We, The Women Undersigned, Feel Welcome in Mainstream Secular, Atheist and Skeptic Groups
We, as women of the secular/atheist/skeptic community, find that our claims are weighed on their merits, rather than weighed on our gender. We believe such courtesy must be afforded to everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, political/ideological affiliation, community ranking or social class.
We, passive aggressively, would like to imply that other people don’t do this, and that they ask and expect special treatment. We equate stating that those who have lived a life have a unique perspective on that life, with deferring completely to claims made by particular individuals and groups. We refuse to acknowledge any clarifications that reject our interpretations of those statements.
We’re unaware of the stark irony of saying that claims should not be weighed based on gender and then making people assert that they are a woman before signing this letter.
We do not find the community to be misogynist. We feel safe and welcome here. While sexism might occasionally show itself in isolated incidents, as it would in any community, we do not find such incidents to be in any way reflective of the wider movement.
We’re aware of statements made by women and others concerning sexism and personal safety. Instead of reacting to what actually has been said, we wish to react to accusations and hyperbolic statements indicating how those statements have been perceived.
We also have no problem assuming that the atheist community is special and that we don’t see the exact type of sexism found in other male-dominated fields and hobbies such as: the on-line gaming community, the sci-fi/fantasy community, the role-playing community, comedy, automotive, engineering, and marketing, etc.
We’d like to down-play the incidents that have happened and ignore them, but realize that if we didn’t acknowledge their existence in some way that it would be obvious that we’ve had a break with reality.
We believe the underrepresentation of women and minorities in secular/atheist/skeptic activism should be studied objectively and discussed openly, without reliance on ideological adherence or appeals to emotion.
We have no idea that the Secular Census actually did a study on this. Instead, we’ll imply that what is being said is wrong. Also, we believe that if someone becomes emotional about something (especially in a female-typical way) – they obviously are wrong about everything.
We believe that if detailed conduct policies are enacted at conferences, they must acknowledge all concerned parties without overstating the ubiquity of infractions. Policies must also include safeguards to prevent their abuse as speech-limiting weapons against criticisms of beliefs. Some of us do not expect policy protections beyond that already provided by law and the presence of conference staff: we feel empowered, as individual adults, to effectively respond to unwelcome behavior should it occur in a conference setting.
We’re going to ignore that this is a concern that has been voiced by some of the same people that this letter is attacking. We’ll ignore repeated clarifications of how these policies are being interpreted by the people enforcing them. We choose to interpret them in the most draconian way humanly possible in order to justify a continuation of those concerns.
We have found ourselves marginalized by certain actions and moral proscriptions emerging from Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and even Secular Woman. In regard to this sphere, we do feel silenced. This ideological camp claims to speak for women, but refuses to listen to us. It has also spoken hatefully of some people – women and men – without allowing them an opportunity to contest those claims. Examples include censorship of blog post criticism, frequent assumptions of guilt by association, and the popularity of a meme mocking communication efforts: “Freeze Peach.” This behavior creates a divisive, unwelcoming atmosphere which has a chilling effect on open discussion for women and men.
We do not see the irony in calling “Freeze Peach” a type of censorship. We will give no evidence of people actually not being allowed to contest claims, because that would make the irony extremely clear. We equate being blocked on individual blogs and twitter as censorship.
We also do not see the irony in accusing others of employing “guilt by association” in the same paragraph that we name four heterogeneous organizations before making blanket accusations.
We are aware that the silencing tactics, accusations, shaming and/or smearing campaigns employed by influential representatives of the Atheism Plus movement – particularly certain bloggers and speakers associated with Skepchick and Freethought Blogs – have included calls to interfere with the careers and personal lives of valuable contributors to the secular/atheist/skeptic movement. We are witnessing an effort to purge supposed undesirables from the movement, based on personal and political agenda. We do not condone this. Some of us have been directly targeted by these tactics, and others of us are afraid to use our real names online, let alone attend conferences, because we fear we may be targeted next.
When people actually document what has been said and done by us. It’s embarrassing. Sometimes it is so bad that when people that work with us find out, it causes problems for us. When a person making decisions doesn’t side with us, we become very angry and upset, and feel we have been ignored.
We hide behind anonymity in order to conduct ourselves the way we do without fear of repercussions.
We are aware of a campaign, headed by Amanda Marcotte and others, to remove Ronald A. Lindsay from his position as CEO of the Center for Inquiry. We do not support this effort. Mr. Lindsay has addressed women’s equality with benevolence and brains. We endorse his role as the CEO of the Center for Inquiry, and we acknowledge the risk he has taken in speaking his mind. Likewise, we acknowledge the risks anyone else may take in criticizing this ideological camp’s claims.
We’re not even going to TRY to defend the fact that Ron Lindsay skipped a fundraising banquet to attack one of the speakers on the official CFI blog while she was still at the conference that his organization was sponsoring. We’re just going to latch onto him as some sort of ally because he has annoyed some of the people that we’ve had conflicts with. We’ll also imply that one individual is stirring up trouble and we will exaggerate what is being asked of CFI and Ron Lindsay. We refuse to acknowledge that a large group of unrelated people commented on how unprofessional his blog post was, including Ron Lindsay.
To work together, men and women must continue to listen to and care for one another as individual human beings. Let’s all keep on moving forward as champions of scientific thinking, open discourse, and rational ethics. If we can’t do it, no one can.
We’re going to end with a platitudinous statement of unity to attempt to obscure the fact that we have actually been extremely divisive, lumped a HUGE number of people into the same pot and passively aggressively attacked them with implications and generalizations instead of details and evidence. We choose not to attempt to discuss issues on a case-to-case basis; such as writing a letter simply in support of Ron Lindsay’s actions and statements. Instead, we wish to attack large groups of people while simultaneously accusing them of being divisive.
Doubting Tom said:
“While sexism might occasionally show itself in isolated incidents, as it would in any community, we do not find such incidents to be in any way reflective of the wider movement.”
Fixed: We are incapable of looking at a series of items and inferring a pattern from it. We did very poorly on exams with “find the next number in this sequence” problems.
Excellent post, by the way :).
M. A. Melby said:
Thanks.
Ophelia Benson said:
“We are aware that the silencing tactics, accusations, shaming and/or smearing campaigns employed by influential representatives of the Atheism Plus movement – particularly certain bloggers and speakers associated with Skepchick and Freethought Blogs”
Fixed:
…none of whom actually are representatives of the Atheism Plus movement, influential or otherwise, but we like to say they are because it makes it so much easier for us to employ guilt by association [vide supra]. We know they have repeatedly said they are not part of the Atheism Plus movement, but we also know that nobody can keep track of everything and that if we just keep repeating it constantly a great many people will think it’s true.
M. A. Melby said:
Oh yeah, that too.
oolon said:
Great take down… Hard to believe “Skeptics” would sign up to that!
M. A. Melby said:
The letter paints with such a broad brush, it’s hard to know what they are even referring to. I had in mind when Stephanie Zvan documented Justin Vacula’s statements and communicated those.
It’s extremely clear from this letter that they see Freethought Blogs as a monolith and seamlessly associate Freethought Blogs, Skepchick (and presumably Manboobs), and A+.
I’ve had someone justify attacking Surly Amy personally because he was insulted by somebody in PZ’s blog comments. This reeks of the same mentality – but I don’t have to tell you that.
M. A. Melby said:
Skeptics are humans too.
Eshto said:
I like how you people think misrepresenting what other people have said is “fixing” it. No, you’re just lying.
tkmlac said:
The Secular Census was not a scientific, objective study. “100% of women experienced unwanted advances.” That’s statistically ridiculous. The Secular Census themselves admits it’s not a scientific study.
M. A. Melby said:
To the more serious point though. The idea that “sexism” is something that just occurs in isolation or as an “incident” misunderstands the sociological concept of “sexism”.
Sexism is something that permeates a society; and nobody within that society is immune to having internalized sexists attitudes.
“Incidents of sexism” doesn’t make sense as a phrase.
M. A. Melby said:
Hard to be lying when what they actually said is copy-pasted word-for-word. Though, obviously the post is a snarky commentary on how this letter might be perceived by those who are being attacked by it.
tkmlac said:
Do you have a working definition for “attack?” Because as far as I can see, that word doesn’t mean what you think it means. Why don’t you listen to the women who signed it or wrote it instead of dismissing them off-hand? Listen to the women.
M. A. Melby said:
Oh sorry –
Making accusations toward.
Better?
M. A. Melby said:
That survey is the best information we have – unless you have another, better, study to draw from?
You are misunderstanding that statistic. It is NOT that 100% of women have experienced unwanted advances. It is that ONLY female respondents (no male respondents) chose “unwanted advances” as a factor contributing to feeling, “unwelcome, discriminated against, or harmed in the secular movement”.
This could have been a large or small number of respondents – but they were all women.
I don’t find that difficult to believe at all.
Men absolutely can experience unwanted advances and it is very unlikely that NO MAN has ever experienced that in the Secular Movement in one way or another. However, it is a problem that disproportionately effects women (especially younger women) and is not surprising at all given that the male:female ratio of atheists in general (not to mention within the social area of the atheist movement) is so high (and most people are straight).
Here is the problem: you misread a study, you MISQUOTED the study, you made a positive statement that the findings were “ridiculous”, and you stated that the study was “not objective” which is different than acknowledging response bias (which pretty much every study that can pass IRB has).
Saying that a study that someone conducts is “not objective” is a very serious accusation – even though you may not have meant it that way.
If you do that sort of thing a lot – people are going to become frustrated with you.
tkmlac said:
~”That survey is the best information we have – unless you have another, better, study to draw from?”
Nope, but my lack of knowledge isn’t a confirmation that the unscientific survey is right. I don’t have to have an explanation for something in order to dispute yours.
~”You are misunderstanding that statistic. It is NOT that 100% of women have experienced unwanted advances.” Well, it’s not very clear in the analysis, but I’ll take your word for it and admit my misunderstanding.
~”This could have been a larger or small number of respondents – but they were all women.”
So it could have been three women but, since 100% of them were women, we’re supposed to treat as significant?
I’ll say it again. It’s not objective. It’s a reflection of the people who were exposed to it from the blogs or articles in which it was posted, or whoever stumbled upon the website or twitter feed. It’s not a random sample and there’s no way to confirm it’s validity. I can’t even find anything on their website about how they confirmed the people voting were real people. It’s absolutely not a scientific study and so can’t be used as a reliable authority. Don’t try to scare me with this “very serious accusation” bullshit as if I’m defaming them or something. It’s a fact, it’s not a reliable source.
tkmlac said:
“Oh sorry –
Making accusations toward.
Better?”
Accusing=/=attacking. Especially if what they are accusing is true.
M. A. Melby said:
The letter is so incredibly vague that the only assertion being made that could possibly be independently assessed is whether or not Amanda Marcotte wants Ron Lindsay to step down.
Which is probably true given her article on the subject here: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/20/an-open-letter-to-the-center-for-inquiry/
However, what the “others” seem to be asking for is a discussion with him about his actions and how they were perceived and an apology from him:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/03/women-in-secularism-speakers-letter-to-cfi-board/
I guess you could also independently verify that “freeze peach” is a thing?!
The letter is written in such a way that it can’t be engaged with.
I was considering (if I felt the desire) to write an actual “fixed that for you” post where I actually fix the letter based on what the letter is trying to do. However, the goal of the letter is difficult to determine.
The last paragraph is in bold and so that indicates that the letter is supposed to support the statements of the last paragraph, and it sort of does:
“We, the undersigned women, call on the secular/atheist/skeptic movement to acknowledge our feelings of general inclusion. We hope for all claims to be treated with open inquiry by women and men alike. We do not support the divisive tactics utilized by influential allies of Freethought Blogs, Skepchick, Atheism Plus and Secular Woman. We do support Ronald A. Lindsay in his role as the CEO of the Center for Inquiry.”
Usually the first paragraph is where you introduce what the letter is actually about – but most of the letter isn’t about that. Also, the framing of the letter completely undermines the first paragraph, so that’s sort of in the tank.
For goodness sakes, the TITLE of the letter is actually antithetical to the 6th paragraph – in epic fashion. I realize that if you are familiar with the issues that it makes some sense – sort of – but it’s really odd.
Now, I suspect the concept of the whole group putting this together is that they are unhappy with the conflicts that we’ve dealt with in the last few years and they put the blame for those conflict squarely on who they perceive as trouble makers and drama hounds; and since a few of those people are FtB bloggers and one or two are from Skepchick and A+ is a thing, and a few are SW members; a couple overlap one of two of those organizations, etc. – that y’all just lump them all together as the source of “the problem”.
The danger of that is – that if THAT is what “Skeptic Women” is all about, I suspect it will go the way of John Loftus’ blog network that advertised itself as an escape from FtB drama – but he couldn’t help himself from making several of his VERY FIRST blog posts attacking A+ which sort of undermined that whole idea. I stopped looking in on it a short time after it was begun. I went to the site now, and it appears that he sold the web address to Brian Dunning et. al. – at least, I don’t see his name anywhere. The site looks pretty cool now actually: http://www.skepticblog.org/
[Edit: Well, that was embarrassing. I clicked on a link that claimed to be Loftus Blog Network and it sent me to the wrong place. The actual one is Skeptic INK not Skeptic BLOG. I should have known this since I have recently went to Skeptic Ink. I simply didn’t make the connection in my mind since I didn’t keep up with it. The letter in the OP is being shared on Skeptic Ink and is being endorsed by several associated with it. So – sort of interesting that I thought of Skeptic Ink when referencing this letter? Huh.]
If this group is going to DEFINE itself in a letter that (for goodness sakes) has a web-address of “welcome statement”; as we dislike such-as-such organizations that we refuse to make distinctions between and think are collectively responsible for real and perceived wrongs by individuals that we have had conflicts with….
…at least don’t pretend you’re not being divisive. Holy crap.
Let me be clear (if you are still reading this) that I’m not naive enough to think that everyone who has ever been associated with those four organizations are perfect people – and certainly their FANS are not all perfect people. There have been some fricking ugly conflicts.
We have all deserved criticism from time-to-time because we are human beings and being able to handle criticism is a good thing; however, what some of the people involved in the organizations that are mentioned there have been subject to is completely and utterly unacceptable – and does NOT rise to the level of “criticism” but is just plain abusive bullshit.
This reeks of the attitude that somehow if someone expresses that they feel unsafe or that the abuse is becoming too much for them – that the appropriate response is too tell them to be quiet about it and/or heap on more personal insults.
There are women and men who deal with anxiety for good reason because they are very regularly verbally abused and threatened. As far as the average person – the survey the Secular Census did does give us some information that really doesn’t seem very out-there if interpreted correctly.
The letter copied in the OP implies that the going hypothesis is that women generally are unsafe or that all feel unwelcome and that we’re more sexist than other comparable groups of people – AS IF – saying that some women don’t experience problems is some sort of counter example that falsifies that hypothesis.
What is infuriating is that – that hypothesis doesn’t exist.
I supported Loftus starting his network even if I didn’t agree with him on everything – I thought that it was the right attitude to build his own thing and be positive about promoting his ideas and how he thought things should be done; but he couldn’t stop thinking about “the other” as being the enemy.
bluharmony said:
John Loftus’s network, renamed Skpetic Ink, is alive and flourishing, with many new bloggers, such as Dr. Russell Blackford. Do you ever check the accuracy of the assertions you make? Ever? Just curious.
M. A. Melby said:
Thanks so much for the info. I really appreciate it.
I followed a link that claimed to be Loftus new blog network to the one that I saw. So, apparently someone got the link wrong.
It all makes complete sense now.
I’ve actually BEEN there recently but didn’t make the connection because it was so long ago that he started it and I was talking to him about it back then.
Certainly the *no drama zone* idea hasn’t completely held up.
bluharmony said:
I do agree with your last point, especially since I’m one of the people who has participated in the drama and may again (many of the individual blogs never have and never will). Quite a few of the SIN bloggers are neutral on these issues and at least one supports the other side.
The drama is always tempting because it guarantees hits, whereas many more topical and hard-to-write pieces get overlooked. Also, we all feel passionately about this, so it can be hard to avoid, especially for those of us who have been harassed and libeled.
Finally, I’d like to say that I agree with the point about systemic sexism, I’m just not sure that we’re going about resolving that problem in a productive way — at least partially because I’m not sure how a solution that’s acceptable to all would look.
M. A. Melby said:
It’s not a problem to be solved as much as a process to be undertaken. Of course, the first step might be for people to stop being so nasty and call out nastiness as it happens – even though YES we’ve all been nasty at some point or another – we should be called out on it, especially if it is particularly vile.
There has been some progress there; PZ’s blog, a few months ago, got a new comments policy, which I think is a step in the right direction. There is some benefits in providing a “rude space” but I think everyone realizes that the breaks needed to be put on a bit there.
There are also some individuals that, I’m sorry, are absolutely toxic. You get a pass for losing your temper occasionally or putting your foot in your mouth royally – but there are a few people who seem to show up in blog after blog after blog and saying really awful things – just hurling accusations and verbal abuse like they are going out of style.
There needs to be social consequences for that – regardless of who it is.
The FIRST rule is – attack ideas, not people.
I really hate this letter I commented on in the OP, I do not hate the people who wrote it or signed it.
Could you imagine a letter naming Skeptic Ink and the Freedom From Religion Foundation as some sort of accessory to conflicts with Justin Vacula and whomever else as a opening salvo for starting a group? – and then saying, HEY let’s work together and not be divisive!
I’m not categorically anti-drama – sometimes “drama” is just a pejorative word for working through stuff. If you lift up a carpet and you don’t like what’s under it – the long-term solution is not to just lay the carpet back down and pretend you didn’t see anything.
The “drama” entries (like this one) do tend to get hits; they get attention because they are about the issues that people get worked up about and are close to them. I think they can be good as long as you don’t get swept up too badly and you are honest about the nature of the post.
I can wrap my brain around why this letter was written, and perhaps it’s good that it was; but it is NOT in any way shape or form conciliatory.
Take the way that I read it as information – even if you think it is complete B.S. and doesn’t at all indicate the spirit or letter of the document.
M. A. Melby said:
I’m not trying to “scare” you – I just want you to realize that among people who do research saying that a study isn’t “objective” is something you generally don’t say without very good evidence because it can be perceived as being directed at the people conducting the study.
In contrast, pointing out the limitations of the study itself is awesome sauce – which you did – good on you.
It’s the difference between saying, for example, “The study is biased” and saying that the “The data collected within the study was prone to bias because…….”
Nobody is saying the study is authoritative. It’s just information, compiled the way that Secular Census said it was compiled and aggregated the way that they claim it was aggregated.
No means of measuring stuff is perfect – when you look at information you think about how “good” the data is as you interpret it and possibly act on it – but you don’t throw it out because it’s not perfect.
If interpreted correctly, the results don’t seem that terribly extraordinary, nor would the results most-likely strongly influence decision making because none of it is earth-shattering.
If you want a better study that costs $$$ and effort.
Of course, in the mean-time you could always support their work by helping them obtain diverse coverage by sharing their polls and surveys.
Steersman said:
M. A. Melby said:
My impression is that it is a petition and not a bill of particulars, although there seems to be plenty of evidence if the latter was required. For instance, you might want to take a look at this (1) comment by PZ Myers where he indicates everyone commenting in the Pit is banned from doing so on Pharyngula. Nice bit of “guilt by association”, isn’t it?
But you might also take a look at the comments on that thread by Skeptixx which were the proximate cause of that rather intemperate outburst by PZ, and ask yourself whether that response was disproportionate or not. But that looks to me like a fair example of “not being allowed to contest claims”. And it is only the tip of a rather odious iceberg – which I, and I expect many others, would be only too happy to describe in rather exhaustive detail.
Of course it’s censorship. Although you might want to take a close look at the Wikipedia article on the topic (2) and note that it is not intrinsically bad as in the case of the censorship of child pornography. The question is whether that on FTB is particularly fair and equitable. And I, among many, would argue that it is anything but – the comments by PZ being a case in point. And while the following (3) from one of the more sensible and rational bloggers on FTB, Ally Fogg, was referring to the somewhat different case of British newspapers, it seems entirely relevant to the FTB censorship policies:
And a case in point here is this comment of mine on a FTB site – Lousy Canuck – that is still in moderation some 48 hours after I posted it, but which is available in the Pit here (4). Do ask yourself whether my comment is beyond the pale, or that its status might be a case of censorship rather similar to the foregoing policy.
—-
1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/21/an-experiment-why-do-you-despise-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-518836”;
2) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship”;
3) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/03/oh-ye-cannae-shove-yer-gramsci-off-a-bus/”;
4) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=96391#p96391”;
bluharmony said:
I think all of those are important comments, and I actually find very little to disagree with. What you wrote in the reply above makes the points you were trying to make in your initial entry more clearly than sarcasm and mocking. While I can acknowledge that the letter may not be perfect, I understand why it was written and the feelings that inspired it to be written as it was. I signed on to the letter because I’ve seen so many vicious petitions and blog posts against individuals written by “the other side,” and, in comparison, this appeared like an extremely temperate request for respect, evidence-based discussion, and unity.
Again, I appreciate your views. I sincerely apologize if my first comment to you was a bit hostile. I made an inappropriate assumption about you that I should not have made, and you have proved me wrong. Thank you for voicing your concerns about the letter in the comments without being sarcastic or rude.
M. A. Melby said:
The letter as written was about stuff and things, and put four organizations to task that ironically include Ally Fogg – who you seem to think is a-okay.
If you are annoyed at PZ. Be annoyed at PZ.
If you are annoyed at Skeptixx or “Lousy Canuck”, be annoyed at them.
I realize there are two definitions of “censorship” that people commonly use. One is much more broad than the other. Actually fearing seriously repercussions from the state or enforcement of speech BY FORCE – is a different animal than being refused a particular platform. Though I realize even then there can be gray areas (for example, an arts venue was shut down by “fire code” before a show that my friends were involved with, and we suspected that it was censorship.)
Being blocked on someone’s facebook, twitter, YouTube channel, or blog – is miles away from that – simply because those SAME venues are available to pretty much everyone who has the privilege of online access.
I had a very heated discussion with an anti-feminist MRA about this issue: https://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/just-because-you-regret-making-a-stupid-poster-doesnt-mean-it-wasnt-stupid-dont-be-that-movement/
The moderator at some point banned him because he was being well – creepy as fuck. Because of the exchange, I decided to find out his real name from his facebook url and I wrote it down just in case I needed it – because he is involved in some of the same hobby activities that I am involved with and I don’t want to be anywhere’s near this guy. If his behavior had gotten much worse, or he decided to stalk me (which luckily he didn’t do – he was just creepy and very careful not to *technically* threatening me) – damn straight I would have used that name.
I’m very happy it did not come to that. However, if it did – I know damn well how he would perceive it. I know I might be attacked mercilessly for being a “thin skinned bitch”, etc.
Right after this incident and him being banned – the site experienced false flagging and reporting – which shut down some of their content.
So – who is censoring who in that situation?
I also parse having the ability to “contest claims” and having the ability to argue about something on a particular forum.
“I’m not a poopy head!” is not contesting claims.
A good example of contesting claims is when Rebecca Watson tweeted that Justin Vacula had posted a picture of a woman being kicked in the groin and having her breasts twisted and clawed at while she was bent over in pain. This was accompanied by a joke about how Ophelia Benson might get angry about it.
Justin Vacula had not actually posted it. Someone else posted it to his facebook wall. He just appeared to be somewhat amused about it and certainly didn’t say he thought it was inappropriate even though it remained on his wall.
When asked about it, Justin Vacula did not communicate that it was inappropriate; but simply got defensive about how he shouldn’t be blamed for it.
– I mentioned on RW twitter that it was not Vacula who posted it but some other person. This was clearly indicated by the screen shot that was taken that she shared. It wasn’t him, it was someone else. I certainly wasn’t banned for contesting the “claim” that Justin Vacula posted it. It was clear that he didn’t.
As far as “guilt by association” – in the case that I’m mentioning – yes, I absolutely do think less of Justin Vacula for not saying something to condemn something that frickin’ awful on his OWN darn facebook page.
I can’t read PZ’s mind and I have never gone to the “slymepit” – and I’m not going to get into a large argument defending actions that I have not taken.
The lack of specificity in the letter criticized in the OP is the problem more than anything.
We COULD discuss the incident that you brought up. It would be possible. It is impossible to discuss almost ALL claims in the letter due to lack of specificity.
oolon said:
BTW blocking on Twitter/FB is totally different to banning on a blog… Your comment at LousyCanuck would never see the light of day if not for the wonderful work the Slymepit does in resurrecting dead comments. A Tweet is public and always accessible to anyone who wants to read your micro blog. Insisting people read your micro blog is akin to insisting they read blog posts about them, totally daft to call that censorship.
Steersman said:
Sinmantyx said:
I’m certainly not one to be making many – if any – categorical statements of the “four legs good, two legs bad” variety so I’m hardly going to condemn all who blog on FTB for the sins of several or of more than a few. Although I do have a few substantive arguments with Ally about some of his positions. But I think you should probably take a closer look at that Skeptic Woman petition as I see absolutely nothing there to justify your suggestion that it was taking “four organizations to task” – at least in their entirety. Seems to me they were addressing quite specific behaviours and positions and were not making any categorical condemnations.
So, which is it? You don’t think PZ & Lousy Canuck are cases in point relative to the argument of egregious censorship, or you’re prepared to discuss the argument that they might be? Seems rather unskeptical of you – at best – to complain about “no evidence” in your original post and then to complain and reject any that is subsequently provided. And, relative to the point in question and Lousy Canuck in particular, you might also take a look at my recent comment (1) in the Pit which is still sitting in moderation at the former; the latter generally doesn’t do either moderation or censorship. But do ask yourself whether it constitutes fair comment and whether its censoring is justified or not. And if not then what does that say about Lousy Canuck and FTB.
But as further evidence and to address your “lack of specificity”, you might want to check out this thread (2) in the Pit. Which, I might add, was started by Skep tickle, aka “Skeptixx”. And you might also do a search there for +comment +“in moderation” as there are many other cases other than the ones listed in that thread. Though you should also note that while there are some 200 “hits”, many of those are duplicates because of the quoting process.
However, in passing, you should also note that I’m most definitely not “annoyed” with “Skeptixx”, and that she is the woman who was more or less “doxxed” by Benson and her partners in crime.
And finally, also somewhat in passing, while I don’t know the specifics of the Justin Vacula incident you describe, you should also note that Justin has come in for some rather pointed criticisms in the Pit, some of which argued that he was, in effect, more or less, harassing Benson.
——
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=98258#p98258”;
2) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=323”;
Steersman said:
Oolon said:
And, pray tell, why might it never see that light at Lousy Canuck? Not in keeping with the dogma, the highly questionable “narrative”, the egregious propaganda, being peddled in that neck of the woods?
But I’m not insisting that anyone read my “micro blog” or that of anyone else. Nor am I insisting they “read blog posts about them”. However, to start with, you really might want to familiarize yourself with a dictionary, notably the definition of censoring (1): “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable”. Rather a stretch to argue that Jason’s deletion (aka, “putting into moderation until the cows come home”) of, presumably, my “objectionable” comment doesn’t qualify as censoring by that definition.
Now it is of course moot whether there are any credible or justifiable reasons for that “suppression” or “deletion”. But what isn’t so is that that is what is taking place. All I’m doing is pointing out that that is what is being done and leaving it up to all and sundry to make their own judgements on the question itself. And my impression is that the jury is swinging around to thinking that such censorship is a rather black mark against many FfTBs and their fellow travelers.
—-
1) “_http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring?show=0&t=1370888567”;
oolon said:
I was only talking about Twitter not the blog… Nothing is deleted through Twitter blocking so cannot be called censorship IMO.
Jason doesn’t like you Steersman, he doesn’t trust you or think you have anything useful or interesting to say. This must be based on years of experience by now. I’d imagine Reap thinks the same as Jason about me and has me banned from his blogs and blocked on Twitter.
Do you really think you have anything to say that will either get through to him or his commenters/readership? I would think experience would have taught you by now. The people you can possibly influence are at the Slymepit not at FTBs so if you want your opinions to be considered then you need to try with the in-group. Why waste time talking to the well that is poisoned beyond repair?
Steersman said:
Oolon said:
He doesn’t “trust” me? What does he think, that he might reveal to me some of the “dirty tricks” and “black ops” being perpetrated by the denizens of FreeFromThoughtBlogs that I would then broadcast to the world? If he isn’t engaged in such then what has he to fear? The truth is supposed to set us free, not something that we should be in mortal terror of. Although I suppose one might argue that it does tend to produce various moral obligations of one sort or another – maybe that’s what he’s afraid of?
If you wanted to rectify that – and maybe create a larger audience for whatever you think you need to say – then I might suggest, as a starting point, that you actually correct that “factual error” about “Maxwell Smart” that you were peddling. Might indicate some commitment to the truth as well as some integrity and some “intestinal fortitude”. Who knows? Maybe such an admission might even break loose a few similar admissions from “our” side. “Truth and reconciliation” for the win.
But really rather remarkable how we all, to a greater or lesser extent, have such difficulties in admitting that we were wrong or had made a mistake. And the Pit is certainly not immune to that failing, something which I’ve tried to redress or correct, notably in the cases of the accusations by Franc that Sally Strange had issued a rape threat against herself, that Rebecca Watson had taken weeks to correct her error about Galileo, that PZ had deleted comments by Skeptixx, and even that Jason had made homophobic comments about D. J. Grothe. Among others.
As I’ve mentioned several times, I think we all have a tendency to go with a “my country, sex, race, party, or self: right or wrong” policy which is frequently rather problematic. Sometimes I wonder whether some of us have enough personal or psychological autonomy outside of a group one to even reflect on the truth of some attack against those groups before counter-attacking in response. “Four legs good, two legs bad”, indeed. Something that may yet be the death of us all.
But that refusal to admit a mistake is, I think, the crux of it all, not least because it allows many others to labour under misapprehensions that do no end of mischief. For instance, that bit of horseshit about Sally Strange recently led Justin Vacula to tweet some snarky comment about Sally – which of course doesn’t do much to heal any “rifts”. However I’m happy to note that Justin was disabused of that perception by a conversation on the topic in the Pit, although it would have been nice if he’d actually admitted that and retracted or corrected his tweet.
But the consequences of allowing such lies to stand reminds me of a short story by, I think, Chekhov about someone who had started a rumour, found out that they were in error, and was obliged by the person hurt most by it to write something on a piece of paper, go up into the church belfry, tear the paper into a hundred pieces and then scatter them to the winds. And to then go and find them all.
“Rome wasn’t built in a day”. And I and many others are not really talking just to his commenters and readership, but to the many who traipse through the Pit and see the evidence of some rather questionable behaviour on the part of those commenters and bloggers. And who then draw the appropriate conclusions, for instance, here (1). But kind of amazing that so few of those commenters and bloggers have any understanding of or appreciation for the consequences of their actions – sort of like someone putting their head in the sand and then thinking that if they can’t see anyone then no one else can see them.
—-
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=98240#p98240”;
M. A. Melby said:
“argument of egregious censorship”
It’s a non-started since they literally don’t have the power to egregiously censor. The only way they could possibly “egregiously censor” someone is if they harassed or threatened them to the point where they were intimidated into not speaking.
For all I know, they don’t let your comments in sometimes because they just don’t like you.
If the letter were re-rewritten to point to a specific situation that COULD be discussed; that would be better than only mentioning four organizations and one individual.
Even though the letter certainly didn’t say “all” – lack of specificity is an issue. The SAME type of issue you seem to have with PZ when he talks about the Slyme Pit.
(Of course, PZ’s issue is that “the pit” tolerates certain named actions that he believes should be not tolerated in society generally.)
I really don’t care if someone moderates a comment of yours.
If the SUBJECT of that comment is worthy of discussion – that’s the avenue to take.
I’m just really not going to listen to someone complain that their comment didn’t go through on some person’s blog as if this is a grave injustice.
I seriously don’t care.
I saw that substantial effort was taken to aggregate information concerning comment moderation on Ophelia’s blog. That’s what I had in mind when I said “obsessed much”.
If an “open letter” were written specifically about comments being moderated on specific people’s blogs that you dislike – with an invitation for others to sign it from the “greater community”; just think how silly that would sound.
On the contrary, a letter about Ron Lindsay’s behavior at the conference and how to resolve that conflict would make sense. I think that’s a reasonable topic for discussion because CFI is a big deal – with money – they do things and stuff.
The right of the people who blog to decide how to moderate their comments is far more important than your desire to be heard *on those forums* specifically by those people when you want to be.
Steersman said:
M. A. Melby said:
Egregious: “Conspicuously bad or offensive”. That “intimidated into not speaking” is your interpretation and connotation of the word but that is not everyone’s. Do try to differentiate between your opinions and values and definitions of words, and those of everyone else.
But “censoring” is still “suppress or delete anything considered objectionable” which still describes the actions of Lousy Canuck and other FfT bloggers.
Obviously you didn’t bother to read my comment. How else are you going to know if it addressed that SUBJECT and was, in itself, “worthy of discussion”? How can there be a credible and comprehensive discussion on a topic if comments thereon are censored? Given to prejudice (pre-judging) much?
“The right of the people who blog to decide how to moderate” isn’t the issue as that is more or less a given. As with the case of society censoring child-pornography. The question is whether such censoring is justified or not. And, as you haven’t indicated that you’ve read that particular comment of mine, how are you going to decide if there is any justification for censoring it or not? Mind reading? Reading tea leaves?
M. A. Melby said:
“And, as you haven’t indicated that you’ve read that particular comment of mine, how are you going to decide if there is any justification for censoring it or not? Mind reading? Reading tea leaves?”
Right – and I told you I’m not interested in having that conversation – TWICE – and I gave you the reasons why.
I suggested that if a topic of a comment that you wished to place on someone else space is worthy of discussion – that you discuss that topic – not the topic of whether or not it should or should not have been moderated.
It is not your place OR MINE to tell someone else how they should moderate their comments or to question their motives for comment moderation on those blogs.
Even if they were doing exactly as you claim – censoring information from their own space that they find objectionable to create a echo-chamber free of dissent – that would simply be the TYPE of space that they wish to create.
There is utility in avoiding the constant din of malcontents.
Notable exception to the “I could care less about an individuals moderation policy on their personal blog, twittter, facebook, tumblr, linkedin, google+, or last.fm page” is if information on the page was demonstrably incorrect and there were no other avenues for correction (which is unlikely), or, you know, if the person moderating the space is allowing the space to be a forum for unethical behavior.
Otherwise, if I’m unhappy about how someone operates their space – I just don’t go there.
If they talk about me or the things I care about – I will react within my own spaces concerning those things.
Steersman said:
M. A. Melby said:
Ah yes, but a salient element of your OP was a criticism of that petition for supposedly asserting that “being blocked on individual blogs and twitter [is] censorship”. And that that was not supportable. Although I note in passing that I see no reference to Twitter in that petition, much less an argument that blocking constitutes censorship. But as I think I’ve shown that being prevented from commenting on individual blogs is in fact censorship, I think you should either concede that point or actually provide evidence to justify your contention that it is not.
However it seems you now want to make it an issue of whether they have a right to censor which I am, to repeat, not at all denying. But as you seem to be sympathetic to the idea that many FTB sites are, in fact, “echo-chambers free of dissent” maybe we can issue a joint communiqué to that effect. Which might actually be of some benefit in advancing Michael Nugent’s dialog and efforts to heal these “rifts”.
That’s a great line – would sound perfect in the mouth of the last Tsar before the Russian Revolution. Maybe there is such utility, but it seems that that perspective is too frequently used to unreasonably deny the possibility that there might be some entirely credible reason for that “din”. A perspective, one might argue, that is frequently manifested as various “echo chambers”.
As that deleted comment of mine on Lousy Canuck’s blog listed 5 specific cases of “demonstrably incorrect” information in several of those “echo-chambers”, I look forward to you putting your money where your mouth is by actually indicating that your level of “caring” has some substance to it. You could, for example, post the main points of that comment of mine – with or without attribution.
M. A. Melby said:
I got about half way through your comment before I decided that I should direct you to my latest blog post that is actually about NAZI.
As in flesh-and-blood Nazis.
Not bloggers who magically resemble North Korean dictators or Russian revolutionaries, because of mild criticism or because they moderate comments on their own blogs.
To be clear, the reason that I said it would become “apparent” that claims can be contested in the letter if specifics were mentioned: is because making specific those claims would constitute contesting them.
Nothing is stopping you from contesting claims in your own space.
Get it?
You can use a more broad definition of censorship to call comment moderation censorship because “censorship” has negative connotations – but you can’t build an argument on that. It quickly becomes a matter of semantics.
Steersman said:
M. A. Melby said:
“Resemble” is not “the same as”; it was an analogy (3), a term or concept which encompasses both similarities and differences. Something that many people have serious difficulties wrapping their heads around – notably Ophelia Benson, although, to be fair, that also includes Justin Vacula.
Ah so; I geddit. I guess that means that you think that contesting, in some personal blog that has a yearly readership of two, egregious falsehoods broadcast to the world by publishing in the world’s most popular and most frequently read newspaper is equitable? Cooool.
Apropos of which (1):
And, linked to in the above (2):
I’ll leave you to read between the lines. If you can do so without putting your thumb on the scales.
Ipse dixit. You have a “Robert’s Rules of Order” citation or similar that stipulates that? Looks rather self-serving otherwise.
—-
1) “_http://www.saratogacountycriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2013/05/please—let-me-face-my-accuse.html”;
2) “_http://biblehub.com/acts/25-16.htm”;
3) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogies”;
M. A. Melby said:
Did you just Robert’s Rules me?
ORDERS OF THE DAY!!!!
I get your point – you aren’t getting listened to as much as you would like to be and you think that’s unfair.
Peach.
Maybe use more bandwidth expressing yourself instead of fighting over the taller soapbox as if you can’t speak without pushing off the people standing on it?
I know – mixed metaphor. Popular those.
Steersman said:
M. A. Melby said:
I think it’s quite a bit more than just some personal butthurt, although maybe there’s some of that to whet the edge – such as it is. But if I’m not mistaken from a brief skim of your recent post on Nazism I would think you would get the reference to pastor Martin Niemöller and its implications in this case. More particularly, there’s this bit from Generation of Vipers by Philip Wylie:
I certainly find the many egregious lies peddled by many at FftB – and their support, promotion, or condoning by many others who should know better – to be tantamount to that crime with all its implications and ramifications. Rather surprised that more people aren’t up-in-arms over those depredations.
Maybe; I’ll take it under advisement, particularly as I’ve been giving some thought to the possibilities and options available.
M. A. Melby said:
Did you just Godwin a conversation about you not getting a comment through on “Lousy Canuck”s blog?
Steersman said:
You really might want to consider the possibility that “Godwinning” isn’t quite as odious and as problematic as you and many others think it is. For instance, Wikipedia (1) notes:
I am hardly arguing that Lousy Canuck is in any imminent danger of invading Poland, or of embarking on any “final solution” to deal with MRAs and other assorted misogynists. The entire reason for the Niemöller reference was to suggest – in rather stark terms – the problematic consequences of not standing up for the truth: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
—-
1) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwinning”;
M. A. Melby said:
Well – it is ironic when my point was that you were over-dramatizing not getting one of your comments through on a blog.
Steersman said:
A question of perspective methinks. Not really “over-dramatizing” if one thinks there’s some utility in holding various blogs to some reasonable standard of honesty and integrity – particularly those which make various claims, more specious than not in the upshot, to holding various “leadership positions” and to deciding “where to spend atheist convention money”. (1)
—-
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=98477#p98477”;
M. A. Melby said:
So how do you want to do that?
Because so far you are complaining that someone isn’t moderating their comments the way you want them to while simultaneously upholding their right to do as they please.
So, what is your goal?
Steersman said:
Good question. The answering of which is easier, and more quickly said than done – as Confucious said (I think) “one fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer”. Not that you’re any fool or that I’m a particularly wise man.
However, I think my position is less one of “complaining about moderation” than it is one of pointing out to anyone who will listen the hypocrisy of their positions. And the case in point is, of course, Lousy Canuck who talks (1) a great game about “hearing all ideas” and using “argumentation, evidence and reason” but who, when push comes to shove and putting his money where his mouth is, sounds like little more than “tinkling brass”.
But the reason for pointing out that hypocrisy is best exemplified or summarized by something that Steven Pinker said in his The Blank Slate (highly recommended):
Although I think he could have emphasized some subtext, i.e., “and if you don’t want to be considered a boorish cad” otherwise there’s no incentive for not doing X.
However, the point is that society engages in various types of “shaming” of that sort – some of it credible, some of it not – designed to inculcate and enforce various reasonable standards of behaviour. But it is only when people become aware of that opprobrium expressed by the communities that they are part of will they, theoretically in any case, change their behaviour.
So, to answer your question directly, the goal is point out to all and sundry the fact that many in FTB, but Lousy Canuck in particular, are engaged in some seriously hypocritical behaviour. If they don’t mind being viewed as such then there is little else than can be done – except maybe to make that fact even more widely known. But I can’t see that being viewed as a bunch of hypocrites is going to do much for their long-term credibility and viability. Which might be a shame as many of them make quite reasonable arguments in many other areas. However that choice, and its consequences are on their shoulders.
—
1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/06/09/splitting-the-difference-between-reality-and-mythology/”;
M. A. Melby said:
So, your goal isn’t to clear up specific “claims” that you believe are demonstrably false and are being perpetuated because of your inability to gain an audience?
Your goal is for more people to come to the same conclusion as you have about whether or not Jason Thibeault is a hypocrite in order to facilitate public shaming to coerce others into avoiding comment moderation that you dislike?
Irony here.
My post – the one above – has been viewed over 600 times. It has been shared on FB and tweeted more than the majority Jason’s posts.
It’s been shared on boards in more than a couple countries.
It’s still getting about a dozen hits a day, but that will peter out pretty quickly.
Do you wish you would have used your time more wisely?
M. A. Melby said:
And for goodness sakes – not to mention Nugent’s blog and Lindsay’s blog that must have gotten thousands of views and included a very large number of comments.
Remember my criteria for caring: “Notable exception to the “I could care less about an individuals moderation policy on their personal blog, twittter, facebook, tumblr, linkedin, google+, or last.fm page” is if information on the page was demonstrably incorrect and there were no other avenues for correction (which is unlikely), or, you know, if the person moderating the space is allowing the space to be a forum for unethical behavior.”
I finally broke down and looked at the comment that was moderated.
…
Steersman said:
The short-term goal is “clear up specific claims”, and the long term one is to see a change in policy such that, at least, “demonstrably false” assertions are dealt with expeditiously without making the process an exercise in pulling teeth. You might wish to check the recent posts on Michael Nugent’s blog (1) that address that in some detail.
Assuming you mean this Skeptic Woman post, and considering that I’ve quoted several comments here or posted several links to them elsewhere – notably this (1) thread of Michael’s, and several at the Pit (2), I think I can take some credit for some portion of that number. In which case I would say that is a fair bang-for-the-buck. Thanks for the use of your soap-box.
—-
1) “_http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/06/07/a-response-to-recent-online-open-letters-and-emails/comment-page-2/#comment-255956”;
2) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=97564#p97564”;
M. A. Melby said:
Funny thing though – I have no idea which claims you are trying to clear up from my interacts with you – at all.
About the only one that comes remotely close is the supposed “claim” that everyone at the SlymePit is a harasser; which wasn’t so much a “claim” but a specific somewhat hyperbolic comment by PZ being treated as if it were a “claim” at face value.
Otherwise, there were several accusations being thrown at FtB bloggers.
At one point someone accused Ophelia of outing someone while USING THAT PERSON’S NAME in the comment. Which, speaking as someone who is pseudo-anonymous for pretty much the same reason she is (so that a search of my name brings up my professional bio and not my blog), was the MOST hypocritical thing I have witnessed in recent memory.
And no, I’m not going into that mess again. I spent too much time on it as it is.
Steersman said:
I made reference to that comment on Jason’s blog in a previous comment in this post of yours. Here’s the link again to it in the Pit (1). But here’s one of the five items I described in some detail:
Although do please note that they’re all in aid of questioning his rather egregious screed about the “mythologizing” that supposedly takes place everywhere else but on FreeFromThoughtBlogs.
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=98258#p98258”;
M. A. Melby said:
Oolon isn’t a FtB blogger.
He is pointing out that Ophelia isn’t the first one to use her name – so that saying the Ophelia doxxed her is not entirely accurate.
The whole point is that Skep-tickle would prefer if people didn’t use her name – which is a preference that I am willing to honor except under extreme circumstances (none of which I’m aware of).
The reason I am willing to honor such a request is simply because not honoring such requests is not a norm I would like perpetuated.
The use of real names is a contentious topic, and the utility and ethics of doing so is pretty hotly debated both behind the scenes and otherwise.
Though I tend to argue against the practice, I can see it’s utility in certain situations.
But I do thank you for sending me to that blog post – it gave me the chance to read through the thread on the SlymePit that he quoted and realize the depth of the vile crap that goes on there.
Steersman said:
I think you’re missing my point rather badly. It wasn’t that “pointing out” by Oolon, but that he was simply flat-ass wrong in laying the blame on “Maxwell Smart”, a friend of Skep tickle’s, for that alleged doxing. And in at least four places, I might add, including 3 FTB posts: busy little beaver our Oolon; where there’s a well to poisoned, he’s your man. But the evidence I provided clearly shows that it was a comment by “TheBlackCat” on Pharyngula which deserves the “honour” for having done so some 4 days prior to the comment by Maxwell Smart.
But even that wasn’t the main point. It was that that erroneous bit of information, along with several other examples I provided, was part of and contributed to the “mythologizing” and the demonization of the Pit and other assorted and related reprobates as exemplified by that post on Lousy Canuck’s blog. And that post itself was an accusation that the Pit and said reprobates were guilty of mythologizing and demonizing the poor misunderstood but fearless and entirely blameless FTB champions of skepticism, feminism, and atheism – and, no doubt, of motherhood and apple pie too.
Now I will readily agree that Thibeault makes a credible case that many on “our” side have a very tenuous grasp of the truth, or on the principle of fair play, or on both. But the point of my comment, buttressed by those 5 specific cases of “factual error” from “their” side, was that “they” are just as guilty of that mythologizing, if not more so. And that the chances of “us” healing these “great rifts”, and of – in brotherhood and sisterhood – succeeding in our great commission for the greater glory of Man and God – or at least of humanity – would be much improved if we were to heed some of the wisdom from the Bible. To wit: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
But the crux of the problem, or a significant contributor to it, is, I think, the fact that the general moderation policies on FTB allow the misperceptions, misapprehensions, falsehoods, and outright lies peddled thereat to poison the conversations without which no real progress can be made.
My pleasure; just call me Johnny Appleseed ….
As there seems to be quite a wide definition of what constitutes “vile crap”, I wonder what precisely led you to that conclusion. I will certainly concede that there is more than a small amount of coarse and questionable humour there, and some very questionable arguments and accusations and what more than a few of us there have in effect called “cheap shots”. However, that tends to be self-correcting because of the notable and commendable lack of censorship there.
But my impression is that it also manifests a great deal less hypocrisy than is evident at many FTB sites. While some might consider profanity and coarse humour and cheap shots as the epitome of “vile”, I tend to think that that hypocrisy is what takes the cake on that score. While the former tends to be largely subjective, hypocrisy tends to be quite objective with a clearly defined set of attributes – and with some quite clear and problematic consequences. You might ask yourself which you would prefer or find least odious: hearing a coarse joke? Or being lied to?
M. A. Melby said:
“And that post itself was an accusation that the Pit and said reprobates were guilty of mythologizing and demonizing the poor misunderstood but fearless and entirely blameless FTB champions of skepticism, feminism, and atheism – and, no doubt, of motherhood and apple pie too.”
You don’t realize how far from reality your perception is, do you?
How about being sexist assholes with names like “Cunning Punt” AND lying about false flagging that never happened? Is that somehow so much better than one of the people making comments saying that another person doxxed someone BEFORE Ophelia did – without mentioning that it had happened even prior to that?
Oh lords! The horror.
And the comment that didn’t go through moderation – the one you felt was so important in clearing up mistakes of fact (or at least that’s what my criteria was for giving a crap, remember?) – was just some sort of bizarre literalist diatribe about how Jason and Ophelia apparently don’t understand what an “analogy” is – I assume because they were annoyed by an analogy that someone made and didn’t think it was appropriate or something.
I now have a better appreciation for them. I mean, they have to deal with this ALL THE TIME.
I think you confuse me for someone who doesn’t actually read these blogs, doesn’t post and doesn’t actually disagree occasionally. I don’t think they see themselves as perfect and blameless because I KNOW SO. I don’t think they censure comments that clear up mistakes of fact because I KNOW SO.
I’m pretty sure (if my telepathy is working) that they are battle-hardened from dealing with really aggressive people and really don’t want to hear some stupid comment about how they don’t understand what an “analogy” is from someone who actually thinks that’s honest engagement.
No – of course nobody is perfect and the people who post at “the Pit” aren’t all harassers or raving misogynists – they just don’t think that’s such a big deal apparently, if you are any indication.
Steersman said:
And you’re going to put yourself forward as the final arbiter of what constitutes reality? Considering the rather large number of women who’ve signed that Skeptic Women petition, I would say that you might be the one who is deluded as to what constitutes reality.
Then that name makes him a “sexist asshole”? No wonder y’all see sexists, and misogynists, and assholes under every bed and behind every tree. Here I figured sexist had to do only with actual discrimination, not just off-colour puns.
I don’t think you even bothered to read that post of mine (1) as here you are blathering on about that “false flagging” when I quite clearly pointed out in it that no one, as far as I could see, who actually posts in the Pit made any such accusation. You might want to consider that your biases, your rather tinted glasses, are giving you a false picture of what reality really is. You really should check your facts before commenting – you know, brain in gear before mouth in motion.
That “that” is an off-colour joke, even a sexist one in your view. That “without mentioning” is an egregious lie. I kind of think there is an important difference there.
But even apart from that you can’t very well doxx someone after the cat is out of the bag, after someone has already done so. Sort of like saying that someone recently “lost” their virginity after having had sex with many other individuals over an extended period of time.
Again evidence that you didn’t bother reading that comment of mine here (again) (1) as there is SFA in there about any analogy.
Really? Why don’t you try posting a comment in that thread of Jason’s to correct both the factual errors I described as well as the general tenor of his argument to see how that plays? You know, put your money where your mouth is. That some commenter can correct another one seems to be a rather different kettle of fish from correcting the type of narrative that Jason was peddling.
And, pray tell, what evidence do you have that I think that “harassers and misogynists” aren’t that big a deal? Cunning Punt is now not just a “sexist asshole” but a “harasser and misogynist”? What’s the next step in the progression: pedophile and rapist? You’ve read all 2100 of my comments in the Pit, plus all of those elsewhere and you can provide chapter and verse? I rather doubt that as I seem to recollect throwing a stone or two at such individuals.
—–
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=98258#p98258”;
M. A. Melby said:
Yes – if you go by the nym “Cunning Punt” you are a sexist asshole.
Just like if you had the nym “Lynchy Mc.LYncherton” you would be a racist asshole.
Case in point that you don’t think that’s a “big deal”.
Oh sorry – “…AND concocting a wild conspiracy about how Mia forced a site to close when, in reality, the owner of the site, Eric, actually contacted FFRF to clear up the fact that he was running a fan site and because of Facebook’s rules they had to close it and open a new one in order to change the url. OH – and attacking “Louse filled Canuck” also known as “Thimbledick” as well as “A+ sympathizers” for supposedly attempting to “keep[] the ranks ideologically clean” even though Jason (as he is known to people with a maturity level above 11) actually said he didn’t have a problem with FFRF working with Vacula “as long as people understand that in matters of gender equality, Vacula does not speak for me.”
Okay – let me comment on Jason’s blog – then we’re done here.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/06/09/splitting-the-difference-between-reality-and-mythology/#comment-112268
Steersman said:
A question of interpretation, a question of different definitions if you ask me. Rather unlike explicit cases of outright lying and hypocrisy.
Haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re trying to prove with that quote or passage which seems to be a mish-mash of something that Jason quoted from the Pit and various Facebook comments.
Ok, I’m impressed: finally someone from FTB – at least someone who apparently posts there fairly frequently and is generally supportive of their arguments – willing to put their money where their mouth is, to give some indication of integrity. But thanks in any case.
However, relative to your comment on Jason’s blog, I think you’re giving him rather too much credit for “how much you document things” as my impression, documented in that referenced comment (1) of mine (still in moderation) on that thread of his, is that he has his thumb on the scales.
Also, I haven’t much more than the foggiest idea what message you were trying to convey with that YouTube video. That “I’ve lost the game”? Maybe. But even if that is the case then I figure that losing in a good cause is rather preferable to winning in a bad one. “the truth will out”.
—-
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=98258#p98258”;
EllenBeth Wachs said:
“The people you can possibly influence are at the Slymepit not at FTBs so if you want your opinions to be considered then you need to try with the in-group. Why waste time talking to the well that is poisoned beyond repair?”
*Raises hand* Hey Oolon, remember me? I WAS a FTB reader. BZZZZ. You are INCORRECT!! Newsflash, there are others as well.
Steersman said:
Seems that Oolon has a fairly selective amnesia – and fairly flexible definitions of the truth and integrity – so I wouldn’t expect much of a response from him.
But, relative to the rather rough ride you experienced over at Pharyngula because of “Dongle-Gate”, while I never did piece together all of the details, it seemed that your comment to the effect (I think) that some people were defending Aria Richards largely because she was a woman carried some weight. Which others have argued (1) was at least part of the motivation for that rough ride:
Real nice bunch of people over there, something that more and more people are beginning to realize – as your comment suggests. Even PZ and Chris Clarke who, of course, have to take some responsibility for that rather nasty state of affairs.
However, I’m not quite sure what your “INCORRECT” is referring to and what you meant by it. That it was incorrect that that well “is poisoned beyond repair”? That it was incorrect that I, at least, can influence people only at the Slymepit?
But, in any case, I wonder how you ran across this post of Melby’s. You follow her or you saw her comment at Lousy Canuck’s? If the latter then I might suggest that you also could point out the ongoing censorship there – Jason still hasn’t let my comment out of moderation – or you could also quote that comment – archived at the Pit here (2) for posterity – or portions of it to illustrate the rather odious and problematic nature of that censorship.
—-
1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/24/thugs-in-cheap-suits-are-not-paragons-of-human-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-624654”;
2) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=98258#p98258”;
oolon said:
You were not influenced by Steers or any of the master debaters at the pit. I’ve seen plenty of old threads where you dismiss them. Some butthurt from a bit of a savaging at Pharyngula “converted” you to Slymeland. Real shame as I agreed with Chris Clarke when he said Ellen Beth is “smarter than that” in reference to the smarming from the pitters. Especially when they had been calling you “crazy cat lady”, “Ellen Beth Wacho” etc etc and spreading lies about you from your stalker. (Stockholm syndrome?)
Sad fact is three individuals on Pharyngula were nasty to you, and they were nasty IMO, one apologised and the other two didn’t. From two people being rather nasty you’ve changed “sides” in a rather bizarre volte-face to the point where you spout out Slyme-memes as if they are true.
Biggest tell for me was you saying that people on both “sides” have massive problems with me 😀 Get real EllenBeth some sad-sacks at the Slymepit talk about me a fair bit and have a “massive problem” with me. FTB’ers hardly know who I am! Quick search on the pit and 60K mentions of “oolon” I’d imagine its somewhat less on FTBs and a handful of people talking about me while I’m not in the thread. So who has the “massive problem”? Pretty clear to me.
Very disappointed you have also gone on to spread untruths about Ryan Grant Long apologising, presumably you swallowed some bullshit from him as well. Greta was hopeful it was true, unfortunately I’ve seen no evidence apart from your dodgy assertion.
oolon said:
You already told me about Maxwell on Nugents thread – I had a look again and noticed Skep Tickle had said it first as you pointed out. I said as much on Nugents thread. Hardly a major inconvenience for Maxwell? Especially as I pointed out he presumably had her permission as it seemed strange… Not so strange now I realise because she had said it! Doh!
Why so worried for Maxwell? Has he complained about my evil “lies”… Would it do him any damage when I link to the thread and everyone can see I made a simple mistake? Hardly in the same ball park as the Slymepit way of repeating half-arsed lies over and over until they become lore.
For example, you really didn’t do a good job with the Rebecca Watson not correcting her Galileo mistake quickly enough. I saw Slyme-newbie Metaburbia/David Jones was repeating that lie in a comment – in fact implying she was just flat out wrong and didn’t correct at all. So much for Slyme-integrity.
oolon said:
Haha, just realised why you are saying “Black Cat” doxxed Skep Tickle… Because xie linked to a post where Skep said she is on the Seattle Atheist board and … Blah.
Well Skep tickle posted multiple times to FTBs using a gravatar that clicked on gives her second name in a new nym. Search for that nym and you can find all her personal info. So she doxxed herself by your “logic” … Neither is a dox as both require someone to join the dots. Albeit trivially easy in both cases.
A Hermit said:
Brilliant work here Melby!
I just have to shake my head when I see this kind of argument against having harassment policies at conventions:
How exactly are “conference staff” to know how to deal with a complaint about someone’s behaviour? I guess they should have some kind of protocol or procedure or…what’s the word I’m looking for…? Oh yeah! A POLICY!!!
A Hermit said:
sigh…I’ve lost my blockquote mojo today…that last para is mine, of course…
Steersman said:
Oolon said:
Apart from wondering whether you think everyone in the Pit is guilty of that, I have ask whether you would agree that some members of FTB and company are guilty of that as well. As cases in point you might want to pay some close attention to that post (1) of mine that is still sitting in moderation on Jason’s blog. Maybe not surprisingly.
But do you also think that your “half-arsed lies” aren’t going to be paying the same sort of “dividends” as that one about Galileo, and that one about Sally Strange? Both of which I, and a few others in the Pit, made some efforts to correct. But do you think it would have been preferable if we had let those slide? In any case, you have a link to that David Jones comment? I might find the time to correct that “error” as well.
However, you should note that that is part of the problem: half-assed lies aren’t corrected at their source, and with those who have carried that information away with them, which causes any amount of subsequent problems. Apropos of which, here are the links (#s 2, 3, 4, 5) to all of the locations where you posted that “half-arsed lie” (being charitable) – that I could find in any case. I look forward to you correcting those “half-arsed” lies there as well.
While I’m moderately impressed that you’ve at least tried to correct the record on Jason’s blog – even if it is more half-assed and incorrect than not, considering that I pointed out the “BlackCat” bit in the Nugent thread (6) over a week ago which you claim that you didn’t see until now, I at least have to question your reading comprehension. Or willingness to face facts. You also might want to try putting brain in gear before mouth in motion.
However, that comment about the gravatar looks like a rather chickenshit effort to absolve TheBlackCat for first having made that connection with Skep tickle’s real name in a very public and broadcast fashion to everyone – rather different from one person, or several, or even a whole bunch of them on a blog all deciding to check someone’s gravatar, all at the same time. And it also looks like an equally chickenshit effort to absolve FftB and Pharyngula for being party to that. You might want to consider emphasizing that point in any of your subsequent corrections – should any be forthcoming.
—-
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=98258#p98258”;
2) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/06/02/the-ethics-of-unmasking/#comment-241004”;
3) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/06/05/what-happens-at-the-slime-pit/#comment-241570”;
4) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/06/what-next/#comment-562331”;
5) “_http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/06/07/a-response-to-recent-online-open-letters-and-emails/comment-page-1/#comment-253004”;
6) “_http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/06/07/a-response-to-recent-online-open-letters-and-emails/comment-page-1/#comment-253303”;
Steersman said:
Oolon said:
Well, it’s certainly nice to know where your allegiances are. A few people in the Pit say those things and it’s “they” – suggesting all. But a few people on Pharyngula are “nasty” doesn’t translate to “they”. “In-group morality, and out-group hostility”, indeed.
You, and others, might want to be much more circumspect about tarring whole rather diverse groups with the “sins” of a few among them. At least if you don’t want to be viewed as tending to categorical thinking, if not stereotyping and bigotry.
oolon said:
Well the Slymepit had a lot more than two or three people saying those things about EllenBeth. It also had a lot more people not standing up for her or telling those people to stop. Because…. freeze peach and reasons?
oolon said:
Steers if you want to play that game then TheBlackCat didn’t dox her either as plenty of people before then leaked little bits of info which if put into a Google give up her identity in seconds. Not sure why you have such a big thing for TheBlackCat comment. Whoever that is they seem a very infrequent commenter – did they ban you from a blog or something?
Again SkepTickle posted on FTB with her *own* gravatar which links to her IRL identity. She chose to do that and make it trivially easy to find her identity. So someone else commenting on how easy it is to find her IRL identity is not breaking any new ground here.
The damage done would come, according to SkepTickle, from her real name being linked to an atheist page on the first set of Google results. Her own page on Seattle atheists with her *real name* on it comes up 5th or something from what I remember. Nothing from this debacle comes up any sooner…. No damage done by her own admission.
M. A. Melby said:
fixed
M. A. Melby said:
Oolon – don’t get over-dramatic.
I’m not going to speak for EllenBeth or figure out what she has or has not done. If she wants to clear that up, she can do that.
However, dial back the hyperbole please? Agreeing in part does not equate to agreeing in whole, and certainly doesn’t amount to Stockholm syndrome.
A Hermit said:
Thanx…