Greg Laden won’t have sex with me.

Comments closed.


Sorry for the absence yesterday, gang.  I decided to spend the day hanging out with my brother.  A lot of the people I know say the love their families even though they try to keep their interactions with them to a minimum.  I’m very lucky.  My brother and my parents are my best friends.  I wish we had more time together.

Anyway, Greg Laden really didn’t like my post the other day about Ron Lindsay.  You can tell because of what he said about me personally:

I just read, and it was very very hard to read, JT’s post on his blog i which he tries to let everyone know that he really is a feminist, yet he also really agrees with Ron that feminists are doing it wrong. A word of advice for JT: You know that thing that people say, that if you act like a feminist the feminists will sleep with you? Its a joke. It does not really happen. You can stop now, JT.

Oh snap!  He’s on to me.  Here I’ve been giving the impression that I empathize with harassment and inequality, not just because I give a damn about justice and fairness in general, but also because I have friends in the movement like Stephanie Zvan who have been harassed by a cabal of very malicious people and that pisses me off.  But Greg has seen through that hard-to-believe ruse.  What if my fiancee finds out?  At least then I can stop pretending like the subversion and harassment of friends bothers me, right?

The first thing to note is that Greg places the dichotomy between being a feminist and thinking that feminists are doing it wrong (or, as I would put it, many feminists could be doing better in their interactions with potential allies) as if the two are incompatible.  This is something that I think comes out a great deal when feminism is on the table that I don’t think is present most other places.  I mean, I’ve told atheist activists that I thought altering their approach in particular ways would be more productive.  Most of us have.  I imagine suggestions for improvement happen in all facets life with nobody assuming ill-intent or subversive mechanics are at play.  Why are people so worried about it when discussing feminism?

Note also the re-interpretation in the worst possible light.  I didn’t think that some tweaks could be made so that the harassers and true enemies of equality could be denounced without also making an appreciable number people who agree with our cause want nothing to do with us (as well as nothing to do with them).  No, I thought feminists (all of them?) were doing “it” wrong, whatever “it” is.

We also have the projection of intent, as if Greg can read the contents of my mind and felt them to be a more worthy subject than the contents of the post.  I don’t want to help women, I want to get laid even though I’m engaged (or, metaphorically, I have some other selfish motivation for considering myself a feminist that’s not giving a shit about other people).  So often I see assaults on somebody’s motivation when the assaulting party has no real means to discern that motivation (as if knowing someone’s true, devious motivation would make that person wrong even if people like Laden did have psychic powers).  This alienates people and makes them not want to help us.  And it doesn’t alienate only slymepitter archetypes, but it also alienates good people who don’t want to deal with stuff like this, or even be lumped in with the slymepitter archetypes if they offer a critique of people in a cause they support.  If we’re trying to rally a movement, that’s not a good thing.

Am I saying that all feminists do the things I’ve highlighted in this post (and in Greg’s)?  No.  Am I saying enough do that it’s a problem?  Yes.  The 1,000+ words of disclaimers and clarifications I put into my post the other day was not an accident (and it was not lost on many of the commenters).  Pointing out these things and asking people to stop is a friendly concern because I care.  If you think that attacking a person’s motivations instead of addressing their stated position is a bad thing, then this should not be controversial.  If you think wholly uncharitable responses to people is a bad thing, then this should not be controversial.  If you think someone can appreciate the cause of feminism while also thinking there are ways to make it more effective, then this should not be controversial.  These things are bad whether atheists do them, whether feminists do them, whether black people or white people do them, etc.  These are just not good ways to create a welcome environment for our cause no matter who you are.

If you think the post I wrote the other day does more damage to feminism than stuff like this bit from Greg Laden, I’m not sure what else I can say to you.  And if you read me saying “attacking somebody’s motivation instead of what they said is a bad thing” and hear me denouncing feminism, then I’m not sure what else I can say to you.  And if the way to get laid is to emulate Laden’s behavior, I’d rather stay chaste unto death.

I’m not asking anybody to be less angry about injustice.  I’m not asking anybody to be less passionate.  I’m not asking anybody to stop denouncing harassers and other truly bad people (hell, I encourage this and will happily join you).  But I am asking people to stop assaulting hidden motivations instead of what someone actually said their concerns were (if you don’t do this, awesome!  This is not directed at you).  I’m asking people not to conflate criticism with opposition (if you don’t do this, awesome!  This is not directed at you).  I know for a fact that these things are pushing away people (both prominent and not) who care and I don’t want it to continue.  Feminism is not turning away would-be allies, but some feminists who loudly and regularly toss out passages like this one from Greg Laden are.

When you care deeply about a cause, I understand the worry of being hamstrung while your opponents are vicious and unscrupulous.  I get that.  My goal is not to hamstring.  In fact, the only reason I’m not just laughing off Greg’s comment is because I know the type of effect such comments can have.  I think fewer of this specific type of comment (though not fewer comments, and certainly not less outrage) will enable people, men and women, to more easily join our ranks.

  • http://camelswithhammers.com/ Dan Fincke Camels With Hammers

    Shame on you, Greg Laden.

  • Chimako

    I read your post several times and your intent couldn’t have been clearer that you just didn’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. While I had my reservations, I fail to see how Greg Laden could have had such a massive reading comprehension fail.

  • Ace_of_Sevens

    I like Greg, but he does have a tendency to do stuff like this. He’s been burned too many times by people who claims to be allies as a rhetorical trick I think, so has taken to assuming bad faith everywhere.

    • baal

      I have a hard time believing that a cadre of people specifically went out of their way to fool greg laden. In any event, it’s irrational to assume bad faith everywhere and not good for that assumee’s mental health.

      • Azkyroth

        The fact that other people’s responses to the patterns of behavior they have to deal with and you don’t make you uncomfortable, in an armchair sort of way, does not make them “irrational.”

        • baal

          “They’re all out to get me” is a Glen Beck level idea. If you are in fact like GB (really really annoying and jump at shadows) it’s possible to be a factual statement. Otherwise, the problem is not everyone in the world. It’s you.

          And I’m saying this as someone who has a bit of a Cassandra complex.

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/hallq/ Chris Hallquist

      You like Greg? Why FFS? Unless you have a very good answer to that question, I am taking this as a warning to stop trusting your judgement on anything. (Not saying that to be mean, completely serious.)

    • Jim

      ” so has taken to assuming bad faith everywhere.”

      That seems to be the trend in the “secular community” lately. Everyone assumes to worst and attacks each other constantly. It’s pathetic.

  • http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason Miri

    This is really unfortunate given that basically every feminist man I’ve met has been accused of “faking” feminism to get laid. But these accusations generally come from anti-feminist men, because men who ARE feminists understand that getting women interested in you isn’t about pandering to them by proclaiming yourself a feminist; it’s about actually acting the part and showing an awareness of consent and healthy communication.

    Anyway, I didn’t really agree with your post but that doesn’t mean you’re not a feminist just because I am one and I disagreed. Shocker! Feminists disagree with each other sometimes!

    Let’s hope Greg understands how inaccurate and hurtful this is and offers an apology.

    • JTEberhard

      Thanks Miri, especially for this line:

      “I didn’t really agree with your post but that doesn’t mean you’re not a feminist just because I am one and I disagreed. Shocker! Feminists disagree with each other sometimes!”

      This. So much this.

      • Eshto

        No, feminism is not up for debate. So sayeth Secular Woman and a whole lot of other prominent, self-appointed spokespeople for feminism. Debate over any point of contention within feminism is grounds for boycotts, insults and smear tactics. Ron Lindsay obviously hates all women because he dared to suggest (GASP!!) that dominant privilege is a sociological concept, not a trump card to win utterly unproductive Internet flame wars.

        It’s been incredibly strange and more than a bit amusing watching this evolve over the past year or two. Lots of people seem more than happy to support outlandish rhetoric like Greg’s… until it turns against them personally. Then suddenly, civility seems like the better route.

        In the end I think all the atheists yapping at each other about social issues on blogs and twitter is about as effective in solving real world problems as staying in bed playing video games all day.

        • Jasper

          Here we go again.

          “Ron Lindsay obviously hates all women because he dared to suggest (GASP!!) that dominant privilege is a sociological concept, not a trump card to win utterly unproductive Internet flame wars.”

          Citation needed.

          • Pitchguest

            If you don’t know, don’t worry about it.

        • JTEberhard

          Social issues are important. They’re an extension of our empathy, which is possibly the most noble of all human virtues. Of course we “yap” about them. Our consciences allow for nothing else.

          Whether you think the response to Ron Lindsay was proportional or not, surely you can’t think the problem at hand is a concern over social issues or equality. That’s just bonkers.

        • ool0n

          Yawn, you are full of it as usual Ryan, note pretty much everyone is not supportive of Gregs joke.

          I know you are desperate to create your own “feminism” where calling women bitches and cunts is ok as long you are angry. Unfortunately no one apart from a few Slymepitters are buying into the Grant-Long feminist model though so you may as well give up.

          • Richard Sanderson

            I await to see what you think of Rebecca Watson’s bigotry and ageism, equating them “old” with anything negative.

        • Ace_of_Sevens

          So people are obligated to start fights that you think are pointless. Do you have an actual goal besides baiting people into fighting so you can watch? Go troll the Christians and try to get the Mormons to fight with the protestants on something.

        • http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods Avicenna

          I think Ron Lindsay was in trouble because he forgets the privilege is something that affects real people.

          Eshto – Some of us who “yap about issues” are also doing things in our up time. Not all of us are “keyboard warriors LOLOL” and there is nothing wrong with being one.

          Remember the person who helped bring the Steubenville rape accused to justice was a “keyboard warrior”.

        • Rational_Feminist

          Actually Secular Woman did not say that. Learn to read. Oh, didn’t someone say something about using the generous read and not the insane read?

        • John H

          Lie, lie, straw plus lie about what Lindsay said, probably true, straw, blind assertion/citations needed, simultaneously hypocritical and incorrect.

    • mikmik

      These ‘doing it to get favor’ types are shallow and immature, and can’t conceive of interacting with women in an honest, equal, manner. They are insecure bugs. I figure!

    • Ace_of_Sevens

      This sounds like sex-shaming, which doesn’t become OK just when you do it to a dude because punching-up or something.

      • http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason Miri

        What does, my comment? If so, I apologize; I certainly didn’t mean anything of the sort.

        • Ace_of_Sevens

          Sorry, I poorly phrased that. Not your comment. The behavior you were talking about. That’s why it’s hurtful.

    • perplexed

      Boy am I confused. I was getting laid before my girlfriend knew or cared I was a feminist and now that she does know I still get laid. She was only interested in my actions and the way I treated everyone through word and deed.
      I do find it interesting the upper middle income white privileged woman and men are explaining to me what feminism represents and how I have to act to be accepted in their feminist movement since it doesn’t resemble the one I know.

    • Richard Sanderson

      You don’t understand.

      Baboons don’t offer apologies.

      They do, however, launch bullying and harassment campaigns to get other people to offer apologies/resign, etc., and then arrogantly claim victory (while at the same time crying about the quality of the apology) once they get what they want.

      • Azkyroth

        Would you like a moist towelette?

      • ool0n

        LOL Miri, *is* a Baboon by your definition and it appears she apologised in the comment above :-) … It was conditional though, damn Baboons!

  • SocraticGadfly

    If you’re really about supporting Stephanie, why didn’t she tell her “husband,” Greg, that in the first place, since she wears the pants in that “family.” And, contra Chimako, Laden regularly has such fails, usually deliberate.

    • Guest

      Seriously? You’re going there on a blog post about sexism. Curious what JT’s thoughts are on this.

      • SocraticGadfly

        Stephanie has long struck me as an “nth-wave feminist” along the lines of Rebecca Watson. The type who uses “privilege” in the same breath as “mansplaining.” I can support feminism without supporting every feminist school of thought. So can Ron Lindsay. Actually, Ron supports rich donors, no matter what, but that’s another story.

        • RowanVT

          Somehow, I think you don’t like that because you’ve been accused of condesplaining in the past. After all, there are hints of such actions in your writing.

          • eccles11

            “Condesplaining” good God, can we ditch the newspeak, there are plenty of perfectly fine words in the English language to communicate ideas and concepts, creating an in group rhetoric, mostly to be used in attacks on other people is a good way to alienate newcomers, and make you look childsilly at the same time. It’s ungood.

          • RowanVT

            You must have hated Shakespeare then for coming up with fun, efficient new terms as well.

            Condesplaining is faster, and more fun to say, than “condescending explanation”. And you are right that it sounds childsilly, but that’s all to the good, not the ungood. :P

          • Azkyroth

            can we ditch the newspeak, there are plenty of perfectly fine words in the English

            …how do you think we got them, if not for new coinages?

          • SocraticGadfly

            “Condesplaining”? Ooooohhhhhh, I’m crushed! Crushed! Guess this means I can’t swim in the Plusers kiddie pool any more, eh?

          • RowanVT

            Only if you don’t shower off first, because all the straw clinging to you will make the water icky.

          • SocraticGadfly

            Actually, the straw I see in the area has nth-wave Pluser manure attached.

      • JTEberhard

        My thoughts are that I have no idea what Gadfly’s talking about. Stephanie and Greg aren’t married, so I assume he’s making some kind of in-the-know dig to which I’m not privy. If so, I think that’s pretty weak.

        And to assert that somebody deliberately fails is also pretty weak.

        My thoughts are that I’m unimpressed by the comment and haven’t had my thinking changed or augmented in any way by it.

        • perplexed

          I apologize up front JT for saying this but…Is this Greg guy supposed to be smart or intelligent because he sounds like an absolute fucking idiot. I guess my saying that might be OK because I didn’t say he is a fucking idiot even though he might be.

        • SocraticGadfly

          Obviously, you don’t know what “scare quotes” are. Or what a conditional sentence is. (Hint: It begins with the word “if.”) And, if you observed the two of them in their blogging, and weren’t possibly swimming in the Pluser kiddie pool, you might appreciate it more.

          • TCC

            I’m pretty sure that your comment was nonsensical: conditional, scare quotes, and all. But then again, I shouldn’t be surprised from someone who thinks that “Pluser kiddie pool” is a clever insult.

          • SocraticGadfly

            Then try this more extended take on the Gnu Atheist chained heat Watson vs Lindsay’s latest installment: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/06/pzmyers-channels-his-gnuatheist-ftb.html

          • TCC

            Sorry, I don’t care to give you the traffic.

    • Stephanie Zvan

      Well, Steve Snyder/SocraticGadfly, since no one else can be assed to step up and say this, no matter how much me being harassed “pisses them off”, no matter how much they’ll stand up for JT, fuck off, you putrid, obsessive, pointless, sexist smear of slime. It is not anything but vilely anti-social to spend two and half years after a woman tells you that rape allegations need to be taken seriously popping up any time she and the man on whose blog you were schooled are mentioned together to say that this woman is controlling this man’s behavior by having sex with him.

      It only gets you two things. The first is a reputation as someone who isn’t capable of making a socially acceptable argument about why treating rape seriously is bad but can’t let the issue go, and the second is secular and skeptical movements that are distinctly hostile to women.

      So fuck right the hell off.

      And the same goes for anyone incapable of telling Steve here the same thing.

      • Pitchguest

        Stephanie, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: EVERYTIME Greg Laden does and says something stupid, you’re there to defend him. Even if he says something terrible, like threatening someone with physical violence, you know, THREATS that you go around telling everyone you’re getting, you’re there — and not only did you defend him, but you encouraged him as well. Then you defended him when he said men were women damaged by testosterone, and now you defend him when he tells another man he’s only a feminist because he wants to get laid. Tell me, what was it SocraticGadfly said about you and Greg two years ago? (I did a bit of research.) Oh, yeah. That.

        Oh, and I don’t care about your feud with SocraticGadfly (I really couldn’t give a shit, and if that means you want to tell me to fuck right the hell off, go ahead – I bet Justin Griffith have said the same thing about you.). It seems you’ve gotten a taste for doxxing people, though. Steve Snyder, huh?

        • Stephanie Zvan

          Sure. Fuck you, Pitchguest.

          • Pitchguest

            In the words of Petyr Baelish, paraphrased, “Ah, the Zvans; quick temper, slow minds.”

            You’re not even going to address the points, are you? Come to think of it, you never have. Threaten someone with violence? Poor Greg, let’s offer him a virtual toast to make him feel better. You and Lousy Canuck both. The victim, Greg, must’ve needed the pick-me up. Especially when he repeats the threat a year later and stands by it, once again being wishy-washed away by Lousy, good friend Stephie.

            Make a claim of men being damaged, oh I’m sure that’s somewhere within his expertise.

            A “slymer” accusing someone of being a feminist to get laid is, of course, a horrible crime, positively dripping with hate and I’m sure also misogynist in some way. “White knighting” women to get into their pants — a monstrous phrase that should be drawn and quartered and maybe disemboweled, too, like that scene from Braveheart. Which if memory serves, none of us “slymers” have ever done, but for the sake of argument. However, if Greg “get off the rag or kiss my ass” Laden says something equally horrifying (basically the same thing), you shrug your shoulders and forget about it. Nothing to see here. Move along. Isn’t that right, Stephanie?

          • Nate Frein

            “Quick to anger” indeed. That’s like saying hot coals are “quick to ignite” when you toss gasoline on them.

          • Pitchguest

            “Quick to anger” is not the actual quote. Keep up.

          • Nate Frein

            It’s close enough to the intent.

        • Pitchguest

          And look, here come the downvotes. Should I link to the various incidents just to prove I’m not bullshitting?

          • http://natehevens.wordpress.com/ Nathan Hevenstone

            And there’s another one, from me to you, you disingenuous sack of shit.

          • Pitchguest

            Disingenuous? Ah, yes. Of course. You people frown on actual evidence. Well, I tend to need something more than hearsay to satisfy my curiosity, which is why I usually like links where the evidence can be found. Like, I say Stephanie Zvan defended Greg Laden when he threatened someone with physical violence and I provide a link to where said defense can be found. Presto! Scepticism in action. I realise this will come as a shock to someone who supports a person who’ve recently renounced the sceptic movement, and who now considers the word “sceptic” an insult, but that’s usually how that works.

            Sorry, Nathan. Gotta face the music.

          • Pitchguest

            I know that was from you, Nathan. I’ll give you that one. ;-)

          • ool0n

            Anyone wondering why PitchGuest appears to clearly have a double standard above where he defends Conlons “joke” which Conlon himself said could be clearly seen as a threat. Then he goes on to whine about some comment from Tethys or whoever…. He is a liar and a troll – he argues in bad faith and has admitted as much -> http://www.oolon.co.uk/?p=384

            None of his examples are considered threats by him or anyone else on the Slymepit (According to PG). Their honest position, as opposed to what PG argues, is that you should be allowed to threaten however you like. With no censure as its not wrong in any way.

          • Pitchguest

            No… no… Chester. You idiot. What I said was that if someone told me (and I imagine many on the ‘pit) they wanted to forcibly “shove a dead, decaying porcupine” up my arse, I wouldn’t consider it a threat. But the people from FtB would. And that’s the point.

            I really, sincerely hope you’re not as stupid as this around your daughter.

          • ool0n

            Yeah right PG, that’s exactly what I said. You argue in bad faith.

            You really don’t get how a bad faith argument works do you? If you pretend to think sexist slurs are bad but really don’t then that is a bad faith argument, you are not arguing from your principles but what you think your opponents principles are.

            It really isn’t a hard concept, keep thinking about it and one day you may understand. In the meantime the rest of us will be laughing at how poorly you express yourself.

          • Pitchguest

            Do you know what’s a bad faith argumentation?

            When you use the word “bitch” countless times, but then lash out when others use the word “bitch.” That’s a bad faith argumentation. It’s hypocritical. I’m not the one that’s objecting to the word “bitch” unless it’s used exactly in the manner in which people object to it being used, in a demeaning and sexist manner. I don’t object to the words “cunt” and “twat” either, unless it’s used in a demeaning and sexist manner.

            So when I use it, I’m not arguing in bad faith. However, I can point out the hypocrisy of people from FtB hanging out with people who constantly do use the words “bitch”, “cunt” and “twat” with impunity. See, this is why I worry about you being this stupid around your daughter. While you laugh at how poorly I express myself, I weep for the future of humankind.

          • ool0n

            You really are a dipshit PitchGuest you’ve been reading FTB but not understanding, at all.
            “I don’t object to the words “cunt” and “twat” either, unless it’s used in a demeaning and sexist manner.”

            That applies to FTB bloggers and commenters as far as I know. Obviously I don’t speak for them all! Ophelia wrote a post about how to tell the diff-er-ence from cunt used in a sexist and demeaning manner and when not. Because your “side” didn’t seem to grasp it.

            Anyway that is all irrelevant – give me some examples of when cunt and twat are used in a way you’d object to. Or you are a liar.

        • lynneb

          I cannot speak to any identity issue, but I can say I’ve not seen this defense of Greg’s statement that you claim Stephanie is making. Where is it? Can you quote a relevant sentence for me?

          • Pitchguest

            Most of it existed on this blog post,

            http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/07/01/the-pits/

            but the comments were removed.

            However, I can attest that one of the ones “coming in to stick up for Greg” were Stephanie Zvan.

            But she still does it here:

            http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/10/03/petitioned/

            “I’m vaguely amused at how this story has grown. That’s the problem with a strict zero-tolerance policy, I guess. The fact that you can get kicked off a blog network for writing the ambiguous colloquialism “I’ll kick your ass” to a fellow blogger who reads it as a physical threat just isn’t exciting enough. Now we must have multiple threats!!!
            And oh, the toast. Here’s a link to the damning evidence. Ooh, look. Three FtBers were out drinking the night a stressful episode came to a close and raised a toast to a comrade who had just paid a high price for one stupid moment. They dared to tweet him about it. Then he and I and about 5,000 other people attended a convention where we both did good work, some alone and some together.”

            Funny, isn’t it? Someone says they will “kick your ass” and it’s an ambiguous colloquialism.

          • Pitchguest

            Oh, yeah, and the clincher: paid a high price for one stupid moment. Yeah, he threatened someone with violence, Stephanie, you twit, and you offered him a toast for it. Good job.

          • ahermit

            This is pretty funny coming from the guy who thinks that threatening to throw acid in a woman’s face is “just a joke”…

            You’re quick to defend much worse comments when they come from your slymepit friends.

          • Pitchguest

            Haha, I’m pretty sure I’ve had this conversation with you before, A Hermit, but you’ve always ignored the evidence to the contrary. So let’s try this again.

            Jerry Conlon’s tweet:

            http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/files/2013/01/Acid.png

            Two things to note here: 1) No threat to “throw acid in a woman’s face” – that was only paranoia that was tacked on by she-who-must-not-be-named

            2) A joke at her expense – a jab at her appearance, which is rude but still not a threat.

            But then you have the other side of the coin, where commenter Tethys makes this remark to commenter abear on Thunderdome,

            531
            Tethys

            7 February 2013 at 3:24 pm (UTC -6)

            You are not Paul.

            And this is THUNDERDOME!!

            *Breaks two liquor bottles and brandishes the jagged necks.*

            I WILL cut you abear, you stupid fucking troll.

            To which Chris Clarke made this response,

            http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=266&p=68520&hilit=will+cut+you%2C+abear#p68520

            Chris Clarke:

            It was clearly a joke. It was the kind of joke I’d have chided a person for in a moderated thread, because there’s always a chance a person would either be a) triggered by references to violence or b) too dimwitted (or acting in insufficient good faith) to comprehend that it’s a joke. And then those people a) get hurt or b) create work for the moderator.

            But unless you have the kind of Internet connection where people can stick their arms through your monitor and brandish things, which either do not really exist or someone owes me a backlog of tentacle hugs, then I’d suggest you take it as possibly ill-advised hyperbole.

            Oh dear, someone made a threatening remark (much less ambiguous than “maybe a vial of acid would do you some good” and equally as unambiguous as “I’ll kick your fucking ass” [unless you count "I will cut you" as some kind of colloquialism]) and Chris Clarke said it was just a joke. What was it you said, A Hermit? “You’re quick to defend much worse comments when they come from your slymepit friends?” Indeed.

          • ahermit

            I’m not Chris Clarke, son.

            I’m not responsible for what other people say.

            I haven’t defended or made excuses for anyone for making those kinds of comments or dismissed them as “just jokes”.

            You have.

          • Pitchguest

            “Those kinds of comments”? I think I can with a great bit of confidence state that a) Jerry Conlon’s tweet isn’t a threat because it isn’t and b) it’s a joke, because it looks like one and because he said so himself- sure, personal assurance maybe means as much as jack and shit, but about as much as Chris Clarke’s, I imagine.

            And from that, yes, I’ve defended Jerry Conlon’s tweet as not a threat and just a joke. But you (and she-who-must-not-be-named) have kept harping on that Jerry’s tweet *was* a threat and not a joke, and have kept bringing it up at regular intervals to indict “slymers” that we defend throwing acid into women’s faces (which is funny, because the tweet neither mentions the word “throw” nor “into” NOR the intent to throw, but details are sketchy, I guess).

            However, the thing is, you’ve also brought it up as a point of contention that only us “slymers” (or pitters or whatever) defend threats as jokes, which I’ve clearly shown (with the Chris Clarke example) isn’t true. At all. In fact, the Chris Clarke example is a much better example of a possible “threat” than Jerry Conlon’s tweet.

            You said in this comment section, “You’re quick to defend much worse comments when they come from your slymepit friends” – Well, first of all I’m not, but how does that square with Chris Clarke and his friend Tethys who made the “worse” comment? Are you just going to let that slide? Or was it just a “joke”? How about when Aratina Cage, another one of your luminaries, said the same thing on his blog just recently?

            http://aratina.blogspot.se/2013/05/skepsheik-liar-lunatic-or-lord.html

            So what do you mean when you say “those kinds of comments” and just what is it that I’ve “defended” if it’s not genuine threats of violence?

            Frankly, A Hermit, if you want to “show me up”, you’ll have to do better than that. Just as a heads up. Gramps.

          • ahermit

            I haven’t defended any of those comments, nor am I defending them now, nor will I in the future.

            You on the other hand have defended and continue to defend Conlon’s threat as “just a joke”, dismiss it as “not really a threat” (kind of like you dismissed the digital penetration of an unconscious teenage girl’s vagina as “not really rape”) which in my opinion was worse than Laden’s “kick you ass” comment (a face full of acid being more damaging than a kick in the ass.) Bringing other people’s comments into it doesn’t change that.

            Only one of us is minimizing threats and calling them “just jokes” and making excuses for them. And it’s not me.

          • Pitchguest

            Since it’s not sinking in: it wasn’t a threat, dipshit. It never was a threat, and it never will be a threat. It was a rude joke at the expense of the person it was aimed at, but not a threat. You keep saying he was threatening to throw acid into her face. The tweet doesn’t say anything about throwing acid into someone’s face, nor does it even use the words “throw” or “into” and that marks the second time I point this out to you in the same comment section, which means you’re either very, very lazy, or very, very thick.

            You keep saying this has only happened on the ‘pit, defending a so-called “threat.” It has clearly not only happened on the ‘pit as evidenced by Chris Clarke’s comment on Pharyngula, but you’re still parroting the same bullet points as you did before. Are you just ignoring the things I say?

            The controversy really isn’t whether if Tethys’ comment or Jerry’s tweet were jokes or not, it’s the double standard of considering one “clearly a joke” and the other a threat. If the one by Tethys is “clearly a joke” (which is actually more angry and visceral), then Jerry’s tweet should also “clearly” be “a joke.”

            As for the digital penetration, I’ve already said I was wrong about that – many times – but go ahead. For all the times you’ve called me “son”, I’m sure it provides you plenty with juvenile gloating. One more time: I – was – wrong.

            But now I’m confused. You say you won’t defend them, but you just marginalised Laden’s threat to Justin Griffith. You too. Stephanie Zvan, Jason Thibeault and you. You’re in good company.

          • ahermit

            Yes you are confused son. I didn’t marginalize Laden’s threat at all. I don’t think any of those examples of threatening language are “just a joke” and I think I’ve been quite clear about that.

            And I haven’t said that this “only happens on the pit”…you’re just making shit up now.

            I’m glad that you eventually recognized that I was right and you were wrong about the definition of rape. Now, take a little time to think about this and you’ll see that once again I’m right and you;re wrong. Only one of us is being selective when it comes to denouncing violent language, and it’s not me…

            (edited for punctuation and. Speling)

          • Pitchguest

            I know what you think you are: a know-it-all. But what you really are is an insufferable buffoon with a chip on his shoulder. Cheer up, old bugger. You know what they say: some things in life are bad, they can really make you mad … other things just make you swear and curse.

            Am I making shit up? You’ve known about the Chris Clarke episode for a long time because I’ve brought it up to you before, and yet the first thing you say to me here is, “This is pretty funny coming from the guy who thinks that threatening to throw acid in a woman’s face is ‘just a joke’…”

            To which my first thought was, “No” and my second “Chris Clarke.”

            But you know what’s pretty funny? You accusing me of “making shit up.” In your first sentence you say I’ve defended a threat throwing acid into a woman’s face. No I haven’t. I’ve done nothing of the sort. That’s a blatant fabrication on your part. What I’ve defended is a joke. Or rather, acknowledged that it is a joke and not defended the joke itself. And the joke itself didn’t have anything to do with throwing acid into anyone’s face, so that’s also a blatant fabrication on your part.

            As for Laden, you absolutely did marginalise the threat. A kick in the ass? Is that what “I’ll kick your fucking ass” means? Are we in Crommunist territory of metaphors, where they have to have literal meanings for them to matter? Is there an ass, is it being kicked? If the answer to both those questions is no, then you are not, in fact, getting your ass kicked? Am I doing it right?

          • ahermit

            Yes you are making shit up. Where did I say this stuff “only happens on the pit”?

            The use of violent rhetoric as a “joke” might be amusing to you but to the target of that violent rhetoric it will quite reasonably be perceived as a threat, whether its “kick your ass” or a reference to acid in the face.

            Between the two if us in this conversation only one of us has defended or dismissed or minimized that kind of rhetoric; that would be you. I have not. I have always denounced Laden’s abusive remarks (for the record I think he was out of line with his ignorant comments to JT here) and I am not responsible for whatever Chris Clarke may or may not have said.

          • Pitchguest

            For being old enough to constantly call me “son” in a demeaning fashion, as though it’s some kind of sophisticated takedown, you really are as insipid and thick as they come. How you got past adulthood, I’ll never know. At any rate, you keep reiterating the same old canard. “The use of violent rhetoric as a “joke” might be amusing to you …” No, it’s not. I’ve never said it was funny, but it’s through one ear and out the other with you, isn’t it? Nothing inbetween, it seems. As I said, it’s not funny. But it can be *dismissed* as a joke, and has, as Chris Clarke too can attest (and others on FtB, including the slimy turd himself).

            However, in your quest to become as insufferable as you possibly can, you keep repeating it as though it never happens; that violent rhetoric, like the wish to forcibly shove a dead, decaying porcupine, or a rusty knife, up someone’s anus, or kicking someone’s fucking arse, doesn’t–or didn’t–happen on FtB or that it has, multiple times in fact, been dismissed as “just a joke.” Which obviously was quite amusing to them, as they repeated it many times over. And knowing *all* of that, you still insist that Jerry Conlon’s tweet was a threat. That it could be *seen* as a threat is a whole different can of worms, but you’ve kept saying it *is* a threat and *that* is a load of bollocks.

            What’s also a load of bollocks is you keep saying it was a threat to throw acid in a woman’s face. It’s not. It doesn’t mention throwing, it doesn’t mention the intent of throwing. No such rhetoric of the sort, at all, in Conlon’s tweet. But that’s the line being touted, by you, by Ophelia, by the slimy turd, and by the rest of the revisionist FtB clique.

          • ahermit

            OK, I’m tired of playing with you son, I won’t be provoked into a flame war by your childish little insults, I’m not going answer for things other people might have said, and I’m not interested in reading the same tired old nonsense you trot out in comment thread after comment thread as if repetition makes it any less ridiculous.

          • Pitchguest

            Is that why you keep calling me “son” – to avoid using childish little insults?

            Right, repetition. Isn’t that exactly what you were doing in this very thread just now, you know, how you repeated the Conlon tweet threat narrative, or how you repeated the rape thing? Your ability of projection is astounding. I wish I could say I was amazed, but frankly Chester has been doing for longer. You get points for trying, though.

            I understand, A Hermit. You don’t like it when I refute your contention that Conlon’s tweet was a threat, and that it in fact did not contain a threat to throw acid in a woman’s face. Or that I — or the others on the ‘pit — find such rhetoric “amusing.” Actually, I should be the one growing tired to debunk the same tired old nonsense. But I know that if I do lash out, then I’d be no better than PZ Myers. Or a hermit. Whichever you prefer.

          • Pitchguest

            Yes, it’s true. I have made the vilest of crimes of saying a joke is a joke. Just as your mates Chris Clarke, Aratina Cage, oolon, Brownian/Anthony K, Janine Hallucinating Liar, Caine of Milquetoast, Xanthe, Tony the Dancing Telegram, and so on and so on.

            Let it be known that you people draw the line on what’s considered a “joke.” Metaphorically brandishing two broken beer bottles announcing they’re going to “fucking cut you” is “clearly a joke”, but saying “maybe a vial of acid would do you some good” is serious business – a violent, horrifying threat, which is further proof of harassment and bullying, but saying they’re going to “fucking cut you” is harmless banter and to say it’s anything else — especially in the face of the reaction to “maybe a vial of acid would do you some good” — is “typical pitshit.”

            But you’re right. Only ‘pitters do that.

          • http://natehevens.wordpress.com/ Nathan Hevenstone

            Tethys and Chris Clarke were clearly wrong. Though I am curious of the context in which Tethys made that threat. Were he an abear goofing off with each other? If they were, then of course it was a joke… if abear and Tethys were horsing around.

            Otherwise, Pitchquest, you’re absolutely right about it.

            But your downplaying of the acid comment is noted and, by the way, is complete bullshit. In the same way Tethys never should have made that comment (excluding a goofing-around understanding between him and abear), that acid comment never should have been made. It reads quite clearly as a veiled threat to anyone who has a brain.

          • Pitchguest

            No. They weren’t “horsing around.” abear was later banned from Pharyngula because Chris Clarke considered him a ‘pitter – not because he was a ‘pitter (he wasn’t), but because, and I quote, “it was clear he’s of that crowd.” The rest of what he said about the ‘pit (and its denizens) isn’t prettier.

            For anyone with the backstory behind the so-called “threat” by Jerry Conlon, they would know that Ophelia first made light of an acid attack and made it all about herself and her treatment within the “atheist movement” – which many thought was a narcissistic, disgusting case of attention-seeking, especially since she mused on if someone would throw acid into HER face, and ESPECIALLY considering the attack left the victim — a man, artistic director for the Bolshoi Theatre — partially disfigured and almost completely blind. And I guess Jerry Conlon thought so, too, since that was the subject of his first set of tweets aimed at Ophelia which she didn’t take kindly to – note the prior “Fuck you.”

            Then he made the tweet – the “threat” – and the rest is history. It was a joke. Maybe it can be read as a veiled threat, but it wasn’t. It was a rude, tasteless, not really that funny joke, but a joke. Much as the force a dead, rotten porcupine up people’s anuses were jokes. Or so I’m told. I’m sure you can attest to that, Nate.

          • http://natehevens.wordpress.com/ Nathan Hevenstone

            Okay. Then I will unequivocally state that Tethys and Chris Clarke were wrong. I had never read that thread or I probably would have started an argument over it, though as it stands now, as that was back in February, the Thunderdome in question is closed for comments, as usually happens once they get to a certain amount of posts.

            As to the acid thing… could you link to the post in question? I do remember Ophelia talking about acid, but I have no recollection of her writing a post about acid and her until after that tweet was sent out. Recognizing that brains are fickle and memories are bad, I could very well be mistaken. I would need to read the post in question.

          • Pitchguest
          • lynneb

            I’m not going to get drawn into this conversation, but I will say that “Ophelia first made light of an acid attack” is an out and out lie. Edited to add: In that blog post which you helpfully link to, she is (I thought quite clearly) using this as an illustration that personal attacks can escalate from the online to the physical with an astonishing suddenness.

            That’s one of the reasons why you get this reputation for arguing in bad faith. Persistent deliberate misrepresentation of what is said.

          • Pitchguest
          • Pitchguest

            I would urge you to note that there isn’t any actual condemnation of the acid attack on the artistic director at the Bolshoi in that link, just that Ophelia thinks it’s like the “atheist community.” And then she starts making it all about herself, and that maybe she, too, should “start wearing protection.” I’m still flabbergasted at how utterly self-absorbed that was. Then when we, the ‘pitters, the bane of her existence, began criticising her, she doubled down.

            Until Jerry Conlon’s tweet. Then she was vindicated!

            Why you people are so obsessed to be seen as victims is beyond me, but there it is.

          • ahermit

            I don’t dismiss any of those comments as “just jokes” and I will disagree with Chris Clarke and anyone else who does so regardless of which blog network or forum they frequent.

            That clear enough for you son?

            You, on the other hand, clearly have a double standard.

          • lynneb

            Well, “funny” only in that nowhere do I see her saying that Greg’s statement wasn’t stupid, there. Also, you made the specific claim “now you defend him when he tells another man he’s only a feminist because he wants to get laid”, and I wanted to see where she did that; I can’t see that you’ve given any evidence of that, either, sorry.

          • Pitchguest

            *laughs* So, wait, the part where she says the threat of physical violence can be summarised as an “ambiguous colloquialism” and where she said he “paid a high price for one stupid moment” isn’t an implicit defense? Because I couldn’t help but note the lack of condemnation of the threat in question.

            If it’s not a defense, it’s an implicit defense, and if it’s not a defense or an implicit defense, it’s handwaving. Whichever you prefer.

            And did you read the blog post by Stephanie that references this one? Not even a sentence about Greg’s gaffe. Lousy makes a comment saying how disappointed he is at JT for focusing on “slightly unreasonable criticism” (yes, that would be the “only feminist to get laid” by Greg Laden criticism) and Greg even makes a comment himself. No apology, no request for an apology, no nothing. I mean, this is a woman who chided Lindsay about a brief comment on feminism in his opening talk at WiS – but this from Greg gets a pass? How does she square that?

          • Pitchguest

            Oh, and of course the abject hypocrisy of her saying,

            I’m tired of vague “Naughty, naughty”s from people who do jack shit when the people engaging in harassment are doing it right in front of them.

        • ahermit

          It seems you’ve gotten a taste for doxxing people, though. Steve Snyder, huh?

          Let’s nip that little rumour in the bad, shall we?

          http://technorati.com/people/SocraticGadfly?sub=tr_embed_t_js

          http://www.flickr.com/photos/43577246@N02/

          Not exactly a secret…

          • Pitchguest

            So you’re saying it was public information, meaning you could post it anywhere?

          • ahermit

            It;s not an address, false equivalence.

            Nice try though sonny boy.

          • Pitchguest

            Did I say it was an address? I didn’t.

            I wondered, is it public information? I’m fairly certain that one Anthony K went around saying he was doxxed because someone had posted his first name and one of his initials, when his first name and initials could be found on not just one, but three public profiles. Does that mean Stephanie Zvan is exempt from punishment doing the same thing? Or actually, she did one worse and posted his full name and surname, and just typing “SocraticGadfly” into Google doesn’t lead to the profile in question. In fact, it’s not even on the first fucking page.

            But, hey. One rule for you, another for everyone else.

          • ahermit

            So where do you stand on that exactly? If someone has carelessly left their name out there (as opposed to deliberately attaching it to numerous profiles and using it themselves on their own blog, as Snyder does) is it OK to post it?

          • Pitchguest

            Where do you think I stand on it? Take a wild, long guess.

            So I will ask again: is it public information, meaning you could post it anywhere?

          • ahermit

            Nope, not playing guessing games.

            I’m asking if you see a difference between someone who deliberately makes that information public because they want people to know it and someone who inadvertently leaves it where it can be seen.

            Is there a difference there? Is it OK to use the second person’s info or not?

            See if you can answer without posting a long, irrelevant collection of your usual talking points and childish insults…

          • Pitchguest

            Let’s see. Stephanie Zvan posts his real name and surname and you don’t object, that means you either agree or don’t really care much about it.

            I know how much she went on and on about Justin’s accidental “dox” of Surly Amy, even though it was public and her address tied to her business. That wasn’t “inadvertently” left where it can be seen; it was deliberate. Similarly Anthony K complained about Reap “doxxing” him, even though his real full name (with middle names included) could be found at three different public social networks, that made it very clear his connection to Brownian on Pharyngula, and also that he himself had “doxxed” himself by letting a poster know he went by Anthony K in meatspace.

            But do I agree with people doing this? Do I think it’s okay?

            Without beating around the bush: No.

          • ahermit

            So you don’t see any difference between addressing a person by the name they use publicly and making the effort to look up someone’s address so you can publish it on a forum full of people hostile to that person? These are identical in your opinion?

            Interesting…

            Yet you make big deal about the former and try to minimize the latter. How do you explain that?

          • Pitchguest

            In order.

            First, you’re a fucking idiot. There. That’s the childish little insult done.

            Second, I do see a difference. I also see context, something you apparently lack or deliberately ignore. The address issue with Justin Vacula was because someone had accused him of counter-DMCA’ing Surly Amy to get her address, to which he said, rubbish, look here, it’s public. And then he took it down because he realised it was a mistake. Job done? Nope, because of it he’s been demonised for years.

            Anthony K objected to Reap “doxxing” him (even though he’d doxxed himself three years earlier, the idiot), and I object to any kind of doxxing, whether that’s personal address or real names being published. Evidently you don’t have such qualms, and neither does Stephanie the way she doxxed SocraticGadfly. One standard for you people, another for everyone else.

          • ahermit

            I think it’s a mistake to lump all of those actions under the same heading. I have no problem with using someone;s name if they themselves are using it publicly. That’s not an issue at all as far as I’m concerned. In that case the screen name is nothing more than a nickname; it’s not a pseudonym designed to protect one’s privacy.

            If someone is obviously trying to keep that name private then I wouldn’t agree with revealing it, even if they have inadvertently put it out there UNLESS they were behaving in a manner which was sufficiently problematic to warrant it (see David Mabus).

            Posting someone’s home address, especially in a place full of people hostile to that individual seems to me to be a particularly egregious act. It has the look of intimidation to it and I frankly can’t imagine any context that would justify that.

            So it’s not that I have a different standard for different people; it’s the context and the differences between the actions themselves that matter.

          • Pitchguest

            It looked like intimidation? Well, it wasn’t. So give it a fucking rest.

            Considering the context and the reasons behind it, there was nothing intimidating about it. But of course, context is eradicated for threat narrative and perpetual victim status. Surly Amy had her address (tied to her business) briefly posted on a forum she’s had public on Trademarkia for years prior to the posting and she was forced to move because of it.

            BULLSHIT. Bull. Shit. Bullshit.

            Brownian had his entire real full name (with middle names) public for years on three different public social networks, and prior to Reap he’d doxxed himself on Pharyngula to another user called AnthonyK (revealing his name irl is also Anthony K).

            And now if anyone asks, Reap doxxed him. (Bullshit.)

            Therefore in the same vein, even if the information is public, even if it’s there, does that mean you can post it anywhere? On the slimy turd’s blog, in the about me section, he reveals his real name and his location short of his address. With that in mind, is it really okay for me to post it here or anywhere else? I can post the entire full name (with middle names) for Anthony K, too, if I so desire, but should I?

            So did Stephanie Zvan doxx SocraticGadfly? You tell me.

          • ahermit

            So did Stephanie Zvan doxx SocraticGadfly?

            No. Snyder was making no effort at anonymity. The issue is respecting the individual’s desire for privacy. Snyder hasn’t expressed or demonstrated any such desire.

            Seriously, talking to you is like talking to a fundamentalist; it’s all black and white and no shades of grey, I don’t know why I bother.

            And now you’re foaming at the mouth about something called “slimy turds blog”…?

            You’re just becoming incoherent.

      • Martha

        JT, this is what I posted on Stephanie’s blog. I thought it fair to make sure you see my concern:

        I am so, so sorry that you have to deal with an asshole like him. And you’re absolutely right, if JT wants to argue for a certain kind of civility and generosity, he needs to make damned sure he deals with comments like SG’s in a timely manner. His not having done so was at best a huge fuck-up. It’s also the kind of action that, if repeated, makes people start to view a person’s motivations uncharitably.

        Unfortunately, the effects of such actions are also cumulative, such that someone who has not made a mistake like this in the past is also more likely to be interpreted less charitably each time someone else makes the same mistake. We can try to control for that, but people are, well, human.

      • Martha

        JT, this is my comment on Stephanie’s blog. I thought it fair to leave it here, too.

        I am so, so sorry that you have to deal with an asshole like him. And you’re absolutely right, if JT wants to argue for a certain kind of civility and generosity, he needs to make damned sure he deals with comments like SG’s in a timely manner. His not having done so was at best a huge fuck-up. It’s also the kind of action that, if repeated, makes people start to view a person’s motivations uncharitably.

        It really isn’t consistent to take Greta to task for uncharitably interpreting Ron Lindsay, and then to allow a blatantly rude and sexist post to remain unanswered in your own virtual living room.

        I actually think there’s room for discussion about the terms we use in these debates. But Ron Lindsay was at a minimum dismissive of those of us who attended WiS2, and there’s a fine line between dismissive and contemptuous. If you want to chide Greta about overstepping that line, be damned sure you aren’t allowing the other side to harass Stephanie or any other outspoken feminist here.

      • Jim

        You’re really ignoring the first rule of the internet here. DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.

        • Stephanie Zvan

          Fuck you, Jim.

          • Jim

            Are you always this charming? I was simply offering advice that you’d do well to follow. Stop responding to internet trolls and they’ll go away. Getting as worked up about it as you have is pointless.

          • Stephanie Zvan

            Because it’s worked so *beautifully* in the last two and half years that this guy has been wandering around obsessed saying the same damned thing, right, Oh, Brilliant One?

            Fuck off.

            Or, since you’re probably in love with the sound of your own typing and the idea of being able to swoop in and save the poor damsel in distress and couldn’t possibly consider giving either up, at least have some idea what the fuck you’re talking about if you’re going to insist you have to give advice: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/02/28/dont-feed-the-trolls-is-bad-science/

          • Guest

            Whelp, I appear to have stumbled into a group of rather pathetic, self-absorbed, angry people. Not what I expected when subscribing to a site called FreeThoughBlogs. Off I go!

            One last thing though…if you find that responding to trolls is the best policy, perhaps you can start with just about every comment on YouTube. If that article you linked is to be believed, they could cause the downfall of civilization at any time unless someone acts.

          • Stephanie Zvan

            You’re on Patheos, Jim.

          • lynneb

            Um, Jim, maybe you should read some of the responses to figure out why your “helpful advice” is being treated with such hostility, instead of simply deciding that it’s all a personality issue.

          • Verbose Stoic

            The problem with your assessment in that post is this:

            The important thing to remember about trolls is their purpose. It isn’t to get attention for themselves per se. It is to control the conversation. … If nothing happens when they attack the writer, except that their
            targets get a little quieter, once again, they are only getting what
            they want.

            The problem is that “Don’t feed the trolls” means “Don’t reply to them or take them at all seriously”, not “Don’t reply”. The idea of “Don’t feed the trolls” is that the best way to discourage trolling is to not give them what they want, which are responses. So the way to implement this is to ignore completely the trolling responses, and reply instead to the responses that are reasonable, on-topic, etc, etc. The reason for the advice is that if someone comes in with aggressive insults to us, we all tend to want to reply more to those and focus on those, which takes away from replying to the reasonable responses and carrying the discussions forward. If this is done, then the topic turns into everyone arguing with the trolls and not talking to each other … and, bingo, the trolls have taken control of the conversation.

            So the ideal is indeed to simply not say anything to the trolls at all, but not to let that make the writer “quieter”. Stifle the angry reactions and focus on the debates that are actually saying things. If someone takes the troll’s basic idea and makes it into an actual debating point, reply to the person who makes it a discussion point and ignore the trolls. If their supporters come in, ignore them, too. If the trolls are isolated in their own little comment threads being pointedly ignored while the conversation continues around them, they will have failed to control the conversation and all of the comments about not controlling the environment will have failed completely.

            Now, there is a caveat to this where they are not actual trolls, but are people simply expressing common but wrong ideas. Ignoring them in those cases may not be a good idea … but that isn’t the case here, and you probably shouldn’t treat those people as if they are saying something obviously wrong either, since they are expressing a commonly held wrong idea. To most people, it won’t be obviously wrong, even if objectively it is clearly wrong (there’s a difference between obvious and clear that we need to respect).

          • lynneb

            Jim, Stephanie has been the target of unrelenting harassment stretching far past blog comments for the 2 1/2 years that she mentions. “Ignore them” did nothing to stem the flowing tide, and indeed, I can’t say that I’ve ever seen it work for many of the women I’ve seen targeted for various whatevers on the internet. (I work in IT, trust me, we gots that kind of targetting of women, too.)

            It’s easy to give advice when you have not been in that situation (in this case, you personally being the direct target of online harassment for *years*). But when telling people to be nicer and telling them that you are only offering advice that they would “do well to follow”, maybe you should have a clue as to whether or not that advice would even work, first.

          • TaylorMaid

            A wonderful story for you Jim. I suspect you mean well, but this isn’t Stephanie’s first rodeo.

            http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2013/06/09/parable-of-the-party/

        • http://natehevens.wordpress.com/ Nathan Hevenstone

          Don’t feed the rolls is shitty advice and never works in practice.

          In short: fuck off with that shit. Sometimes people want to, and need to, feed the trolls. Because the lie that they feed on responses is… well… a complete and total lie.

      • SocraticGadfly

        Your lies about what I said about the rape charges against Assange in Sweden are duly noted.

        Actually, at that time, I said the charges were a matter of serious concern. At the same time, I said it was legitimate to ask about Swedish political motivations for … for reopening what had been a legally closed case, in essence. Given that we already knew then that Sweden had been a willing participant in more than one of the CIA’s “renditions,” and given the scenario of Edward Snowden now, I, and many others, said that Assange’s request of the Swedish government that it offer an in-advance guarantee it wouldn’t
        extradite him to the US was reasonable, at least.

        Beyond that, I still had this idea of believing in a person’s legal innocence until proven guilty.

        If that’s enough to make me the target of smears, for making a socially acceptable argument that doesn’t follow an nth-wave feminist party line, I stand guilty.

        • Stephanie Zvan

          Fuck you and your self-serving distortions. You may be socially acceptable in JT’s space, but you’re not anywhere where I have any say.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Translation:

            “Back at FTB where she can censor you”…

          • doubtthat

            Oh no, wah wah, can’t spread transparent lies and continually bring up ancient grievances to smear and harass others…CENSORSHIP.

          • Pitchguest

            It’s a good thing he’s not saying it anywhere you have any say, then, isn’t it?

          • Stephanie Zvan

            Pitchguest, is there a reason you don’t believe JT when he says this sort of thing pisses him off?

          • Pitchguest

            That is some spectacular goalpost shifting, I have to say. You said, “you may be socially acceptable in JT’s space, but you’re not anywhere where I have any say”, and I said, “it’s a good thing he’s not saying it anywhere you have any say, then, isn’t it?”

            What does that have to do with what JT says pisses him off? At all? Especially since you said he “may be socially acceptable in JT’s space” meaning you imply it WOULDN’T piss him off? Are you even capable of addressing the actual points anymore instead of bringing up irrelevant non sequiturs?

          • baal

            I don’t see that SocraticGadfly is socially acceptable here. Not banning some one is not the same thing as endorsement. Really, it isn’t. This is particularly true when this is the first instance of that nym here.

      • Jasper

        I’m sorry that not all of us were able to decipher what was otherwise a cryptic comment. I still don’t get it.

        • Stephanie Zvan

          Jasper, Steve there is telling you that Greg and I only agree on issues because I’m having sex with Greg (not happening, for the record) and am dominant. He’s also telling you this is a perfectly socially acceptable “argument” to make except in some feminist spaces. Do with the information what you will.

          • Verbose Stoic

            Um, that might have been a subcontext from your original problems, but if you parse the actual English sentence I fail to see how you can get there directly. You seem to be pulling it out from “marriage”, which is a relationship that involves sex, but also involves two people who are generally considered to be very close to each other and very supportive of each other. In your original example from a long time ago (that I looked up on your blog), you again derive it from “in thrall boyfriend”, which is a relationship that happens to include sex. But in both cases it’s the close relationship that seems to be the key point, not that it includes sex. It’s the emotional and intellectual connection, it seems to me, more than the sex that is the key focus. For example, if you ask if two pairs figure skaters are dating, it’s not because you think from watching them that they would have great sex together, but because they look like they have a strong emotional connection to each other.

            Ironically, you grabbing sex out of that phrasing seems to me to diminish what makes those sorts of relationships special, reducing them to nothing more than sex. And speaking as a life-long bachelor, don’t we all know that when two people get married they stop having sex with each other [grin]?

            Note, again, that you might have some extra info from your personal history with this person to justify your interpretation. My point here is that without that extra background it’s not really reasonable to expect that everyone would just interpret it that way, given that it seems to me, at least, based on my own cultural background that the more natural interpretation is one that doesn’t reduce it to “Zvan supports Laden because they’re having sex” but instead to “Zvan supports Laden because of an emotional adoration, and she’s the stronger personality of the two”. Which seems like a stupid and pointless comment to make here — considering that you said absolutely nothing about this specific issue — but I don’t think JT should have any obligation to delete all of those, since considering the usual level of comment threads it’s a job that he could never actually finish [grin].

      • Richard Sanderson

        Stephanie is RAGING TEARS at her own blog because JT has the audacity to have a blog that they can’t censor. She’s moaning about “slime” or something, but as far as I can see, there isn’t much in the way of “pushback” against Zvan on this thread. Nevertheless, the fact that there is a forum where people not completely signed to up the Kool Aid Stephanie gives out, means she is squeaming and squeaming about the lack of censorship. As we all know, thou shalt not be critical of anyone from FTB or Skepchick.

        They are either too sensitive, or just exaggerate things for the drama and the hits. I’ve seen more than enough evidence to know it is the latter.

        Lastly, I find it ironic Stephanie is talking about how hostile the secular and secularist movements are to women. It’s also quite hostile to bloggers who spill the beans about other bloggers who send threats of violence. But anyway, back to the women. I guess Stephanie is not referring to the many feminists now too scared to challenge anything she or Rebecca Watson says for fear of reprisals. (EllenBeth has the details). Then there is the constant slurring of feminists as “sister punishers”. Yeah, I guess you are right Steph, there IS an hostile environment towards women, and it comes from YOU and your fellow stable mates at FTB and Skepchick.

      • clauslarsen

        Stephanie,

        Why is it OK for you to call someone a “putrid, obsessive, pointless, sexist smear of slime”, when you simultaneously argue vehemently against such language, when it is directed at you and those you agree with?

        Furthermore, you are not helping your case, by lumping everyone here together with your target of ridicule. Telling everyone to “fuck off”, just because they don’t share your anger, or, rather, not voice it as aggressively as you do, is not conductive to a better climate.

        You are making yourself a first class hypocrite, with your post above. You cannot complain about being smeared, when you don’t hold back yourself, when the mood strikes you.

        Two wrongs don’t make a right, you know.

        • Stephanie Zvan

          Fuck off, Claus.

          • clauslarsen

            Stephanie,

            Is that going to be your signature response to anyone you think is wrong, for whatever reason?

            Bear in mind, you are telling me to “fuck off”, even though I have not expressed any opinion similar to Steve Snyder/SocraticGadfly’s.

            All I did was point out the discrepancy between your goal – stopping bad behavior – and your action – engaging in bad behavior.

            That garners the same response as those you see as “putrid, obsessive, pointless, sexist smear of slime”: You tell them to “fuck off”.

            You will have an increasingly hard time convincing people to stop engaging in bad behavior, when you so eagerly stoop to doing so yourself.

          • http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/ One Brow

            clauslarsen,

            “Is that going to be your signature response to anyone you think is wrong, for whatever reason?”

            Perhaps it will only be a response to clueless dolts who can’t even figure out the difference between “to spend two and half years … popping up … to say that this woman is controlling this man’s behavior by having sex with him” and “such language”. The two concepts are so different that’s it’s difficult to believe you comment was in any way sincere, as opposed to trolling. At the very least, you created a glaring, obvious false equivalency to which you are apparently oblivious. You deserved no better response than you received.

          • clauslarsen

            One Brow,

            Do give the harassers more ammo, by engaging in name-calling.

          • http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/ One Brow

            clauslarsen,

            Anyone with the intelligence of a seven-year-old would realize that harassers provide their own ammunition at need. It doesn’t matter what I say, what Stephanie Zvan says, or anything else. If they can’t find a legitimate gripe (as is normally the case), they will invent, twist, and recast anything required for their needs. Harassers harass because of their own internal issues; victims of harassment are nothing more than bystanders who have been chosen for targets.

            However, I don’t find it interesting that you consider referring to you as “clauslarsen” is name-calling. Normally, I would suspect it had been something else in my post, but since everything else was just a description that didn’t even directly mention a name, that’s the only bit left you must think is name-calling I’m not sure why you chose a handle that you find personally name-calling when used by others but it’s not my problem.

          • clauslarsen

            One Brow,

            It was something else: I was referring to your use of “clueless dolts”.

            You provide another example in the above post, “anyone with the intelligence of a seven-year old”.

            Why would you think anyone would find such descriptions persuasive? Would you be persuaded to change your mind, if someone called you names?

          • http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/ One Brow

            clauslarsen,

            I’m relieved to know I can mention your handle without you considering it name-calling.

            I referenced examples, and didn’t even say you specifically in either case, yet you seem to think you were meant personally. It’s almost like you think harassment can be indirect, implied, and based on history.

            However, you seem to think I’m trying to persuade you by some well-thought-out rational argument. I have no expectations of succeeding in such an effort, because your position is profoundly irrational, and you don’t reason people out of positions that are not reasoned. I don’t even have six posts in this thread yet, and you’re asking me to let up. Yet, you have no problem chastising Stephanie Zvan after shes put up with this for years.

          • clauslarsen

            One Brow,

            Would you be persuaded to change your mind, if someone called you names?

            How rational is name-calling?

          • http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/ One Brow

            clauslarsen,

            I have been persuaded to change my mind with name-calling, at times, when I was being irrational. ONce again, I’m not trying to be rational with you, because your position is profoundly irrational.

            I find this quote telling, “Do give the harassers more ammo, by engaging in name-calling.”

            As a reminder, SocraticGadfly started this little tangent by talking about Stephanie Zvan controlling Greg Laden sexually. How much “ammo” was needed for that particular dig, do you think? How much do you believe that?

            Your point is stupid. Your position is naive. Your contributions have enabled the victimizers, not the victims. As of right you, you are being part of the problem, and apparently in a particularly obtuse and dense fashion.

            I’m flouncing here, as you show no sign of the cranial development of a 7-year-old, and I have other kids to raise.

          • clauslarsen

            One Brow,

            Since you won’t explain to me what is so irrational, stupid and naive about my position, I won’t know what it is that is wrong, and thus not be able to better myself. But, since I show no sign of the cranial development of a 7-year-old, it would probably be wasted on me anyway.

            Whatever has happened between SocraticGadfly and Stephanie is not relevant to the point I am making: Two wrongs simply don’t make a right.

          • doubtthat

            You are beyond persuasion. You shouldn’t require persuasion, you should be able to figure it out on your own.

            Thus, all there is left to do is point out your many faults as a learning platform for others.

          • clauslarsen

            doubtthat,

            You are quite right that I wouldn’t be persuaded by name-calling.

            What about you? Would *you* be persuaded by name-calling?

            Feel free to point out my many faults as a learning platform for others: Those who require persuasion, and are not able to figure it out on
            their own.

          • doubtthat

            If you made a good argument and called me an asshole, I would be persuaded.

            Your faults are displayed here, so there’s no point in just copying and pasting something that can be literally seen on the same screen, but your advice to avoid giving the harassers “ammo” is embarrassingly dense. That you would even consider it worth expressing places you among a fellowship of not particularly impressive thinkers.

          • clauslarsen

            doubtthat,

            You wouldn’t be persuaded by name-calling, then. We are in agreement.

            As for my faults, you first say that all there is left is to point them out. Then, you say there is no point in doing that, because they are all on display.

            Personally, I don’t find that very persuasive, but you seem to think otherwise. So, on that, we are not in agreement.

          • doubtthat

            Really? Goddamn, that was an amazingly stupid comment.

            Has that approach ever worked anywhere at any time in the scope of human history to stop a harasser? Nope.

          • clauslarsen

            doubtthat,

            Did I say it would *stop* the harassers? No, I said it would give them more ammo.

            Harassers are stopped by reporting them to the proper authorities. You certainly don’t stop them, by giving them what they want: Attention.

          • doubtthat

            Holy shit, that doesn’t make your comment any less stupid.

            Harassers don’t need more ammo. These harassers, particularly, are just making shit up. They are perfectly capable of fabricating pretexts to insult and humiliate whatever target they choose.

            That you think the victim in this can play a role in controlling the sort of harassment they receive is absolutely idiotic. They will harass if the target responds, tries to ignore them, runs away, stays and fights…it doesn’t fucking matter.

            Notice that this entire interaction began with an inscrutable smear because some asshole is still crying over an argument he had with Stephanie Zvan 2 1/2 years ago. What did she do in this thread to invite that sort of nonsense?

          • clauslarsen

            doubtthat,

            If the victim can do nothing in controlling the sort of harassment he or she is receiving, then there is no point in doing what Stephanie Zvan is doing, is there? Namely, responding to harassers, an approach which you deem useless.

            So, we agree on that as well.

          • http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/ One Brow

            clauslarsen,

            Perhaps Stephanie Zvan has a goal that does not include stopping the harasser. Duh.

          • clauslarsen

            One Brow,

            That is of course one possibility. Perhaps Stephanie can find the time to clarify.

          • doubtthat

            Whoa, what argumentative wizardry!

            No, dumbass, the behavior of the harassers is not the only variable. The target cannot dictate their behavior in a forum over which they have no control, but there are plenty of other potential results that would be beneficial:

            1) Showing that the stupid harassment will not work to silence people.

            2) Provide an example for others facing harassment.

            3) Convince people with control over moderation functions to ban the harassment.

            4) Provide an example for the community who can, as a group, act to marginalize the harassers.

            And on and on.

            You are pig ignorant on this subject and apparently not willing to consider the topic beyond your initial (misdirected) reaction.

          • clauslarsen

            doubtthat,

            Again, I have not been arguing that the target can dictate the harassers’ behavior, in a forum, or elsewhere.

            As for your list:

            1) Yes, indeed: By ignoring the harassers, and focusing on your focal point. Harassers really hate being ignored.

            2) Yes, indeed: By showing that the harassers aren’t successful in their quest to change your focal point.

            3) Yes, indeed: That is what I have been saying from the start.

            4) Yes, indeed: If reporting the harassment result in the harasser being either banned or restricted, it will serve as a very effective example.

            And, as you say, on and on.

          • doubtthat

            Haha, ok. I take that as acknowledgment that you’ve accepted my position.

            But seriously?

            I have not been arguing that the target can dictate the harassers’ behavior…

            Do (not) give the harassers more ammo, by engaging in name-calling.

            I don’t even…Name-calling gives them ammo. Presumably not name-calling would result in some behavioral change on the part of the harassers or that advice you attempted to give would be totally pointless.

            Then you say:

            If the victim can do nothing in controlling the sort of harassment he or she is receiving, then there is no point in doing what Stephanie Zvan is doing, is there?

            Then you agree with every example of a point to Zvan’s behavior that I gave.

            Color me baffled.

          • clauslarsen

            doubtthat,

            No, on both counts.

            As for the first, it has been my position, from the beginning.

            As for the second, you are saying that what Stephanie is doing, is useless. So, you are agreeing with me, since that was my point, also from the beginning.

          • Stephanie Zvan

            Claus, you can’t or won’t read. “And the same goes for anyone incapable of telling Steve here the same thing.”
            Fuck off.

          • clauslarsen

            Stephanie,

            No, I won’t “fuck off”. You can censor me on your own blog, as you do with many others. But you cannot censor me here, or anywhere else, where you don’t have that power. You don’t control me, or anyone else, at least not outside your own environment, despite your eager attempts to do so.

            If you don’t want to respond to people, don’t. If you don’t want to listen to other opinions than your own, don’t.

            But telling people to “fuck off”, just because you disagree with them, is just bad behavior. Embarking on quests to ostracize people for the same reason is outright despicable.

          • Stephanie Zvan

            I’m not trying to censor you, you self-important twerp. I’m telling you you’re a lousy excuse for a human being who is incapable of standing up against sexist abuse. Or unwilling to. Either one. Still a lousy excuse for a human being.

          • clauslarsen

            Stephanie,

            You know nothing of what I do or don’t do, when it comes to dealing with harassers. You just assume that I don’t stand up against sexist abuse, because I don’t uncritically follow in your footsteps. You and your group are not the only ones fighting abuse, sexist, racist, religious, or otherwise, nor are your methods the only ones to follow.

            Instead of incessantly fighting your allies, try to cooperate, and accept that people have many ways of doing the right thing. You cannot force everyone to think and act like you, regardless of how well-intentioned you consider yourself to be, or of how vitriolic you argue your case.

            You do not hold the copyright on how to fight abuse. Because believing that, Stephanie, is being self-important.

          • Phil Giordana Fcd

            1) proof of *real* sexist ABUSE in these here parts (any provided will have me make a public apology). 2) proofs Claus is a ‘lousy excuse for a human being”. You are not faring much better. In fact, you are worse.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I don’t know the whole backstory. Hell, I don’t know it at all other than what Stephanie has written here to explain it. But it sounds like SocraticGadfly has followed Stephanie around online and harassed her for two and a half years. That makes him saying anything at all remotely abusive severe sexist abuse; stalking is classic abusive behavior.

            The one comment? Bad, but not nearly as bad as they come. It’s the context of years of online stalking that make it really bad and explain why Stephanie is telling everyone who is defending Socratic to fuck right off.

          • clauslarsen

            Feminerd,

            I am not defending SocraticGadfly at all. In fact, I haven’t said anything about him.

            Do you think that justifies Stephanie Zvan telling me to “fuck off”, and describe me as a “self-important twerp”, and a “lousy excuse for a human being”?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I think that sounds like someone who is extremely pissed at anyone saying anything that looks remotely like defending Socratic. When you called Stephanie out for insulting Socratic, it’s hard not to read it as a defense of him and his behavior, or at least minimizing his behavior, no matter your intentions.

            In other words, faced with a situation in which Person A stalks Person B for two and a half years and Person B calls Person A very nasty names because of it, you chose to scold Person B for being mean. That’s very easy to read as a defense of Person A and/or minimizing his behavior to something just as ‘minor’ as calling people bad names, instead of recognizing the order of magnitude difference in their actions.

            EDIT: And no, it doesn’t justify you being called a self-important twerp or a lousy excuse for a human being. It totally justifies you being told to fuck off, though. And your later actions deserve some pushback, though the insults may be a tad gratuitous.

          • clauslarsen

            Feminerd,

            Like yourself, I have no knowledge of the backstory on Stephanie and SocraticGadfly, but whatever it is, it does not justify Stephanie’s behavior, if she at the same time claims to fight such behavior. That only makes her a hypocrite, which is all I pointed out.

            There is no need at all for “pushback”, because that only serves two things: It feeds the trolls, thus perpetuating the problem, and it makes Stephanie a complete hypocrite. Like I said, two wrongs don’t make a right. You don’t fight nastiness by being nasty yourself. It only makes you look ridiculous.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            You don’t fight nastiness by being a doormat, either. This isn’t a troll situation, it’s an abuse situation. Do you sit around and tell women (or men) who are being stalked IRL “hey, just don’t respond, he’ll stop”? That’s like the worst response you can give to abusive behavior; it both minimizes the fear and hurt of the victim and suggests the behavior of the abuser/stalker is not a big deal.

            SocraticGadfly isn’t trolling for teh lulz. He’s trying to create an atmosphere in which Stephanie doesn’t feel safe to speak up at all, about anything, for fear of being lambasted or derailed by his nastiness. So far he’s not succeeded, which is great, but you’re helping him by calling him just-a-troll and getting mad at the victim for being angry. He’s not a troll and your response is not helpful. You fight abusers by calling them out and never, ever letting them get away with shit; sounds like Stephanie’s tactics to me.

          • clauslarsen

            Feminerd,

            If it is abuse or stalking, report the person to the proper authorities. You do not fight back, by refraining from reporting, and instead engage your abusers or stalkers in the manner by which they engage you. That only spurs them on.

            If it is nastiness, you don’t fight that by being nasty yourself. Again, that only spurs them on. You can’t nasty your way to a non-nasty world.

            Consider Dawkins, Randi, Shermer, Plait, and Radford: They get a hell of a lot more abuse than Stephanie, due to them being household names. How do they deal with the abuse they get? Do you see them dive in with the pigs? No, they mostly ignore it, perhaps making a bit of fun of the worst occasionally. You wouldn’t call any of them doormats, would you?

          • http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/ One Brow

            “Consider Dawkins, Randi, Shermer, Plait, and Radford: ”

            Why? Does the abuse they receive have the same purpose? Is it coming from their supposed allies? Are they more knowledgeable concerning the human psyche and the appropriate ways of reducing conflict? Are they prophets, whose ways we must all emulate?

            You are engaging in prototypical victim-blaming. Until you can see that much, you won’t understand this at all.

          • clauslarsen

            One Brow,

            Abuse is not abuse anymore? It must have a specific purpose, in order for it to count? It must come from a certain group, and not from another? One must have specific knowledge, in order to deal with abuse and harassment effectively?

            The problem with your exceptions is that it results in abuse being only abuse, if it is launched at Stephanie. It is not: Abuse is abuse, regardless of who dishes it out.

            The problem with you calling my points “prototypical victim-blaming” is that it absolves Stephanie from *any* responsibility for her own actions: She is abused, so she can abuse back, even abusing those who have not abused her, in any way, shape or form.

            Sorry, but that won’t solve anything. On the contrary, it will just feed the problem, and turn Stephanie into an abuser and harasser herself. And an abuser will always find some way to justify the abuse. The harasser never thinks he or she is harassing.

            The people I mentioned are all subjected to the worst abuse and harassment, on a far bigger scale than anything Stephanie has ever endured. But despite their lack of the knowledge you require, they deal with it in a professional manner, so the abuse and harassment does not become the focal point of their activities.

            Because if it did, the abusers and harassers will have gotten what they came for.

          • http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/ One Brow

            clauslarsen,

            “Abuse is not abuse anymore? It must have a specific purpose, in order for it to count? It must come from a certain group, and not from another? One must have specific knowledge, in order to deal with abuse and harassment effectively?”

            Count as what? I didnj’t say anything about it “counting”. I asked you to justify why Stephanie Zvan should feel obliged to use methods others have used. Instead of responding, you dodged. Again. I mean, unless you really believe that all abuse is exactly alike, all victims are exactly alike, and therefore every situation must be handled in the exact same way. You’re not that obtuse, right?

            Are you including yourself in the people Stephanie has abused? If so, I suggest you take your own advice, and look to why you caused someone to abuse you (that does seem to be your primary card to play, so play it on yourself). You brought Stephanie’s response upon yourself, right? Or, are you the only abuse victim that is immune from being subjected to that line of thought?

            Also, among your five paragons of abuse-dealing, I’ve seen at least three handle criticism and abuse very substandardly at different times.

            As for “what the abusers came for”, who cares? The abusive actions alone are their own reward. How the victim acts is irrelevant to them.

          • clauslarsen

            One Brow,

            If you didn’t think the conditions counted for anything, it just seems odd that you should introduce them.

            Stephanie is of course free to use the methods she feels will combat the problem of abuse and harassment. However, her present methods do not seem to work, do they? It doesn’t strike me as if she thinks the abuse and harassment has gotten any less serious, so it is a good question why she continues down a path that does not lead to any solutions.

            She could, of course, escalate the backtalk, but that would most likely not decrease the abuse and harassment, as you also point out, but rather escalate it even further.

            What she could try, is what Dawkins, Randi, Shermer, Plait, and Radford do: Not let the abuse and harassment become the focal point, so she can concentrate on fighting the causes she wants to be the focal point.

            With regards to who is the cause of abuse, I didn’t say that someone being abused has done something to get abused. That would indeed be victim-blaming, which I am not doing. I said that, by abusing back, and even abusing those who have not abused her, the victim only escalates the problem, by extending the abuse beyond the original abusers.

            I have not abused Stephanie, or harassed her, yet she uses language and descriptions that others might find abusive, if they were in my shoes. We do know of some, who find her methods rather abusive. Stephanie is aware of this, too.

          • Pitchguest

            I suppose it matters where the abuse comes from now. Hoping that someone will burn horribly, whether that is in this life or the next, has little consequence — or doesn’t carry as much weight — if it’s not by their supposed “allies.” Apparently.

            Victim blaming? Oh, you mean like when Stephanie Zvan wrote a letter titled “Dear Dick” to Richard Dawkins where she proceeded to patronise him about diminishing sexual assault victims, signing it “survivor of teen sexual assault”, and having others who’d suffered sexual assault or rape to also sign it, knowing full well he was molested as a child?

            No, maybe that’s not victim blaming. Maybe that’s just being an asshole.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            They get abuse for their ideas. They don’t get sexual threats and sex-themed insults. They don’t get rape threats. No one is trying to silence them because they are men, but rather because their ideas are threatening. The intent and just general meanness of the Internet insults top male atheists get pales in comparison to the insults women on the Internet face, especially outspoken feminist ones.

            If Stephanie only got the types of abuse that Dawkins, Randi, Shermer, Plait, and Radford get, I bet she’d be thrilled. You know what doesn’t generally happen to them? People stalking them for over two years just to pop up and derail things like what happened here. They deal mostly with one-offs, which are far less threatening, annoying, and rage-inducing.

          • clauslarsen

            Feminerd,

            Death threats are not worse than rape threats?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            In many ways, no, they are not. Death threats are usually vague; rape threats are often disturbingly detailed. Death threats say “I want you to stop existing because you said things that annoy me”; rape threats say “I want to dominate you and put you in your place because your existence annoys me”.

            Me personally? I’d rather have a death threat than a rape threat any day. The death threat treats me as a person who is threatening and powerful; the rape threat treats me as an object. What the threats say about the person making the threats and how they view me makes me far prefer the death threat. And, quite frankly, the death threat is far less likely to be actually carried out. It’s easier to dismiss.

          • clauslarsen

            Feminerd,

            Death threats say “I want to kill you (for whatever reason).” Murder happens to be the most serious crime in all judicial systems in the world, and is subsequently punished the hardest.

            If we were to follow your assessment, it would therefore require a complete overhaul of the judicial systems: Death would now be a minor offense, compared to rape, and death threats would be minor offenses, compared to rape threats.

            Another problem is that your personal views would trump the views of those who receive death threats, and who find those much more serious than any other threat.

            I’m curious to know if you think rape is the worst crime, or if something else is. If so, what are your reasons to think this?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Of course not. Given the choice between death and rape, I’d pick rape, of course. Death is permanent. Rape is surely a horrible experience and leaves scars, but life goes on afterwards.

            Rape threats and death threats are not rape and murder. I didn’t add a disclaimer to that effect in my response to you, figuring that would be obvious, but clearly I should have. I’d rather receive death threats than rape threats for all the reasons I stated above, because of what the threats say about the person making said threats and how they view me. The chance of any of them being carried out is minuscule, so I have to go by which I think is more likely (rape threat) and which is more harmful to my mental well-being (rape threat again).

          • clauslarsen

            Feminerd,

            I am happy to hear that you do not think murder to be less serious than rape.

            However, if the judicial systems should consider rape threats more serious than death threats, are there any types of threats that you feel are more serious than rape threats? If so, reasons?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            *headdesk* I talked about what was more serious and detrimental to people receiving the threats. I did not comment on what the judicial system should think of either type of threat. Kindly refrain from reading words I never actually typed. You too, Pitchguest. If you want to talk about how the judicial system deals with crimes, by all means lets do that somewhere else that isn’t here.

            Look, this is seriously derailed now. Let’s get back to the point, yes? You were mad that Stephanie said mean things to you and about you. I pointed out that some of that was justified and some wasn’t, but given what she’s been through, it’s all understandable. Do you understand why your response to Stephanie and SocraticGadfly was unacceptable and why Stephanie jumped on you?

          • Pitchguest

            What has she been through, exactly?

            Oh, and I’d missed the post where you said you didn’t think rape was worse than murder. My bad. But I’m curious, just why exactly do you think the death threats are not as likely to be carried out but the rape threats are?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Well, at least one guy Internet-stalking her for 2.5 years. A great many other one-off rape threats, some of them very detailed and, um, much ickier and more disturbing because of it. The usual for any woman blogger on the Internet, really; the problem is that it’s so much part of the background many people don’t see how horrible it really is.

            As for why rape threats are more likely to be carried out: too many people don’t see rape as a serious crime at all. It’s far, far more likely to be go unpunished than murder. Note this doesn’t mean I think it’s likely- I don’t. A rape threat is just more likely than a death threat to be carried out. The judicial system simply does not treat rape as the extremely serious crime that it is; note that the Steubenville rapists will be in prison for less time than the Anonymous member who exposed them.

          • Pitchguest

            Really? Well, I symphatise with Stephanie. Just like I symphatise with Paula Kirby, Harriet Hall, Barbara Drescher, Bridget Gaudette, Sara Mayhew, Karla Porter, etc, who most likely also receive those kinds of detailed “threats.” Although I hear most of these women are “chill girls” by Stephanie Zvan’s standards, or maybe “sister punishers” according to Melody Hensley’s standards.

            Rape is not taken as seriously? You obviously haven’t been to Sweden. Or the UK. In fact, have a read of this story:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348532/The-woman-accused-stranger-Facebook-rape–ruined-victims-life.html

            Note it’s the Daily Mail so take what you read with a grain of salt, but the story itself is true. A woman browsed on Facebook, saw two random men posing in a picture and accused them of raping her. Was it taken seriously? Let’s put it this way. It took two *months* before police began to suspect foul play, and two years of court proceedings, before the men were acquitted of any wrongdoing. And as punishment, the woman in question was given 200 hours of community service and a supervision order from social services. Sure, that’s just one case, but I think that’s proof that rape is taken very, very seriously indeed.

            Oh, and life is very, very unfair. I think that’s one thing we can agree on.

          • lynneb

            Feminerd, PG is not interested in any way in understanding.

          • Pitchguest

            Am I not?

            To use a Zvanism, “fuck you.” And “fuck right the hell off.”

          • lynneb

            Heh.

            No, you aren’t.

          • Pitchguest

            Pathetic.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I know. It’s for any random people who come across this thread in the future. I often reply to trollish people in that vein- not for their edification, but for the lurkers.

            I appreciate the warning, though!

          • lynneb

            Fair enough!

          • clauslarsen

            Feminerd,

            But there are consequences, should society adapt to your standards. Unless you are merely engaging in idle talk, we should consider what the effects would be, should we reject the current standards, in favor of yours.

            I find it interesting to hear that you thought I was driven by emotion, when I first commented on Stephanie’s post. I wasn’t at all.

            Thus, I wasn’t mad that Stephanie said mean things, to me or anyone else. I pointed out the hypocrisy in saying mean things to stop people from saying mean things, that’s all.

            If you, Stephanie, or others think that striking back with angry smears is understandable and justified, we will just have to disagree. Being driven by anger rarely solves problems where anger is the reason for them.

          • Pitchguest

            What?

            What?

            Murder is not worse than rape?

            *blink*

            *blink*

            What is wrong with you people?

          • Pitchguest

            Really, I seriously can’t let that go. Rape is worse than death. I don’t know what to say. Wow. Okay. So. Say you’re raped – that is a horrible ordeal and no one should have to deal with that. I agree. But you’re still alive. You can still hang out with your friends, you can still hang out with your family, you can still hug them, kiss them, laugh with them, cry with them.

            But if you’re murdered, you’re dead. Your family will no longer be able to do any of that, not to mention your family will be crying, your children will be without a mother, your beloved without a spouse, your family without a daughter. I mean, how can you with any conscience say that rape is actually worse than murder?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Since I didn’t say that, where exactly are you going with this?

          • Pitchguest

            My mistake. I’d skimmed a post where you clarified your position.

          • http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/ One Brow

            Phil Giordana Fcd,

            That you don’t understand sexist abuse, when stuck under your nose, is no one else’s issue. No one is trying to persuade you. If I’m going to ram my head into a stone wall, I’ll save it for one where I think there’s something to be gained on the other side.

          • Pitchguest

            Unwilling to stand up against sexist abuse? You mean when Greg Laden told a woman to “get off the rag” and to “kiss [his] ass”? Or when he told JT he’s only a feminist so he can get laid, similiar to what SocraticGadfly said about you and Greg? Hypocrite?

          • Phil Giordana Fcd

            Just stay classy, Zvan. It does you some good.

          • Stephanie Zvan

            Fuck off, Phil.

          • Phil Giordana Fcd

            Same to you, Steph’! We shall both be happier now…

    • Anne Hanna

      Geez, Socratic, I already knew from the last time I wasted precious, irreplaceable moments of my life talking to you that you were a disingenuous, self-important jerkoff. I didn’t realize that you also enjoyed indulging in slimy and sexist slurs against people you disagree with. It’s sorta perversely satisfying to discover that my previous judgment that you weren’t worth talking to was even more accurate than I realized at the time.

      Do please note that after this comment I’m going right back to not wasting my time on you — I’m only commenting to support Stephanie — so don’t expect me to respond further to you here. Have a nice life.

      • Pitchguest

        Oh, you mean the exact sort of “slimy and sexist slurs” that Greg Laden used against JT?

        • Anne Hanna

          Guess what? Tu (happen to be on loosely the same side of the discussion as someone who’s been quotemined as having) quoque doesn’t defend Socratic’s assholery. Turns out he’s still an asshole, no matter what Greg Laden may or may not have done!

          Guess what else? After this comment I’m also not gonna waste any further time talking to you or any other pitters about this, either. You’re free to not call out sexism yourselves if you don’t want to, but trying stop other people from calling out sexism makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

          If you think Greg Laden said something sexist, go tell him so. Tell the whole world, and if you make a good case, you’ll find you have plenty of backup, maybe even from me. But don’t pretend like Greg could possibly have said or done *anything* that would justify Socratic’s splash damage-laden garbage. And don’t expect your complaints against Greg to be taken seriously as long as they’re only made when you need to find some way to excuse bad shit said by people you consider to be on your side.

          Please note: this is not about my position on Greg Laden’s statements. I disagree with both JT’s take on the Ron Lindsay/WIS2 issue and Greg Laden’s particular choice of ways to call him out. (In fact, looking more carefully at what Laden said, I do find it distasteful that he decided insulting sexual innuendo was the best response to JT, no matter how wrong JT may have been — we’d all surely be pretty pissed if a similar thing had been said to a female blogger, and I don’t think it’s better to do it to a man.) But that doesn’t make what Socratic said okay, and it doesn’t justify you trying to muddy the waters to obscure Socratic’s nastiness.

          • lynneb

            Thanks, you managed to put into words a few things I was thinking but hadn’t articulated.

          • Pitchguest

            Hahaha. I was just remarking on your favoritism and hypocrisy, disregarding Laden’s comment in lieu of SocraticGadfly when they’re saying exactly the same thing. Announcing your support of Stephanie in light of that, too, is telling just what kind of narrative you were pushing. But whatever. If you don’t want to talk to me “or any other pitters”, that’s on you.

            But I see you don’t actually agree with what Greg Laden said. Good.

            You’re free to not call out sexism yourselves if you don’t want to, but trying stop other people from calling out sexism makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

            What are you on about?

          • Pitchguest

            And I don’t consider SocraticGadfly to be on “my side.” Don’t put words in my mouth. (I’m not the one who thinks we have “sides.” That would be Stephanie Zvan, the one you support.)

          • Anne Hanna

            Let the record show that Pitchguest has entirely failed to address the substance of my comments and has decided to nitpick terminology instead. This is why I don’t bother arguing with slimepitters.

          • Pitchguest

            That’s not why you don’t bother to argue with slymepitters, Anne.

          • ool0n

            He is also lying given he does not believe any of the comments are sexist slurs as he says. So his tu quoque is based on a bad faith argument to further compound the fallacy!

          • Anne Hanna

            It does rather look like that, doesn’t it? Otherwise, why does he (like other slimepitters) only bring that kind of thing up when it’s an excuse to shut down other accusations of sexism?

    • http://bigthink.com/blogs/daylight-atheism Adam Lee

      You shouldn’t let nasty little slimeballs like the above commenter run their mouths on your blog, JT.

      • Pitchguest

        Tone-trolling, Adam?

        • ool0n

          Yup have a read above JT, PGs a one trick pony – lie via tu quoque and bad faith argument… Repeat ad nauseam.

      • baal

        Aside from this one issue, where your side and slimers have gone ballistic nut balls (though I won’t say to the same degree); JTs policy is more than enough. Why do you think it’s acceptable to make the OT attack on JT rather than address the post?

        Edit to note that I left your blog due to your method of moderation. It bares striking resemblance to the bullying and group abuse / harassment as normative tools I witnessed the one and only time I visited a frat house.

    • JTEberhard
      • Celticwulf

        JT, if you peruse the comments on this post once again, you’ll see that even since you posted the new blog, more people from the slymepit are showing up. If you don’t want to moderate, and instead allow them to keep commenting, that is entirely up to you…but don’t be so shocked when people being attacked are upset that you’re allowing it to happen.

        • Pitchguest

          Attacked? Really? “Attacked”?

          • doubtthat

            Are we going to have another bout of Pitchguest v. Meaning of Words?

            I always find that entertaining.

          • Pitchguest

            Sorry, I can’t remember the previous bout. Care to jog my memory?

            To get back to the subject matter, though – “attacked?” Celticwulf brought up “The Slymepit” as though we’re lepers or something, but the interesting part is when he used the word “attacked” – that because I happen to post on a network called “The Slymepit”, criticising someone automatically means I am “attacking” them? When I called out Stephanie Zvan for enabling Greg Laden’s poor behaviour, was I “attacking” her? That’s an unhealthy amount of hyperbole.

            What should it matter if people from “The Slymepit” should comment here or not?

          • doubtthat

            I’m not surprised you don’t remember. That’s why you’re doing it again.

            I know talking to you is like trying to discuss the argument between Popper and Kuhn with a hamster, but try reading SocraticGadfly’s other posts and see if you can suss out an attack–as an example, mind you.

          • Pitchguest

            No, that’s avoiding the question. I really would like you to jog my memory, please, just to make sure you’re not gaslighting me or anything. So, if you would be so kind.

          • doubtthat

            What’s the point? It’s not like you’ll learn anything.

            Go back and read our interactions on Nugent’s page, for example. Why would I exert calories to remind you of a conversation you had?

            Although it would make sense if your fingers are just sort of fidgeting randomly rather than ordering your thoughts into sentence form…

          • Pitchguest

            If you’ve started, then finish it. Don’t leave me hanging.

    • see.the.galaxy

      I don’t know if your comment was a clever troll designed to stir up trouble, or just boorish & offensive. I vote for the stupidity. If I didn’t know better, I’d assume the author was a slightly stuffy underage b& from one of the shadier imageboards. I hope you choose to remain silent in the future.

  • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

    JT, I’d rather see you address the substantive arguments that people made in the comments of your post than to respond to Greg Laden’s comment (which is clearly ridiculous). I know, this comes off as me telling you what to write, and normally I don’t do that.

    The frustrating thing about being told to be more “charitable” to “potential allies” is that the line always keeps on moving. Eventually, the line of what does or does not alienate “potential allies” moves all the way back to the “Shut up, I’m tired of you talking about this” line.

    I think you’re assuming that feminists involved in atheism and skepticism have the same priorities as people who are just atheists and skeptics. This is not always the case. My rights as a woman are being chipped away, state by state. This is HUGELY more concerning to me than whether or not a town can put up crosses and call it “art.”

    So if you assume that I consider other atheists and skeptics “potential allies” in my feminist concerns, you are mistaken. I am potentially their ally.

    • invivoMark

      I really, really wanted to say what you did in your first paragraph. But I also, y’know, didn’t want to actually say it. So I’m glad you did instead.

      Frankly, I have no idea why anyone pays any attention to Greg Laden any more. On the other hand, the previous post on Ron Lindsay had a ton of extremely well-written responses by people who obviously invested a lot of thought and passion into their posts. It feels almost criminal to even mention a comment like Laden’s.

      • ool0n

        *cough*Crommunist*cough* … Massive upvotes and ignored… Much easier to piss on Gregs bad joke on an obscure post – sorry to Olivia as it was well written but I’ve not seen it linked anywhere. Shooting fish in a barrel to avoid the difficult criticism.

        • JTEberhard

          Did you see the part of this post where I talked about dredging someone’s supposed motivation out of their skull and assaulting that?

          By making this comment, you are establishing that this is a problem. Please stop doing this.

          • ool0n

            I would like to see you address the great points from Crom and others on that post. Seemed a shame after he put all that work into the most upvoted comment on there for it to be ignored. So yeah I have no telepathic skill but posts like this and reactions like “assaulted” make me think I have a shot at the Randi million :-D

          • JTEberhard

            I have no doubt you’d like to see a response to Crom. That’s not the problem.

            Going after someone’s hidden, more sinister motivation is. It’s not just a problem that it’s a bad way to argue, but it’s a problem (as I argued in this post) that when enough people do it (which I think is the case) that it drives people away.

          • ool0n

            “Sinister”? Ok so I have no idea what you are talking about so I’ll drop it… At worst I would say my comment is a you are too chicken to tackle criticism from X lame attempt to goad you into responding to said criticism. Obviously you read more into it than me.

          • JTEberhard

            “Much easier to piss on Gregs bad joke on an obscure post – sorry to Olivia as it was well written but I’ve not seen it linked anywhere. Shooting fish in a barrel to avoid the difficult criticism.”

            I read exactly what you said. You were asserting that you knew my motivation was something different and inherently cowardly than my stated motivation. It was a dig at me based on knowledge you couldn’t possibly have.

            Goading someone into something by citing a motivation you couldn’t possibly know is not arguing in good faith. It’s a bad way to argue in general.

            One of the points of this post is that this kind of thing is more widespread when feminism is the topic at hand and it makes people not want to be a part of feminism, even if they realize and deplore the problems facing women. Using it here solidifies my point. Bad arguments do not become good just because your cause is just.

            Nothing is wrong with saying you’d like me to respond to Crom. But there is something wrong with implying you can reach into my head and discern why I haven’t, as if I’m averse to opinions that aren’t mine somehow. This drives people to silent neutrality which, I think, is a damn shame.

          • ool0n

            Maybe next time I’ll add “looks like” before the shooting fish sentence… I felt it was implied, obviously not.

            I was right about one assertion at least, it is a lot easier to piss on Gregs bad comment than Croms excellent one.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Strange how Oolon never complains about Rebecca Watson pissing on comments and being all snarky – have you read her horrendously childish dig at Dawkins’ meme video. Oolon’s trolling is only ever one way.

            Hard to believe people like are taken seriously by a (small) part of the A/S community.

          • ool0n

            Haha, your Watson derangement syndrome is playing you up again, is it linked to the pollen count?

            Try reading again, Rebecca made a reference to the film Ringu above the video. The childish snarkiness that you complain about didn’t even come from her. Will from Queereka wrote that bit. Never mind Rich I’m sure you can make up some reasons to dislike her!

          • TaylorMaid

            I’d like you to respond to Crom.

        • Richard Sanderson

          Oolon hates it when one of his allies get called out. In fact, Oolon has very much taken on Greg’s roll as chief FTB troll.

          • ool0n

            I said it was a bad joke… In fact I liked the much better criticism of JT from Crommunist (Both allies, JT as an ex-FTB-Baboon? Certainly I liked his calling out of you and slimey friends in the previous post!). How is that not wanting allies to be called out? My aim on this thread, however misguided, has been to complain that the better “calling out” is being ignored by JT. Derailing but definitely not against calling out an ally. So there.

            I suspect you like drama and not well thought out posts that deal with good solid criticism. I’ll happily take the piss out of the drama but unlike you and the rest of the pit I don’t live off it.

          • Richard Sanderson

            I’ll happily take the piss out of the drama but unlike you and the rest of the pit I don’t live off it.

            Now that needs photocapping. You live and breath the drama, Oolon. You are the one that wasted days and weeks developing a spambot that no one uses.

          • ool0n

            A bot that aids people in ignoring dipshits like you… Exactly how does ignoring you and your fellow bumblefucks add to any drama? It certainly seems to make you squeeze out some “RAGE TEARS”, or whatever your favourite phrase is. Raging alone on Twitter (And disqus I spose) is about all you can manage.

          • Richard Sanderson

            Oh, I remember. You’re sensitive about the spambot because it was endorsed by the one and only GREG LADEN!

          • ool0n

            Absolutely! Its like having Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot all say how great it is. Might have to be the tagline for it…

            So bad even Greg Laden likes it, sign up at http://www.theblockbot.com!

          • Richard Sanderson

            Your previous advertisements for the spambot at A+ and FTB didn’t exactly bring in the punters, did it?

            BTW, it’s unfair to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot to compare them to Greg Laden.

            #boom

          • ool0n

            In case anyone is wondering the users of the bot are all totally anonymous. So don’t be put of by Rich’s fantasies as he really has no idea how many ppl use it. Strangely I’m not even slightly tempted to tell him no matter how much he whines about “no one” using it… Especially as he also whines about person X,Y or Z using it and contradicting himself :-D

          • Richard Sanderson

            I know “no one” hardly uses it because I see most of the Baboons on Twitter still. The only time I “moan” about people using it, is when pointing out Greg Laden is an enthusiastic supporter and user.

            Oolon is mightily embarrassed by this, and it is my pleasure to keep pointing it out. I also like to remind Oolon of the weeks and months he wasted on creating the spambot.

          • ool0n

            So you still haven’t worked out there are three levels… Oh well, sign up yourself and you may understand how it works.

    • JTEberhard

      This is an absolutely fair point. Much of them I agreed with, even if I didn’t agree with the conclusions. I guess taking the time to write “I agree with most of this” is just less sexy than “Here’s the problem.”

      And also, there were so many comments that went along the lines of “Why can’t you admit Ron fucked up?” when I had asserted as much in the post. Those really burned me out and is a large part of the reason I haven’t gone back to answering comments.

      • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

        You will, of course, write about what you want to write about. But I think that a lot of what you’ve written in this post is simply a re-statement of what you said in your original post, and many of those points were addressed and countered in the comments section.

        When you say this:

        Why are people so worried about it when discussing feminism?

        I think you are missing important parallels with other movements. The exact same criticisms and suggestions for improvement have been aimed at anti-racist and civil rights groups. They have been aimed at LGBTQ groups. They have been aimed at atheists and secularists and humanists. And I have seen responses similar to the one you received in the comments of your original post to responses from those movements as well. It’s not feminists who are treating this criticism and suggestion as a special case. I think it’s you who are doing that.

        • JTEberhard

          When you talk about these same criticisms, which are you talking about? I made several in the post:

          1. Don’t attack people’s motivation when you don’t know what it is.

          2. Don’t conflate criticism with opposition.

          3. Don’t read people’s arguments uncharitably.

          If these criticisms were aimed at other social movements, I hope they adopted them – especially with people who said they were on the side of the oppressed group.

          These things, I think, are a problem regardless of who is doing them. I don’t think I’m treating them as if they have only been directed at feminism, I think I’m treating them like they’re bad anywhere.

          In atheism even the most aggressive atheists like myself and PZ have said that there is room for multiple approaches and multiple opinions about the best way to go about things. I, for instance, love James Croft, even though I would not adopt his tactics myself. If we had a movement where people like James felt they couldn’t say “Hey, don’t assault people’s motivation. A lot of people are doing it and it’s making people not want to support our cause” then I’d say atheism had a problem. Note that I’m not talking about anybody asking atheists (or feminists) to be less angry.

          So, insofar as the parallels to other movements go along with the criticisms I made, I don’t think the LGBTQ movement is doing so well because in many forums the advocates are uncharitable in their interpretations of other people in the LGBTQ movement, or because they focus in on potentially sinister but unknown motivations of other people in the LGBTQ movement, or because people in the LGBTQ movement too often conflate criticism with opposition. I think they’re successful because of boldness, passion, justified and righteous anger, and other things – things I would never take away from the feminist movement. Ditto for civil rights and atheism.

          I’m not worried about pleasing the pitters and the haters. Those aren’t the people I worry about alienating. I think we should be divisive with people who are cruel or otherwise lacking in compassion. Ditto, I don’t want LGBTQ people trying to appease religious fundamentalists. We’re right to denounce those people. But I don’t worry about losing friends (which did happen) or using thousands of words dedicated to disclaimers and clarifications with gay rights activists the way I do when speaking to other feminists. That difference is why I think feminism faces the problem of far more people not being a part of the movement not out of fear of pitters and what not, but rather out of fear of feminists.

          I simply worry about that and have some thoughts (contained within this post) on how I think it could be helped without also losing our ability to denounce the truly vile among us.

          • http://geekinthebreeze.wordpress.com mythbri

            I was actually referring to the criticisms that Ron Lindsay made in his speech (which he gave in an entirely inappropriate context and venue, I might add, which is a major contributing factor to why people were so hurt by it) to people he had no reason to believe were engaged in the behavior you’re describing. Lindsay had some criticisms to make (based on some fundamental misunderstandings of who and what he was criticizing), so he just decided to make them to “feminists” rather than to specific people, using his platform at the WIS2 conference to do so.

            As for people choosing not to do or say anything, even if they agree with feminism – well, that’s not something I can control, now is it? I tailor my approach based on the person or people with whom I’m interacting (as you said, different methods for different people). But the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

            Are there Christians and other religious people you’ve offended who might otherwise have supported secular petitions and actions, who now won’t do so because they think you were rude to them? Perhaps. Is that your fault? Not in the least.

          • aweraw

            Ron Lindsays speach was given to a room full of people whom he intended it for. That they didn’t want to hear it doesn’t make the context or venue inappropriate.

  • Greg Laden

    I never said that I won’t have sex with you. But if I did, it would not be because you are a feminist.

    • eccles11

      How does anyone take this testosterone damaged, Bill O’reilly archetype seriously in this movement?

    • invivoMark

      Do you ever say things that aren’t utterly slimy? Every time your name comes up and I see a quote from you, it’s abhorrent.

    • Edward Gemmer

      I anoint this an honorary Slymepit award. I’m not used to laughing when reading atheist blog comments. Good work.

  • jbrisby

    Greg Laden’s been such a downer since he lost Mr. Hat.

  • Evangeline Claire

    Wow, that’s interesting, Greg. I thought that the general FTB consensus was that feminists aren’t doing that? And Ron never generalized feminists as doing that – just some people.

  • Evangeline Claire

    they seem to be implying that they wouldn’t do such a thing (despite the fact that they do….) – does Greg think it’s okay, then? Anyway… back to it… ok, Greg, agreeing with Ron means you’re just trying to sleep with women, because most women are totally like these fuckers anyway.

    He’s right, it doesn’t work! Idk what idiot goes around thinking most women are radical hypocritical idiots. I, for one, am offended and find it sexist.

  • Loqi

    Ugh, enough with the “faking feminism to get laid” rhetoric. I’m pretty sure being a feminist man has *reduced* my chances of getting laid, since “feminist” is a bad word to a disappointing large percentage of the general poulace. Also because there’s no such thing as a drunken hookup for me, since 1) I don’t drink and thus have no sense of how much is too much to give consent and 2) if someone wants to have sex with me, they’re obviously too drunk.
    Besides that, if you’re trying to get laid, why would you try to fake your way into a relatively small community that is all about women being people rather than sexual objects and is likely to spot your bullshit anyway? It doesn’t make sense that there would be a significant number of undercover pick up artists out there faking feminism when they could just fake being into a popular band or something.

    • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

      Re: Undercover pickup artists out there faking feminism

      BRILLIANT! Made me laugh. And you’re so right. (PS: I think you’re a bit hard on yourself.)

  • RandomLinker

    For reference, since I didn’t see it linked, here is the comment by Cromunist that folks are talking about. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/06/ron-lindsey-made-mistakes-but-the-cfi-should-still-be-supported/#comment-936629898

  • Fred

    Well said.

    After reading that multi paragraph disclaimer on that previous post I thought if someone needs to include that much of padding to reassure the people who’s ultimate goals he agrees with, I don’t want to be their ally. It sounds tiring. From what I’ve read written by them if I’m not in lockstep, I’m their enemy.

    Thats ok with me. I guess I’ll just be most apathetic and uncaring enemy I can be. Good luck assaulting the walls of the fortress of Don’t Give a Crap.

  • Richard Sanderson

    Nice call out. Greg misses his role as the FTB “enforcer”, but every now and again, he tries to flex his muscles. The results are always laughable.

    He’s always raving about the hate and harassment that certain people in the atheist/secular blogosphere get, but never calls out the bullying and harassment faced by “chill girls” who dare to voice dissent.

    Greg is a jerk who once applauded Bill O’Reilly.

  • http://natehevens.wordpress.com/ Nathan Hevenstone

    Actually, I’ve been wanting to come back and apologize for my comment to you on your post the other day. I still disagree with it (as Miri says, feminists are allowed to disagree with each other! :D ), but not for those reasons and I did suggest you said something you didn’t, so I’m sorry for that.

    As to Greg… I get that shit a lot myself, but it’s the first time I’ve read about it coming from another feminist.

    I expect that from MRAs and PUAs and MGTOWs and just general assholes, but a feminist should know better.

    I really hope Greg realizes how wrong he is and apologizes. ‘Cause that’s just wrong… on every level imaginable.

  • keeleen

    I am a feminist, and will take any ally where they are at. If they care about equality and are willing to listen and learn, I am certianly willing to do the same. Most of the feminists (female AND male) I work and socialize with feel the same way. Shouting down opponents usually makes them dig in; shouting down allies (or even potential allies) is just foolish.

  • Malby

    Who’s Greg Laden?

    • Axel Blaster

      Exactly

  • ildi

    “I mean, I’ve told atheist activists that I thought altering their approach in particular ways would be more productive. ”

    Are you saying you’ve been invited as the head of a sponsoring organization to give the welcoming address at an atheist conference and turned it into an unsolicited speech about how those activists could alter their approach to be more productive? Did you then skip your duty as the head of that organization to represent at a fundraising dinner to fire off an intemperate response (in direct contravention of a letter of civility you recently signed) to a speaker at that conference who didn’t exactly appreciate your co-opting of the welcome address? Way uncool…

  • Richard Sanderson

    If anybody is wondering why the pro-FTB, pro-Stephanie mob’s comments are being upvoted, and others downvoted, there is some interesting chatter over at Almost Diamonds about said issue.

    There’s NO WAY Stephanie has that kind of support. NO WAY. Which one of her sycophants is fiddling the votes?

    • ool0n

      Projection… Weirdly some of your incoherent rants have quite a few upvotes… All but one are anonymous “guests” unlike Stephanies…. Hmmmm!

      • Richard Sanderson

        I see I have hit a nerve. Some of the #FTBullies are denying the “pharyngulation” going on here.

        The Moon must be made of cheese.

        • Sally Strange

          “Your rejection of my claims is proof I’m correct!”

          Conspiracy theorizing at its finest.

    • Sally Strange

      Oh, is that what’s done chez vous then?

      Interesting.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X