If you are a regular of Free Thought Blogs or Skepchick, you’ve probably heard by now that Surly Amy went to TAM (The Amazing Meeting which is a skeptics conference) and because of various reasons, became upset and left the conference early.
Now, I don’t presume to judge her actions as either justified or unjustified, or her feelings as either justified or unjustified. I don’t know. I can’t possibly know. Even if I could know, I am not her and judging someone’s emotional response as either valid or invalid is really messed up.
However, that doesn’t seem to be stopping some other people from expressing very strong opinions on the pressing matter of whether or not she should have been upset. This is in-line with the skeptic topic of the year: At what point should we allow women to be upset about something without punishing them?
Now, I was going to just post this as a comment to this blog post by Thunderf00t, but I’m posting it here. I gave into parental-style rage…um….just a little bit.
…because when you get upset about something it completely invalidates you as a human being? Grow up.
I think it was sometime around middle school when kids stopped laughing at people for crying.
Please quit with the hollow crap.
You’re completely forgetting the FIRST rule of debate which is “Attack ideas, not people”.
Just because others fail at this as well, does not mean that you are off the hook.
Some people commenting here seem to think that is the case. For some reason, if someone (whoever, doesn’t matter who) called them or someone else a name on FtB or Skepchick (doesn’t even matter what blog), it somehow gives them a magic license to be awful to anyone associated with them.
For example, John says: “There has been a lot more bullying, strawmanning, and name-calling against others who disagreed, from Skepchick and FfTB, and it’s funny that they end up crying…”
No. That’s not how that works. You should still feel guilty about thinking someone crying is funny. You’re justification fails.
When you work in vaguery and parody; and assertions of “ridiculousness” over and over again without either giving more information or actually engaging with the topic; it is nearly impossible to attack specific ideas or stances. It’s like trying to paint a house with a helicopter and a bucket.
You’re not even making a point here – AT ALL – just attacking. You don’t bother to pick apart what other people have actually said and direct your criticisms at their ideas – but just parody the monolithic hypothetical vague “them”.
For F sake you are reduced to attacking someone for having an emotion you don’t agree with?
I deny your self-assessment as valid. “Seriously, this is not being mean…” Yes it is and you know it. You’re an adult – please act like one.
SINMANTYX 
I hope you are not suggesting that using an emotion allows you to win by default? Now you can not mean that. Crying about a T-shirt and then running home is an irrational act, something that is not a positive trait in someone who is supposed to be a rational thinker. If this series of events is not commented on as it has been by people on both sides, it will create precedence, a negative one.
One does not allow irrational behaviour to become the norm, and her action are irrational.
I have poly-cystic ovarian syndrome which sometimes causes hormonal changes that make me incredibly irritable, sometimes depressed, and occasionally I cry for absolutely no reason at all. So, should you disallow my “irrational behavior”? Should I be kicked out of the essentialist “rational thinker” club?
Thing is, you have no idea if her behavior is irrational. Were you even there with her? If not, you have absolutely no basis to understand the complexities of the social interactions that she had at TAM. Also, your painful over-simplification of her stated reasons for being upset is dishonest. Even if there were a justifiable reason to make a judgment about her feelings or personal actions, you are not even trying to be fair.
Now, if she was attempting to win an argument by crying, that would not be reasonable. I do see this all the time, especially with the anti-vax crowd.
However, she is not trying to win an argument by becoming upset. She just stated what some of her experiences were at TAM, explained that they were stressful to her, and she left early. That’s it.
Your confusing rationality with simply having emotional responses.
An “appeal to emotion” is a logical fallacy. However, you need to actually be trying to make an argument with an “appeal to emotion” for that to be a fallacy or “irrational”.
Even if she was attempting to win some sort of argument by appealing to sympathy or emotion, the response to that should be to focus on the argument not to make fun of her because she became upset or to attack her personally.
To try to win an argument by attacking a person is also a fallacy. Who, exactly is being the irrational one here?
“Even if I could know, I am not her and judging someone’s emotional response as either valid or invalid is really messed up.”
I want to focus on this point in particular. There is a certain culture at FTB and associated blogs that effectively says “I’m right, you’re wrong, and if you disagree, prepare to be abused.” Slight disagreements get inflated into bizarre areas of ad hominem attacks – most of which are vulgar, mean spirited and highly undeserved.
The attitude taken by FTB, et al, for a very long time has been that if you feel abused or bullied, so what? You were wrong, and therefore you were asking for it. And therefore likewise, *your emotional response* to this abuse is *invalid.*
Hence the absurdity of lecturing the rest of us on whether we can judge the emotional responses of someone else. No one at FTB cares if they’re being emotionally abusive to the people they disagree with. *No one.*
It then becomes unbearably hypocritical when, having alienated virtually the entire movement with their vulgar abuse, these folks turn around and ask why they aren’t getting any sympathy in return for their perceived slights (in this instance being effectively told by a certain individual that she doesn’t want to be associated with your organization – which she has a right to do). I mean no offense to Amy as a person, but FTB et al have made their bed and it would be hypocritical for them not to lie in it.
And I know this *because* I’ve been at the receiving end of it. As has Thunderf00t. I’m tired of being told that if *I* feel hurt, my feelings are *invalid,* but if someone from *your group* feels hurt, suddenly I should care. Empathy is a two way street in this instance. You can’t tell me that *my* feelings are invalid, then turn around and assert that I should recognize the feelings of someone else.
Apparently you missed this bit, “Just because others fail at this as well, does not mean that you are off the hook.”
Do you think that a post dedicated to laughing at someone for being upset is reasonable? Should bad behavior be a justification for bad behavior?
More troubling is that you aren’t even making references to actions of Surly Amy individually. Is it right to punish her for her associations? Has she personally verbally abused you?
At no point do I ask anyone to care. Whether or not you care is your own business. In fact, I am asking for the opposite. It would be much better for people, who are not her personal friends and associates, to not care so much about her personal emotional responses or actions in this case.
I think it would be a shame if the discussion judging the appropriateness of her being upset came to define her the way that discussion has come to define Rebecca Watson. It just seems so unnecessary and counter productive.
As far as the separate issue of the culture of FtB. FtB has many blogs (about 30) and each has their own comment-culture. PZ’s blog has a reputation for being particularly harsh and I have seen first-hand what the comments tend to be like when hot-button issues come up.
I am not defending any abuse by pointing out abuse. I am not minimizing your experience. I have also raised concerns about civility at FtB, so let’s just nip any accusation of hypocrisy on my part in the bud.
Simply put: Thunderf00t is not addressing abuse by hurling abuse.
Suggestions concerning comment-policies or calling out individuals for their specific words or actions is constructive.
I do not see how literally laughing at someone because they cried is going to encourage a culture of civility, in fact I’m quite certain that the opposite of that is true.
Let me just point out, that though you quoted “John” – that quote did not come from me. My original post, in its entirety states this:
“Fantastic post. You’ve got this is the weird new FTB fundamentalism wrapped up in a nutshell. How can they possibly spend this much time saying horrible, atrocious things about complete strangers voicing even the mildest of disagreement, and not ever consider that other people might resent that?
“As if words on a t-shirt are even remotely on the same level as that “rape apologist, mra” bullshit they throw around at the slightest non-provocation.
“These people need to start monitoring their tone or eventually they aren’t going to have anyone left in the movement that they haven’t completely alienated.”
I would like to point out that if you read this, not only have I been consistent, but I haven’t at all made this about Amy as a person (or at least I’ve tried not to). I’ve been harsh, but I’ve tried to keep myself focused on the larger organization that this group of folks represent, and in particular my disappointment that rather than doing any sort of soul-searching as to why their organization is alienating other skeptics, they’re simply jumping to the other extreme by bending over backwards to explain it in terms of everybody else but themselves. And I stand by that.
I notice at one point I did say “she needs to grow up” – which is harsh and not really indicative of how I feel; again, I don’t want to tell her she has no right to be upset, just that she needs to understand how other people out side of her group feel and why they feel that way; so far that’s not been forthcoming.
I won’t try to speak for everyone, but I think that perhaps most people looking on this episode with confusion are more dismayed by a perceived lack of self-awareness by the entire group, more than the feelings of Amy as a person.
I’ve had a very strong emotional reaction to your post. I feel personally attacked, threatened and harassed.
As you have said, you are in no position to judge the validity of my reaction.
If you deny or dispute the intent of your post was a personal attack specifically against me, then you are judging the validity of my reaction and attacking me further.
So, I am a victim of your intentional attacks, and you can never dispute that or else you are intentionally attacking me.
From now on, anything that you say that does not support my worldview, and my arguments, can be nothing but an attack on my personhood.
If you decide that my emotional reaction is itself an attack, or some sort of emotional warfare, you still can’t respond without attacking me personally.
If you show any disbelief that I emotionally reacted in the way I did, or contest anything I claim or believe, you are making fun of me and attacking me personally.
If someone else reacts differently to your post, or views it as innocuous or reasonable, then they are attacking me too.
From this point forward, everyone must defer to my worldview and both my reasoned and unreasoned beliefs… or else they are attacking me.
Stop invalidating me. Stop making fun of me. Stop laughing at me. And if you dare claim you are not doing these things, you are attacking me.
If you want to have a discussion about the T-shirt itself, there is quite the discussion going on at http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/07/in-your-face/
This conversation is about Thunderf00t over-simplifying someone’s personal experience about being stressed/upset and making fun of her for it.
The stimulus and the reaction are two different things. Whether or not the stimulus is appropriate, could be a fruitful topic for discussion. The validity of an individual’s emotional reaction isn’t.
Also, if you feel that someone is using an appeal to emotion or sympathy to win an argument, the best tactic is to focus on the argument.
Thunderf00t was making no argument, was responding to no stance and was making no point. He was just making fun of someone for crying.
Thunderf00t’s post mostly falls under “disbelief in the emotional reaction” in the above unwinnable scenario. Thunderf00t is a “fun” character (that’s the polite way of putting it) and better at instigating thought than being a source for conclusions. He does make some useful points, sometimes points that others are afraid to make, but you sort of have to look for them instead of reacting to everything else.
Anyhow, the point of what I wrote is that the structure of the situation blocks meaningful progress on whatever issue is at hand. As such, there is no good way of responding to it… The Kobayashi Maru Scenario is unwinnable. So condemning people for responding to it poorly isn’t exactly fair, especially since not responding to it at all is one of the worst responses.
As for addressing some argument or other… I have yet to see an actual reasoned argument presented amidst all the rancor of late. I doubt the participants could even agree on what the issue is. The problem has nothing to do with the debate, but with the intractability of belief… and the fact that this tired dogmatic scenario is now happening in the skeptical community.
I have decided to abstain from patronizing FtB. As for the T-shirt’s message: if I were a man, I would read that and not fear being attacked for interacting with that person. It can be socially crippling to fear that others are afraid of you or judging you… and men can have enough problems socially for other reasons. So, unilaterally declaring the intent of that T-shirt to be hostile seems a bit self-involved.
Pingback: I didn’t want to hurt you but you’re pretty when you cry. | SINMANTYX « Kentekens's Blog
I agree that calling something an attack that isn’t an attack can be manipulative. Are you implying that the specific post that I’m referring to is not actually as attack? Is there anything that I said in my original post that isn’t true?
If Thunderf00t has points that he decides to obscure in dishonest mean-spirited posts like the one I responded to, it might be more constructive for him to simply make those points.
I agree with you that “what the issue is” is sometimes completely ignored, and the post by Thunderf00t is a prime example of that. If he has a point, he is deciding to hide it. I’ve said the same thing about other posts of his http://freethoughtblogs.com/cristinarad/2012/07/11/gender-differences-skepchickconconvergence-panel/#comment-1281. You seem to agree with me.
Thunderf00t could decide to address the issues without dishonestly characterizing someone’s personal experience (of being upset no less) and placing hir emotional response as a subject of public ridicule. We are FAR from reaching the “unwinnable situation” territory.
For example. I suspect that when TF was ousted from FtB he was upset about it. I mean, PZ and he are friends – or at least were friends. So, in this hypothetical scenario, let’s say at some point he writes a post about how this whole thing was stressful and upsetting to him. Do you think “not responding to it” with ridicule and posts calling him a silly thinned-skinned ridiculous cry baby-boy “is one of the worst responses”?
As you conceded, he hasn’t even clearly defined what the issue he is attempting to tackle even is. How, in the world, is not doing *what he did* worse than doing nothing?
You do know how to win the Kobayashi Maru right?
As far as the T-shirt, I referred you to a discussion about it where someone who knows Harriet Hall explained her intent, there was a discussion about whether or not her intent was communicated effectively, the validity of her intended message, whether or not it was appropriate on an ethical level to wear the shirt for three days because it may have contributed to a “chilly atmosphere”, how it was perceived as rude and “a slap in the face” and a reiteration by several people (including Surly Amy) that Harriet Hall had every right to wear the shirt and several messages of admiration for Harriet Hall concerning various aspects of her life.
However, as I said, that is not the conversation that my post is about. It is about a post by Thunderf00t that simply referred to it as “someone’s T-shirt” and didn’t even bother mentioning what it said in the body of his post, much less discuss what it communicated or what it’s intended message was.
His post was squarely focused on how ridiculous it was that Surly Amy was upset by it. That is the issue I am pointing out, and nothing else, by calling him out on his behavior.
“These people need to start monitoring their tone or eventually they aren’t going to have anyone left in the movement that they haven’t completely alienated.”
I agree with this, except for one aspect: “These people”.
With respect, I think your focus is off. Focusing on the larger organization does not decrease the personal nature of criticism or attacks, it makes it worse because now you are criticizing or attacking an identity. Your grouping the intermittent outrageous offenders with the mild continuous ones and with the mostly innocent. It just encourages people to “camp” up because of the collective threats and attacks.
This is exactly the problem with using the term “MRA” as a slur. MRA is a very large group of people. Some MRA are violent, hateful and frankly sort of scary – I’ve had conversations with self-professed MRA who all but said that homosexuals should be round up and slaughtered. However, that person is an individual, and if I were to attack his ideas, I should be mentioning his name and identifying the specific ideas I am criticizing. It would be inappropriate to just call him “MRA” or pretend as if his attitude is typical.
That’s what my analogy was about – painting a house with a helicopter and bucket.
Civility issues need to be addressed to the people who are perpetuating the problem or who have power to deal with the problem. Surly Amy personally went up to Harriet Hall to discuss the shirt. Regardless of your opinion of the shirt, I think that was the correct approach. I am calling out Thunderf00t’s horrible post for what it is. I called Greg Laden out for his stupid “damaged brains” comment. http://freethoughtblogs.com/cristinarad/2012/07/11/gender-differences-skepchickconconvergence-panel/#comment-1130
FtB is a great example of this. As far as I can tell, they allow individual bloggers to have individual comment policies. Some blogs and comment sections are extremely civil, while others tolerate personal attacks (as long as they are not slurs that refer to some sort of group, like the n-word, r-word, etc) and there is a culture of “the burn” – where particularly creative insults are prized and encouraged.
My proposed solution to this issue is to either make a universal comment policy or boiler-plate language that must be included in the individual blog’s comment policies or require a small “head’s up” explanation of the particular blog’s comment-culture.
I also want to make a clear distinction here. There is a real distinction between being excluded or insulted within the space of someone else, and having someone proactively go into your space and be insulting or harassing. Neither are ideal, but there is a difference there. One you can avoid and it doesn’t significantly negatively impact you, the other, you can’t.
I have decided to not interact in various places on the internet because of the abuse I’ve received. That’s not right and that’s too bad. However, nobody has ever sent me abusive private messages in my personal email (only IM’s on a BBS) or mounted any sort of smear campaign directed specifically at me. I can tell you, I probably wouldn’t hold up too well with that – even though I’ve been called everything under the sun within other people’s spaces (blog comment areas, YouTube comments, etc).
“Are you implying that the specific post that I’m referring to is not actually as attack?” The entire post is not an attack. To characterize an entire post as an attack, or nothing but an attack, only serves to discount it. As I indicated above, as soon as someone is allowed to characterize something as merely an attack, progress is blocked.
Surly Amy responded emotionally to a T-shirt. Thunderf00t responded emotionally to that response. Surly Amy’s sensibilities were offended. Thunderf00t’s sensibilities were offended. Both have clearly felt victims of undeserved negative attacks in recent weeks as well. In the related hostility, nobody has been the bigger person and made any effort to publicly apologize for their part in the unpleasantness.
“How, in the world, is not doing *what he did* worse than doing nothing?” Thunderf00t is a bull in a china shop, not to mention he was arguably defending himself (albeit poorly). Anyway, he brought more attention to something that otherwise might have been overlooked, ignored or swept under the rug. If Thunderf00t said nothing, then many people wouldn’t be discussing this or any larger issues involved. I find the tone, content and behavior in multiple blogs and their comments in complete opposition to civil dialog and skepticism… and if only the fringes of the “community” dare tread on such topics, then the future isn’t rational but radical. Silence is too easily mistaken for consent… and sadly, that makes the Silent culpable. If Thunderf00t provokes just one of his level headed friends to speak up, then Thunderf00t has helped.
You are free to call out Thunderf00t on his behavior, but he is also free to call out Surly Amy on her behavior. There are two ways of making things personal… In that post, Thunderf00t may have made things personal, but Surly Amy made things personal first. Out of context, both Thunderf00t and Surly Amy’s behavior can be deemed inappropriate. In context, both Thunderf00t and Surly Amy’s behavior can be understood. You are focusing on one snapshot of Thunderf00t’s behavior, and Thunderf00t was focused on one snapshot of Surly Amy’s behavior. It is an unending cycle…
How is the entire post not an attack? About the only thing you might glean from it, is that TF doesn’t think the shirt is offensive. However, he never actually discusses the shirt, he only discusses Amy’s reaction to it and is dishonest about what that reaction was.
Not just a little bit dishonest – really dishonest. In his official salvo at the beginning of his post, he doesn’t even use her words to describe what the “actual” is (which would have been very easy to do) but a characterization of it that is arguably patently false. For goodness sakes – anyone heard of primary sources?
No, Thunderf00t is not helping – at all. You might be comparing what he is doing to doing nothing. I’m comparing what he is doing to doing it right.
I think in both cases – he fails with this post. I suspect you agree that he could do better with this sort of post – and why shouldn’t that be the focus of criticizing HIS post?
(The biggest criticism of Thunderf00t while he was at FtB from Greta Christina and Zinnia Jones as well – is that he refused to articulate his points in a way that you can actually discuss them with him, and some of his arguments (not his conclusions or stances, but his arguments) are really really terrible. He was not hounded as a misogynist or any such thing – in case you ever got that impression.)
Please explain to me how Amy Surly has been uncivil? Do you really think her simply expressing that she felt insulted by Harriet’s shirt is attacking anyone, even Harriet, personally?
As far as I know, she hasn’t. If she has, then those specific problematic statements or her actual actions (not the actions of others or the uncivil comments on a blog made by someone else and moderated by someone else) should be the basis for judgment.
And certainly – certainly – that doesn’t justify essentially pointed at her and laughing because she may have had a good cry at some point due to stress.
That’s indefensible.
Sure, we seem to agree more than we disagree. I enjoyed reading most of these blogs once upon a time, and if they would stop disparaging as “tone trolls” everyone who complains about the abuse, I’m sure I’d probably go back to reading it eventually. Until that happens though, I’m pessimistic that they’ll ever fix the general commenting policy issues that drives away outsiders and, imo, promotes a very group-think kind of atmosphere.
Anyways, I don’t want to pile on gratuitous abuse against Amy or any of her friends who have decided to commiserate with her. I’ve got no real beef with them (at least not on that issue), and I imagine I would do the same in the same context. I’ll try to be more careful in future that my criticisms don’t come across that way – as gratuitously hurtful and whatnot.
“How is the entire post not an attack?” Okay, this ignores what I just said, and then you go on to tell me what I may or may not glean from reading Thunderf00t’s post. You’ve lost me… I am done here.
Amy didn’t simply express feelings, but characterized the actions and intent of others… How can that be anything but uncivil or an attack? I feel you didn’t consider the implications my original abstract reply… and since this is an expression of my feelings, you can’t dispute it.
Btw, citing only Greta Christina and Zinnia Jones is dishonest. PZ Myers and Ed Brayton clearly attacked Thunderf00t personally in public.
Out of curiosity, what would you call someone who laughs at the idea that “sex” with an inebriated individual barely able to move or process information? Or who argues that women are given immediate credibility when they allege sexual assault happened?
Can you cite an instant of “rape apologist, mra” that you disapprove of?
Of course it is. You think she needs to grow a back bone and stop whining. That was your immediate reaction to reading about what happened.
If it means anything, you won’t have to worry about this over the top internet warrior. I’ve ‘quit’ the skeptic/atheist community. Might keep reading a few sites out of habit for a little while but hopefully the name’s Dawkins, Watson and Grothe will become a vague memory
Julian, I understand the frustration here. After reading some of the comments on TF’s blog, I want to rip my hair out and I’ve only been following these issues for a short time. Many lies and exaggerations – and nicknames. Vague insults. Insinuations.
But please, don’t accuse someone of being disingenuous – especially when he is essentially apologizing. It doesn’t just fan the flame – it relights it.
Look – the first time I commented on PZ’s blog was a long time ago. I am a fellow academic and he was dealing with a group that wanted him fired essentially for being offensive. I wrote a formal letter, including my name and position, and university affiliation straight to the University of Minnesota. I posted this letter (de-identified) into the comments section of his blog concerning the issue.
I was expecting a “hey – thanks for your support” from his fans there. However, because during the discussions I dared to point out that they seemed overly harsh to a theist commenter who expressed an opinion they didn’t like, a good number of them turned on me, called me a “troll” (which, to me, means you are just saying terrible things to get a reaction and you aren’t contributing anything). I told them they were alienating potential allies and didn’t go back to the blog again for a few years.
I posted a few weeks ago, commenting on a proposed sexual harassment policy. I suggested that the word “offensive” was too vague, and could give people the wrong impression that people had the right not to be offended; and that another phrase such as “abusive” or “targeted offensive” (directing the comments AT someone, instead of talking generally) might be a good idea. PZ agreed. (I found out later Richard Carrier had a similar opinion.)
However, someone (I tried to find it, but couldn’t. I will if you ask me to.) called me a “sexist” and attacked me for it. Which was weird. Actually about a half dozen other people thought it was undeserved as well.
So yeah, I am sure that a vast majority of the time when someone is being accused of rape apology and misogyny (such as, I don’t know, the Amazing Atheist), it is absolutely justified. However, it’s not fair to assume that unjustified name-calling and branding never happens. It’s also not clear if doing that is a good thing even when it is justified.
It completely fair to ask John what specific examples he means. When does he think these labels are unjustified? He should be asked to give an example, I agree.
However, attacking and putting thoughts into his brain isn’t going to get you anywhere.
No, I’m not ignoring you. I just don’t know how you answered my question, so I restated it.
Is there anything in Thunderf00t’s blogpost that is making a point and not just attacking Amy for having an emotional response?
Seriously, point it out to me because I don’t see it. I’ve read the post a few times now, and really can’t find anything in it that isn’t a vague attack.
You said that calling an entire blog post an “attack” is dismissing it. Well, yeah, it is. And that is justified if that blog post, is indeed just one gigantic attack on someone for having an emotional response.
Yes, I’m calling TF out on a “snap shot” of his behavior. I’m not trying to judge him as a human being or deny that his level of stress may be contributing to him lashing out at people.
“…but Surly Amy made things personal first.” – what?
1) I am unaware of any personal attacks that Surly Amy has thrown at TF.
2) Even if that is the case, it is an explanation but not an excuse.
3) At no point did TF talk about whether or not Amy Surly was uncivil to Harriet Hall. So, pretending that his post was addressing that, or was motivated by that, doesn’t really make sense.
4) Feelings and actions are two different things. Crying is not even a primarily voluntary response for goodness sakes.
TF attacked Amy for having the emotion and crying about it. At no point did he even discuss something that she said about it, much less her actions concerning it.
So, your analogy dies pretty quickly in this case. If he actually made a point concerning the situation that wasn’t actually an attack and it was characterized as an attack, then I’m totally with you.
However, reading Thunderf00t’s actual post (not a hypothetical better post) you have to start reading tea-leaves or something to construct his argument FOR him.
I know he has taken a lot of heat lately, but that does not excuse this. It’s over-the-top awful on many levels.
“In the related hostility, nobody has been the bigger person and made any effort to publicly apologize for their part in the unpleasantness.”
This isn’t true. There have been apologies – but they are generally characterized as “non-apologies”. PZ’s YouTube vid is an example of this, as well as DJ’s apology.
A lot of “calls for apology” are obnoxious in my opinion. If someone wants to apology they will. If they are forced into an apology through social pressure, it’s just not genuine and is pretty worthless other than for power politics. I so hope that TF, as you mentioned, decides to be “the bigger person”. However, a LOUD “call for apology” is just going to paint him into a corner and galvanize the whole thing even more.
What is sort of interesting about this from a feminist perspective is that Surly Amy is expressing her emotion in a female-typical way (crying and talking about it) and, consistent with your assessment of TF, TF is expressing his emotion in a male-typical way (lashing out).
It is interesting to see how various people find the two approaches either acceptable or unacceptable.
Btw, I concede that Thunderf00t certainly endured mistreatment at FtB (PZ admitted as much in his YouTube vid on the subject). I probably shouldn’t have brought that up. It’s completely off-topic. I’m just pointing out that his writing style is not the best for having fruitful discussions.
ANYWAY – this comment is getting too long!
I love the Kobayashi Maru analogy – as far as the greater issue. As I said, I don’t think TF is there yet with this particular post, but your point is well taken that if we defined things too broardly then we get into bad territory.
The way you win the Kobayashi Maru is that you refuse to play the game that has been provided to you.
Do you want “T-shirt gate” or whatever to be the new “elevatorgate”? I don’t. Already the nicknames are being coined, the mischaracterizations and over-dramatizations are being cemented, etc.
I could write about this stuff for a good long while if I felt like it. I get tons of pageviews when I do. However, at some point, we have to just stop it.
Whether or not Surly Amy was justified in crying or if Harriet was trying to be mean is just NOT an issue fit for months or years of discussion.
Julian: from talking to Ms. Melby on her blog she’s convinced me that she’s a sincerely caring, insightful and sensitive individual who has redeemed somewhat my opinion of the blog networks I was criticizing. I’m going to be respectful of her wishes and not reignite this controversy here if she doesn’t want me to.
But I’d like to point out the disingenuous of what you just did there: when I said that phrases like “rape apologist” and “mra” are thrown out too liberally on FTB, and that this behavior alienates potential allies, you countered by asking me to defend a statement *that I did not make.* And that’s the point. You’re asking me to defend things that haven’t been said (not by me or anyone I know – trust me, I wouldn’t tolerate statements like that if an acquaintance of mine made them) based on your ability purely to assert some vague association. That’s nonsense. That’s also, in a nutshell, the argument I was making. Making a blind assertion, assuming guilt, using assumed guilt to abuse the person if that person attempts to defend themselves. Pure Kafka.
The further problem is that when you throw out accusations like that, chances are you’re generating a *lot* of false positives – and if you’re doing that, then naturally you’re going to assume that you’re besieged by some massive hoard of mra trolls. But the other possibility, I think, is the more likely – that mras of that type are actually quite quite small in number, and chances are you’re just unfairly abusing one of your allies for presumed guilt by association. Deliberately perpetuating flame war culture magnifies this problem, as it rewards people who assume the worst, and thus magnifies perceived problems beyond all reason.
Amazing Atheist’s behavior was inexcusable. He’s an ass. But using his behavior as a default for understanding all of your interactions with people you disagree with is going to result in a completely distorted perception of the situation you’re dealing with; you shouldn’t use that distorted picture as the basis for all of your interactions on the internet.
Last reply so I’ll avoid questions.
John, I didn’t ask you to defend anything. I asked how you would describe certain behavior. The point of that para was to figure out just what examples of ‘mra, misogynist’ you object to. Which is why I asked. Without reference I don’t know what you’re talking about.
And I am not using AA as ‘the default experience.’ I use my ‘real life’ experience with rape apologia and the casual dismissal of rape by the men and women I know. The easy and quick parallels I’ve been able to draw between them and this community are why I want out.
The t-shirt was something that was rather tame. On the front it stated that she felt safe and welcome at TAM. That is important because there was a group of people saying that one shouldn’t feel safe because an individual gave an example of what happened to her. I won’t get into the credibility of Ms. Watson or if the behavior of the other individual in the elevator was reasonable because the focus here is on the aftermath.
Let’s consider the timeline and see how that developed
So a new convention is coming up and a small but vocal group pushes hard for a document to address this issue of harassment. TF then wrote on his FtB that this issue is a misuse of the energy of the community because it actually is not an issue to the majority of the community. I am a financial economist so I understand his desire to not waste resources. We know how that played out and TF is no longer with FtB.
Now you are taking issue with TF laughing (metaphorically as I haven’t actually seen him laugh) because this woman became so upset over that shirt. I know she, Amy, stated that she didn’t feel happy because of three things.
1) Harriet was told directly that it hurt Amy’s feelings and she still wished to wear the shirt.
2) The twitter feed was full of people upset with FtB/Skepchick’s presence as it was seen by them as trying to ruin the conference.
3) TAM had a harassment person watching her for her safety and that just made her feel worse.
I see those and I can’t help but think of those through the lens of FtB/Skepchick. I do not know Amy personally (in fact I know few bloggers personally) so that is the easiest way to imagine how TF (and perhaps most TAM attendees/YouTube viewers) may view this.
1) Imagine how people tend to respond when they are told on FtB/Skep that they are hurting people feelings. The equivalent reaction would be to try to get your 20 friends to put on similar shirts and shout you down whenever you talk. Naturally this did not happen. I have seen people wear shirts that did make me upset (I am a veteran and have a sensitivity to that) but as an adult I wouldn’t dream of trying to convince someone to take off the shirt.
2) First of all, this is a group that shuts down the people that disagree (it is very easy to get blocked on twitter/Facebook and banned on FtB) so it is funny that she was complaining.
3) This started over a desire to have a multipage document to address harassment and then escalates because when harassment is reported it is treated seriously with the individual involved but not sensualized and shared with lots of other people. That is akin to police responding to a complaint without going to everyone in the neighborhood and creating a false panic.
This is not to say that he should or should not laugh over someone that is associated with the bullies crying over a t-shirt. Amy is an individual and she can respond however she wishes just as TF can and by you posting this blog post you are responding as you wish as well.
I no longer go to FtB. I do not subscribe to several YouTube channels that I used to enjoy. That is because I feel that some people do not represent what I want to focus on. That is the beauty of the internet. We get to pick our friends.
alabamafinance.wordpress.com
“That is important because there was a group of people saying that one shouldn’t feel safe because an individual gave an example of what happened to her.”
Who said that? What did they say that gave you that impression? I recall two people deciding not to go because they (as individuals) felt unsafe because of personal threats and attacks and not because of an example of harassment. In fact, I’ve heard exactly the opposite said many times – notably in Greta Christina’s replies to TF’s posts on FtB.
I have yet to read about anyone implying that there is more harassment at TAM than any other similar place. If TAM is getting a bad reputation for not being enjoyable for women, it is because of the nature of the discussions of possible attendees on-line (TF’s post being a prime example) and several women were annoyed by the comedian they booked.
I suspect in some discussions about the topic, there is also a misunderstanding of the phrase “safe space” that seems to cause issues. A “safe space” is where your well-being is valued. If a place is not a “safe space” is doesn’t mean that the moment you show up your going to be attacked.
I have no idea what the exact nature of the conversation between Harriet Hall and Surly Amy was. Of course, TF wasn’t addressing that or anything else that you mentioned in any useful or clear way. He just used hyperbole instead of examples and made fun of someone’s emotions instead of criticizing them for their words or actions.
I’m not upset at Harriet Hall. I truly don’t have enough information to make any sort of conclusion about that. I’m annoyed at TF for decreasing the level of discussion about as low as it can get. (I know I’m tempting fate there, but y’know.)
Making fun of someone for crying is wrong. The end. When it’s the focus of an entire post, full of exaggerations no less, it’s really despicable and he should be called out on it.
If I came across anyone else, especially if that person had some sort of prominence, doing this sort of thing to anyone else, I would have the same type of reaction.
This post isn’t a “camp” v “camp” thing.
I honestly have to ask you, at this point- What do you think is the response that should have been done? Honestly, I do not understand how you expect anyone to bring to the light the utter ridiculousness of someone who advocates for something, and is involved with a group which constantly hurls invective on everyone who disagrees with them.
Skepchicks are the same group who engage in -public shaming- of everyone they disagree with. The Amazing Atheist fucks up, they rip him apart. I don’t care. Stef disagrees with the seriousness of ElevatorGate with Rebecca, she -outs her during a convention-.
This is the sort of behaviour that we see. But then, we see one of them cry over a T-Shirt. Why is her emotional response beyond reproach, just because it’s an emotional response? I am going to posit right now that that position is pretty sexist- That if a girl (sorry, -woman-. Wouldn’t want Zvan to make a post bitching about the use of the world ‘girl’. I’ll avoid saying ‘hysterical’, too, because obviously words don’t change in meaning ever) cries, suddenly all criticism is off?
Besides, you have to undrstand that her crying is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s not her crying in particular that’s the issue, it’s the “professional victim” behaviour that they continue to exhibit. It’s not just that she cried. It’s that she was considered to be right, that Harriet Hall, a well-decorated person who should be a feminist hero, is now being dragged through the mud because a blogger cried at her shirt.
I do not know why we have to bend over backward to respect someone’s opinion just because she cried.
“Who said that? What did they say that gave you that impression? I recall two people deciding not to go because they (as individuals) felt unsafe because of personal threats and attacks and not because of an example of harassment. In fact, I’ve heard exactly the opposite said many times – notably in Greta Christina’s replies to TF’s posts on FtB.”
That came out of Ashley Miller’s conversation. Just ignore my comment if you want. I am not going to go find the examples because that would require going to FtB and I do not want to cause any advertising revenue for that site.
“I have yet to read about anyone implying that there is more harassment at TAM than any other similar place. If TAM is getting a bad reputation for not being enjoyable for women, it is because of the nature of the discussions of possible attendees on-line (TF’s post being a prime example) and several women were annoyed by the comedian they booked.”
TAM doesn’t have a bad reputation even though people wanted to push for a strong antisexual harrassment policy that would cover several pages. Saying “please feel safe while enjoying this softball game but just in case here is a document on exactly how we are going to handle things on that outside chance someone tries to assault you” will make people think that there is an issue even if they did not beforehand. It is called framing. It is used in political campaigns because it plants seeds and that works.
“I suspect in some discussions about the topic, there is also a misunderstanding of the phrase “safe space” that seems to cause issues. A “safe space” is where your well-being is valued. If a place is not a “safe space” is doesn’t mean that the moment you show up your going to be attacked.”
Not sure what you are trying to go with that. I didn’t mention safe space.
“I have no idea what the exact nature of the conversation between Harriet Hall and Surly Amy was. Of course, TF wasn’t addressing that or anything else that you mentioned in any useful or clear way. He just used hyperbole instead of examples and made fun of someone’s emotions instead of criticizing them for their words or actions.”
I was just relating what Amy said happened…the first version. His post was about how her statement of the event had changed. Not a few details were different but it was the opposite.
“I’m not upset at Harriet Hall. I truly don’t have enough information to make any sort of conclusion about that. I’m annoyed at TF for decreasing the level of discussion about as low as it can get. (I know I’m tempting fate there, but y’know.)
Making fun of someone for crying is wrong. The end. When it’s the focus of an entire post, full of exaggerations no less, it’s really despicable and he should be called out on it.”
You are welcome to “call out” whomever you wish. I found this to simply be a swip at TF that did nothing but get you some friends that didn’t care for TF.
“If I came across anyone else, especially if that person had some sort of prominence, doing this sort of thing to anyone else, I would have the same type of reaction.
This post isn’t a “camp” v “camp” thing.”
It is an attack on one side and I agree that doesn’t automatically put you on the other side.
Have a great evening.
I’m not asking for that – at all. I’m responding to TF’s specific post that gave no specific criticisms of anything that Surly Amy or anyone else DID or SAID, but only pointed out that she cried and raised her up to ridicule for that reason alone. He made that aspect of the situation the title and focus of his entire post.
My point is not sexist. If everyone was making fun of a man for crying I would be just as disgusted by it – if not more. The “boys don’t cry” crap is psychologically damaging.
Making fun of Surly Amy for crying is just an extension of that. Feminist are suppose to be strong like boys and boys don’t cry – so it’s funny when a feminist cries. That’s the vibe I’m getting from TF’s post, and for good reason. Notice how many times he mentions that she is a feminist who cries.
The framing of the “criticism” (if you can even call it that) is really stupid. I understand that many TF fans and others would see his post in the context of strongly believing (either rightly or wrongly) that Surly Amy becoming upset is some sort of delicious irony.
However, if you can’t even point at something she did or something she said – only the fact that she became upset and making up hyperbolic hypotheticals – the framing is wrong, it appears extremely immature, and it certainly doesn’t solve anything. It’s good for blog hits – that’s about it.
Again TF fans the flames and acts like he isn’t playing the game – but valiantly standing up to it. He isn’t.
As I said in the other blog post- I apologize for what was a more emotional than a reasoned post.
Thank you for understanding the situation soberly. Thunderf00t fans are honestly a small minority of those who are arguing against/dislike FtB at the moment. Thunderf00t mostly serves as a way to raise attention to an issue, you can completely disagree with his methods while agreeing with certain parts of what he says- Like, really, that FtB are trying to have feminism piggyback as a necessary corollary of skepticism,
The “irony”, I suppose, is based on a bit of schadenfreude, since you have to admit, Skepchick has trodden on more than a few toes – beginning from Stef McGraw and Rose St.Clair. While I disagree with acting in such a manner, I’ve also seen how over and over people who support FtB and criticize TF00t are at least forced to admit that certain FtBloggers and/or Skepchicks have engaged in similar behaviour, and even so, tf00t isn’t the one trying to change the way in which we handle conventions.
It’s sad that it happened in this way, and it doesn’t justify his action, but you see why Tf00t’s actions brought a flood of criticism. Many of us don’t really care about tf00t, but his fight with FtB brought some things to light that they wouldn’t be otherwise.
Pingback: Quit being smug – No seriously, quit being smug. « SINMANTYX
Pingback: Fixed that for you – “Skeptic Women” | SINMANTYX
Pingback: Materialism on its head – but materialism doesn’t have a body, so it doesn’t have a head | SINMANTYX
Pingback: Picking on your battles | SINMANTYX
Pingback: Dear Number 30 on Benson Blog… | SINMANTYX