Jeremy Stangroom 'Why truth matters' which was an argument of why 'Modern' vs. 'Post modern' methods should be used.

Yup. That's actually why I can't just be "quiet" about the SJW movement, actually, as Louis asked. Reed is interesting, because she has some horrible stuff, like the "Die CIS Die" that would fit right in at the worst parts of the SJW movement, but some really good stuff like the writing on Intersectionalism and 4th-wave feminism.

Ophelia, I used to see her in the same way. She'd post links to some really positive, progressive analysis of these things then be smacked down in the comments by the regular bigots, and she'd back away from it quickly. She's gone off the bend now, of course.

But I do have sympathy for these people. As I've said before, in the SJW movement you're either a predator or you're prey. Maybe I'm too much of a softie...and I probably am. But that's how I feel.

[EdwardGemmer]

If too much "ahhh they're bigot just ignore them" goes on at FtB etc for you, DON'T POST THERE.

I agree with this - it's why I've not posted on Pharyngula for over a year and a half, nor on the other blogs that have started banning/deleting dissent since I noticed them doing that.

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

I'd like to know this too. I've not seen any reason to think TF is sexist, but I've seen plenty of accusations that he is. Just like with many others. BTW I think many come across as 'obsessive' (but why is it only 'our' side? Surely both!) but I think that's the result of frustration due to false accusations, the stifling of dissent and a feeling of duty to speak out against the strange events of the last couple of years or so.

I'd like to get people to divorce themselves from the idea that racism and sexism is per se wrong or evil. I'm a big believer that our minds evolved to categorize things in patterns for quick and easy uses. Race and gender are two very easy categorizations, and it is natural to assume patterns based on them. Only through education and experience do we fix that, but it makes for sense to do it from a ground up rather than a top down way.

So, who cares if bitch or cunt or any other insult is sexist. You're insulting someone, so you aren't exactly trying to be nice to them. PZ likes to call people idiots, which is likely offensive to mentally retarded people. He doesn't care, because he isn't interested in being nice to people.

Good fucking luck with that!

I think I know what you're getting at, but you might want to change the way you argue it if you want anyone to get beyond the first sentence.

LOL probably why I keep getting banned places. But regardless, that's what I'm going to push for. These fractures in the atheist community seem to basically boil down to people trying to find new ways to dismiss each other, i.e., if I can prove he said something sexist, I win! If I prove she is a hypocrite, I win! The profound lack of respect people to seem to have for each other's views is annoying, though I would guess a byproduct of (1) being an internet led group, and people act like jackasses on the internet, and (2) being in a group that rides itself on humiliating religious people.

[Metalogic42]

I do have some moderation turned on.

Thanks all.

Sorry this keeps turning up. But it’s not because I want it to! I would so love to stop talking about it. I would so love to go back to not talking about myself at all.

Bullshit. No one is making you post about this. But thanks for justifying the comments I just made about how you revel in sympathy.

[John Greg]

Good old Ophelia. gets it wrong again (http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... y-morning/).

She's posted a screenshot of a couple of comments from CommanderTuvoc, and Thaumus Themelios, claiming they come from the (newly misnamed) mildew pit, but they do not stem from here. They look like they come from SIN (http://skepticink.com/).

SIN, by the way, seems to have fixed the loading times probem, and is, at least for me, loading nice and fast.

[Dick Strawkins]

I am biased against Natalie Reed's writings and I would hope by now that it is obvious why.
On Ophelia Benson, I find it ironic she wrote a book with Jeremy Stangroom 'Why truth matters' which was an argument of why 'Modern' vs. 'Post modern' methods should be used.

I've never found Natalie Reed to be a good writer but my problem is not with her ideas, it is that she never seems to write a single concise sentence when a page and a half will do.
She never go much criticism here - the last time I can recall hearing about her on the slymepit was when people her were praising her for her posts criticising half-fishy on her "pozzing it up" post at crommunists.

As for Ophelia, well I have to say she is the one big loss from this whole mess.
She was the only one who had contributed something solid to the academic side of atheism with her books with Stangroom and Baggini.

I feel that she has been manipulated by the likes of Myers and Watson into blindly supporting everything they do when, deep down, she must know they don't really have her interests at heart. It has become a complete us or them issue with her.
Ophelia, I am pretty sure, is not exactly a rad-fem of the radfem101 playbook, but she is absolutely not a sex positive feminist (at least not in terms of sex work and porn.) She is also the sort that HATES the idea of big name skeptics/atheists making sex jokes at conferences. I noticed she was nowhere around to publicly support PZ after his, "lets do the sex thing later", video at skepticon3 was exposed by Reap.
Others have mentioned the possibility of narcissistic personality disorder for her and I'm afraid I think this may be pretty close to the bone. She also seems to show the tell-tale signs of borderline personality disorder with the way her previous close friends can in a moment become the worst of the worst (all her co-authors, Russell Blackford, Shermer, DJ Grothe etc) while all the while manipulative douchebags like Myers, Svan, Laden and Watson, are drawn in closer.

[debaser71]

Also, and sorry for all the me me me posts. but I figured I'd just put this out there.

here is a link to my first post in the "gendersphere"...and aside from a typo in the date about elevatorgate it's pretty much describes everything anyone could ever want to know about my personal story in regards to "gender feminism" and pharyngula.

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/201 ... ent-177118

[Apples]

I'd like to get people to divorce themselves from the idea that racism and sexism is per se wrong or evil. I'm a big believer that our minds evolved to categorize things in patterns for quick and easy uses. Race and gender are two very easy categorizations, and it is natural to assume patterns based on them. Only through education and experience do we fix that, but it makes for sense to do it from a ground up rather than a top down way.

Good fucking luck with that!

I think I know what you're getting at, but you might want to change the way you argue it if you want anyone to get beyond the first sentence.

Right... See, this is what happens when SJWs and other ideologues play twister with language. Of course, since PZ recently said "We're all racists," racist no longer means "belief that people of a particular race are inferior." It's the whole implicit bias thing, which implies that 1) you can call people "racist" who are obviously not bigots, and 2) if anyone demands evidence and you don't have it handy, you can fall back on your uber-sophisticated deviancy-defined-up concept of racism.

And conveniently, if you are a self-styled SJW in full battle gear, you've already self-inoculated by considering yourself "racist" (or "sexist," or whatever) -- but you're working on it ... so you're one of the good guys. Which gives the accusation a bit of juice when you use it on other people who are still stuck on the old-fashioned definition. That way, when they try to defend themselves against being called a bigot, you can accuse them of doubling down, tell them intent is not magic, and righteously fuck them into the ground. So satisfying!

[Dilurk]

I am biased against Natalie Reed's writings and I would hope by now that it is obvious why.
On Ophelia Benson, I find it ironic she wrote a book with Jeremy Stangroom 'Why truth matters' which was an argument of why 'Modern' vs. 'Post modern' methods should be used.

Yup. That's actually why I can't just be "quiet" about the SJW movement, actually, as Louis asked. Reed is interesting, because she has some horrible stuff, like the "Die CIS Die" that would fit right in at the worst parts of the SJW movement, but some really good stuff like the writing on Intersectionalism and 4th-wave feminism.

You will note that all the trans* folk I know online. Natalie Reed and others have been against A+ at least and I suspect it is partially for the A+/FtB lack of awareness of intersectionality theory. Look up what having ''male privilege' means when used to refer to a woman who started out life as a boy. It's a very good example. http://mscitrus.wordpress.com/2010/07/0 ... privilege/

Ophelia, I used to see her in the same way. She'd post links to some really positive, progressive analysis of these things then be smacked down in the comments by the regular bigots, and she'd back away from it quickly. She's gone off the bend now, of course.

I'm of the opinion that something very nasty has happened to her in her real life that has made her very fearful. I'm also of the mindset that we have many examples of over done hero worship in the community.

But I do have sympathy for these people. As I've said before, in the SJW movement you're either a predator or you're prey. Maybe I'm too much of a softie...and I probably am. But that's how I feel.

I am a horrible softie who helps out people in need from time to time. Join the line. l also have sympathy for these people. That said, if they are hurting people with bullying they should be called on it.


I doubt you saw the first time I posted http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... rformance/ That might interest you as well. The article on pomo vs. modern reminded me of this article.

[John Greg]

The issue, well, one of the primary issues with Benson is her apparent total lack of willingness to accept any responsibility whatsoever for her actions. Whenever she gets criticism, or any kind of negative response, it is never, ever her actions that brought on this negative feedback, it is always someone else's fault ... usually justin fucking vacula, or some mildew pitter nee Slyme Pitter.

HAHA, just joking Justin V.

[windy]

And, for the record, the comments are still missing from Pharyngula.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... lette-rig/

If there is a different sort of html code or something that I am missing, please tell me.

No, you're right, looks like the comments have only been restored on older posts (pre-May 2010).

[Apples]

I would so love to go back to not talking about myself at all.

LOL. Im-fucking-possible. I am absolutely dumbfounded by her entertainingly total inability to resist saying, "Enough about you - let's talk about me" at every opportunity. Her narcissism is infantile and compulsive. And she knows it -- people remind her -- but it's apparently too deeply-ingrained in her character to stop.

[Angry_Drunk]

Hi Louis,
Please do be a sport and tell me why Im a
-'in Tfoot's case a shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag"

I'm pretty sure the facts are against you on this one, but I'm all ears as to why I'm a 'shark jumping obsessive sexist loonbag'.

pointless drivel

Dude, I know that such a massive intellect as yourself can't be bothered with actually responding to mere mortals such as we, but you really should ease up on the hand-waving. I'd hate for you to acquire some sort of joint damage in your wrist.

[EdwardGemmer]

I'd like to get people to divorce themselves from the idea that racism and sexism is per se wrong or evil. I'm a big believer that our minds evolved to categorize things in patterns for quick and easy uses. Race and gender are two very easy categorizations, and it is natural to assume patterns based on them. Only through education and experience do we fix that, but it makes for sense to do it from a ground up rather than a top down way.

Good fucking luck with that!

I think I know what you're getting at, but you might want to change the way you argue it if you want anyone to get beyond the first sentence.

Right... See, this is what happens when SJWs and other ideologues play twister with language. Of course, since PZ recently said "We're all racists," racist no longer means "belief that people of a particular race are inferior." It's the whole implicit bias thing, which implies that 1) you can call people "racist" who are obviously not bigots, and 2) if anyone demands evidence and you don't have it handy, you can fall back on your uber-sophisticated deviancy-defined-up concept of racism.

And conveniently, if you are a self-styled SJW in full battle gear, you've already self-inoculated by considering yourself "racist" (or "sexist," or whatever) -- but you're working on it ... so you're one of the good guys. Which gives the accusation a bit of juice when you use it on other people who are still stuck on the old-fashioned definition. That way, when they try to defend themselves against being called a bigot, you can accuse them of doubling down, tell them intent is not magic, and righteously fuck them into the ground. So satisfying!

Very true. I don't understand why people on the internet seem to have a fantasy for belittling people.

[AbsurdWalls]

Oh FFS. From OB's blag:

[spoiler]

Given the first-timeness of the commenter, I suspect the comment was a plant. At any rate, I haven’t threatened anyone. I haven’t even threatened to report him to the police, even though a lot of people have strongly urged me to report him, because Canadian law enforcement sees that kind of thing as a danger to people in general, not just to the recipient. (And he’s Canadian. Ooh I’m doxxing him!! Except that’s on his Facebook page. Visible to all.)
I haven’t threatened anyone. He did threaten me.
I’m very very very very very tired of this shit. My life is shit, thanks to these people. That’s what they want, and they get what they want. I’m a blogger and writer, so the work I do I do online. That means taking “a break” from online isn’t a happy little vacation, it’s being locked out of the work I do. Yes no doubt it’s pathetic contemptible nerdy “work” but I like doing it, and I don’t like being forced out of it by sadistic pseudonymous shits.
But some good does come out of it. Bjarte Foshaug was motivated by the acid threat to send $150 to Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan. He says a friend of his is also going to donate. So Jerry Conlon did some good after all!
But I want my life back. And I can’t have it. That makes me angry.

[/spoiler]

She's had that attention high from the "acid threat" victimhood, and now she's completely addicted.

Listening to all the godbaggery associated with the POTUS inauguration is much less annoying than reading that shit. You'd think I'd have learned by now. Time to go outdoors with the little dogs, methinks.

If her life is shit now, then should I personally contribute to make it worse in the next months by releasing tantamonious ammounts of trolling on her, from all directions possible? If she is so impressionable, my childlike-me inside barely can resist the urge... the only thing really holding me back is my laziness.

Maybe I could influence 4-chan to get her in their radars? I don't know... seems fun, but seems to imply in doing work... really, the world lacks an evil organization to do this work for me.

No, don't be a dick.

[Loose CK]

No one has pointed this out but Louis used Ophelia's cherry picked Shermer Quote:

I'm going to ask you all a question now, a very simple one. Here is Michael Shermer (someone I admire and enjoy the works of very much) saying something that caused consternation:

“It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing”

Do any of you think that statement is sexist?

If you listen to the context of Shermer's answer it is obvious that it is not sexist in the least. But you, Louis, wouldn't know that because you take liars like Benson at their word. Wake up man and smell the slyme!

See it here at the 12 minute mark:

[youtube]E5pmvv_-Lew[/youtube]

[jimthepleb]

It's certainly not on the basis of the standard way we agree upon the meaning of words, namely to use the meaning that is present in dictionaries.
For example the commonly agreed meaning of 'cunt' not a sexist epithet - certainly not in the UK and UK influenced territories (Ireland, Australia NZ etc).



Are you suggesting that we simply accept the US meaning?
On what basis should we do that?

I have a HUGE problem with this lexical warfare strategy from the FtB crowd.
If this is the case then were Franc to have said: 'If i were a woman i would kick OB in the 'fanny'' would that be ok then, as a kick in the arse is less problematic than one in the vagoo? 'cos here in Britain at least the word means exactly that (vagina not arse)..... two nations separated by a common language and all that