Skepchick: Embrace Victim-hood!


Westboro Baptist Church being allowed to perform the protests they do highlights exactly how much the US as a whole recognizes the importance of free speech.  Of course I don’t agree with WBC, but it nonetheless underscores the high regard that first world nations have for folks to have the freedom to express themselves. Y’know its one of those ‘I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it‘ type things.

Now lets compare this attitude to that of Surly Amy (Amy Roth) over at Skepchick.  She was apparently reduced to tears simply because someone wore a Tshirt (see below).  Not only that, she seems to be working on the delusion that she has the privilege that the rest of the world owes it to her to make sure she is never offended.  In her own words:

“I think one of the most hurtful things I experienced while attending TAM was Harriet Hall’s Tshirt that she wore three days in a row. I told her through tears, in the speakers’ lounge, that it was dehumanizing and gender/color blind and very hurtful to me specifically as a person who does have to deal with harassment regularly.”

Yes this is exactly the T-shirt that Amy Roth describes as “dehumanizing”

If you are banging your head on the desk in disbelief at the moment I just want to remind you that this is a girl who blogs regularly on skepchick, and has been supported by freethoughtblogs.  She’s also the girl who makes those little ceramic pendants that many people wear (or maybe used to wear at conferences before Amy’s crying over a Tshirt antics).  Indeed the only way I think you might have a chance of explaining her self-centered position to Amy is though the concept of reciprocation.  How would she feel if I were to be in tears because of people wearing those little ceramic pendants at conferences, suggesting that they indicate people support her anti-freespeech position, and that merely wearing these pendants is ‘dehumanizing’ and ‘very hurtful to me’, with the clear expectation that everyone else should conform to behaviors that I do not find hurtful or offensive: anything less would just be hateful.

Yup, I’m pretty sure Amy would fairly quickly come around to the position that just because someone takes offense at a t-shirt (or similar), no how matter how hysterical the outburst, it really should have no impact on the way conferences are run.

Now it turns out Amy Roth has since issued a ‘clarification’.  It’s often said that a clarification is not made to make oneself clear, but to put oneself in the clear.  Regrettably that only works if you are honest and/or competent, rather than just the shamelessly self serving ‘Rebecca Watson’ type attempt to rewrite history.

So initially Amy writes:

July 17, 2012 at 11:32 am“I think one of the most hurtful things I experienced while attending TAM was Harriet Hall’s Tshirt that she wore three days in a row. I told her through tears, in the speakers’ lounge, that it was dehumanizing and gender/color blind and very hurtful to me specifically as a person who does have to deal with harassment regularly.”

Well that seems pretty clear to me as to what Amy thought the score was, and then one day later this becomes:

July 18, 2012 at 9:42 am  “So know that just a ‘silly tshirt’ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.”

Yup in just one day, a T-shirt goes from “dehumanizing”, “gender/color blind” and “very hurtful” to now just a “silly tshirt”.  Think someone is trying to shamelessly rewrite history there Amy!

But this is peanuts compared to the Skepchick dishonesty.  Initially Amy writes:

July 17, 2012 at 11:32 am “I said I was glad she felt safe and that I wouldn’t have sent 22 women to the event if I didn’t think it was safe for them either. So who was she talking to?”

Bravo Amy for saying how you think TAM is safe.  Great so what was all the ‘we want a policy and to lynch someone at TAM’ tantrum of FTB and skepchick all about?

Oh wait…. wait… Amy is about to retell the story….

July 18, 2012 at 9:42 am “I hope that Harriet will realize why it was so hurtful and why I was offended by both the front and the back. Some of us have been harassed at events and do not feel safe. The shirt was also hurtful to those in that context as well.”

Bravo Amy, Bravo (slow hand clap), so now we have two sequentially, mutually inconsistent accounts of ‘history’ from the same person, both given within about a day of each other.  One in which TAM is safe, and that’s why you have worked to send people there, and in the other versions of ‘Skepchick’ history, where you worked to send people to an environment that was not safe, indeed that you worked to send women to an environment populated by “gropers and PUAs and drunk fumblers“.  **SLOW HAND CLAP**

Amy concludes with this:

“I have a lot of respect for Harriet, I hope that at some point she will realize that she could have sent the message she wanted without using the name of the blog I write for in the wording and that it was unnecessary.”

and

“I will continue to try to be a better person and I will continue to try to help other people get involved and to set an example of kind, productive, proactive behavior in hopes that more people will follow my lead than the those who want to mock and belittle.”

The sheer double standards here is knee weakening!  Not two posts from one her blog entries on Skepchick, Rebecca Watson is saying that people (notably myself and Paula Kirby) who disagree with them on reason based arguments, actually all think they are a Totalitarian Nazis clique. (FACEPALM)

The last person I saw with such a relish for playing the professional victim was Dawahfilms.  Now Rebecca ‘Rape threat’ Waston just can’t resist the temptation to play the victim again.  I guess it’s like trying to teach an old dog new tricks :-(

Great Amy, so on one hand you are reduced to tears because someone uses the name of the site you blog for, and on the other you have no problem with that same blog suggesting that someones reasoned argument is invalid because you (skepchick) claim they think you are nazis.  Wow a great double whammy there of professionally playing the victim and wholesale well poisoning.  That’s right, professional victim Rebecca ‘rape threat’ Watson leading the Skepchicks effort to ‘set an example of kind, productive, proactive behavior in hopes that more people will follow my lead than the those who want to mock and belittle.’ by suggesting that those who disagree with her think they are Totalitarian Nazi.  Damn not seen anyone so zealously eager to embrace victim-hood since dawahfilms.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

416 Responses to “Skepchick: Embrace Victim-hood!”

  1. comslave Says:

    Dawah at least had more style when he was a jihadi twat. Rebecca’s team is more like the 3 stooges of feminism.

    • Nikola Says:

      Wait, wait, wait…
      Dehumanising == Not sure? Sounds like a bad thing.
      Gender/Colour blind == Definitely a good thing.
      Hurtful == Please explain how?

      I think the most likely scenario is that she misinterpreted or misread what the t-shirt said, and then when she realised it, her ego wouldn’t let her simply admit that she goofed?

  2. PatRibsey Says:

    Have to say TF, I think this is a gender issue. This is easy to demonstrate:
    “July 18, 2012 at 9:42 am ”So know that just a ‘silly tshirt’ did not reduce me to tears. Sadly, there was a lot more going on.””

    What she’s saying here is that it wasn’t the T-shirt, there were other things going on emotionally for her. What they were doesn’t matter, what matters is that you ignore the big thing and focus on the T-shirt. The T-shirt isn’t the thing here. But TF, being a man, you focus on the T-shirt and call her out for inconsistency re the T-shirt.

    “Yup in just one day, a T-shirt goes from “dehumanizing”, “gender/color blind” and “very hurtful” to now just a “silly tshirt”. Think someone is trying to shamelessly rewrite history there Amy!”

    And this whole thing is full of this kind of misinterpretation. So it is a gender issue. She’s feeling a certain way, for whatever reasons, and ou bypass this most important aspect to grab onto the tangible T-shirt and say:

    “Ha! Got you! You said one thing about the T-shirt, now you’re saying another! Ha! Contradiction! Inconsistency! I win!”

    • João Espiga Machado Says:

      But the problem for TF is that this type of inconsistency is bringing unneeded and (maybe) unwanted policies to the conferences.

      If it is inconsistent, if there are other things going on in her head, etc. that seems a good case for non-objectivity and clear mind. The policies being brought cannot be claimed on these grounds.

      Also, i failed to understand your “But TF, being a man, you focus on the T-shirt…”. Are you claiming that the XY configuration locks someone to a certain type of thought and/or limitation/advantage?

      regards

      • PatRibsey Says:

        No, it’s just a generalisation, of course, and I’m not suggesting that XY configuration locks someone into a certain type of thinking. I would suggest that the probability of this misunderstanding would be reduced if TF was female.

        As to your first point, I’m more interested in people than the conference.

        I have to say that I disagree with SC and AR, and agree they are displaying a victim mentality, and I agree with a lot of what TF says. But I also disagree with some of TF’s reaction, and his misunderstandings don’t help.

      • Just another girl afraid of FTB retribution Says:

        Sheesh. I’m a woman and I agree wholeheartedly with TF. Women-as-victims feminism makes me sick, and moreover, trivializes the experiences of people who have truly been victimized. Don’t blame the fact that TF is being rational on his set of chromosomes. Women are perfectly capable being rational, too. Remember — RW’s histrionics are extremely profitable to her, and Roth needs this gig to sell her hideous “jewelry.” What a contribution to skepticism and science they are!

    • heili skrimsli Says:

      And whatever is going on in ‘Surly’ Amy Roth’s head that caused her to react the way she did to a t-shirt is not TF’s nor HH’s nor anyone else’s responsibility to cater to, nor can anyone expect that the rest of us even be aware of her (or any other skepchick’s) personal baggage.

      Feminists have long said that they want to be treated equally, but that for some reason automatically entails everyone else changing behavior to alter the environment such that no feminist’s toes are ever stepped on or her feelings hurt. At the same time that they tell everyone, especially men, to treat them no differently because they are women, they also say ‘but you can’t do or say these things because they might offend or upset a woman.’

      While they claim that assumptions cannot be made about them because they are women, they have no problem making assumptions about men because they are men. They go so far as to throw about terms like Schrodinger’s Rapist in their insistence that a man never, ever approach them the same way he would another man.

      Feminism has be come a religious philosophy in which being ‘treated equally’ actually means ‘exactly how feminists want to be treated in every situation’. It’s gone so far around the bend from the idea that women are strong to come full circle. Feminists like Amy Roth and Rebecca Watson see women as weak, as victims. They see anyone who disagrees with the idea that all women are victims of all men as misogynists and gender traitors.

      If believing that I am strong and equal and do not need men to defer to my delicate sensibilities lest I start crying and run away from a conference is being a ‘gender traitor’, then I am proud to be so labeled.

    • fosterdulles Says:

      Pat: what you seem to be perhaps unwittingly arguing is that “women are emotional and high-strung like that and we men need to be sensitive,” which is not a particularly “feminist” argument.

      It also does Amy and her organization no real good. The simple fact of the matter is that she originally framed her narrative not as a problem that she was somewhat responsible for, but as a problem of Dr. Hall’s – in that Dr. Hall was being “gender/color blind” and “personally hurtful” to Amy as someone who receives hatemail, or whatever else. Amy subsequently changed that entire narrative and to me in both instances it smacks of enormous powers of self-deception.

      The simple fact of the matter comes down to this – Amy came to TAM representing an organization which spent months raking JREF over the coals over *nothing,* and whose most prominent representative publicly stated that she felt neither “safe nor welcome” at the event, and subsequently implied boycott.

      Amy’s group made itself obnoxious to the larger community of skeptics and then for some reason expected the abused group to respect and applaud them for it. It seems to me (purely my own interpretation of events) that when faced with her own cognitive dissonance she responded first by falsifying her internal narratives – initially by attaching onto the t-shirt, subsequently by attaching onto vague “other causes” (which is perhaps closer to the truth than the original “explanation,” but if one accepts that, then one must also accept that initially Amy hadn’t worked out her own feelings, and that the t-shirt nonsense was enormously silly) But the real source of emotional distress is the obvious one – people at TAM weren’t thrilled to see her because her friends have spent a *lot* of time being unnecessarily vile and abusive regarding the people at TAM. I don’t think she any right to expect any other treatment than the mild, mostly muted disgust that she did receive.

      • Pat Ribsey Says:

        “women are emotional and high-strung like that and we men need to be sensitive.” No, I’m not saying this, I’m not saying anything like it. If you think that then I communicated poorly. I’m not defending skepchick etc. position in any way. All I’m talking about is TF’s response to it. I’m talking about communication issues. That’s all. Communication issues are important in any society and I’m trying only to identify miscommunication. To repeat, I’m not defending skepchick or condemming TF. Just highlighting miscommication and misunderstanding

        • Michael Says:

          Bit late, but: She brought up the t-shirt, wrote an entire episode around it and then suddenly, after receiving flack for it, changes her story.

          You’re barking up the wrong tree here.

    • Cattlehunter Says:

      You’re not condemning TF, just accusing him of sexism because he is a man, and then you feel like you’re in a good position to lecture others on the importance of communicating properly?

    • John C. Welch Says:

      She said two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT THE T-SHIRT.

      She didn’t in her first post say “it had been a really hard day and the t-shirt was just the cornut cherry on a shit sundae”. She said, *about the T-shirt*:

      I think one of the most hurtful things I experienced while attending TAM was Harriet Hall’s Tshirt that she wore three days in a row. I told her through tears, in the speakers’ lounge, that it was dehumanizing and gender/color blind and very hurtful to me specifically as a person who does have to deal with harassment regularly.

      Then the next day, oh no, that wasn’t it at all. You can’t have it both fucking ways. You can’t write a paragraph about how the -t-shirt hurt you so bad one day, then the next “no, no, wasn’t the t-shirt at all.” Come on, at least PRETEND to have some vague form of consistency.

      • Just another girl afraid of FTB retribution Says:

        Consistency from a skepchick? They don’t do consistency; they do histrionics.

    • João Espiga Machado Says:

      Okay, I understood now.

      regards

    • Muzebreak Says:

      “I’m not suggesting that XY configuration locks someone into a certain type of thinking.” and “I would suggest that the probability of this misunderstanding would be reduced if TF was female.” are contradictory statements. One say’s that being a man doesn’t make you think a certain way, the other says not being a woman means you don’t think a certain way.

    • MRDA Says:

      “I think one of the most hurtful things I experienced while attending TAM was Harriet Hall’s Tshirt that she wore three days in a row. I told her through tears, in the speakers’ lounge, that it was dehumanizing and gender/color blind and very hurtful to me specifically as a person who does have to deal with harassment regularly.”

      Sounds like she could do with some serious counselling for whatever issues plague her.

  3. uknowispeaksense Says:

    You really need to get over this and move on. I’m beginning to think you’ve singled her out because she’s an easy mark. By constantly going at her, all you are doing is feeding her and convincing her that she’s some sort of victim. The fact that you’re amanjust feeds the gender part of her argument as well. Give it up and focus on the more important problems in the world.

    • jennaisme Says:

      I think it’s valuable to point these things out. Because Watson really is a babe in the woods when it comes to skepticism, and people need to know about it. She has no reason to be on the carpet of our public discourse, because she can’t be rational about that which she’s passionate about. All the skepticism and rationality goes away then.

    • masakari2012 Says:

      No. I’m glad Thunderf00t is pressing on. I’ve been arguing against FfTB and Skepchick’s witch-hunts, lies, fallacies, and misinformation for about a year now, and Thunderf00t is greatly helping and supporting the many others like me, who have been combating the radfem dogma which is trying to take over the atheist community through bullying and playing the victim.

    • Andre Says:

      I am also glad TF is calling her on this. Victim feminism needs to be called on its bullshit and bullying. I know women are stronger then this crap.

  4. Bosco Poitras Says:

    Yes indeed.

  5. hannanibal Says:

    Nice use of Doublethink going on at Skepchick. “This is wrong when we say it’s wrong and it’s right when we say it’s right”. They really are doing more harm than good.
    I am a black, hermaphrodite with ginger hair and Down-Syndrome. I am basically every minority you can think of so I know truly what it is like to be discriminated against. These feminists should walk a mile in my shoes! (except they couldn’t “walk” per se because I’m also in a wheelchair…).

  6. Maverick Says:

    So first we’re supposed to be gender/colour blind, and I’m onboard with that, totally. Then it’s abusive to be exactly that?

    WTF.

    • jdavila1911 Says:

      They want to be treated equally, but only when it’s beneficial. If equal treatment entails *everyone* taking an equally sized bite out of a giant shit-sandwich, then equal treatment must be immediately switched to *special*, beneficial treatment. This is feminism 101…

    • Michael Says:

      Yep, that’s what a very eloquent writer called: “The Sisterhood of the oppressed”. Simply put: You can’t win with them because they will ALWAYS be the underdog. There is power in being the underdog so really, winning for them means to stay there.

      It’s not only this little drama it goes across the majority of social movements, especially in North America. The moment any social movement reaches that point it’s essentially Game Over and they should all just go home and find something else to do.

  7. Za-zen Says:

    It’s all about power, and exposure, did you honestly think a skepbabe was going to go to TAM and not have a drama?! Drama is all the skepbabes fucking have! HissyAmy stayed at TAM until the selling stopped, that’s when she decided to have her flounce, whilst having her flounce she reminded everyone they could buy her trinkets at her webshop………

  8. Mike De Fleuriot Says:

    A comment of mine on the Skepchick page about Surly Amy inability to deal with hate stuff.

    One of the methods one uses in disease control is to determine the vector of the disease, what each case has in common. And what it seems to me, is that there is a common area in all these cases. Maybe it would be a worthwhile exercise to communicate with some of the more mature women in the movement, like Eugene Scott and others, and ask them to comment on your reactions to these MRA’s.

    I wonder whether or not she will bother to do this.

  9. secular Steve Says:

    Applauding loudly.
    Great write up TF.
    How is this not clear to the rest of the community?

  10. Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

    “The Roth of Kan’t”
    You heard it here first, folks.
    (Unless I take faux mortal offense for some nebulous and secret reason)

  11. Tim Fuller (@thetimchannel) Says:

    This will no doubt lead to a T-shirt slogan policy at all future skeptic events. Can we all just vote the Skepchicks out of our group and get on with the business of fighting religion? Enjoy.

  12. John D Says:

    The big problem is not the fact that Skepchick and Freethoughtblogs are radically feminist. The problem is that they are also trying to claim they are leaders of the new “secular movement”. They are not my leaders, and when they make this claim I feel compelled to poke them in the eye.

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      “The big problem is not the fact that Skepchick and Freethoughtblogs are radically feminist.”
      Indeed, for they are the polar opposite!
      They *very* rapidly devolved into a hypo-fucking-critical bitchy gossiping clique that, rather than be ‘radical feminist’, or ‘whatever feminist’, have morphed into a more puritanical and insane version of the Taliban.
      They are NOT feminists by any stretch of the knicker-elastic.
      They are tyrannical indoctrinated prudes, who insist on imposing their corsetted mores on the the rest of the globe.
      Quite indistinguishable from the Taliban.

      In no way, shape, nor form are these despicable clowns classifiable as feminist.
      (Save for the anti-sense)

    • Dana Says:

      As a skeptic of the female gender, they make me want to vomit. I feel like I will have to wear t-shirts of the type mentioned to any skeptic event.

  13. Moriarty Says:

    The answer is simple, just don’t go to any convention or meeting that the Vagina Taliban will be attending.

    Deny them the attention and revenue they so desperately crave.

  14. Allison Says:

    Victimhood is the only thing the Skepchicks/Fainting Couch Brigade still have going for them. I’m not religious but people like Watson, Myers, etc. do not represent me.

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      They ARE religious, or at least a cult.
      They have all of the characteristics, even dietary restrictions!
      (Gospell according to PZ. Ch2 verse 666: For though shalt not eat of the produce of the Gelato-guy, nor shalt thy lead thy friends to frigid temptation, lest they slake their thirst ‘pon non-kyshor soiled goods.
      Tough shalt fuck him into the earth.)

      __________________
      kyshor: a dietary prohibition as pronounced by the LORD OZ Myers.
      For, on the 7th day of Norristide did he pronounce that the vendor known only as Gelato-guy would be non kysher.
      And LO! It came to pass, that in recent days, said infidel abandoneth trading!
      Helleluliah!

    • heili skrimsli Says:

      The possibility that by my silence I might be counted as someone they happen to represent because they are female and self-titled skeptics is what caused me to publicly state my disagreement with their premise and to make clear that I am not a skepchick.

      Once again, thanks to their histrionics I have to go about being on record so that they don’t claim me as part of their sisterhood of victims.

      I’ve done a pretty good job at it though, given what they’ve called me in the last few days.

  15. David Osorio (@Daosorios) Says:

    Yeah! How about a Skepchick-free secular / atheist CON? I’d like that.

  16. CommanderTuvok Says:

    “Yeah! How about a Skepchick-free secular / atheist CON? I’d like that.”

    If everybody turned up wearing T-shirts with vanilla messages on them, they’d get lost. TAM2012 was a great success, noticeably more fun and relaxed without Watson and Myers. They are increasingly viewed as pariahs within the atheist/skeptic movement, and despite the loudness of their stomping, represent a small minority of troublemakers and trolls within the movement.

    Nobody is frightened of “calling out” the Baboons anymore. They have lost.

  17. Christopher Camp Says:

    So can I go to TAM next year? Or will somebody touch my arse? Or even worse, wear a t-shirt I don’t like?

    I’m sorry, but I’m just so confused. Should I go?

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      Not with a provocative name like that!
      You’d get arrested by the secret skepchix cops as soon as THINK about it!
      For that is what these vainglorious tyrants are prosecuting this season:
      Thought Crimes.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      wait, is there a shirt that would guarantee someone would touch my bum? Because I’d buy five and totes be there in 2013!

  18. Timothy (@timothygmd) Says:

    To be dramatic, to misunderstand feminism, and to take offense at a t-shirt for not expressing solidarity with victimhood are all not the same as curtailing someone else’s freedom of expression/speech.

    To dislike someone’s speech and to express that dislike is not the same as actionably and actively trying to curtailing it.

    I personally think that PZ no longer has a legitimate place as a leader in the skeptical/scientific movement for removing thunder from freethought blogs – not because he owes anyone a platform for speech. However, once offered – should not have removed it on the basis of speech he does not like.

    Absent dissent, and the tools to select/choose , the scientific enterprise cannot move forward. But are these social and political issues even amenable to this enterprise ? Given how often science has been used to justify opposed social theories, I’d say probably not. The more one focuses on this sort of thing, the more the individual and the skeptical movement loses.

    Probably better to leave this to PZ and his intellectual harem of lightweights.

    • Tomosama (@Tomosama) Says:

      The answer is simple, don’t visit Freethought blogs.

      I know I won’t, not anymore.

      I tried to have a rational discussion on there, I even agreed that the issue was serious but disagreed with what an EFFECTIVE policy would look like. For suggesting (multiple times mind you) that the best solution would be to promote education, awareness, counseling, and dispute resolution areas I was labeled a misogynistic rapist.

      Yeah.

      That was the response – no exaggeration.

      Then, I was blasted with not so veiled threats similar to attacking or lambasting my family.

      Done.

      I’m just… done with all the nonsense. They aren’t skeptical. They aren’t rational. They are rude bullies who have identified themselves as skeptics and I for one refuse to contribute to their Google ranking.

      • John D Says:

        I have also strongly suspect that at least some (and perhaps many) of the bloggers on FTB are Wicca. Well, not that I have anything against Wiccans, but… somehow “freethought” and “atheism” don’t equal Wicca to me.

        Being open minded does not mean that you are so open minded you brain falls out.

        I have asked some of the bloggers if they were Wicca and got answers like “You don’t know shit about Wicca!” and “It is none of your business what my religion is… you will only use it against me!”

        Ummmmm.

      • bhoytony Says:

        Wiccans? Oooh name names please, I’d love to see how this goes down.

      • oolon Says:

        Tomosama why are you whining about commenting, I assume on Pharyngula, and getting called names? I’ve been called an idiot by PZ and the rest – probably not always justified – as I like to be a contrarian and argue against the flow. Read the fricken blog rules – it is self described as rude and crude – personally I didn’t need to and worked out that they like a bit of invective and gave some back. I am seriously sceptical that you were called a rapist without making some pretty poorly thought out comments. Link to the thread so we can judge for ourselves the truth in your sob story.

      • Anonymous Says:

        Its called rude and crude but don’t be rude if the regulars think you’re wrong or you’ll be banned. Sounds… rational.

      • oolon Says:

        Anonymous coward – what the fuck are you on about – I’ve only been posting on FtBs for a few months but I always argue against the flow on Pharyngula as it is in my nature. I have spent many happy comments being nothing but rude and sarcastic to the ones that disagreed with me with only rudeness – those that presented an argument I argued with. I’ve seen others do the exact same thing – all you need to learn is a bit of restraint and know when to stop and you are good. Go give it a try I’m sure they are ready and waiting for a new chew toy as they put it…

      • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

        Stop talking shit oolon.

        freefromthoughtblogs is one of the most heavily censored sites on the ‘net bar none. Deviate from groupthink and you’re history. Worse, criticise nonsense and you’re a “stalker”. And they don’t stop at simply banning you – they also indulge in comment tampering *before* banning you. Removing parts of sequential comment sequences to make you look incoherent and actually editing comment content itself. Pure filth. I’ve never seen anything as ethically bankrupt or vile even from religionists. Really gives substance to religionists claims that atheism is an amoral vacuum. Myers and his baboons do more harm than all believers combined.

      • oolon Says:

        Hey Towelboy it’s hard to say I’m talking shit when I’m only talking from personal experience. Admittedly anecdotal but I am saying you too can pop over and test my theory. Unfortunately in your case it appears you have burned your bridges. If *you* really have spoken against the flow and been banned while also having your comments edited and the flow changed while simultaneously being branded a ‘stalker’ then that is also some pretty contrary anecdotal evidence to mine. But when it gets down to it you really need to get over yourself –>

        “never seen anything as ethically bankrupt or vile”
        “Really gives substance to religionists claims that atheism is an amoral vacuum”
        “Myers and his baboons do more harm than all believers combined”

        Maybe it is because I only commented on theregister before FtBs etc… But there you are given the status you deserve ‘commentard’ – I’d probably be caught out by the PC lot at FtBs as ableist so I’ll call you and I ‘commenturds’. We are fucking ‘commenting’ on someone else’s opinions FFS! This is not democracy or ‘The Great Atheist Work’ this is a bunch of people with vaguely similar intentions and motivations brainfarting all over someone else’s blog. You may see yourself as some sort of modern day Luther nailing your 95 atheist theses to PZs comment section. In reality you really are not mate so grow up and get over it.

        So who to believe? Well no belief necessary as my theory is quite testable unless you have terminal towel-related brain damage – pop over there and argue away. Last time I was there someone called Tyrannical was arguing that homosexuals are mentally ill and he lasted a surprisingly long time. Give it a go – hopefully you are not as nuts but if you are the dungeon awaits.

      • liam Says:

        It really is the Fox News of atheism.

  19. Vicky Caramel (@MrsVickyCaramel) Says:

    I agree with the sentiment of the t-shirt.

    I have never read a skepchick blog, don’t intend to, and I’m sick of hearing about them.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      you’ve not missed much. Most of them are rather shitacular writers, blessed with the awesome condition of not having much to say. Double Word Score.

  20. Mike De Fleuriot Says:

    So do we have a motion that certain groups are baggage and should be dumped while we return to the fight against religion and for education?

  21. CoffeeLovingSkeptic (@CLSkeptic) Says:

    a) Who cares if Amy finds something offensive? Everyone has the right to say offensive things, if it’s just words.
    b) in the words of PZ “What a sense of entitlement”! Why is she exempt from being offended?
    c) Get a grip. Stop being a wimp. Grow up.

    I’m sick of the skepchicks. Sick of FreeThoughtBlogs. I wish I never had to read anything by them ever again, but that’s impossible thanks to my involvement in the skeptic scene and therefore am always being subjected to their nonsense by people I follow on twitter, or commenters on my blog and facebook page.

  22. Todd Pence Says:

    Next atheist/humanist convention that’s held in my area, I’m having t-shirts printed up that say “I’m wearing this shirt to make Amy Roth cry.”

    • Vicky Caramel (@MrsVickyCaramel) Says:

      Crying ~ the trump card of the feminist movement.

      So glad we have Becca Watson and Amy Roth representing strong, determined, rational women. True role models, truly representative.

      • Danny Roberts Says:

        Yah, can you imagine if woman and men picked strong humanist role models instead? That call for social change to help everyone, and that the most amount of time and effort be spent helping the section of the population that is in the most dire straights first. I mean how dare people like Richard Dawkins say we focus on helping poor “oppressed” Muslim women, do they know nothing about the suffering of women at atheist conferences in the first world?

        On a serious note: I can’t stand femenism. It is a bad idea, simply because at the heart of it, it can only be focused on the good of a single gender. Humanism is they way forward. Men and Woman are being paid unfair wages. Men and Woman are abused and raped.

        We are all in this together.

  23. eikonoplast Says:

    This is my first post to TF’s blog, and I feel somewhat cheated and depressed that this last flap erupts when I finally started looking into what TF had to say (on the advice of a friend). I watched all 37 of the “Why people laugh at Creationists?” videos over the last week, which I enjoyed thoroughly, and followed a chain of links right into this mess.

    I feel cheated, not by the drama, but yet again I walk into an area I have interest in, and start to get to know some of the issues and personalities. On cue, some women who must, I mean *MUST* combine that area of interest with their own pet brand of emotionally narcissistic feminism have managed to play partridge and derail the whole focus of what I thought was, ostensibly, something else.

    Not an interesting blend of Feminism into Skepticism, that highlights a female perspective, or puts forth issues I hadn’t thought of, because of my subjective XY experience of life, but a puerile, topic hijacking, drama spurring load of false dilemmas, pat phrases, armband cliché’s and fear-laced tearful edicts. Boring. Claw my own eyes out boring. (no reference to Oedipus intended…pfft).

    I’ve recently started looking into evolutionary psychology, and though my jury is still out (I think I need to read a lot more and suspend judgement until I have more netted facts), i have a sneaking hunch that there can be no social group of human animals, no matter how they try their damnedest to maintain the decorum of higher brained civilized behavior, wherein a female of the species won’t engage in feigned threatened display in order to get the rest of us apes all riled up. Ecce Homo.
    (i’m not saying their aren’t chest pounding idiots out there, but this clearly isn’t what’s happened)

    As for you, TF, I think you walked into political trap, set blindly by gender warriors. I know that feeling well. It sucks.

    • Just another girl afraid of FTB retribution Says:

      In fact, it sometimes seems like the only way to prevent this from happening (or happening so fast, in any case) is to keep women at home and out of the political sphere. Then again, women can and do cause this kind of damage from behind the scenes, as well. Granted, men aren’t necessarily better, but as potential sexual partners, I tend to view them in a more generous light. Less gossip, less bitchiness, less tears, less needless drama, less ugly ceramic jewelry.

      Many, even most, women are much better than I’ve given them credit for above, but those women work to improve their own lot in life and that of others. But the key word is “work,” not “whine.” In any case, the Skepchicks and the women of FTB fall into the former, not the latter, category. And as a group that confirms every negative stereotype of women there is, I fail to see them as feminists of any sort.

      • eikonoplast Says:

        I hear you, and largely agree with you, “in between the lines”. But I don’t think we should “keep women at home”. Perish the thought.
        I think we are better served if we remember what made us all take the stand of a more reasonable world to begin with. Namely, let’s not believe (and let’s forget worship altogether) any claim that seems acceptable. Instead, lets ask the person making the claim to justify it, and not let them convince us to do the work of vetting their claim.
        It seems harder to ask that of feminists than of theists, because you can choose to not be a theist, which is just changing your mind, and while it may be hard for you, it’s nowhere near the cost of making the choice not to be a woman (or a man), which entails expensive surgery. And since Feminism claims all females as it’s cause and constituency, it certainly makes us feel uncertain about opposing it. In fact, as employed by Skepchicks, and many feminists in general, radical or not, it seeks your uncertainty, and expects you to ignore it and believe their loose and overarching ideological construct. Which smacks of religion and it’s adherents.

        In reality, though, you shouldn’t require yourself to make that choice on their terms. Feminism is a scam that posits that denying it’s truths will put all women in hell, as well as men, who are the cause of the hell (albiet a living one). Not so. Being a Woman does not equal Feminism, in the same way that being Human does not equal being a “Child of (a) God”. The very same forms of thinking in religion that a skeptic, male or female, rejects, are somehow acceptable to the skepchicks. I don’t know Dr. Hall’s mind, but I would venture a guess that it was similar reasoning that led her to endorsing the message on that t-shirt.

        I’ve read a bunch of pages at Skepchick, and have followed TF’s citations to pages at FTB, and from what I see, TF is being consistent with reason and it’s tools for exposing unsound and invalid arguments. And of course he’s warranted to call it out, even if he’s a little cheeky about it. (and why not be cheeky? what’s good for the goose is good for the gander)

        If I were you, I would reject even the word “feminist”. It’s scorched earth, thanks to those like PZ and the Skepchicks (band name, anyone?) Like religion, homeopathy, and movements based on wildly creative ideation, and divergent, not convergent, thinking.

        If I had to give a name to my thinking, I would tend towards Egalitarian. Not that everyone is equal in every respect, but I think that everyone deserves an equal, basic regard, until they prove otherwise.

  24. Johnny Gutierrez Says:

    Let’s look at FTB for what it is–a cult. The FTB church is struggling for power the same way evangelicals want power and followers. They are operating the same way the most outrageous and fanatical religions do. If your opinion does not conform to that of the leaders, you will be banned, ostracized, excluded, blocked, and in the meantime, you will be called a troll, an abuser, a misogynist and a rape-enabler. They are small, but they are also loud, and very well organized, just like the WBC, or any evangelical church (PZ being Ted Haggard, of course). Make no mistake, PZ and the leaders of the movement crave power, and they use the same tools religions does. They claim to be victims, they claim to be persecuted. It is only fools who believe this and who let them get away with it. It seems that every single blog entry on FTB is about feminism, rape, female victimhood and harassment. They can’t get past these topics. And–since I was blocked for asking PZ to provide any evidence of these “supposed threats” they’ve been getting, I will not read a FTB article again. I will not support an institution that is lead by a hateful and power-hungry individual.

  25. hannanibal Says:

    [IMG]http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/47/main/1/148963.jpg[/IMG]

  26. I can't believe it! Says:

    Looks like the Skepchicks are rallying support: http://skepchick.org/2012/07/speaking-out-against-hate-directed-at-women-david-silverman/
    I predict a parade of people who all agree with the Skepchicks that hate, harassment, rape threats etcagainst women are a big nono. But does that imply that those people agree with the way the Skepchicks et al deal with it?
    Me thinks not.

    • John D Says:

      Silverman is a savvy and politically minded guy. To me, he really is one of the leaders I will support. His implementation of a reasonable and simple anti-harassment policy makes this issue go away for the most part (at least for American Atheists). There is really no need for him to dive into the blog-slander wars. I give him credit for managing this as well as possible.

      • I can't believe it! Says:

        I would have stayed out of it. Now it looks as if he totally agrees with the Skepchicks. Although not responding can of course be interpreted as “rape enabling” by those that are inclined to do so.

      • Moriarty Says:

        “Silverman is a savvy and politically minded guy”

        Well I hope he does his research on who he is allying himself with, after all he is a man and according to his new friends his mysogynist rapist predator status is only a matter of time.

        Basically what is really happening is the whiney bully is cosying up the the biggest kid in the playground in an attempt to garner some validation.

  27. Anonymous Says:

    “Freethoughblogs” Interesting, isn’t it, that so many people who espouse ideals that oppress take on titles that express the opposite of their intentions?

  28. BathTub Says:

    Another post on this?
    FFS seriously can you just move on? Where is the next Why do people laugh at Creationists? (7 months) or the second part to Putting your hand in the Large Hadron Collider? (2 months)
    The Cynic in me thinks you are enjoying the attention from this a bit too much and are trying to feed the flames though baiting rather than through the excellent science/anti-creationist content we all know you for.

    • Pat Ribsey Says:

      I’m inclined to agree that TF might have lost sight about what he was originally about in order to boost his ego and prove that he is right, not about measurable fact, but opinion.

      • Cattlehunter Says:

        Indeed, it seems clear that your comments are wholly motivated by a desire to encourage lucid communication, and not at all an attempt at character assassination.

  29. Mike Says:

    This blog post is mean spirited gibberish. Thunderf00t = the Glenn Beck of Atheism

    • sofiarune Says:

      It’s amazing, isn’t it? He really should apply to Faux News. His ability to distort reality to fit his agenda would make him a great fit there. I love watching all of these so called skeptics believe every word he says too. It’s cute. Thankfully, it seems as if very few of his adoring fans actually do much more than watch videos and agree with each other so I’m not terribly concerned.

      Now to wait for the adoring fans of Thunderf00t and free speech to be jumped on me and call me a hater for saying what I think. Too bad they can’t down vote comments into oblivion here like they usually do. ;)

      • Mike Says:

        The Thunderf00t persona has deteriorated so badly it is now indistinguishable from a drooling Fox News wingnut, whose main preoccupation is with online feuds and revenge.

      • Time Kitten Says:

        Silly, Faux News would never higher an atheist. Maybe if I show them that video where it’s claimed he admitted to it they wont did too deep though…

      • Thunderf00t Says:

        I don’t know if it’s ever occurred to you sofiarune, but people might actually flag down your comments because you simply come across as a pointless hater. Take for instance your current comment, which when distilled down equates to ‘thunderf00t is a dishonest poopey head’, ‘people who believe thunderf00t are silly poopey heads’ and ‘I feel smugly superior to all the silly poopey heads that believe thunderf00t’.
        Well I don’t see that you presented any facts. I don’t see that you made any coherent argument. You have just stated you think a whole load of people are silly poopey heads.
        I think the reason so few take your arguments seriously sofiarune, is because don’t make any valid or interesting arguments, rather than some grand conspiracy of thunderf00t ‘fans’

      • sofiarune Says:

        Where do you want me to start TF? The fact that Amy Roth didn’t call the shirt harassing? Amy Roth also didn’t demand it be removed. What about the “silly tshirt” quote, being a quote itself that you are still attributing to Amy? Maybe she was referencing what other people were calling it.

        You: ‘we want a policy and to lynch someone at TAM’

        What the hell does that even mean? Who talked about lynching anyone at TAM? Seriously. What’s up with that?

        You then go after her for thinking TAM is overall a safe place but still feeling like it could be better. Are you arguing that no harassment happens? Is Ashley Miller just making shit up in your mind?

        You then try and dismiss the post at skepchick because they said people called them nazis and totalitarians. Newsflash Thunderf00t. People did call them nazis and totalitarians. Did you even read Paula Kirby’s letter?

        Amy Roth told Harriet Hall that the shirt made her uncomfortable. She was upset because of all the shit she has had to deal with just because she’s a member of skepchick. People are telling her to light herself on fire. Amy telling Harriet that she found the shirt upsetting doesn’t infringe on anyone’s freedom of speech (especially since this isn’t a freedom of speech issue) or their freedom of expression (that’s what this is).

        You distort everything to fit a very narrow narrative that a lot of people who have placed trust in you assume is honest. It isn’t and you know. You have admitted to me in the past that you don’t care if you aren’t representing your case adequately so long as your goal is reached. Ends justify the means, right?

        You want me to outline your dishonesty more? Bring it on. Name a time and place and we can talk about it for as long as you want.

      • John C. Welch Says:

        I’m not going to call you a hater for saying what you think. I’m going to call you a gibbering idiot for writing like one. See? There’s a difference.

      • Muzebreak Says:

        “What about the “silly tshirt” quote, being a quote itself that you are still attributing to Amy? Maybe she was referencing what other people were calling it.” Pointless speculation, she said them therefore they are her words.

        “we want a policy and to lynch someone at TAM” Have you ever heard of exaggeration?

        “You then go after her for thinking TAM is overall a safe place but still feeling like it could be better. Are you arguing that no harassment happens? Is Ashley Miller just making shit up in your mind?” You completely bypass his actually argument, he was clearly arguing against the inconsistency. First she say’s its unsafe then all of a sudden its safe but it could be safer.

        “You then try and dismiss the post at skepchick because they said people called them nazis and totalitarians. Newsflash Thunderf00t. People did call them nazis and totalitarians. Did you even read Paula Kirby’s letter?” Seriously? This is so wrong, im actually gobsmacked. This is almost the complete opposite of what he said. He said they are ignoring arguments because, and here’s the quote, “Great Amy, so on one hand you are reduced to tears because someone uses the name of the site you blog for, and on the other you have no problem with that same blog suggesting that someones reasoned argument is invalid because you (skepchick) claim they think you are nazis.” He spoke of a specific event, nothing to do the the letter from Paula kirby.

        “Amy Roth told Harriet Hall that the shirt made her uncomfortable. She was upset because of all the shit she has had to deal with just because she’s a member of skepchick.” No, thats what she said that she said the second time she was talking about this. What she said the first time was that she told her, through tears, that the shirt was dehumanising, gender/color blind (which im not sure how its a bad thing), and that it was very hurtful to her as a person.

        “People are telling her to light herself on fire.” Awwwwww, internet trolls are being mean. How dare they!

        “Amy telling Harriet that she found the shirt upsetting doesn’t infringe on anyone’s freedom of speech (especially since this isn’t a freedom of speech issue) or their freedom of expression (that’s what this is).” Really? Semantics.

        “You distort everything to fit a very narrow narrative that a lot of people who have placed trust in you assume is honest. It isn’t and you know. You have admitted to me in the past that you don’t care if you aren’t representing your case adequately so long as your goal is reached. Ends justify the means, right?” Well the first bit is actually people like you and the skepchicks. The bit about not carring if you represent your case adequately, I dont think you know what those words mean and what they might, which they dont,
        have to do with the the phrase “ends justify the means”

        “You want me to outline your dishonesty more? Bring it on.” What dishonesty did you outline exactly, other than your own of course.

      • sofiarune Says:

        Bahaha I like how Muzebreak and Welch seem to have literacy issues. Good work guys. It’s almost like they think this controversy is just between skepchicks and Thunderf00t and have done absolutely nothing to look into the issue. All hail the words of Thunderf00t for he is the atheist pope and would never mislead us! Free Speech for all*!

        *who agree with issues Thunderf00t agrees with.

        You want to talk about inconsistency? What about the time Thunderf00t decided to diagnose Coughlan with a mental disorder instead of addressing criticisms? What does Thunderf00t say? People who don’t have an argument just shout things like bigot to escape any need to address arguments? Let’s add “mentally ill” to that list. I like how Peach is also a hater now. Let’s add that word to the list too. Where was Thunderf00t’s noble fight to the death for people to say what they want when some people made fun of his mother? Oh no, wait, that was crossing some sort of line. What about when Thunderf00t knowingly used deceptive editing to try and frame so other youtubers for photoshopping him into pornography? Wait… what about the actual guy who did those shops right of freedom of expression? Remember all those times that Thunderf00t has told us that we have to have a thick skin and learn to laugh it off because this is the internet? Speaking of laughing, why did he freak out at a parody of his debate by Rebecca Watson? Oh yes, he’s had her in his cross-hairs like the child he is since she dared make fun of him. Remember his post where he said that people who publicize threats over the internet are exercising extremely bad judgement? Yeah, he told me himself he never thought DawahFilms death threat was credible but he milked the fuck out of that one. I think my favourite inconsistency is his argument that atheists are all conscripts in his personal army who should not “divide the house” in order to create a unified front. Forget it when TF divides the house. That’s different!

        Pointless disclaimer that no one will give a fuck about: I do not condone all of the actions of the people mentioned above or support them in any way. I was using these examples to illustrate Thunderf00t’s bullshit “Do as I say not as I do” policy.

  30. Mike Says:

    Thunderf00t, here’s a portion of the speech given by astonomer Pamela Gay at this years TAM. It received an ovation. I don’t expect you to understand the speech because, frankly, you haven’t shown yourself capable of understanding any of this, but some of your readers might find it educational.

    Pamela Gay: Make The World A Better Place

    http://www.starstryder.com/2012/07/15/make-the-world-better/

    “Here in the skeptics community, we, like every other segment of society, have our share of individuals who, given the right combination of alcohol and proximity will grab tits and ass. I’ve had both body parts randomly and unexpectedly grabbed at in public places by people who attend this conference – not at this conference, but by people at this conference. Just like in astronomy, it’s a combination of the inebriated guys going too far – guys I can handle – and of men in power being asses.

    I know that there has been a lot of internet buzz over the last two years about these issues. This community is filled with strong women. A Kovacs and MsInformation are two ballsy women I draw inspiration from. These are just two of the many SkepChicks, and many of the Skeptical and scientific podcasts have female hosts. When they see something wrong, they ask for ways to protect people from being hurt. And they do like Surly Amy did and raise money to get women here – women who together can support one another so that when we go home we have a network of women to turn to to support us even at a distance. These are women who react to problems with a sharp word and a needed call to action that is designed to fix the problems

    I know this is an uncomfortable topic. An I know that my talk is going to provoke some of you who don’t think I should air dirty laundry. But I see a problem and I can’t change it alone.”

    • Whynot Says:

      What I have to ask you right now, Mike, is “How exactly are these two positions mutually exclusive?”

      And I will explain. I will not deny for a second that women get harassed. And if it’s true that she was inappropriately touched things should be done to make it a safer environment.

      Up to that point, I am -completely- in agreement with Skepchick. However, the increasing tendency isn’t to say that women shouldn’t feel safe at conventions.

      That’s an absolute strawman that they’re perpetuating. The real position is that we do not trust the Skepchick community, which frequently makes mountains out of molehills (such as this Amy Roth situation), and who acts by intimidation and pressure rather than reasoned discussion.

      The people fighting against this do not agree that they are reasonable. Even FtBloggers like Richard Carrier have pointed out that the American Atheists code goes too far for them, since it requires verbal, complete acceptance before you do anything, which he has pointed out is not normal human etiquette.

      There is a balance to be struck between the two. Furthermore, FtB has a history of misandry. Rebecca Watson herself apparently thinks male castration is funny, as she made jokes about it in her presentation “Women’s Intuition and Other Fairy Tales”. It also has “WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ” as a “lolz” dismissal of male rights, the use of MRA as an insulting term, and rejecting male circumcision as not a serious issue. This is not the behaviour of someone who I’d trust with harassment policies.

      It is quite close-minded and ignorant to say that the only two options here are Skepchick or support of sexual harassment. It is a myth that needs to be debunked so we can have a proper conversation about the issues.

      • HectorF Says:

        Excellent reply, I wish we could like posts here.
        I didn´t know about her jokes about castration, but I´ve always wondered why MRAs are considered something bad.

        Are there some of them who have ideas that I would consider misogynists, who insult women and apparently think they are inferior? yes, but then again feminism has it´s Solanas´s and it´s SCUM manifesto, and it´s RADFEM´s.

        The problem I see with feminism is that despite saying it´s a movement looking for equality, it only focuses on one gender. It demands men to be allies, but is nowhere to be found when men need support (the What about teh menz, lol, thing you mentioned).
        It demands respect for every little offense women might feel but then makes fun of issues like castration, and not only in the Watson case, but in others like Sharon Osbourne and all the audience of The Talk laughing about a man who had his penis cut off by his wife.

        I think that´s why feminism is on decline, even among women. Most people (men AND women) are going for an egalitarian movement, one that cares about everyone´s issues, that defends women when they need to and men when they need to.
        And that´s what most feminists don´t seem to want, losing their special victim status and acknowledging that men´s lives are not the rosy garden they think it is.

    • Cattlehunter Says:

      Oh man, for a second there I for some reason thought you meant Eugenie Scott, and was surprised at what she was saying since it didn’t sound like her. Then I was like OHHHHH, Pamela Gay, THAT chick. The theist, who celebrates opinion-based judgements for untestable hypothesies; who “in the absence of data [has] made a choice to believe in God.” Yeah, I can *totally* see her saying this.

      Anyway…

      Isn’t it remarkable how her entire speech is an appeal to patriarchical values? Strong males must protect the weak females from other males. Yeah, she says that it’s totally like a community problem, or whatever, but then goes on to say that it’s “men in power being asses” and “women who work together” asking “for ways to protect [women] from being hurt”. Cleraly, only men are asses, and only women are working together to prevent “people” from being hurt.

      Further, and also QUITE cleraly; women are too weak of mind and body to deal with something as horrible and traumatizing as easily rebuffed, unwanted sexual advances in public spaces. Which incidentally is not something men ever experience, right? We’re all about championing gender stereotypes, after all, aren’t we? I mean, in-between the constant chanting of “sexism is wrong”, obviously.

      Sexism is wrong.
      Women are weak.
      Sexism is wrong.
      Men are dangerous.
      Sexism is wrong.
      Men must protect women.
      Sexism is wrong.
      The genders aren’t equal.
      Sexism is wrong.
      Women are wonderful.
      Sexism is wrong.
      Men are asses.
      Sexism is wrong.

      Just keep pretending to be against sexism long enough, and say it as often as possible in as many places as possible, and people will start believing it, even if everything ELSE that you say and do contradicts it… you just need to say it more than you say contradictory things and you’ll be fine. Maybe hide a little behind benevolent prejudice and pretend that that sexism isn’t sexism when called on it. Things’ll be fine.

      People have some big cognitive dissonance about this in today’s society, anyway. People don’t want to be seen as sexist, but at the same time most people are sexist; so the two thoughts are combined into the stuff above. The best of both worlds for everybody involved! The male chauvinists get to keep seeing themselves as superior to women, by being asked to help protect them from all those dangerous things out there, and the female chauvinists get to see themselves as totally enlightened and not-sexist and stuff, while maintaining the sense that their gender is superior and reaping the benefits of protection provided by their male counterparts. Hm, I think I read about something a lot like that once. What was it called? P-? Patriotism? No… Paternalism? No, that’s not it either. Damn! Well, I’m sure somebody else will point it out.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      Mike, you need to start hanging out with grownups. In that world, a man or woman lays an unwanted hand on a woman anywhere, and that woman is going to do things to that hand and its owner. Horrible, bad things. The owner of that hand will never make that mistake again, but the woman they touched has no need of a white knight to save her and protect her from the eeeebul world.

      It’s called actually being an adult, and not just laying claim to the title because you managed to not die before the age of majority where you live. You should try it some time.

    • Just another girl afraid of FTB retribution Says:

      Uh-oh, she used the word “ballsy,” so she must be excommunicated ASAP; though, frankly, I thought PZ did the job already because of her abject failure to tell two students that god didn’t exist.

  31. StealthBadger Says:

    It’s interesting watching you *continue* to take out your fears and frustrations on Rebecca Watson for her parody of your failure of a performance in the debate with DLandonCole, and against Surly Amy for not wanting you to use her image in your pathetic post. To the rest of you readers, do please take note of where there are quotation marks in his blockquotes, and try and see where exactly they’re quoted from. The actual person speaking in these quotes-within-quotes is usually saying something that does not support his case at all.

    Follow the citations back, if you can find them. ^.^

    • Time Kitten Says:

      The citations? You mean them links on the dates right before the quotes? To the larger quotation where Amy appears to be saying she wasn’t so upset by the shirt itself as the fact that nobody else agreed with her that she had reason to be offended?

      Um… yeah, Thunderf00t is really going light and easy here. There’s much MUCH more juicier meat in that quote than the nice piffy and catchy one he did pick out of it.

    • Wutisdis Says:

      Amazing argument!

      “I’m going to ignore the rest of your post, and find one little irrelevant nugget that he got wrong (that ‘silly shirt’ is being quoted from other people), ram it home and add a lot of baseless assertions and ad homs!

      It flies in FtB, why not here?”

  32. Brian from Australia Says:

    As an outsider looking in I have one thing to say. What the fuck is TAM?

    Is it related to Tim Tams?

  33. Time Kitten Says:

    I haven’t looked into context for the quote yet… in fact I’m afraid to, but listed in the bad things about the shirt is a mention of it being “gender/color blind”. This is the part where my head tilts, and I painedly repeat “What?” over and over again at a constant, slow pace.

    Aren’t these things goals? Isn’t that what this is all about? My head hurts. I wanted to right more… but.. yeah, um… what’s wrong with not paying attention to what color she is? Or what gender this person who I forgot to add pronouns for is?

  34. CadicusTheDamned Says:

    Don’t buy into this drama. Implement an anti-harassment policy and enforce it. Creepy behavior is creepy. Eject violators.
    The secular movement isn’t just a forum for getting you laid, guys. Grow up and learn normal social skills around members of the opposite sex.
    The purpose of a secular movement should be furthering, reason, science, education, and equality. Save your clumsy attempts at finding a willing bed partner for the appropriate venue.
    On the other hand, adult women should know what to expect in the bar/night club scene. They need to grow up and keep their prude asses away from drunks.
    There it is. Behave at the conference and party at the bar. Like adults. Grow up.

    • Demo Says:

      Though this is a nice sentiment, from what I understand no one is against a policy. Its the extent of the policy that matters. The quip I heard was “Requires express verbal consent to even ask to buy a drink for the woman”. Probally total nonsence or adlib but it does seem to be headed in that general direction. The other (mis) quote Im probally taking out of context was that a person (no clue, mate) whom tried to bring down the policy to a reasonable level was accused of being a rape-enabler.

      Im probally 3/4 wrong, but this seems to be the general vibe coming out of it.

      • Whynot Says:

        You’re right. The examples you gave are a bit ridiculous, but the gist is there, hyperbolically speaking.

  35. Greg Laden Says:

    Thunderfoot, why don’t you give it a break? Does this excite you somehow, continuously ragging on people who have a different perspective than you (which happens to be a reasonable and widespread one?)

    For the record, I stand with Amy and I think you’re a moron.

    • Wrath0fKhan Says:

      Yea… The trick with the different perspective… I know that one quite well. Better stop embarrassing yourself. Oh, and yes, it is time to wake up.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      Hey greg, you gonna threaten to kick thunderf00t’s ass too? Maybe call his boss and try to get him fired? Or is that only for when you’re probing for PSTD triggers in servicemen and women you think are too weak to fight back.

      run back to your trailer, coward.

    • John D Says:

      Is this really Greg Laden? The Greg Laden that was kicked out of FTB for stalking and threatening someone using their personal email. Haha! Disgraceful… and you can still blog post with that kind of shame on your conscious? I wonder how you manage it.

    • Strakh Says:

      And don’t forget, Greg Laden is the mangina who stated, “clearly and distinctly”:
      “The male brain is just a female brain that has been damaged by testosterone.”
      Oh, Greg, I’ve looked you up on the ‘net, and you have ZERO biology credentials, which is why you could say something ABSOLUTELY WRONG. So wrong, you probably don’t even understand how wrong. If you think those hot, sexy, goth young atheist “chicks” are going to give you a hummer, guess again. Your self-loathing is just as disgusting to them as it is to anyone else.
      But, if you cry when you see my t-shirt, maybe one will hold you and stroke your empty, bald head.

    • CommanderTuvok Says:

      BS, Laden. Stop trying to promote the now dead donkey that the FTB POV is shared by the vast majority in the atheist/skeptic movement. It is not, and in fact, is the opposite. Did you see the response at TAM2012? You should take a long, hard look at yourself, along with Myers, Watson, Benson, Canuck and a few others. You exist in an ever-descreasing echo chamber. The real world has turned against you.

    • anon Says:

      Thanks for the input Greg “I’ll kick your fucking ass” Laden. Do your kids a favor and report yourself to social services.

    • Alf Says:

      Hey! It’s Greg Laden! Aren’t you the guy who was kicked off FTB for making violent threats to one of your fellow bloggers?

    • Seymour Says:

      How’s the bullying going laden?
      We all know that you are never wrong even when you don’t tell the truth. Your a real FTB style feminist and only attack those you think are weak or will kowtow to your attacks.
      Harvard must be so proud of you.

  36. Greg Laden Says:

    I love the fact that Thunderfoot has a) made himself into the champion of what passes for “free and open discussion” (though it is not…an environment of biased mean spirited harassment is not free and open) and so therefore he can’t ban commenters and b) become the new home of the slime pit.

    Good luck with that, Thunderfoot. You deserve each other.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      That’s right. because you can only have free and open discussion when you ban all dissent, infantilize women, try to get women who won’t kiss your ass fired, and try to set off PSTD in service men while threatening to kick their asses.

      Gee Greg, i don’t see you writing at FTB anymore. Care to explain what happened?

      • rjmx Says:

        “new” home of the slime pit? I’ve some news for you, Greg. Pharyngula, and what is now FftB, were slime pits way before ERV made her first comments on Watson’s behaviour. Probably even worse, in fact. ERV’s only real sin was to publicly disagree with you and the rest of the FfTB clowns.

        I really can’t understand how you can simultaneously lie through your teeth AND try to take the high moral ground.

  37. Greg Laden Says:

    Oh, and Amy never “reacted” to a tee-shirt. That has been clearly documented. The premise is wrong. Perhaps even a straw man.

    I was assuming that was generally known but now looking at the comments I can see that it is not.

    Get your facts straight, people.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      Our facts are based on her statements greg. Here, let me provide them for you again:

      I think one of the most hurtful things I experienced while attending TAM was Harriet Hall’s Tshirt that she wore three days in a row. I told her through tears, in the speakers’ lounge, that it was dehumanizing and gender/color blind and very hurtful to me specifically as a person who does have to deal with harassment regularly.

      Amy’s words Greg. Now, i know you’re not used to taking women at their word, or expecting them to accept responsibility for what they say, since you’re so busy ensuring they never have to be alone with a man ever, but, those are in fact, her words. About “get your facts straight”???

    • Strakh Says:

      God-damnit, you dissembling little SHIT!
      We have the SCREEN-SAVED version of her ORIGINAL post and she said EXACTLY THAT!
      How can you LIE like that when the evidence is clearly available?
      HOW?????
      Or did you mean that only YOUR brain is damaged by testosterone?

      • John C. Welch Says:

        well, Greg now only has his neglected SciBlogs site and his personal site to create ad income from. Without FTB doing the heavy lifting, he’s gotta go out and attention-whore all on his own.

      • Strakh Says:

        Attention whoring: the only thing these feminists and their penis-hating mangina sycophants are any good at.
        What a disgusting, lying bunch.
        I mean, really, Greg, HOW can you lie and say she didn’t say it when it’s right there in black and white? I used to think only god-bot shitheads could do that and not at least giggle like idiots.
        But, there you go, lying about what is on the screen as if it will go away if you say it isn’t there.
        It won’t Greg.
        It won’t.
        And we’re not letting up on these lying cheats anymore. They want to proclaim they are skeptics? Then they are subject to the same cold, hard, clinical gaze we reserve for the other liars who cheat and bilk the public.

    • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

      Greg Laden Says: July 25, 2012 at 2:19 am – “Get your facts straight, people.”

      Thigh slapping. The high priest of vicious imbeciles talking about “facts”. Laden, you’re lazy. You forgot to accuse TF of torturing his pets for kicks. Other than that, your gibberish is BAU.

  38. Greg Laden Says:

    OH, and by the way. I’ve yet to meet a red blooded American who would say this …”Y’know its one of those ‘I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it‘ type things.” of the WBC.

    The actual situation on the the ground is not as you describe it, though I’m sure you find making up the reality more convenient for your specious and silly arguments. In the US, nobody likes what WBC does, nobody thinks they should be doing it, and at best, people are willing to go along with them doing it (but not put themselves at risk to defend them, certainly) because were stuck with unfettered asshattitude. Thus, WBC. Thus, you.

    In reality we are ashamed of them, disappointed by them, and annoyed at them. Making a comparison between the WBC and pretty much anything else is usually offensive, inappropriate, and probably straw-manning, which I’m told is your forte.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      Actually, I spent 7 years in the USAF, and one of the groups whose right to speech i was defending was the WBC. along with a host of other racist motherfuckers who would do the world a favor if they just disappeared, like the Klan. Because you can’t have freedom of speech for some. It’s for everyone, or no one.

      that’s why the ACLU defended the right of nazis to march in skokie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie for the factually interested. That’s what defending the constitution is about: you defend it even for the people you despise. Because that’s what defending rights is about.

      Which is why, while I’d prefer to never see another one of your poorly-written, thought-free comments again, I include you in the people whose rights I froze my ass off in North Fucking Dakota for. I think you’re a grotty little poltroon waste of carbon, but it would never. ever. occur to me to find out where you worked and fuck with your livliehood because I didn’t like what you wrote. As well, were I presented with believable evidence that someone I knew had tried to do to you what you tried to do to Abbie Smith, I’d rip them a new one. Even if it was Abbie.

      It’s why groups that i respect, like GLAAD and groups i *despise* like the WBC both have the same rights. Because that’s the point of the constitution. Forcing hate underground doesn’t make it go away, and it shows just how little thought you give to your positions that you think that. The light of full exposure makes hate go away. People saying they won’t allow it to win makes it go away. A bunch of silly geeks at SDCC did more to fight the WBC than any amount of attempts to violate their civil rights ever did.

      You, abbie, thunderf00t, PeeZus, ophelia, ReddA, christians, atheists, ALL OF US either have the same rights or we don’t have shit.

      Right now, there are millions of men and women who will put themselves in harms way to defend the rights of the WBC to be vicious, stupid cockmonkeys. The fact that you lack that kind of courage doesn’t make you right, or better than them, and it sure as shit doesn’t make you know a fucking thing about “the situation on the ground”. It just makes you a pompous jerk.

    • John Says:

      Lawl. Greg Laden thinks he can lecture the rest of us on what is an “inappropriate” response to *anything.* The irony!

      I can’t decide if you’re oblivious, or if you think that we’re all idiots. I’m leaning toward the latter.

  39. Greg Laden Says:

    “Damn not seen anyone so zealously eager to embrace victim-hood since dawahfilms.”

    I think this sentence is broken somehow, you should fix that.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      Is it time to bag on grammar? I hope so:

      I think this sentence is broken somehow, you should fix that.

      There are a number of problems with this sentence. I’m impressed, because it’s not a long sentence, yet it reaches for the stars.

      First, as written, it should be two sentences:

      “I think this sentence is broken somehow. You should fix that.”

      That’s a good start, and avoids the possible confusion of the original. Does the “somehow” apply to the sentence or are you saying somehow the author should fix it? But we can tweak things a bit more both for flow and space:

      “I think your sentence is somehow broken. You should fix that.”

      Getting there, a bit less passive, but there’s room for further improvement.

      “I think your sentence is broken, you should fix it.”

      That’s my favorite. It removes the dissembling “somehow”. After all, you know how the sentence is broken, the somehow is just a twee attempt at sarcasm, an attempt which fails. The final version shorter, and flows better. It’s direct, concise, and clear. See how just a bit of editing can improve things?

      Oh, and as a rule, don’t bag on grammar. You look like a tool when you do that.

  40. Strakh Says:

    Oh, man, I love this.
    Strong, lean and mean feminist, who takes shit from NO ONE, admits to being brought to tears of dehumanization by a fucking t-shirt and gets called out about it.
    This is a woman who spews venom where ever she speaks, talks big about how fucking powerful women are and she just falls apart and runs to her MOMMY. She confesses to it, then CHANGES the story when the adults at the party say, “Grow the fuck up.”
    Pick on Tf00t all you want, Greg, but remember, YOUR opinion is SHIT, honey, because YOUR brain is DAMAGED by testosterone.
    As for the rest of you peckerheads that think it’s ‘time to move on,’ MOVE THE FUCK ON! You can go play with yourselves and leave the big stuff to the adults.
    The pure, disgusting SHIT of third wave feminism is, in the lovely words of Integral Math, “infecting” the skeptic movement. We adults REFUSE to accept the victim mentality and BULLSHIT whining of these privileged, emotionally-warped harpies. They are liars and cheats.
    When you read from the beginning you see dissembling of the highest order as Dumbfuck Amy realizes what a twat she’s been. She CHANGED her story in days. If any of you peckerheads think that’s okay, please move on. There’s nothing here you’ll be able to understand, anyway.

    Note to Thunderf00t:
    Was on the “PZ vs Thunderf00t” piece of despicable shit video on youtube and was telling PZ and his ass-suckers what I thought of them in the very same language he and his ass-suckers use on FreedomFromThoughtBlogs and PZ promptly banned me. He banned me only after I quoted him and the source of the quote where he called Dr. Hall “an asshole.”
    When he did that, I realized something, he has now made enemies of working and/or published scientists. You know, people with degrees who actually work or worked in their fields to make a difference in the world, as opposed to creating a new cult through the ‘net. I heard this elsewhere, but you know, it’s true:
    “Those who can, do.
    Those who can’t, teach.
    Then there’s PZ Myers.”

  41. Strakh Says:

    Hey, am I the only one to notice that mangina Greg ran out of here like a girl frightened by a t-shirt?
    I really never paid attention to this self-loathing mantwat until he made that filthy, lying statement about the male brain.
    Is that his style?
    Run in, LIE like a priest with his dick in his hand, make some snarky comments about other posts, then run away?

    • Anonymous Says:

      I agree that greg is a coward, but using words like mangina and mantwat do not put you in a good light in this argument.
      just replace the female references with coward and your good.

      • Strakh Says:

        Let’s get something straight. Don’t know who you and don’t care. But this I do know:
        YOU don’t tell ME what I can say and can’t say.
        Greg is a mangina, a mantwat, and a pure cunt.
        This man contributes to a disease that is infecting our society and he needs to know that we don’t care for it.
        As for your “good light,” I gladly identify with anyone who understands that when you act like a twat, you get called a twat; whether YOU LIKE it or not.
        You see, that’s what these lying, cheating, and dissembling cunts like Twatson, Scurvy Amy, Greg (brain damaged) Laden the Mangina Supreme want: talk nice, now. Don’t say bad things.
        “But we (the third wave feminists) reserve the right to call you a dick, a cunt, a fuckwit, and well, whatever the hell we please. And if you respond to our insults, you are a misogynist asshole rapist. If you’re a woman and talk like that, you’re a rape enabler.”
        Or haven’t you been keeping up?

      • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

        Oh look.
        The WORD POLICE have arrived, guns brandished.
        And anonymous as well.
        How charming that you should your dispense invaluable adult wisdom to we mere mortal infants.

      • John C. Welch Says:

        Really? That’s your main worry? That somewhere, someone is saying “mangina”? Or even…MANSTRUATING?

        Lemme guess, you think words like “cunt” cause people who aren’t misogynists to become misogynists just by hearing the word.

  42. ImpalaMark64 Says:

    It’s interesting that Surly Amy would consider being “gender/color blind” to be undesirable. All of my adult life, I’ve treated everyone equally, regardless of race, color, or gender, and am very proud to be “gender/color blind.” I guess her views are of someone who eschews gender equality in favor of biased, perceived gender superiority. Selfish and egotistical.

    • Strakh Says:

      Interesting you should say that, for that is exactly what Dr. M. L. King was aiming for.
      Funny how that is now “harassment.”

    • brainfromarous Says:

      “Interesting” and revealing.

      This is very familiar, as well, to those of use used to jousting with the RadLeft and their tribal identity politics BS.

      Here’s how it works: When FTBozos accuse you of “sexism” or “privilege” or what have you… it doesn’t mean they have grounds to think you actually espouse male supremacy, misogyny, etc.

      They’re just attacking you for not bending your knee to their dogma on the issue(s) in question.

      So when they talk about “Gender Equality” they don’t actually mean, you know, EQUALITY.

      Their “Equality” is some rattling, smoke-belching Rube Goldbergian contraption pieced together from their various incestuous ideologies.

      Being “color-” or “gender-” blind does not suit them because, as loyal (if mostly un-self-aware) Cultural Marxists, they are collectivists to the core; genuinely treating people as individuals monkeywrenches both their worldviews and politics.

  43. Anonymous Says:

    skepchick is a twat. boooo. she is bad and should feel bad

  44. aleisterhermit Says:

    Wow Thunderf00t. Could you try a little harder to sound like a whiny, vindictive twelve year old? I don’t think you’re quite there yet. Close though…

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      Yes.
      He could take a leaf or three from Laden’s copybook.

    • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

      aleisterhermit Says: July 25, 2012 at 4:11 am
      Wow Thunderf00t. Could you try a little harder to sound like a whiny, vindictive twelve year old? I don’t think you’re quite there yet. Close though…

      Yeah, he could join freefromthoughtblogs. Oh wait…

  45. Greg Laden Says:

    I was just thinking, this whole discussion is probably great for Amy’s ceramic art business.

    • Christopher Camp Says:

      Yes, because I just had the idea of spontaneously buying 100,000 tons of china, so I checked out Thunderf00t’s blog.

      • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

        So, you are actually interested in purchasing the childish play-doh-like brain-damaged therapy class rejects (that are not the the creative efforts of your juvenile offspring)??
        Are you mad, or simply masochistic?

    • John C. Welch Says:

      See, it only takes you four words to be full of shit. “I was just thinking”. You most certainly were not.

      Are you that lonely Greg, that you have to troll other people’s blogs? Because that is what you’re doing. Trolling.

  46. The_Poor_Tailor Says:

    wow,… after reading the initial statement, looking back to the skepchick blog to verify, then reading the long argumentative list of replies left,.. it’s obvious that the reason TF is responding to the Tshirt being called into question as a reason for policies to be written, regardless of what may or may not have been going on in Amy’s head at the time of the statement,… is because SHE MADE THE INITIAL STATEMENT ABOUT THE TSHIRT!,….. in all honesty, i believe in sexual equality and mutual cross gender respect, but for a professed feminist and advocate of gender tolerance to decry the fact that a woman was wearing a Tshirt professing a gender blind position of equality,.. is absolutely fucking retarded and detrimental to the thought of anyone else respecting the logic of her position,….

  47. Greg Laden Says:

    Also, people should really consider what is going on with those shirts. Skepchicks took on misogynists and harassers, who are presumably dispersed among the population and few in number. The shirts represent people specifically denigrating a small number of named individuals. That is incredibly obnoxious, hateful, and toxic. I don’t know why thunder foot sees only the smilyface.

    • Christopher Camp Says:

      The shirts? Was there more than one? What is denigrating about stating that you feel safe at TAM plus the fact that you do not wish to be called a ‘skepchick’?

      • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

        The t-shirt ‘stuck it up’ bin Laden and his suck-hole quente-flapping parasites, and laid plain their forged ticket to short-term fame.
        Born on the wings of fabricated outrage and outright fraud.

    • Strakh Says:

      Oh, mangina, are you now admitting that you LIED?

    • Strakh Says:

      You look old enough to me, mangina, to know that for an older woman, the term “chick” is demeaning.
      And for a true skeptic, being identified by what’s between your legs is even more demeaning.
      You see, mangina, your dominatrices can’t have it both ways.
      Either they want to be equal and judged on their intellectual merits, or they want to flash their vaginas and somehow get extra credit because of it.
      Doesn’t work that way, especially with a person of such stature as Dr. Hall.

    • Time Kitten Says:

      It sounds like a lot of people were at least avoiding the entire group, which is the later half of this ‘harassment’. Maybe Amy didn’t realize she had joined a group that wasn’t well considered, even if it may have originally stated itself in the position she thought would be?

    • John C. Welch Says:

      But I thought it wasn’t about the shirts. Greg, you DO understand that the stuff you wrote in the past is kept here, right? Or did you think that each new comment erases your previous one?

      Do you need a grownup to explain this to you?

    • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

      Greg Laden Says: July 25, 2012 at 5:02 am
      Skepchicks took on misogynists and harassers, who are presumably dispersed among the population and few in number.

      Oh wait. Going by all previous histrionics, I was under the assumption that 99% of the godless community were either rapists or rape apologists/enablers. You mean people have been telling fibs all this time?!?!?!?!?!?

  48. Greg Laden Says:

    You know, when I go back over thunder foots post, he really does look like little more than a bully

    • Strakh Says:

      Not anything like you, bully-mangina.
      Or did you think we don’t know who you are?
      Call the pot, black, you cyber-stalking asshole.
      Jesus f-ing Christ on a stick, Laden, don’t you have ANY pride?
      Or did you flush it down the toilet when you knelt before your dominatrix feminist overlords?

    • Christopher Camp Says:

      Yes, stating your opinion and allowing everyone to respond is the worst form of bullying.

      • Strakh Says:

        He has a history.
        He stalked and tried to get fired a woman who wouldn’t put up with his shit.
        So it’s rather hypocritical to call a man pointing out the obvious a bully.
        Read up on it. It’s a rather sordid little affair, isn’t it, Greg (my brain is damaged by testosterone) Laden?

      • Strakh Says:

        Sorry, didn’t know his past was an unknown.
        This dirty little man is a poor example of someone to talk about bullying.
        If you want to check it out, just google. It’s out there.

    • Shann Bridges Says:

      Yeah, well…this is a conclusion that came to some time ago. Why so many facepalmed when PZ backed him in Thunderf00t’s alleged “outing”.

      As my wise father termed people like this, TF is “windy”. No there there.

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      Greg, Dreg, oh Greg!
      I hope that you continue to keep posting as long as you are able.
      For you are doing a sterling service in demolishing the Free From Thought BOGS empire from within.
      With a surgical precision that is impossible to achieve from the outside.
      Long may ye post.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      Well greg, you would be an expert on internet bullying. Along with threats of physical violence and stalking.

      You still haven’t explained why you’re not on FTB anymore. Funny that.

  49. Greg Laden Says:

    I also think it is important to note how fixated thunder foot is on calling Rebecca “rape threat” … One gets the impression that rape threats are not important to thunder foot. It is like he doesn’t think rape is important. I wonder if that is just because as a man he has never been raped, assaulted, or threatened in any way. Or is there something else going on here?

    • Strakh Says:

      It’s because, mangina, when you scream “rape threat” at ANYTHING, you diminish real rape threats.
      Or didn’t your mommy read you the tale about the little boy who cried wolf?

    • Anonymous Says:

      We should call you Greg “threatened Justin Griffith by e-mail but still sits on a panel about internet harassment and is oblivious of the irony” Laden.

      That doesn’t roll off the tongue so well, does it?

      I do like how you’re suddenly so concerned about threats though.

    • John Greg Says:

      Oh, yeah. Here we go. Shit-for-brains Laden is now falling back on one of his favourite ploys. When he’s got nothing substantive to say, and his lies are running thin, he starts throwing around subtle implications that someone is committing some kind of bad behaviour, and tries to poison every well he can find.

      Laden, you truly are one of the sickest, most vile, dishonest pieces of dog vomit I’ve ever run across on the Internet. You and Tibbydiedoh should head on back to the trailer park and give each other gummies.

    • Time Kitten Says:

      “just because as a man he has never been raped”

      Please, we’re fighting very hard to get it recognized that men can be raped. It would help if you kept that in mind as you write on the issue and don’t look like you make the assumption that men can’t be raped, threatened, overpowered, or threatened. It does happen.

      I’m very sure that Thunderf00t very much think that rape is an important issue, which is why he’s disparaging towards those who treat it frivolously. Rebecca has been doing just that, accusing people for no reason but some inane fear that everyone is out to get her.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      What, you’re threatening to rape people now Greg? I mean, it’s not far from your threat against justin, so I’m not surprised. but really, it’s a little tacky.

    • Andre Says:

      “I wonder if that is just because as a man he has never been raped, assaulted, or threatened in any way. Or is there something else going on here?”

      I can hardly count how many time “as a man” I have been assaulted, and threatened… but lucky me I can’t be raped according to federal law.

      • John C. Welch Says:

        They recently fixed that. The FBI now recognizes men can be raped.

      • Time Kitten Says:

        I hadn’t heard. Hurray on that! Last time I was fully up to date on the issue, I was luckily not quite to the point where it mattered, but still pretty darn close.

      • Andre Says:

        Yah by law a man can rape me now, you are right. but go reread that law and apply it to a women. “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object,” So long as she stays away from the old back door then no rape here my friend.

  50. Greg Laden Says:

    I think my work here is done.

    • Strakh Says:

      You really are vile, Laden
      Go back on your knees before your dominatrix feminist overlords, you scummy mantwat.

    • geehigh@blueyonder.co.uk Says:

      Good. Go fuck yourself.

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      I agree.
      You have revealed yourself for the psychopathic liar that you are.
      A good day’s work.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      Yes. Greg it is. Just think, there used to be people who didn’t know what kind of a raging nincompoop you are. Thank $DEITY you came by to fix that.

    • oolon Says:

      Cheers Greg, I really do think you deserved to be kicked off FtB and still do… But seeing the bizarre hysterical dingbats commenting on every post of yours is very instructive. So very rational these arguments – you were caught out being unpleasant at least once therefore everything you say is wrong!
      I think Strakh must be in love with you, such devotion to every one of your utterances is quite cute.

      • Whynot Says:

        No. The point is not that.

        The point is that he’s wrong, AND that he was not kicked out for being wrong, or even had his own-gender hating statements challenged at all.

        “The human brain is a female brain damaged by testosterone” has kind of become the phrase attributed to him. Because how exactly does something that blatantly sexist get unchallenged?

        It’s like a Mormon woman saying “The woman’s place is in the kitchen” sort of thing.

      • oolon Says:

        Whynot continue with the ad hominems? Person A makes statement disagreeing with this post, person B says ‘OH yeah well you said something sexist once so suck it!’

        Also while not standing up for sexists jokes the one time it is considered acceptable is when you are making a joke about your own grouping. Hence I think you find Chris Rocks rant about niggers did not get him particularly censured as a racist. Greg, despite what Strakh seems to believe, appears to be male so making a joke denigrating himself is usually considered fine.

        Why am I having to point this out to intelligent sceptics?

      • Whynot Says:

        Because of the context. This wasn’t a joke made in a stand-up comedy.

        This was a comment made in a completely serious setting, to a group of feminists who probably took it to heart.

      • oolon Says:

        Whynot, whyami wasting 10 minutes Googling… Oh well led to an interesting article (http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/07/21/broken-chromosomes-and-damaged-brains/) totally missed that and there is a feminist taking Gregs comment and deconstructing it for what it is – a critique of some sexists assertions that the male brain is ‘superior’. 10 mins skim reading and I think I’m right in saying that his hideous comment made in seriousness to a room of stone faced feminists all waiting for justification to wipe out the male race was…. A different way of framing a sexist argument to show how it could be used to argue the opposite and that female brains are superior. No where do I see that taken seriously – feel free to ask the poster does she think male brains are inferior to female? If she or any other feminist says yes then you have proven Greg is an evil misandrist who should be destroyed!

      • Whynot Says:

        http://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/i-fell-down-the-stairs-and-became-a-man/

        This summarizes my reply.

      • John C. Welch Says:

        oolon, relax. In less than a year, there will be a great reunification and laden will be back on FtB. They’ll forgive, require everyone forget and six months later, it will never have happened.

        The reason people slap Laden back is because they’re returning his treatment of anyone who didn’t agree with him. Go read his passive-aggressive bullying behavior on any blog he runs or posts on. Even here, he attempted to deny actual factual quotes. Exactly why should anyone treat him better than he treats everyone else.

        oh, and his obsession with infantilizing women, convincing them they’re helpless without big brother greg to protect them from an evil cruel world, his attempts to provoke PTSD episodes in veterans, etc. He’s a despicable human being at every turn, and he revels in it.

        So, we’re just giving him what he wants. Attention.

      • oolon Says:

        “The reason people slap Laden back is because they’re returning his treatment of anyone who didn’t agree with him.”

        Yeah John, fight fire with fire, that well known technique known to only the most Zen fire-fighters.

      • Wutisdis Says:

        Please reply to Sinmantyx’s view on this, as it reflects mine, oolon, rather than doing the Achilles’ Heel fallacy.

      • oolon Says:

        Wutisdis – I didn’t reply as my point was even if he was wrong about that it does not undermine his thoughts about feminism or make him a ‘bad’ feminist or anything else. It makes him wrong on one point.

        However it has led to some interesting reading and you really did not read M.A.Melby’s post very well. Says she –
        “I’m not going to assume that Laden is some sort of man-hater”
        And that is from someone who interpreted his words in a very bad light. You and Stakh et al appear to me to have a mental picture that Greg L *is* evil therefore anything he says if it can be criticised in any way *is* proof of that evil. (Although I think you’ll be inventive enough to make most utterances open to your criticism)

        Surely you can see the nuance in the interpretation of those words of Greg? It can be validly interpreted as a joke, that does not mean it is without substance. It can be validly interpreted as challenging to some unchallenged preconceptions that the male brain *Is* superior. It can be validly interpreted as poorly worded by M.A.Melby whle making some good points about how it *could* be interpreted to be reinforcing some stupid views on how men are not responsible for their actions, they are ‘damaged’.
        –> All of these are valid and more. It is not right or wrong in the same way that 1+1=3 is wrong and to a large part that is the point of the comment.

        It is painful to see people take their world view and personal dislikes and conflate them into a black and white view of everything. Please carry on judging everything Greg does and says and placing it all in your *wrong* box, if it makes you happy. Because I put one thing he did (Bullying letter to Justin on FtBs) in my personal wrong box that may colour how I approach his output in future but I really really hope I never end up as biased as you. Personally examining his comment and the interesting dialogue it has stimulated was good for me and +1 for Greg in my right/wrong circuit :-)

      • Wutisdis Says:

        Equivalence fallacy sir. Not all opinions are equally valid.

        In fact, Melby says that even -granting- their proposition and taking them at their word would be bad, because it’s not hard to apologize and say “We apologize for using emotionally charged words without clear context”.

        I’m not saying it’s a black and white view here, that’s closer to what you’re doing. I am perfectly able to disagree with Thunderf00t’s handling of the issue and his substantive points, still be in favor of women’s rights, and still not trust Skepchicks to represent our voice reasonably?

        I assure you, people you fall under this definition probably outnumber the Tf00t fanboys.

      • oolon Says:

        Wutisdis, Not equivalence fallacy as it was an evolution of validity in my mind and I assure you it was not equally distributed. First I thought – Hmm bad joke is that all wutisdis has to prove Greg *is* evil? Then I read Stephanies article and got the context and thought, yeah that is a good way of interpreting his point I like it as it challenges established thinking. Then I read Sinmantyx and agreed that ‘damaged’ was a poor choice of words, but I didn’t agree that you need to apologise every time you are making challenging statements to reinforce a point. These are all other peoples interpretation (mine too) of another persons words – in so much as none of these people can *know* what Gregs intentions were (Maybe Stephanie has given him some lee-way in assuming he was as clever as her interpretation implies) it is valid for us to apply our own interpretation to them – even you!

        You, in the perjorative sense of the group of Greg-haters, come at this from a presuppositional view that Greg *is* evil therefore he was denigrating the entire male race for fun and was probably hoping for some poontang later (Stakhs mindset). This is the totality of my objection and is *in my opinion*.

        Finally “still not trust Skepchicks to represent our voice reasonably” … Jeebus how much do I need to take the piss out of that shit. PZ *punished* me by banning me. Skepchicks are *denying* my right to free speech. PZ and the Skepchicks don’t *speak* for me! Well no shit Sherlock! Despite PZs rather amusing soubriquet of PeeZus he is not the atheist Pope. Skepchicks can tote their brand of feminism on the internet, in the real world, on top of mount fucking Sinai for all I care. The definition of free thought is that it is up to you – no one *speaks* for you personally or *speaks* for whatever group or community you happen to be a part of. Maybe you are clinging to old religious views where the weirdo in the dress up top *does* speak for you! No longer… You are free and now have to think for yourself regardless of how hard you may find that. (Even if the group you hate seems to be saying they are the authority or the infallable ones – that is *you* interpreting or accepting it – until the petrine supremacy of PeeZus is declared by the first council of Skepchicks and enforced by their army of feminazi-nuns)

        Anyway I’m not sure why I’m talking to you, unless you are confused about how many oolons are on this board as you flounced on me as I’m not ‘adult’ enough. I cannot really disagree with that so I’m done… I’m leaving the adults to smoke their cigars and complain about how it was better in their day while I play with my tonka toys in the corner and enjoy myself.

    • hah Says:

      No shit, gregggg laden aye….I want you to come back and waste more of your life trolling internet blogs, come on dude, I’ve seen you, your like 50, 60 something yeah? single? financially insecure? balding or jst bald?

  51. Christopher Camp Says:

    Greg Laden, Hugo Schwyzer, then that weird creep who runs manboobz. All those male feminists. All of them so extra-submissive and snivelling. And they all turned out to be motivated by the same thing a horny misogynist is motivated by: they were hunting for pussy.

    It worked for Schwyzer before he became a full-time radical feminists. To all those other male feminists out there, the sooner you realise this, the better it is for you: there is no such thing as a pity fuck. It is obvious what you’re trying to do, but it’s not going to work. No woman likes a shneevie.

    And you’re not going to become one of them, either. No matter how submissive you are. No matter how convincingly you write about your belief in ‘patriarchy’ and ‘rape culture’, you will never, ever grow a vagina. The radfems that you latch onto will always see you as men. Weak, pitiful men, who have been put to good use.

    • Strakh Says:

      Well said!

    • oolon Says:

      WTF is this a nut-job MRA site I’ve blundered into?

      • Wutisdis Says:

        You just used MRA as a perjorative term.

        Your ability to discuss issues is now shat on. Men have real problems in today’s world that need to be addressed, and I can mention you a list of them, but that is besides the point of this.

        The point is, MRAs have a place, and the fact that douchebags use the title is no more to the point than the fact that there are feminists who want to treat men like shit.

      • Strakh Says:

        @oolon:
        You can’t REALLY be that stupid, can you?
        Can you REALLY even THINK that Greg was JOKING?
        You are just a sniveling little troll.
        Sorry, but you can’t act the mangina twat and get away with it anymore. You don’t get to “frame” the statement.
        Laden WAS NOT JOKING. He was echoing a myth begun in the most extreme wing of feminism: “Men are broken things fit only for extermination”
        To attempt to read into it a joke at his own expense is just bullshit.
        You don’t sound erudite, you sound obtuse.
        And if you think MRA issues are nut-job issues, you are either a virgin or a complete idiot.
        I won’t even bother to explain the issues to you, if you can make idiotic statements like “Laden was joking” and “nut-job MRA site” you already have a great start on your very own virgin mangina.
        Being a mangina won’t get you laid, sucker.
        And as was said before, no matter how much you wish, no matter how many times you click your ruby red heels together, you won’t grow a twat, you’ll only play one in real life.

    • oolon Says:

      Wutsis “You just used MRA as a perjorative term” … The irony! Nope that is why I said ‘nut-job MRA’ site.. As opposed to MRA site – when first exposed to mens rights activists who wanted more access to their children I was and still am absolutely in support of them. Unlike some on here I don’t use terms such as feminist as an insult – the meaning of the word is clear and I’m happy to call myself a feminist same as I’m happy to admit I don’t like homophobia or racism or any other prejudice based on an aspect of a group of people. It doesn’t fit into my personal definition of what it means to be a sceptic.

      Ahhh the little cutie Strakh is getting all worked up over me now… Careful Greg might get jealous. Yeah I was wrong that Greg ‘joked’ — I did admit I didn’t know the context and I couldn’t be arsed to look it up… Unfortunately now I have been found to be wrong on one minor detail of a feud that Strakh thinks is *really* important I will be wrong for all eternity :-)

      • Strakh Says:

        You really are an idiot.
        You made fuck-stupid comments without knowing what the hell was going on and then admit you’re ignorant of what’s going on.
        Which type of ‘feminist’ are you, twat? The kind that wants all men gelded? The kind that wants all men simply exterminated?
        There are hundreds of feminists, but of course, YOU’RE a GOOD feminist, aren’t you?
        Go comment on something you know about.
        And quit acting like Laden.
        Two dick-hating mantwats is two too many.

      • Wutisdis Says:

        Well, I’m not Strakh, and I accept your explanation and apologize.

        Now, all we need to do, is get you to see that FtB are not reasonable feminists. And Greg Laden’s comment is actually pretty telling. Not because Greg said it. But because they never apologized for it.

        Greg was only removed from the site for threatening people, even after he made that statement, as the article I linked (written by a woman so you -know- it has none of that icky male privilege on it) condemned it and said it was said in the presence of a transgender man.

        But FtB -never- apologizes for its radical element, and protects it until the end. See Zvan’s apology letter that you linked. And again, please, please tell me how a very, very stretched scientific explanation (damage is a negative term, I’m sorry. Nobody uses that word to mean rebuilt or modified, and you can’t say that it does. As I said, even Sinmantyx, a -feminist- agrees with this) justifies him using insulting words.

        Again, you’re mistaking a small part for the whole. If Greg said something stupid and FtB apologized for it, we’d move on. But no, they stuck by it instead.

      • Wutisdis Says:

        That, and the fact that I have, and in fact you have too if you’ve been on FtB any long time, that the word MRA -is- used as an insult on FtB, and men’s rights laughed at with “WUT ABOUT DA MENZ”. Can you please justify that?

      • oolon Says:

        Strakh so obviously everyone’s definition of feminism might be different but the dictionary one might be something like this -> “Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.” .. Anything there you don’t like? Please add mental emphasis on the word *equal*. If in any real world that outcome was possible then there would be no need for Feminists or MRAs, however as we both know we are imperfect beings. I’m certainly not a good feminist – plenty of Pharyngulites would agree with that just because I stood up against PZ on his attack on Ben Radford – who was considered by some to be a misogynist (imo for not particularly good reasons!)

        So on to Wutisdis, do I extrapolate to that to say “that FtB are not reasonable feminists”? No I’d say in my experience some of the commenters on FtBs filter the evidence through their own mental picture of the world. When this is coloured by reading lots of stories about feminist issues such as the recent girl-rape-phone-gagging thing then its not surprising. Anymore than is surprising that Stakh has an epic chip on his shoulder because PZ banned him – and PZ is a man hating, vagina wearing, poopy head as we all know – I’m sure Stakh searches for information all over the place to reinforce this ‘truth’ that exists in his head and he so wants it to be imprinted on some Stakh’ian objective reality.

        Greg Laden – knob – yup said it already (imo). Should he be allowed back into FtBs? Not for me to decide but given his lack of remorse then I’d say no for what that is worth. That ‘fact’, if it is so, makes not one jot of difference to his arguments for or against feminism – I’ll judge them on their merits thanks. As I will all the FtB’ers bloggers and commenters – they will post things and say things that I think are sexist/wrong/rude etc or that I really agree with. I will try to not judge them and let past experiences colour my thinking – I will fail but I will try – TF’s awful survey and graph really make it hard for me to take him seriously, but he has made some cool videos before and I don’t want to miss out on future ones cos I disagree with him on this.

        Finally MRA as an insult… Well I think Stakh probably self-identifies as an MRA and he is pretty deserving of insult and ridicule. I agree taking terms out of context such as MRA or feminist is unfortunate – I’ll personally carry on with adding nut-job whenever an MRA or Feminist acts like a nut-job in a particular situation.

        • eikonoplast Says:

          “[Strakh] so obviously everyone’s definition of feminism might be different but the dictionary one might be something like this -> “Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.” .. Anything there you don’t like?”

          How about adding “and responsibilities” after “rights”. Put that in the dictionary definition. That would start to make it something I like.

      • Wutisdis Says:

        Not sure why, but my last comment is stuck in moderation. Instead of providing the links I did, I’ll tell you to look for them, they’re the same ones as were posted below:

        LMU’s linked Notungblog.

        “Civility is in the eye of the Beholder” by ArmchairSkeptic

        And

        “A small voice says ‘Stop’ while crowd yells ‘Off with his head!'” in Skepticism and Ethics blog

        This isn’t a problem with “some of the posters”. It’s a FtB general problem.

      • oolon Says:

        Wutisdis – A small voice – I read that person on the original story and agreed to an extent. But one tiny tiny point… That is the skepchick site not FtBs so sort of undermines your central premise that “It’s a FtB general problem”

        Fortunately your second example is about FtBs… Oh shit its a hatchet job on Rebecca Watson the official hate figure of the nut-job MRA in his natural environment. Again – yeah in my opinion I might think she was in-civil too… Ooo someone was in-civil on the internet well blow me down with a bunch of anal porcupines!

        I’m really struggling to address your premise that FtBs and its posters are inherently poor feminists. Mainly because you are not giving me one bit of flippin evidence! It seems your creationist level logic is ->

        1. Rebecca Watson was wrong a couple of times
        2. Therefore god… No sorry, therefore all FtB’ers are bad bad people and they will bring about the end of the world as we know it if not stopped…

      • Wutisdis Says:

        I should clarify:

        1) When we say FtB, we don’t mean all of FtB. Fact is there are reasonable voices there. The problem is that with PZ Myers’ banning of dissent, the strongest “dissent” that there is is probably Richard Carrier, who has to step on eggshells to make points that Tf00t himself made in a better way so they won’t notice.

        See, for example how he criticised the American Atheists’ first draft for … … Doing exactly what Thunderf00t was concerned it would do, being too stringent to allow for normal human interactions!

        Guess Tf00t was right all along?

        2) ” Oh shit its a hatchet job on Rebecca Watson the official hate figure of the nut-job MRA in his natural environment”

        Nice attempt to use charged terms to deflect the issue. A for effort. F for fail.

        “Ooo someone was in-civil on the internet well blow me down with a bunch of anal porcupines!”

        And here you show you didn’t even read it. She wasn’t un-civil on the internet. She outed two people, called them everything up to rape-supporters (by saying they’d laugh in the face of rape victims who spoke out) DURING A SPEECH.

        3) No, these are my premises and conclusion, unstrawmanned:

        a) Rebecca Watson, and in the second example, the Skepchick group, are constantly un-civil and attempt to intimidate people who disagree with them, however slightly. (Rose St.Clair’s video, of all things, said that it was wrong to demonize the kid, and asked what’s wrong with hitting on girls and why people are generalizing men to be there for nothing but sex, and saying women sometimes want sex too, and also that wanting sex doesn’t mean you’re not also there for the atheism and debate part. This is, of course, a woman.)

        b) Therefore, the FC5 and the Skepchick group (as clarified above, not all of FtB) are toxic people to the cause of atheism and should be called out.

      • oolon Says:

        I’ve been accused of spamming the comment thread so I’ll keep it brief. (Blame the Olympics – I’ve got time off and its too easy to type and watch sport)

        I get it you don’t like Rebecca Watson – so I could be all picky and say you are wrong when you said all FtBs but I won’t bother. Richard Carrier is hard to criticise eh – why are his posts about why harassment policies are a good idea not putting too much emphasis on the subject? That was TFs premise – it is talked about too much – shame he shot all his load talking about it himself?

        Glad you are happy in your cause of ‘calling’ out the Skepchicks and sombunall bloggers at FtBs, if only you could extend that to not liking sombunall things those bloggers say and do and we’d be on the same page.

        How exactly are you doing that calling out BTW? Oh yes via a commentstorm on a few blogs… Laughing at someone because they got upset at a conference… Standing up for rape jokes… Great bit of work there. Now lets pop over to the other side and see how they are doing. Hmm large number of key Atheist leaders all standing up on their side and stamping on you lot… Any comments? I asked below but was side-stepped, I know it’s awfully close to a call to authority fallacy but it sure doesn’t look like your key message is getting across well. Maybe a rethink is required?

      • Wutisdis Says:

        Good job, you haven’t responded to a single thing I said, nor accused me of thinking something that I actually think- Other than I suppose not liking Watson.

        As I said, this conversation is over.

      • oolon Says:

        Wutisdis. Cool! Side-stepping the Skepchick smack-down again… Maybe I’ve hit a nerve and you realise you are a small bunch of malcontents with nothing better to do than moan about someone else.

        Maria if you want to be treated as an equal not a child then that is an endeavour I’m absolutely in support of. Skepchicks seem to want the same thing but you don’t agree with how they are going about it, no? If you think they look and act like children then that is your perception not mine and obviously given the recent support not the view of a lot of the leaders of the atheist community either. Good luck with your crusade.

        • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

          That is the perception of almost all professional women, women who choose more traditional family roles, and most onlookers. Men can no longer speak up and be taken seriously about these issues because their voices have been virtually nullified by terms like “mansplaining” and “privilege.” It’s as if men were incapable of logical thinking on human rights issues. I assure you, they are. In other words, the Skepchicks are a huge embarrassment to women everywhere, trading on little more than their gender/sexuality and offering nothing of substance to the community — just self-created drama to pay their bills through blog hits from all of us, even those who are perfectly aware that by participating in this war we’re actually giving them exactly what they want. If there’s no drama, you can always count on them to create one, because that’s how they make a living.

          There is no one in the community who supports rape or harassment, yet the impression is that both are rampant. Largely because some “chick” got asked to coffee a year ago. How’s that for making a mountain out of a molehill?

        • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

          Seriously, what do you expect *male* leaders to say? That they’re in favor of sexual harassment? That they don’t want to protect those who feel vulnerable? That they don’t want to provide a safe environment? They have absolutely no choice but to say what they’re saying, regardless of what they think about the matter (even though many of them have been attacked by the Skepchicks in the past). And THAT IS how suppression of speech works. It’s not that you can’t say what you want; it’s that you can’t do so without inappropriate consequences.

          BTW, did you finally stop beating your wife? Yes or no answer only, please.

      • oolon Says:

        Hmm so if *almost* all women think like you that still does not invalidate my point as some do not – how is tolerating them so hard for you – especially if they are so insignificant in number. And if they are that insignificant then surely ignoring would be the right approach? Read Richard Carriers post on sexual harassment – he demolishes your mountain out of a molehill argument better than I ever could.

        Hmm then last post – doesn’t seem to be asking for any response – its a mix of weird conspiracy theory and paranoia ending with a surreal question.

      • Wutisdis Says:

        “Richard Carrier is hard to criticise eh – why are his posts about why harassment policies are a good idea not putting too much emphasis on the subject? That was TFs premise – it is talked about too much – shame he shot all his load talking about it himself?”

        He said the problem is overstated and that these policies would restrict normal human interaction, hyperbolically by posting the leg-biting bar horseplay picture.

        Now, the American Atheists policy is being criticised as being strict, even by the more reasonable FtBers, for exactly that reason. Doesn’t that sound like a prediction coming true to you?

        “Glad you are happy in your cause of ‘calling’ out the Skepchicks and sombunall bloggers at FtBs, if only you could extend that to not liking sombunall things those bloggers say and do and we’d be on the same page.”

        What?

        “How exactly are you doing that calling out BTW? Oh yes via a commentstorm on a few blogs… Laughing at someone because they got upset at a conference… Standing up for rape jokes… Great bit of work there. ”

        Three strawmen in four sentences. Good job!

        “Now lets pop over to the other side and see how they are doing. Hmm large number of key Atheist leaders all standing up on their side and stamping on you lot… ”

        See Maria’s response. She said it better than I could. CFI, for example, took both sides of the debate into consideration and came up with a good policy (once clarified) that doesn’t harm social interactions. See the clarification which shows that he listened to both sides.

        American Atheists copy and pasted parts of Skepchicks’ and added their own, and in doing so messed it up hard and are getting criticised for it.

        In short: When people use their brains rather than parrot the Skepchick nonsense, they do better.

  52. Jazen Valencia Says:

    I am having a T-shirt made up for the next conference which says “I am not a misogynist, I am not a feminist, I am a HUMANIST.” Either that or “I AM A FEMINIST, just not a radical, man hating, professional victim feminist” Smiley face optional. P.S. I love strong women, I grew up with a single mom who raised me right. That’s probably why I don’t like PZ or the skepchics. Anyone who tells you to FUCK OFF, like PZ and the rest do when you ask to debate reasonably, or ask for proof of harassment, are not rationalists. They are unworthy of respect or leadership positions in our community. We have enough problems getting the word out about secularism and rationality without made up drama on top of that.

  53. kennykjc Says:

    Back when elevator gate happened I just got so pissed off that I stopped listening to a bunch of podcasts, blogs & youtubers. It just seemed that suddenly everyone was in the grips of this hysteria. And if you thought it was nothing you were called a mysoginist. ROFL

    Anyway, nice to see that a handful of folks are saying ‘wtf’ to it all.

  54. Ben Says:

    Honestly, Thunderf00t, I think you’re right about Skepchick embracing victimhood. It’s just that coming from you, it’s really, really rich. You hardly do videos anymore except the “look who’s persecuting me now” variety.

    • Muzebreak Says:

      No, he does response video’s to allegations made towards him, or about serious matters he feels require a video. In the past month he has done 5 videos, 4 about the skepchick bull crap and pz’s strawmanathon, and 1 about science. But the thing you have to realise is right now the whole issue is a hot button that really needs to be adressed. Would you go to people like pz and rebbeca, and tell them to stop talking about the people supposedly harrasing them and the such?

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      Thunderf00t is reacting to HYPOCRISY.

  55. Shann Bridges Says:

    Christ….

    Tf00t, can you make a bigger ass of yourself? I don’t think so! You’re the most flagrant “victim card” playing whiney-baby in this whole mess.

    This clusterfuck is 9 parts social media edition of Chinese whispers (Rebecca “rape threat” Watson?) attached to each and every fact (yes, some guy who followed but managed not to hear any of what she’d tried to say during how many hours of her yabbering about it throughout that conference in Dublin carried on like nothing she’d said penetrated his thick skull suggested to her that he and guys like him might need a more direct appeal-aka “guys, don’t do that”.)

    And christ, why is this such a big deal even a year later? I’ll tell you why-because fragile, insecure and humiliated egos (so you were kicked from FTB – Get Over It!) like yours have resorting to Fox News style crazy-making and crazy-making is effective. Crazy-making isn’t rational. It isn’t “enlightened”. It isn’t valid. But it’s effective.

    And that’s what you’ve reduced yourself to. Crazy making. I think you must certainly know better than to do this. You are a pathetic human being. And you are certainly pissing on the idea that truth is derived from evidence and reason. Cuz you’re playing the “it’s all about me” shittery play like any and every shithead ever born-religious or not.

    You’re a goddamn mess.

    • Muzebreak Says:

      Nice job making allegations with absolutely no factual backing given.

    • Andre Says:

      I think it is a big deal because people are getting tired of painting men as potential rapers, People are getting fed up of being told to “Cross the street for a lady so she knows you won’t rape her”. People are getting tired of being reduced to helpless victims in the name of equality…. Yah elevator guy is were bullshit is called and it is not going to let up.

    • Whynot Says:

      Why don’t you reply to his facts instead of picking at his words?

      Okay fine, he’s wrong to call her that. Now can you respond to his point instead of playing the offended card?

    • John C. Welch Says:

      Why yes he could Shann. He could be more like you.

  56. Anonymous Says:

    where can i buy that t-shirt

  57. Lann Says:

    “I told her through tears, in the speakers’ lounge, that it was dehumanizing and gender/color blind and very hurtful to me specifically as a person who does have to deal with harassment regularly.”

    She says gender blind like it’s a bad thing. That’s a bit offensive towards gender queers and pansexuals.

    Maybe that whole bit was just crappy wording but it’s a good thing to make gender/color irrelevant.

  58. Jason Webster Says:

    Stephen sums up what I think of this

  59. HuntingGoodwill Says:

    How do Americans turn everything good into a freaking Pepsi vs. Coca Cola, Republicans vs. Democrats pissing contest?

    Is it just me, or did everything start to go downhill after Hitchens death?

    I guess the “skeptic” organizations start to realize that Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris DID create sort of a “Tsunami of not giving a fuck about Jebus” and this made them realize that there is money to be made in the future.

    Money & Fame. Cocaine & Hollywood.

    Americans do turn everything into a freaking cliche.
    And the moment someone drops a “I feel offended, ’cause I feel like feeling offended!”, all of the legal weaseling takes place.

    Watch it. Next thing to happen is going to be someone asking somebody if he is Jewish and then the entire skeptic community is going to be labelled not only as “chauvinistic”, but also “Holocaust deniers”.

    There’s money to be made and precious little minorities to be protected and when it comes to money, oh boy, “the dollar-dollar bill yo” is all that counts.

    This has nothing to do with feminism, racism, irrationality or anything of that sort.

    It’s just an attempt at “camp building” and securing the most sheep to be milked in the future (you will see, African female genitalia mutilation victims who are also “Skepchicks” are on the radar, and donations which will never reach them will be a great engine for the “movement”).
    And which is the “minority” that will grow the most in the future?
    You guessed it, young women.

    Does it compute now, rationalists?

  60. hannanibal Says:

    *Don’t cross the street at night when I see a woman coming towards me*
    “HOLY FUCK DO YOU KNOW HOW INSENSITIVE THAT IS AND HOW INTIMIDATING IT IS FOR THE WIMMINZ!?”

    *Hold a door open for a woman, not because she is a woman but because I do it for everybody*
    “HOLY FUCK DO YOU KNOW HOW INSENSITIVE THAT IS AND
    HOW DEMEANING IT IS FOR THE WIMMINZ!?

  61. eikonoplast Says:

    I watched this a while ago, and kept thinking about it while I read about this BS with FTB and Skepchick people.

    This is not tied to the atheist community, nor it is it necessarily bulletproof science, but it seems to get closer to describing what’s going on in general, and smacks of the goings on in this microcosm of the skeptic movement. The vlogger argues from an evolutionary angle.
    And she cites at least one source!

    Maybe you could play the substitution game, and put in the names of certain players in this recent TAM situation, and see how close it correlates.

    • Vicky Caramel (@MrsVickyCaramel) Says:

      Thanks for posting that video. I found it very interesting, although for reasons not directly connected to this issue.

    • Time Kitten Says:

      Another thanks for that post! Watching a bunch more of her’s now.

      • eikonoplast Says:

        Glad people are interested in this.
        I think the points TF made are solid, but it’s part of a “ball-in-play”, so to speak. It’s hard to take a longer view when you are the recipient of biased intolerance, because, well, you’re directly dealing with it. Some people are construing it all as drama, but this is part of a larger ideological conflict, not unlike that between skeptics and theists.
        I posted this video to introduce an alternative perspective, because this entire thread is packed with anti-feminist sentiment (which I admit, I also feel), if not simply arguments against the unsoundness and invalidity (and outrageousness) of the FTB and Skepchick position.
        Here’s another link I navigated to from Girlwriteswhat’s blog. It’s long, but it’s audio from a radio show she’s a guest on. She is less scripted in it, answering questions on the fly, and because of that, I think it supports that she’s been disciplined in researching her view.

        http://www.gnosticmedia.com/karen-of-girlwriteswhat-interview-the-femanist-fallacy-146/

        I think it’s good to hear strong female voices challenging feminist dogmas. It’s sad that dissenting, rational male views on the topic of feminism go so easily discarded, as if the goal of determining our own society together is only a job fit for women.

    • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

      I really enjoyed that. She may not be entirely right, as social theories can’t really be proved with hard science, but she makes a lot more sense than anyone on FfTB ever will.

  62. Harry Says:

    Oh, I’ve seen this sort of carry on before, in student politics. You’re trying to get something done and it gets diverted by thin skins who want to draw attention to themselves. Sure they think they’re doing the right thing but really all they’re doing is wasting time and energy. Thunderf00t, please get back on track, taking the fight to the religious nutters. The victim blogs are already off topic with petty insults and whinges. Call them out then please get back on track. Such a shame to see petty issues derail a great movement, dump them and move on.

  63. CommanderTuvok Says:

    What that really the REAL Greg Laden? Seemed even more of a git than usual.

    I notice that when they can’t control the thread, get their horde to back them up, delete and edit comments, control the narrative, etc. the FTB Baboons get their arses handed to them.

    PZ, Ophelia, etc. feel free to pop over…

    • John C. Welch Says:

      Dude, neither PeeZus or Umbridge are going to do their dirty work themselves. What do you think Laden was here for?

      Pretty sad. Once, one of the horsemen, now, just trolling blogs for them.

      Hey, anyone want to start the pool on how long before Laden’s forgiven and welcomed back to FTB, having “learned his lesson”?

      • ERV Says:

        ‘Learning his lesson’ implies that it is recognized that what Laden did was wrong, and there is a lesson to be learned.

        I have seen *one* FTBully say what Laden did was wrong.

        The rest ignored it, at best, or defended Laden and attacked Justin, at worst.

        If there is no recognition of wrongdoing, there can be no ‘learning’. They are going to welcome him back from his ‘vacation’ with open arms, like nothing happened, because to them, nothing happened. If Justin hadnt gone live with that email, they would have done *nothing*.

      • John C. Welch Says:

        oh absolutely. Hell, Zvan even DEFENDED him on it.

        The FTB cadre, esp. the FC5 are only waiting an “appropriate” amount of time to welcome him back, that was a given from day one.

      • CommanderTuvok Says:

        Indeed. Svan even held a toast for him. Ophelia Benson constantly defends Laden, even though she throws the baby out with the bathwater in reference to the slightest hint of a non-threat.

        Cognitive Dissonance!, Or Lying Hypocrites?

      • Wutisdis Says:

        Tuvok: Can you link that?

    • oolon Says:

      Yeah right if you think comments screaming ‘Mangina! Mangina!’ after each of Gregs posts is a good example of ‘handing his arse’ to him then please head back to debating school.
      Not seen much about Greg before the Justin stuff and he appears to be a knob. Surely you can actually beat him in an argument without acting like the baboons you seem to dislike?

      • John C. Welch Says:

        Pfft. I also called him a grotty little poltroon waste of carbon, but nooooo, you ignore that. Humph.

  64. bobgrey Says:

    :(

    Mom and dad are fighting again…

  65. That’s not thunder, that’s a rattle | Butterflies and Wheels Says:

    [...] it’s all so obvious, and dumb, but brazen lying is one item too many. I saw a lot of hits via a post he did yesterday sneering and maligning Surly Amy, and I was curious enough to break the “ignore” policy. He calls her a girl. Is this [...]

  66. Bruce McGlory Says:

    “and on the other you have no problem with that same blog suggesting that someones reasoned argument is invalid because you (skepchick) claim they think you are nazis. ”

    You mean that 100 page letter from Kirby that explicitly says exactly that more than one.

    *points and laughs at ThunderDunce* You’re stupid! HAHA!

    And this:

    “I have seen *one* FTBully say what Laden did was wrong.

    The rest ignored it, at best, or defended Laden and attacked Justin, at worst.”

    Is a flat out lie, Abbiekins. I know that’s all you’ve got in your whiny dipshit aresenal, but c’mon. Obvious lies are still lies, no matter how worthless the speaker.

    • Whynot Says:

      Quick!

      Call her a “chill girl”.

    • John C. Welch Says:

      “and on the other you have no problem with that same blog suggesting that someones reasoned argument is invalid because you (skepchick) claim they think you are nazis. ”

      You mean that 100 page letter from Kirby that explicitly says exactly that more than one.

      Nice try, but let’s assume people here have actually read it. She compared some of the attitudes she’s seeing with regard to handling dissent to the kinds of attitudes seen by facist/Soviet Bloc governments. Not directly, Paula didn’t say people were being actually KILLED, (gods, but pointing things out to the conveniently literal is tedious), but that the general reaction to dissent of any kind was the same kind of kneejerk reaction seen in facist/soviet bloc governments. “IT MUST BE SUPRESSED”.

      You’re not used to people who actually read shit, are you.

      Is a flat out lie, Abbiekins. I know that’s all you’ve got in your whiny dipshit aresenal, but c’mon. Obvious lies are still lies, no matter how worthless the speaker.

      Show us links. Hallquist posted a comment about it on Abbie’s facebook, and of course, Justin wasn’t thrilled. Zvan actually defended Laden via the crappiest analogy ever.

      But it’s easy: show us the links from the FTB folks who were blogging at the time where they condemned laden. In public, not in some fucking backchannel.

      It’s really simple.

  67. Skepchick: Embrace Victim-hood! | Thunderf00t « Kentekens's Blog Says:

    [...] http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/skepchick-embrace-victim-hood/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. « Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism | rational ugandan [...]

  68. SerpSol Says:

    Münchausen syndrome.

  69. mick Says:

    epic thunderf00t, atleast someone isn’t fighting for the “Men are evil oppressors, and we are victims of, eh, something” club

  70. Wendell Henry Says:

    Tf it is my experience that I can tell aot by he company a person keeps and attracts. While I disagree with some of your blogs I finds myself absolutely disgusted at the attitudes of many of your commenters. I ask you are proud to be associated with these people?

    • John C. Welch Says:

      yeah. he should be more like FTB, and only allow commenters that you like.

    • Whynot Says:

      If you want to play the blame game for what followers say… You want to do that? We can start with what I’ve heard FTBers do:

      1) Calling Elevator Guy a rapist and even a child molester
      2) Calling Dawkins pro-rape and sexual molestation.
      3) Saying that Harriet Hall isn’t a true feminist (because what would an Air Force Colonel and Flight Surgeon know about making it in a man’s world- Amy’s a -blogger-), a bitch, and an asshole (the last one by PZ himself!) and calling for the harassment team to get her to change the shirt.

      Do I need to go on?

      • oolon Says:

        Whynot post some links to the FtB threads so we can all bask in the hate spewed there…. But for you to convince me I’d like to see that the ‘commenters’ are not trolls/one-offs but FtB regulars or your point goes down the toilet. I could easily say PZ is a donkey raping shit eater on here and use that as ‘proof’ that TF is a south park fan.

      • Whynot Says:

        Oolon:

        You’re expecting, now, that you get to tar people for what they’ve posted in one blog message of his. For all you know, I could be a troll too.

        But when I apply the same standard to you, you complain.

      • oolon Says:

        Hey extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ;-)

      • Wutisdis Says:

        The threads in FtB prove themselves. I’m not going to do a background check on those who comment just because you want unreasonable standards of evidence.

      • oolon Says:

        Seriously though I’d like to see a thread where someone like Stakh is banned – or the other one further above with PZ shaped flies in his eyes. I’ve only ever seen people who are outright insulting for no good reason or in a particularly egregious way banned – or just boring people who keep on banging on the same argument and not giving up banned. Its easy to get stuck into the second one as I have plenty of times – especially when people on there keep misunderstanding (I hate to imply intent by saying strawmanning) your argument so you end up re-framing constantly to keep up with the barrage. Either way you open yourself to the ban hammer – those who live by the sword die by the sword… I may well be banned as I insist on being contrary, and I’m at times boring and make poorly thought out comments. Who to blame? Me.

      • Wutisdis Says:

        Self-blame is quite sad.

        I’m sorry FtB taught you to do so.

      • oolon Says:

        Oh well last try – I probably used the wrong term in blame as I would not sit in a dark room fighting against the sense of shame if PZ banned me…. As an analogy if I’m invited into someone’s house or more relevant if I go to an open house party but insist on standing in the corner shouting abuse to all in the party. Then unsurprisingly I’m kicked out – what is my reaction? Do I picket the house complaining my right to free speech was infringed and obsess over everything the house owner subsequently does and says? (cf Strakh and TF) or so I say ‘Oh well I was being stupid I suppose I deserve it and move on’? Or even ‘Hmm that was weird dunno why I was kicked out but never mind it is their house’. Taking responsibility for my own actions not blame I suppose.

        Fundamentally the blog is PZs and your statements that is is punishment when PZ criticises someone for making rape jokes. Or that being banned is somehow infringement of free speech then you come across as the nutter in my analogy. For all I know PZ/other FtB’ers ban people based on a Fibonacci sequence of new commenters as they arrive – even if their policy is random-unfair or non-random-unfair then so what? It is their blog and they can fill it with yes-men if they want -> I don’t really see them doing that but even if they were so what?

        • eikonoplast Says:

          Your analogy fails. It’s more like he was invited to the party, a “free thought” party, told he should say whatever he wants, made a point that other guests were stirring drama and being massive buzzkills and it would be a better party if they reeled in their attitude a little and focused on a good party for all…
          well, then the hosts turned out to want the be a bummer, and booted the guy who brought reason, er, fun. (sorry, wandered off the analogy).

          Perhaps PZ’s party is more like a Communist Utopia than a “free though” Eudaimonia.

      • oolon Says:

        OK elkonoplast – say you are completely accurate in your description of PZs ‘party’…. So why do you even want to join in? Let alone sit in the street complaining about the discussions at said party and how they won’t let you join in or when you did they took the piss and kicked you out! It really isn’t cool to brood about not being invited to the other kids parties, didn’t you learn that when you were a teenager?

      • eikonoplast Says:

        Oh… cattiness. Good counter to my clarification.

        Crap… I used sarcasm. Darnit! You got me with that scathing wit of yours.

        And there I was, trying to be all rational. Like, with reason, and stuff. Can you tell me how to be cool some more? I like that part.

        Dang! i did it again!

        Seriously, “PZ’s Party” sounds like it went seriously off track a while ago, like your analogies, and this thread is like the group of people standing around at the afterparty, at Thunderf00t’s house (it being his blog and all), talking about how fucked up it was when that chick started freaking out, and those other chicks started bitching until things got REEELY lame, and Thunderf00t was all like “Dude, this is fucked up!” and PZ was all like “Whoa, you can’t say that dude!” and TF was like “Why?” and PZ was like “GTFO!”
        Then everybody was all like “WHOA! WTF”
        and now were all at Thunderf00t’s house, and he said, like “Not Cool!”, and a bunch of us are all “I Know, Right?”.

        Except the walls of all the houses are made of glass, because it’s the internet and you can see what everybody’s saying cause it’s typed blah blah fuckin blah.

        I’m here because it’s open to anyone with wordpress account, I take interest because I’m rational and seeking like minds, I’m commenting because I knew about something to share, which I did, and has apparently been of interest to others, and I’m unhappy because I fear i just saw a bunch of tired old bullshit emerge and start to schism a movement I believed to be better than that.

        Speaking of tired old bullshit, this thread has reached the point where it needs to do the “walk-of-shame” back home. And if I were you, I’d ditch feminism. It’s a worn out ideology full of lies and emotionally clouded 3rd wavers, who are now driving men AND women to discredit it, and/or ignore it. Just like the other beliefs based on false claims. I don’t know how anyone who wants a world of reason and learning can swallow feminism’s so many unwashed political, scientific, historical and philosophical fairy tales.

      • oolon Says:

        Well done sarcasm is funny and fun! Glad you worked that out.

        Things you have yet to work out –

        ” I fear i just saw a bunch of tired old bullshit emerge and start to schism a movement I believed to be better than that”
        –> That is a really big pile of steaming BS… Yes the movement needs you to fix it! And what are you fixing – why nothing less than a bunch of people who slightly disagree with you. Nothing worse than that, especially on the internet! Believing that any group of loosely aligned people is ‘better’ than ‘that’ is not very rational. Please replace ‘that’ with whatever is your pet peeve(s).

        If you really believe it then create your own community of ‘True Sceptics/Atheists’ and talk about the price of haggis with the rest of the true Scotsmen. Complaining about a group or group of people who have got off their arse and created a community of like-minded sceptic/atheists just because you don’t like what they like is pretty fucking petty.

        Feminism – again read the definition – surely being rational and sceptical you should deploy language correctly whenever possible.

        Discredited and worn out eh? Well have a look at the den of iniquity that is Skepchick.org and see all the real leaders of the community you identify with stand up on their side. Rather than dismiss it out of hand try and embrace the cognitive dissonance and say ‘Maybe I’m wrong’ to yourself. Doubt defines a sceptic.

      • eikonoplast Says:

        You don’t read or think very well when you’re mad, do you?

        Go ahead. Take the last word now. You seem intent on arguing with every single sub-commenter on this post, and I walked into that, with the raw nerve to think differently than you. So write something long, and unresembling to anything I said above and get it all out. We’re here for your feelings!

        Just put it right under here. Have a snarling good time!
        Buh-bye!
        |
        \/

      • oolon Says:

        Sorry elkonplast TL;DR… Were you trying to make some point between those gritted teeth of yours?

  71. Anonymous Says:

    Greg laden trolls thunderfoot lol. But thats just about going to be the future of his involvement within the skepric community. Buh bye greg

  72. Whynot Says:

    You know what’s a bit scary and yet amusing?

    How when you go on FtB, you see their sycophants reply to disagreeing comments that don’t exist anymore. I wonder why.

    • Patrick Says:

      I suppose it’s inevitable that they’d make a mistake like that, and that’s assuming they’d be careful to avoid leaving evidence of censorship in the first place. I wouldn’t be surprised if PZ et al left the troll-ish/stupid criticisms of their position while deleting the more reasonable ones.

      • LMU Says:

        Other people have wondered the same thing:

        http://notungblog.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/follow-up-to-my-last-post/

      • Gumby Says:

        “I wouldn’t be surprised if PZ et al left the troll-ish/stupid criticisms of their position while deleting the more reasonable ones.”

        And that’s exactly what FtB bloggers like PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson do. They can be counted on to leave the more irrational and ad-hom comments that disagree with them, and “disappear” the eminently reasonable and calm opposing posts. That way they can try to portray all opposition as stupid and irrational and pretend that reasoned opposition doesn’t exist. Ophelia especially is prone to this completely dishonest tactic.

        Barring that, if too many people engage a reasonable dissenter and disappearing all said dissenter’s posts would leave a comment thread in tatters, Ophelia’s other tactic is to accuse the dissenter of being a tone troll, usually accompanied by “stop bothering me”, “we’ve answered all your points already, go away”, or summat. Then immediately afterwards, all the dissenter’s further comments start mysteriously ending up in “moderation”.

        It’s blatantly transparent manipulation and fraud, and it would be sad if it weren’t so laughable. Or is that “it would be laughable if it weren’t so sad”?

        • John D Says:

          Ophelia Benson not only selectively deleted my posts, she edited them down. She actually removed some of the words from my post and left my comment a floundering mess. After I emailed her about it, she made no attempt to fix the problem and now (after a few more posts) she has banned me.

          PZ put me in his “dungeon” or whatever he calls it after I complained about being called a rapist, rape apologist, misogynist, wife abuser and child abuser. I never insulted anyone on that site… I only disagreed with them. Comparing them to fascists/Nazis is not much of an exaggeration in my opinion.

          They are hyperbolic, crying, snot nosed children who love to insult everyone who disagrees with them. It is like a playground pile on.

      • CommanderTuvok Says:

        Ophelia was moaning again the other day about how she has fallen out with yet another former co-writer/co-author/associate.

        It hasn’t dawned on her that it is SHE who is the problem. She just can’t understand why she keeps on losing all her friends.

  73. hannanibal Says:

    Acting like somebody burst into their house and pissed on the kids when in reality they saw somebody wearing a humorous, vanilla T-shirt is what the skepshits are all about.
    I am a feminist. I am not a twat.

  74. Privileged Male Pig Says:

    You have to give a hand to Rebecca & co. They’re giving us new, more complex intellectual fallacies to archive. They’re getting upset at things that they assume people are thinking about them. What would you call this? The projected ad hominem fallacy?

    • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

      It is called “a business model”.

    • oolon Says:

      Being a human?

      • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

        If anything they are subhuman. To most of us non-sociopaths, things like “trust”, “friendship” and “honor” are not variables to be traded on a whim. To Watson/Myers they are. You want a label? They are subhumanists. All you are to them is a good victim whine session, variable according to your value. I can’t see anything more degrading to humanism than their conduct. QED.

      • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

        Only if ‘being human’ entails assured psychopathic sociopathy, oh Loard “oolon”, the thoroughly cowardly and unidentified anonymous Myers’ parasite.

      • oolon Says:

        Hehe obvious sociopaths cannot recognise sociopathy in others, the Dunning–Kruger effect extends its reach further still.

      • Strakh Says:

        Thanks.
        I’d wondered why this piece of hit oolon bothered me: I hadn’t read such vile lies since I’d left PZ’s shit pile. Oolon’s filthy responses are what drives any rational person from that place: pure and unadulterated prevarication of the most heinous sort.
        Obviously, oolon, I’ll have to translate that for you: whatever anyone is saying, pick the opposite stance and just be a lying fucking asshole to everyone.
        It’s what floats the boat of the PZ’s ass-suckers, but out here in the real world of adults, you’re just a disgusting piece of shit, oolon, so go back to the shit pile where you belong.

      • oolon Says:

        Its like bloody mary – say psychopath, sociopath enough times and Stakh appears to prove he trumps them all.

        I seriously doubt your handlers let you out into the ‘real world’ to know how the adults act there, there’d be too many complaints :-P

      • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

        Oolon, if you’re gonna be a pharyngudrone ass-licker, have the decency to identify as such. Because that’s all you are – you march in such a straight line your boots squeak.

      • oolon Says:

        Towelie, so you’ve taken a good kicking from the Pharyngulites like Stakh. I think it says very little for you and your mates that you are still crying over it after so long — and you have the nerve to criticise someone for an emotional reaction! And that was in the real-world that Stakh likes to fantasise about from his gimp box not your virtual shaming and punishment by PZ!

        As for me being a Pharyngulite – well the few I remember from there are all absent from here. I’ve seen a few refer to this post and the ‘butthurt posters’ and I see now why they are not here. While it has been pleasant and mildly entertaining taking the piss out of Stakh and yourself it is not particularly productive. Only one post from bluharmony made any sense and I found one interesting article arguing with wutisdis – the rest are too stuck up their own arses to be anything other than troll fodder. So enjoy your hate filled online existence and keep the spaghetti flying :-D

      • Privileged Male Pig Says:

        Oolon, having empathy is part of being human. But so is having the humility to admit that you’re wrong.

        My point above was that Rebecca and her drones will fault people for what they ASSUME they are thinking, even though it’s more than likely not the case. The t-shirt that was at the con was a dig on Rebecca, but it was otherwise benign. There was nothing malicious about it, and yet someone just asserted that it was dehumanizing and started crying over it.

        What happened to the version of Rebecca Watson who used to say that Christians don’t have a right not to be offended? Why does that standard not apply to feminists? As a rule, I never use an argument that I wouldn’t accept if it were used against me.

        For the second year in a row, the most earth-shattering example of “misogyny” is that someone made someone else feel uncomfortable. No physical assaults reported. Just a moment of heart palpitating terror in an elevator one year and a blogger crying over a t-shirt the next.

        I can agree with you on certain points that talking to someone you don’t know in an elevator is a social faux pas, but you must realize how ridiculous this looks that this is the best example that feminists can point to, to show that there is rampant misogyny at atheist conventions.

        The point that other people have made about credibility is key here, because the more Rebecca and co. raise awareness over what is essentially a non-issue, the less likely people who would otherwise care are to believe them.

        • oolon Says:

          The point either went over your head or you wilfully misunderstand. Elevatorgate was never about the incident in the lift – it was about the response to a minor part of a video where she pointed out what you said yourself is a faux pas. A torrent of hateful comments and emails – even if they are not ‘real’ as TF asserts – no one would like to be at the end of it?

          Where is the quote from them that there is ‘rampant misogyny’ at atheist conferences? Or is this your interpretation of their posts?

          Anyway if you think it a non-issue then that really is the issue – sorry if that is too hard to understand. Read this for some real examples – http://skepchick.org/2012/08/speaking-out-against-hate-directed-at-women-michael-nugent/

  75. latsot Says:

    Thunderf00t:

    Nothing Amy said was even slightly inconsistent.

    on 17th, she says she told Harriet – through tears – that she was upset about the shirt for various reasons.

    on 18th she said that it wasn’t the shirt that made her cry. She’s said elsewhere that she was already crying for other reasons when she spoke to Harriet.

    This is not inconsistent. The first statement did make it look as though it was the shirt that made her cry, but I see no reason to interpret her clarification as an attempt to rewrite history. That seems to me like a crazily-paranoid interpretation.

    She calls the t-shirt “dehumanizing and gender/color blind and very hurtful to me specifically as a person who does have to deal with harassment regularly.” on one day and “silly” on the next.

    This isn’t inconsistent either. For one thing, a silly t-shirt can still be hurtful, but more importantly, Amy put ‘silly t-shirt’ in quotes. She was quite obviously refuting the claim *other people* have made that a silly t-shirt made her cry. No inconsistency.

    on 17th, Amy says that she wouldn’t have helped fund women to visit TAM if she didn’t think it was safe for them. On 18th, she says that some people have been harassed at *events* (she didn’t mention TAM specifically) and don’t *feel* safe. She doesn’t say that TAM isn’t safe. She just says that the shirt was hurtful to people who had been harassed and consequently didn’t feel safe. These statements are not in the least mutually inconsistent.unless you deliberately ignore most of what she actually said.

    Your last point is….bewildering. It’s perfectly obvious that Rebecca is employing sarcasm in her post. She’s joking about the stupidity of Paula’s use of the words ‘feminazi’ and femistazi’. In fact, she explicitly calls Paula’s slurs ‘hilarious’, leaving no doubt at all that she (Rebecca) doesn’t take Paula’s claims seriously. She plainly thinks that Paula is being an idiot and using ridiculous analogies and plainly does not believe that Paula really thinks that Skepchicks is exactly equivalent to a totalitarian nazi regime. But in any case, those quotes from Paula are difficult to interpret otherwise: she very clearly claims a similarity between ‘FtB (and elsewhere)’ and unpleasant aspects of the old East Germany. I don’t know why she mentioned you specifically in that context. I’m not aware of you making those particular slurs, just deliberately misinterpreting what people say. But what Rebecca certainly does *not* say is that those “who disagree with them [presumably you mean Skepchicks] on reason based arguments, actually all think they are a Totalitarian Nazis clique.” That is a blatant and childish lie. Of all the piss-poor arguments you should be ashamed of, this is the silliest.

    But anyway, none of this has anything to do with Amy’s statement that she, personally, is going to try to set a good example and is no indication of double standards.

    • Wutisdis Says:

      Sir, please don’t try to rewrite history:

      “I think =====one of the most hurtful===== things I experienced while attending TAM was Harriet Hall’s Tshirt that she wore three days in a row.”

      You omitted that part from your paraphrase.

      “on 17th, Amy says that she wouldn’t have helped fund women to visit TAM if she didn’t think it was safe for them. On 18th, she says that some people have been harassed at *events* (she didn’t mention TAM specifically) and don’t *feel* safe. She doesn’t say that TAM isn’t safe. She just says that the shirt was hurtful to people who had been harassed and consequently didn’t feel safe. These statements are not in the least mutually inconsistent.unless you deliberately ignore most of what she actually said.”

      Two points:

      1) Just because you don’t say something explicitly, doesn’t mean the context isn’t there. If you say women don’t feel safe at events while talking about TAM, you’re implying TAM. Please stop being so dishonest…

      2) Consider it also in the context of what -the other Skepchicks- have been saying about it, and tell me that they weren’t saying that TAM isn’t safe. Just because the rest of Skepchick were flip-flopping on whether or not they consider TAM safe, doesn’t mean she wasn’t too.

      Also, I found Amy’s statement about “Trying to be a better person than the haters”, to be pretty condescending.

      • Wutisdis Says:

        Addendum: Do we need to go over again, what the Skepchicks claimed about TAM, after Grothe said that there is no harassment problem at TAM?

  76. latsot Says:

    Wutisdis:

    How can I be trying to rewrite history when the quite is right there for everyone to see? Put the “most hurtful” bit back in and it doesn’t change my point at all.

    “Please stop being so dishonest…”

    Back at you. Amy said nothing about people being safe or otherwise. She spoke about people not FEELING safe. That is completely different.

    ” tell me that they weren’t saying that TAM isn’t safe”

    I don’t know which ‘they’ you might mean. Amy did not – in any of those quotes (which, you’ll note, is what TF was using for his arguments) or as far as I know anywhere else say that TAM wasn’t safe.

    ” Just because the rest of Skepchick were flip-flopping on whether or not they consider TAM safe, doesn’t mean she wasn’t too.”

    Erm…..and it doesn’t mean she was.

    • Wutisdis Says:

      Put two and two together….

      When you say that the most hurtful thing is the shirt, and she was crying, then it’s obvious that the shirt was -the primary cause- of her crying. Come on now.

      But the thing is, I don’t know about Amy, I’ll admit. My biggest problem isn’t about one girl overreacting, but rather the overwhelming support she got- Not emotional support, mind you, which is fine, but people actually agreeing with her and even saying that staff should have made her replace the shirt.

      Amy’s overreaction could have been brushed under the rug, at least in my opinion, if it was accepted for what it was, an emotional response. Frankly? If it WAS the shirt, Amy needs some help to not be so oversensitive.

      Especially belonging to a group like Skepchick which is coming under fire, she’s bound to expect criticism. Again, my biggest problem is the fact she was agreed with by people who aren’t just suffering from an emotional response and while Amy didn’t ask that she remove the shirt, a number in her thread said that security should have gotten her to remove the shirt, and disrespected Harriet Hall, even as a feminist!

      PZ called her an “asshole” for wearing a shirt that spoke in the first-person, and some even asked what Hall would know about sexual harassment. I mean, what WOULD she know, it’s not like she was in the Army or anyth- oh wait.

      • Strakh Says:

        PZ banned me from his slimy, self-serving rebuttal of Tf00t video when I cited the actual place of his calling a woman who 40 years had already done more than he ever an asshole.
        I pointed out to him that she is actually published – something he is not, she is widely known as a whip-smart critic of bullshit and he is widely known as … as … PZ.
        Seconds later, I was banned.
        That’s why I’m done with these pieces of shit and I’m just laying into them post after post after post.
        They’ve lied, snarked, lied, attacked, lied, bullied and, oh yeah, they lied.
        And lied and lied and lied.
        So, I’m turning the light on them and they scuttle away, like filthy little cockroaches.
        (Sorry, no insult meant to the cockroaches….)
        Dr. Hall and asshole… PZ is just a steaming pile of shit and he calls HER an asshole….
        It still pisses me off.

      • Strakh Says:

        Jesus, where did the bits go on THAT one?
        I apologize, that should read: “…I cited the actual place of his calling a woman who 40 years ago had already done more than he EVER will an asshole.”
        It has to be bit loss in the ether, right, I mean, it couldn’t be MY typing, eh?
        Sorry, y’all.

      • latsot Says:

        Wutisdis:

        “Put two and two together….”

        And make *what*, exactly? Are you sure it’s four?

        “When you say that the most hurtful thing is the shirt, and she was crying, then it’s obvious that the shirt was -the primary cause- of her crying. Come on now.”

        How is that obvious? I’ve no idea why she was crying and neither do you.

        She might have been crying about something that was less hurtful but more sad. Or something more frustrating than hurtful. Or something that happened earlier. Or a continuation of earlier sad things she’d hoped wouldn’t be part of proceedings. Or something unexpected. You don’t know.

        People cry for all sorts of reasons. There’s no reason for you to arbitrarily decide that Amy was crying for the one reason that would dubiously support your ‘point’.

        And here’s another idea. Amy mentions various other things that upset her. Perhaps individually these were not all that upsetting but in combination she found them very horrible. Perhaps sustained nastiness made her cry, but the single most hurtful thing occurred while she was already crying.

        So the question is whether you’re entirely ignorant of how people work or Lying for Wutisdis.

      • Wutisdis Says:

        Neither. You’re just engaging in Biblical-style re-interpretation, saying that people don’t mean what they mean.

        The words speak for themselves, but you don’t like what they say, so you re-interpret them to fit your line of thought.

  77. John H. Says:

    This whole thing seems like a serious case of “grow the fuck up”. I don’t care how insensitive that sounds. There comes a point in life where people need to get with the program and accept that there are people out there with opinions that will be different than theirs.

    • John H. Says:

      To continue: Crying about the opinions of others isn’t going to do a damn thing. If they are trying to force (through legislation or any other form of coercion) their views on you it’s one thing; if it’s a t-shirt you need to suck it up. But even in the case of them trying to force their views on you it’s better to act like an adult instead of a 4 year-old child.

  78. HuntingGoodwill Says:

    So what are some places where “normal” people talk, blog and discuss rationally?

    I mean, besides places like this blog, where the multi-dimensional nature of sub-layers in the discussion demands too much of that Vulcan 3D-chess thinking.

    • oolon Says:

      If you find one let me know – that did put me off Pharyngula and FtBs a bit as you are supposed to know what the ‘slimepit’ is and that a particular commenter likes to call people cupcake etc etc. Also the *war* between FtBs and ERV seems to have taken its toll as I’ve been accused of being someone who someone saw on some other blog making unpleasant comments or something… And they got all that from ‘oolon’, not exactly a unique handle. Now looking here the ‘slimepitters’ or I suppose now the ‘Slime-Thunderf00t misogynist collective’ seem to enjoy a not-particularly-rational-in-my-opinion hatred of all things FtBs and Skepchick. I really am not interested in wasting my time hating others for whatever reason. Unfortunately hanging out here and there I’ve picked up a worryingly large amount of information on the ongoing narrative between atheist-rational-sceptic-feminists who think harassment policies are a good idea and atheist-rational-sceptic-feminists who also think they are a good idea but don’t like how the other lot go on about it so much and complain when they say poop at the dinner table….

      Pass me a bag of ocelot spleens I think this is going to take some time to sort out. Splitters!

      • John C. Welch Says:

        Yeah. We should hold hands and kiss the FTB FC5’s ass for:

        Stalking Abbie
        Trying to get Abbie Fired
        Trying to get NatGeo to censor her
        Lying about how NatGeo had ALREADY censored her
        Lying about how NatGeo was GOING to censor her
        Falsely (and lamely) accusing me of a crime
        Modifying comments so that you can accuse them of saying something they didn’t say
        Banning someone silently, then demanding they reply
        Banning people for not hating ERV
        Being against gendered slurs, unless you use them to attack ERV

        Why EVER would people have real issues with THAT.

      • oolon Says:

        So John, unless you have a complaint that was legally actionable and you immediately reported it to the FBI then you are by definition a whining loser? Or at least that is what I’ve gleaned from reading TF’s missives recently… Didn’t someone say grow up and stop acting like a child? Let me check… Ahh yes above John H says it so well -> “grow the fuck up”

      • John C. Welch Says:

        None of those complaints are going to get attention from the cops. Laden’s accusations against me were hysterical and offensive both, and his jihad against Abbie and trying to get her fired made him even more of a laughingstock.

        However, your attempt at straw manning is well, as bad as all your other attempts to white knight FTB. I don’t care if Laden is banned from skeptic events. I’d rather eat glass than go to an event full of cliff claven wannabes with all the self awareness of a rock. The *handful* of people i’d want to talk to at one of those couldn’t make up for days of that shit. From what i’ve seen, they should stop acting like they’re that much smarter than the bigfoot people.

        I’m not demanding that anyone else handle this for me. If Laden wants to wear t-shirts that say “welch is evil and Abbie is a gender traitor”, I’m not going to post long, weeping comments about it, then change my story six times. I’ll point out that once again, Laden is proving, my point that he’s a malodorous shitcock with a terminally case of sandyvag.

        Tell me, because you seem so very intent on giving all of FTB the best rusty trombone ever, do they at least shower first, or do they make you walk around with constant browntongue too? I know those cheap bastards aren’t paying you, so I’m guessing they’re just letting you indulge a fetish or twelve.

      • oolon Says:

        tl;dr.. but… “The *handful* of people i’d want to talk to at one of those couldn’t make up for days of that shit”

        So back to my original parody, pass me the sparrow noses John and lets work out how to take down the Romans… I mean PZ! But what are we – the Judean Peoples Front or the Peoples Front of Judea, y’know it’s *really* important to get these details right.

      • John C. Welch Says:

        Sorry old boy, couldn’t hear you over the soound of FTB tea bagging you. Try again later when they’re done

  79. One Second To Change Your View Says:

    [...] love Thunderf00t‘s videos. Here’s one of his [...]

  80. AV Says:

    I think what we see is the clash between second wave feminism and the third wave. The second wave was about freedom to choose your life and brake free of gender roles. Women consider themself strong, able to take care of themself and able to compeet for their positions just as men. The third wave are instead victimizing women. Women are held back and forced in their life by an evil patriarchy (men as a group). They need special care by the society to compensate for this.
    Harriet is obviously a strong woman with alot of experience and she tells these young spoiled girls to grow some skin and take care of their life instead of whining how hard they feel life is “as a woman”.

  81. Ismenia Says:

    You may see a contradiction between saying that a place was safe for women to go to and thinking that a policy is needed but it’s really quite simple. Women get harrassed in all sorts of places. I have been hassled on trains, in shops, at events that are basically safe, in bars, walking down the street, in the workplace. If I wanted to avoid all sexual harrassment I would have to stay at home. In my experience harrassment is common at conventions because in that environment people talk to strangers more than they usually would, lots of alcohol is consumed and some people do hook up making others hopeful. The offical reaction to any incidents sets the tone for what is acceptable and gives victims a clear course of action because as is clear from all the furore since Rebecca Watson said “guys don’t do that.”

    • Wutisdis Says:

      True. How do you feel about the ability of Skepchicks to be rational about that sort of thing? I’ll link you these to show you why I don’t trust them:

      Look up- “Civility is in the Eye of the Beholder” in ArmchairSkeptic’s blog

      Also “A small voice says ‘Please stop’ while the crowd yells ‘Off with his head!'” in Skepticism and Ethics blog.

      You’re missing the context and the sort of people we’re dealing with. Amy did not do this sort of thing, but this is why we don’t trust Skepchicks at their word in anything.

      Especially when they say they’re offended about something.

  82. MinionJoe Says:

    As a heterosexual white male, I have long been the victim of radical feminism. I’ve been subject to false accusations of illegal activity (rape and sexual harassment) and threatened with castration many times. I’ve been dehumanized and portrayed in radical feminist literature as little more than a rutting, brain-damaged animal. And I am sick of it.

    Henceforth, whenever radical feminism claims victimization because of something I have not done, I shall respond in kind.

    “What is good for the goose…”

    • oolon Says:

      Mark Twain sums you up well -> “Don’t, like the cat, try to get more out an experience than there is in it. The cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will not sit upon a hot stove lid again. Nor upon a cold stove lid.”

      Probably need to make it clearer – as a sceptic I have to say your anecdotal evidence while strong is no where near good enough to come to a conclusion about all feminists. Half the population are women – lets say 1% call themselves feminists as I’m sure you think they are rare. So that is 35 million women… Lets say again 1% of those fit your definition of rad-fem… I’m pretty sure you have not met or interacted with anything like a representative sample in real life or online or in print or in your bizarre fantasies. Please at least try to keep an open mind until you have. And feel free to report back here in the 100 years it will take you.

      • MinionJoe Says:

        I believe you missed the qualifier “radical”. I’m not disparaging all feminists. In the past, I actually worked with local feminist groups to promote the ideals of equality. I’ve even testified with the group before state committees to retain people’s reproductive rights and sexual education in schools. And I would hope that feminists make up more than 1% of the world’s population.

        But all it takes is one “radical” feminist, a few whispered words, and suddenly you’re labelled a misogynistic rape-machine. One does not need to maintain “an open mind” when they have first-hand evidence of a specific demographic. But thanks for playing.

      • oolon Says:

        I believe you missed where I mentioned ‘rad-fem’ or is that too obscure a reference to ‘radical’ for you? Try re-reading it and appreciate how tiny a proportion of the rad-fems you have any sort of experience with – from which you condemn them all (Even if 1% of 1% that is 350K women – number is irrelevant other than its bloody big!). My proposition is you know very little about the thought processes of that large group of women. You claim to have been personally attacked and subject to a campaign of false accusation by *some* of these people which I assume you are right and they are “radical feminists”. From reading your reply I seriously doubt that given you sound like a paranoid nutter. All it takes is one of these evil things and they have the power to “whisper” and you are suddenly labelled a misogynistic rape-machine (Not sure about any one else reading your comment but I’m having difficulty picturing such a device).

        You may be an atheist but rational? Well I can lay some ‘first-hand’ evidence that you have problems there –
        “One does not need to maintain “an open mind” when they have first-hand evidence of a specific demographic”
        -> You plainly have no open mind, it closed like a steel trap when you were hurt by some *specific* women.
        -> “‘first-hand’ evidence of a specific demographic” eh? Well that is a fancy way of saying anecdotal! Look up how much credence the rational give anecdotal evidence – I’ll save you the time, it’s fuck all. Hardly that good for damning even the individuals you refer to given your state of mind.
        -> The “specific demographic” that you have determined rationally to be truly horrible is fair game for you to dehumanise, threaten and falsely accuse of crimes. (Remember “respond in kind”?)

        So with your anecdotal evidence in hand you have a free reign to hate? You know Mark Twain was referring to another “specific demographic” in that quote BTW and plenty of people used their anecdotal evidence to hate them. It is a good aphorism to take to heart – who needs bibles for moral lessons when you have Twain :-)

        • MinionJoe Says:

          LOL!

          TL;DR
          ;)

          • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

            You missed nothing of substance, even the the very little that was coherent was grossly USA biased.

            …you have any sort of experience with – from which you condemn them all (Even if 1% of 1% that is 350K women – number is irrelevant other than its bloody big!

            And yes: that was the most coherent portion.
            Like PZ, the anonymous TOolong appears have synchronised with PZ’s nugatory Menstrual Periods of sad sesquipedalian sophistry.

          • oolon Says:

            MinionJoe – I think you meant Too Long; Couldn’t Understand…

            Mike – that is an alliteration too far for you

  83. Leslie Says:

    I feel the bullshit Rebecca Watson (& those like her) spout is disgusting. They minimize what’s it’s REALLY like to be raped. For the record I do know what’s it’s like to have lived through the violent act of rape, I live through it on a daily basis, 34 years after the fact.

    • hannanibal Says:

      I’m sorry to hear that. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said.

    • bluharmony Says:

      Yes, I think it’s ludicrous that any rational male position is dismissed with “mansplaining,” “privilege” or similar. Are not female views — like mine — similarly biased? Theirs is a logically flawed position in every way, and the louder the Skepchicks shriek about it, the more obvious that becomes. As an aside, I’m sad Cristina Rad fell into this trap. I had a lot of respect for her before this. Not because her video on feminism was 100% correct (it wasn’t), but because she was clearly thinking on her own.

      Feminism of the sort advocated by Skepchicks/FTB is not fundamentally different from religion, nor is it any less serious of an issue. And it should not escape anyone’s notice that the high priests of this group are all male and are dismissing female views similar to mine as, and I quote, “stupid fluff.”

      And I wonder, why are out feelings, as women (or — more properly — as human beings) any less valuable, than, say, Amy Roth’s?

      • oolon Says:

        I a white male that reads FtBs, Skepchick and even ERV as well as other scepical blogs. I also have an instinctive dislike of terms like ‘mansplaining’, ‘privilege’ etc that I find hard to articulate.

        But reading Skepchick and FtBs I’ve not found a lot I disagree on in terms of feminism.
        1.They don’t like it when actions they perceive as objectifying them occur and they like to blog about it.
        –> Yeah well it is their blog, I may not agree totally but I cannot argue with someones ‘perception’ of a particular incident. I may not have perceived it that way but as mentioned in the first sentence I’m somewhat in a different position.
        2. They don’t like internet threats of violence especially when they are rape or other misogynist threats. Again they like to blog about it when they get these threats.
        –> It is really hard to argue they should STFU about threats like this. I’ve argued on blogs that feeding the trolls is a bad idea tho, probably insensitively. Again it is their blog and they can discuss what they like as can I disagree on said blog.

        So struggling to see the ‘logically flawed views in every way’ given the above seems to me to be the main topic of discussion. Or have I missed the Skepchick manifesto somewhere on the site?

      • Wutisdis Says:

        “1.They don’t like it when actions they perceive as objectifying them occur and they like to blog about it.
        –> Yeah well it is their blog, I may not agree totally but I cannot argue with someones ‘perception’ of a particular incident. I may not have perceived it that way but as mentioned in the first sentence I’m somewhat in a different position.”

        Except when they try to force you via codes to do as they wish and claim that their view is that of all women.

        Also, maybe you’ll agree with this articulation of why you hate those words:

        They’re charged words that do not correspond to anything in real life. The only thing I’d agree with when it comes to “male privilege” is that men wouldn’t understand a female perspective WITHOUT IT BEING EXPLAINED.

        However, the manner in they use it amounts to “You’re a man so your opinion is invalid”. Which is just pretty much sexist.

        “Mansplaining” is pretty much the same thing. “This is an explanation. From a man, so feel free to ignore and ridicule it.”

        The same for “chill girl” for who doesn’t agree with them. How the hell can these people call themselves skeptics?

      • oolon Says:

        hehe “Except when they try to force you via codes to do as they wish and claim that their view is that of all women.”

        I wondered why their messages had weird bits at the end like 0xMANB00BZ and 0xDAMENZSUCKZ now I know it is some weird feminist hex program trying to infiltrate my mind and make me hate myself! It all becomes clear now – I must put my tinfoil hat on and I’ll be safe.

        No I understand privilege as an on average effect that can apply to white males in our society. So on average a white male in most life situations will find themselves in a better social position than say a white woman or a black man etc. I cannot disagree with that as the statistics say so…. When I wince is when it is misused by some to dismiss people they don’t like. I also wince a bit when it is used correctly as I know people like you will be reading and not be able to grasp the subtle meaning of the term and take it as a personal attack on you. Cos its all about you, right? And you know some bloke who was disadvantaged by a false rape accusation or some woman was promoted ahead of you and you totally deserved the job … blah… The ‘average’ whooses over your head like so many missed brain cells.

        You know you really didn’t seem as much fun as Strakh at first but the more you say the nearer to the Mangina! shrieking one you get.

      • Wutisdis Says:

        You didn’t even make a SINGLE point against what I said. Not. One. In fact, you agreed that these words are used to dismiss people they don’t like.

        However you still spewed a whole bunch of invective and assumptions. At this point you’re just trolling and being insulting.

        Therefore this conversation is over. Go back to your room and be quiet, the adults are talking.

      • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

        They said they treated me that way because I was posting at Abbies, and thus I was guilty of name-calling by association, and also, because I strongly dislike Rebecca Watson. They also deleted most of my comments that were, at least in my opinion, rational, against rape threats, etc., and left the ones where I was responding — somewhat clumsily and defensively — to now-deleted and, in my perception, vicious attacks/lies. Legally, that’s called “representation in a false light.” As to why they did this? I have no idea, but I have my suspicions. I think it comes down to this; people in power like to stay in power, and that’s not so much a fault as a feature of human nature. I sincerely believe most people in this mess they’re doing what is best for everyone. But I think, though I can never be certain, that a few are taking advantage.

        Also, it’s much easier to fight the fringe than those who try to make reasoned arguments. Mainstream personalities are more dangerous to the collective narrative, and of course, feminism (generally speaking) has many of those, though the Skepchicks have mainly focused on one, which they often change when it suits them. Again, that’s my perception, not fact.

        And so, people like PZ dismiss me as “brainless fluff” or “mentally ill” without ever even addressing any of the substance. It’s much easier to do (and also, sexist, much as the word “chick” is sexist).

        PZ is right to a degree; I have serious problems with severe chronic depression, not that it was his right to disclose this information or even allude to it, since I didn’t make it public until right now. But that condition doesn’t invalidate my arguments in any way.

    • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

      I want to add to what Leslie said. For those of us who have gone through traumatic encounters in our lives, complaints about coffee invites and t-shirts seriously trivialize our experiences. They make the complaints of true rape victims less believable. Moreover, the fact that we’re blocked from commenting on sites such as Skepchick and B&W makes it seem like there’s uniformity of female opinion when clearly there isn’t. Harassment policies at conferences are a ridiculous iconcept; we merely need to be considerate of others’ feelings and obey the law. Doing so is enough. Anything more places unnecessary liability on conference organizers, and leads to false promises of security, which is something no one can ever guarantee. Anti-harassment policies in the employment/education context exist for a completely different reason: they exist to prevent people from exploiting their positions of power. They exist to prevent coercion. At social conferences such as the ones we’re discussing, we are presumably equals, and there’s no legal precedent for harassment liability in this context. Besides, the TAM scenario shows that anything an organizer tries to do to satisfy these fauxminists is doomed to fail (if they’re out to you, like they’ve been out to get DJ). TAM has had anti-harassment policies for two years in a row, and has received nothing but complaints about them. In any case, the proper function of a harassment policy for conference organizers is to disclaim liability for the inappropriate of others, not to assume it.

      Further, they are entitled to their *perception* of objectification and other imaginary threats, but they are not entitled to publicly humiliate others, especially from the speakers platform and in front of an audience (Like Watson did to McGraw and Kirby) for disagreeing about whether such events constitute objectification, when objectively, they don’t. In other words, they’re entitled to their feelings, but they’re not entitled to impose them on others.

      We are adults living in an unsafe world. Generally speaking, men are in much higher danger of violence against them than women. It is extremely, disgustingly, disturbingly insulting to presume that women can’t cope with a conference environment without special rules of protection being put into place. What are we, five!?

      • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

        Sorry for the omitted words/typos. Hopefully you can understand what I wrote regardless.

      • hannanibal Says:

        Well said!

      • oolon Says:

        Bizarre you don’t see the contradiction in your own statement. You want to impose your view on the world that women are strong and do not need harassment policies as you’d feel safe regardless while complaining that the Skepchicks want to impose their view on the world and implement harassment polices because they want them and don’t feel safe without them.

        It comes down to who’s view of the world is correct?

        No, it comes down to respecting different views of the world and accepting what is right for you is not necessarily right for everyone. You are halfway there as you accept their view is not right for you…

      • hannanibal Says:

        The skepchicks are the ones imposing *extra* policies.. Saying these *extra* policies are not needed is not an imposition.
        Why should everyone be affected by their neuroses and paranoia? Surely they should accept what is right for them is not necessarily right for everyone?

      • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

        Oolon: I don’t really care if there are anti-harassment policies; in fact, I’ve generally been supportive of them. If it makes some people more comfortable, then so be it. I’m just saying that I doubt that such policies will come without costs to the organizers or how women are viewed generally. Moreover, I doubt they will do any good. There’s a difference between “feeling safe” and “being safe,” and from a real-world perspective, these conferences are some of the safest places on earth. There’s more danger of rape while being in ones own home, and we’re not enacting sexual harassment policies there, are we? I just don’t want to be seen as one of the people who thinks these policies are either 1) necessary or 2) effective. And I would also like to point out that “legal harassment” is subjective, but it can’t be stretched to cover events such as the elevator incident, the singles card, or the t-shirt. Those are inherently non-harassing events.

      • oolon Says:

        Cheers Maria – that is a very clear statement of your position and I feel it is totally valid as there are plenty of ‘doubts’ in there and you qualify harassment as the legal term.

        Unfortunately that leaves me back at my parody above which got John Welch quite tetchy (I’ve left him hanging after servicing PZ) –> This schism is…
        “…the ongoing narrative between atheist-rational-sceptic-feminists who think harassment policies are a good idea and atheist-rational-sceptic-feminists who also think they are a good idea but don’t like how the other lot go on about it so much and complain when they say poop at the dinner table….”

        Is such a minor disagreement on tone really worth it? Some here seem to think they are fighting the atheist crusade against the skepchick moors – you summed it up nicely above as a little difference of opinion.

      • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

        It should have been just a minor difference of opinion. But my views (initially I was only saying that *I* don’t need men to cross the street for me because I’d feel safer with a decent guy on my side of the road; in other words, I want protection from real rather than imaginary threats) were controversial enough to earn full-on shunning, name-calling, and attack. I also disagreed with Watson’s definition of objectification — or to be more exact, her ability to know what someone else was thinking — and her consequent treatment of McGraw. That was enough for shunning, and I now proudly appear on Pharyngula’s MOST WANTED CRIMINALS list. I’m not banned, though, because PZ doesn’t ban women. I’ve also had my employment threatened, been called sexist slurs like “bitch” and “whore,” and had my home address posted on one of the FTB boards. Needless to say, I stopped believing that those who claim to care about women give a damn about women in reality, although eventually, due to Brayton’s kindness and persuasion, the truly harmful posts were removed.

      • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

        oolon Says:
        July 28, 2012 at 2:35 pm
        Bizarre you don’t see the contradiction in your own statement. You want to impose your view on the world that women are strong and do not need harassment policies as you’d feel safe regardless while complaining that the Skepchicks want to impose their view on the world and implement harassment polices because they want them and don’t feel safe without them.

        As opposed to your view that they are fragile victims that need your knightly heroism to protect them. If I had a pussy, I would be even more disgusted than I already am.

      • oolon Says:

        Maria I’ve criticised them for being too nasty and engaging in a pointless war with ERV or ‘slimepitters’.. Seems to have made a lot of the regulars trigger happy from my perspective – so maybe you were a casualty of an over-reaction – I don’t know. Thing is I got shot down for being a tone/concern troll when I made that argument and they have a point – Pharyngula is meant to be rude and crude – it is how they like it and ideally don’t take it personally.

        I have to say though your current reasonableness does seem to contrast with your original post that looks much like a nutty MRA call to arms. If you find the daft MRAs icky then why pander to them?

        Oh and @Towelie, I’m a PZ shill apparently so I think the correct response is porcupine… arse… shove it.. or something.. Oh and assume its a dead one.

      • Bluharmony Says:

        I have nothing to do with the MRAs, and I vote with the feminists on every issue that I can think of. Nor do I think that 3rd wave feminism is entirely pointless, although I do think there’s a lot of backtracking and contradiction involved. I’m both a rape survivor and I’ve worked with rape victims during trials. I’ve lived in a communist country as a Jew, where the oppression was real (we escaped). Also, I openly dislike Rebecca Watson for both personal and public reasons.

        What more can I say? If people like Paula, Hariett, Abbie, Alison, Linda, and Miranda are the enemy, then I’m happy to stand with them. Also, I will never forget being called an attention whore (and then, patronizingly, “honey” ) on Benson’s board when talking about my rape — because apparently it’s a joke compared to the serious trauma of being asked to coffee. Then Myers called me mentally ill for expressing my opinions, a historically sexist means of getting rid of a woman with opposing views. All of this doesn’t leave me with much hope for the movement because we’re now engaged in disputes that feminists haven’t been able to resolve for 30+ years.

        That said, Oolon, you make a lot of sense to me. Peace.

      • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

        Blu. I share your revulsion at the thoughtless self-serving hypocrisy that has been relentlessly aimed at you by psychopathic ideologues.
        It is beneath contempt.

      • oolon Says:

        Maria, I absolutely agree, Harriet is an inspiration (Even though I didn’t agree with the t-shirt), PZ wrote a piece about how he wanted to grow up to be like Paula (And we know what he thinks now), I think Abbie’s videos of her standing up to creationists and having such a passion for ERVs makes her a role model (Do I need to mention her status now!). They are not the enemy, you may agree or disagree with *some* of the things they say and do but unless you dehumanise someone completely then it is hard to ignore the good. I’ll argue that on Pharyngula and argue the opposite here, not just to be a pain in the ass. I think I’ll miss out on some cool stuff if I close my mind to one side of the argument regardless of how badly it is framed (imo!).

        So I was confused as you seem to be totally sincere and obviously know a lot more about feminism that I ever will. So why did ‘the others’ treat you so badly and take no notice of you now? If you have a good point to make about feminism I think you are unfortunately drowned out by a chorus of hate and hyperbole… Michael K made it easy for me, “psychopathic ideologues” says it all. When you’ve been hurt by those being dehumanised it makes it so much easier to agree.

        Anyway I’ll look out for you on FtBs and have a porcupine ready in case of any disagreements ;-)

      • John C. Welch Says:

        Oolon, the only parody here is yourself. Every other post is a defense of PeeZus and his gang, then when you seem to see an advantage to slagging them, you do so. PeeZus sucks, FTB is awesome, etc.

        Seems the only point of view you have is the one that lets you kiss up to whomever you think will do you the most good.

      • oolon Says:

        John I have utterly failed to get my point across to you… I don’t have to toe the FtB/Skepchick party line and like or love everything they say and do any more than I have to toe your line and hate everything they say and do. Liking some aspects of FtB/Skepchicks and disliking some is not the admission of failure you seem to think it is. I just refuse to take sides and in that I’m maybe as irrational as you.

        Anyway I thought your unique cognitive synaesthesia meant you could not hear me over the sound of sexual fantasy gagging away in your fevered imagination?

      • John C. Welch Says:

        Oolon, you’re just a shitty writer playing both sides, or trying too. Funny how your reaction to anyone obviously male and not kissing FTB ass is so different from your reaction to anyone obviously female and/or down with the FTB/Watson party line.

        But then, assuming women need protection from the big mean world, because they can’t handle it on their own is about par for the course with your lot.

      • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

        Oh Mr. Welch, Be gentle with Oolon.
        He/She is a tender flower, who is neither brave enough, nor adult enough, to use his own name.
        He must hide behind a lame pseudonym, stolen from a dead author of fiction as a subsitute for PZ Lyars’ skirts, now that has flounced his frilly lace crinoline undergarments.
        Unlike his colleagues’ criminal publication of bluharmony’s identity, please let him remain forever cossetted behind his security blanket of anonymity.

        “But then, assuming women need protection from the big mean world, because they can’t handle it on their own is about par for the course with your lot.”

        Ah! But are you such a dreadful cad as to not spot that it is Oolon who needs protection?
        His protestations are little more than terrified projection.
        Be gentile with him.

      • John C. Welch Says:

        Pfft. Oolon tried the whole “insinuate you’re not down with skepchicks because you know they wouldn’t sleep with you” schtick.

      • oolon Says:

        Come on John and Mike grow some balls! You know you want to say ‘White Knighting’ but somewhere in what is left of your rational mind you know what a ridiculous concept that is.

        As you point out yourself ‘Oolon’ is an anonymous pseudonym and I do not think of you as out, loud and proud just because you have real ‘names’. That your names link to some half-arsed blog does not tell me anything about your gender or identity – but does tell me about your web-development skills. That John C Welch’s second post here links to said half-arsed blog but not *any* of his other posts seems a desperate attempt to get one more unique visitor on his monthly visitor report, and I fell for it :-D

        • Michael Kingsford Gray Says:

          Look!
          A string of truly puerile sexist ad hominims as the only response from a craven cryptic coward who advises us to ‘grow some balls’!!
          The irony is palpable as well as laughable.

          • oolon Says:

            Err string of sexist insults I think not but like wamba and yourself I’m not adverse to a bit of denigration by applying female characteristics to my foes. Probably especially sexist given I don’t know what your gender is so I apologise.

            Anyway I don’t need to waste my time taking the piss, you have done more than I could have hoped for. For yes we are in the presence of two celebrities, leaders of the community no less! I did not realise when you were banging on about names and pseudonyms that it was a complicated attempt to say ‘Don’t you know who I am!’. In my puerile attempts at taking the mickey I’ve accused you of wasting your time in vitriol and nuttery in comment threads and why don’t you create your own FtBs that is ‘on message’. Well wondering why Mike and John were so proud of their openness I googled them and the abomination that is phawrongula popped up in the results. I don’t like internet’isms but you really made me LOL. That has got to go down in history as one of the best examples of SWIOTI

            http://xkcd.com/386/

            Yes rather than write your own content or create your own community of like minded feminists/MRAs – you choose to create something that is solely devoted to picking holes in other peoples ideas. Looking for any error or flaw and methodically documenting it to prove them *wrong* – even the name of the wiki says it all!

            So sorry I did not know I was in the presence of two such grand anti-Peezus activists and was so out of my depth. I really hope you two are in an internet disguise and are not two retired/middle aged geezers wasting your final years on such a daft project. I choose to think you are two spotty teenagers in your mums basement like VenomFangX wasting time on idiocy but at least with the hope you’ll grow up some day and do something useful.

        • Wamba Says:

          Ladies, please, stop fighting and control your orgasms.
          It’s unseemly for such dames as you to contest each other so.

  84. brainfromarous Says:

    Something I have ever found useful in dealing with this sort of thing: Keep your eyes open for heresimachs.

    If someone’s first response to challenges or criticism is to attack your personally, consign you to some Designated Enemy category or instantly deploy some PC armchair-psychobabble about “isms” and “phobias,” chances are you are dealing with a heresimach.

    Huh?

    A heresimach. A witch-hunter. Someone for whom politics operates as an ersatz religious crusade.

    See, it’s one thing for people to think they’re right – hard to avoid, actually – but quite another to hold themselves as the very avatars of morality and rationality. Heresimachs cannot ‘agree to disagree’ because they dare not admit the possibility of honest, ethical or sincere heterodoxy.

    Heresimachs respond to dissent thus:

    “You are not merely wrong in your thoughts; there is something wrong with YOU. You are personally corrupt – crazy, wicked or up to something. Otherwise how could you oppose me? You might not even know how corrupt you are… but I do.”

    Heresimachs are found to the Left and Right. Some are single-issue partisans and others more systematic as a result of adherence to some platform or formalized ideology like Marxism or Objectivism.

    The thing to look for is behavior. While they may not have the classical Authoritarian Personality profile, they certainly show the plumage: Binary thinking, intolerance of ambiguity, vilifying and pathologizing dissent, With Us/Against Us and so on.

    Another giveaway is that even when they deign to discuss something — they don’t. They sermonize. In response to anything you might say or ask, the heresimach simply recites prepared catechism as self-evident truth.

  85. brainfromarous Says:

    Since someone mentioned Richard Carrier, I thought I’d link to his thoughts on harassment, sexism, conduct rules and like at Skeptical events.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1679

    Therein, he comments:

    “And they adopt the ideal clarification all atheist and skeptical events should incorporate into their policies:

    [Critical examination of beliefs, including critical commentary on another person’s views, does not, by itself, constitute hostile conduct or harassment.]”

    Just so. Any Skeptical or Freethought-ish group purporting to have “anti-harassment” policies in place should be immediately questioned on that.

    If they don’t have such clarifying language – or worse, actively oppose it – it’s damned likely that their notion of “harassment” goes WELL beyond any sober educational, workplace or governmental legal standard. Beware. :)

  86. imbrocata Says:

    Who am I, right? Nobody really. I am a skeptic. An Atheist, sure. I have opinions and I like talking shop – I really do. But having watched all this drama unfold over what? The past year? – I’m much less likely to attend any kind of skeptically-leaning event than I otherwise would be.
    Cheers.

    • oolon Says:

      Hey read this – http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1567
      ” It’s true that talking about it makes it seem like it’s happening a lot more than it is–but this is a cognitive error in the hearer, not the speaker.”
      So a nice sceptical reason to not trust your own senses – you have been reading and following the drama therefore you are likely to be subject to this cognitive error. Go to a sceptic event and have a bloody good time and don’t worry about it, two-penneth of another sceptical nobody….

      • imbrocata Says:

        Thanks Oolon – I think you’re right, here. While I’m still frustrated with this specific aspect of some of the meetings, there are plenty of other people and issues I can still involve myself with to have a good time. Appreciate the reminder!

        • Jazen Valencia Says:

          SIgning a no sex agreement as a speaker at conferences? What? Honestly, do feminist really need this level of protection/supervision to feel safe? Are they that hated, maligned, objectified, sexualized etc? I very much doubt that. It seems to me that there are a few feminist stirring up controversy to get attention, and ad revenue for their sites, and speaking engagements. I for one am not going to any conferences with PZ or the skepchicks till they apologize for trying to hijack the skeptic movement with radical feminism. nuff said

    • Quine Says:

      I know how you feel, imbrocata. I gave TAM a pass, no regrets.

      • imbrocata Says:

        Thanks Quine.. perhaps it’s just too bad that this issue is having this effect. Then again, maybe Oolon is right and we can just keep ourselves aloof of all the chest thumping and enjoy ourselves anyway, a la carte!

  87. Moriarty Says:

    If the Skepchick Vagina Taliban really want a safe convention enviroment then they should arrange their own, and make it women only.

    They would probably have to ban lesbians from attending just to be safe, don’t want any unwanted advances made after all.

    • Truth Says:

      I really hope they start gender segregated conferences; not just in Atheist conventions but also in tech conferences (cough-dongle-cough). These fickle feminists are a disgrace, not just to women but to people in general.

  88. Mike Says:

    1) What gives Rebecca Watson the right to determine under what conditions another person may ask her out for coffee?

    2) Is Amy really so emotionally fragile and helpless that a simple t-shirt can make her cry? What a dreadful advertisement for “feminism”: “We’re strong, confident women…unless you wear a t-shirt we don’t like- then we’ll cry and run away!”

    • oolon Says:

      Nice try Mike, you heard about Pappa trolling PZ and promoting his atheist discussion site and thought you’d give it a go eh?

      Need to ratchet up the stupidity a notch to get noticed I think – you are drowned out here.

      • Badger3k Says:

        Nice try, but repeating lies doesn’t make them so. Pappa wrote a tasteless joke, someone trawling the web for something to be offended by finds it, then PZ goes on a rampage, along with his squad of professional trolls. PZ makes money off blog hits. The forum, which isn’t Pappa’s, doesn’t. A handful of new members, who actually discuss things (with rude, bad jokes too) compared to a man who gets paid for blog hits. Do the math.

        Why not go there and read the many threads on the issue? Why not go and see where PZ, who was a member, goes and doesn’t discuss anything, but preaches and flounces out?

        in reply to Mike – Watson is within her rights to determine what she wants to happen to her, so she is perfectly ok being offended by being asked out. She has no right demanding that of others, but to me that’s not what her video did. I never took it that way.

        As for Amy, yeah, she sets feminism back a ways. But professional victimhood seems to be part of this new brand of feminism. Hall is part of the second wave, where being strong and capable were seen as positive things. It’s no wonder she doesn’t want to be associated with a group that doesn’t respect those things.

      • brainfromarous@yahoo.com Says:

        “But professional victimhood seems to be part of this new brand of feminism. Hall is part of the second wave, where being strong and capable were seen as positive things. (B3K)”

        Bingo. Which goes a long way towards explaining why it’s so difficult to reasonably discuss these issues with such “feminists…” Everything that happens to them is part of some Oppressor/Victim psychodrama and all about how they do or don’t “feel” this or that.

      • oolon Says:

        Badger3k – Pappa’s commenters deemed him trolling PZ, I was just repeating the joke. I also thought Mike was too thick to waste a serious reply on but since you are taking him seriously I’ll join in.

        We are on the same page in regard to ‘elevatorgate’, I wonder if Mike actually saw the video where she harped on about how horrible it all was for all of one and a bit minutes out of 8? 4:30 if interested…

        -> I hadn’t seen it and was amazed that this statement managed to create any controversy. But of course that is all her fault ;-)

        But…

        “As for Amy, yeah, she sets feminism back a ways”

        Really…? You didn’t really mean that did you? One woman getting upset sets feminism back at all, let alone a ways? The nut-case MRAs on here accusing me of white knighting have it all wrong – it’s not the ladies who are all weak and need my protection it is the incredibly fragile feminist ideology and movement that I should be protecting.Think of the action I’d get then if only I could protect it! Maybe I need to join in damning the Skepchicks and the strong feminists will welcome me with open arms, nudge nudge wink wink.

  89. gullibleskeptic Says:

    We need to define harassment , assault and mere annoyance. A lot of people will annoy you simply because you go by different standards of behaviour and etiquette. Even the people I like and care about annoy me.

    Harassment is aggressive pressure or intimidation. This happens to men all the time thought more for status than sex.

    • gullibleskeptic Says:

      assault is some sort of physical attack that could but doesn’t have to cause any actual harm.

      If we try to stifle every possible annoyance we’ll never get anything done.

      I’ve experienced harassment , it’s very stressful and at times scary the consequences of standing up for yourself could be physical violence or public humiliation. But you must get in your haranguers face so you don’t take out your anger and frustration on a woman’s shirt.

  90. Muzer Says:

    Y’know, the only other way any of this can make sense (aside from most of these people being morons) is if they conspired together to create one massive long-term trolling… which would probably class them as morons anyway, so I suppose that’s not an alternative. It would make a lot more sense, though ;)

  91. scordova Says:

    I think Amy’s feelings were hurt, not because of what was said on the T-shirt, but who said it. Someone of very high rank in the skeptic community.

    For sure I think the Skepchicks don’t serve the skeptic community well, but I think it would be charitable to say that it wasn’t the T-shirt itself that hurt Amy’s feelings, but the fact that someone of Harriet Hall’s rank wearing that T-shirt. This is signalling to Amy that high ranking skeptic women are now rejecting the skepchicks.

    The skepchicks might have been delighted to have a feud with someone like Dawkins (rich, powerful, white guy patriarch), but for the skepchicks to be put down by an accomplished woman. OUCH!

    Amy for sure is making a confused argument. She complains that Harriet is inspiring gender/and color blindness. Perhaps that was a dyslexic moment. It would have made sense if Amy said “gender and color BIAS”. She also calls this dehumanizing. Amy is using the wrong words. The real issue seems to be, “we skeptics have been put down and ridiculed by one of the most senior skeptic women.” Perhaps the skepchicks deserve to be put down. Amy’s hurt feelings are genuine, imho, but the reasons she put forward for her hurt feelings: “dehumanization”, “gender/color blindness” do not reflect the true reasons. The real reasons is that she and her sisters have been humiliated.

    So, I think ThunderF00T rocks, but he’s overstating the case a wee bit by saying this is all about a T-shirt and victimization. Its more about the skepchicks being ridiculed by a high ranking skeptic woman who is greatly respected. The cries of victimization are propagandistic spin of a bad situation. Rather than Amy admitting that a senior Skeptic woman has basically called the skepchicks a bunch of loons, she would prefer to spin it as “dehumanization”.

    There’s an old saying, “it’s not what is said that matter, but who says it.” The skepchicks dare not fight Harriet like they would Richard Dawkins.

    So I’ve criticized Amy, but there is a slight issue with Harriet Hall. Harriet Hall is listed as being born in 1945, which place her around the age of 67. Relatviely speaking, her being a senior citizen would make it less likely for Harriet to be a target for sexual advances than someone of younger age. It’s not politically correct to say so, but I’m surprised no one in the skeptic community wants to tell it like it is. So of course Harriet can say, “I feel safe and welcome at TAM”. I would suspect, even Harriet were in a night club full of guys wanting some action, she would probably be safe from sexual advances, at least more safe than Amy Roth.

    • rjmx Says:

      scordova: “I think Amy’s feelings were hurt, not because of what was said on the T-shirt, but who said it. Someone of very high rank in the skeptic community.”

      I’m sure that’s what most of it was about. I think Amy was so gobsmacked at seeing Harriet wearing the T-shirt that she got completely discombobulated. This explains the “gender/colour blind” stuff: she went right back to Womens Studies 101 and dumped everything she’d learned there, whether it was relevant or not. Comes the next day and she’s still trying to understand her reaction, fails dismally, and puts out the vague/lame “that wasn’t it at all” post.

      She probably still doesn’t understand it all, but she’s still fiercely defending her right to not understand it.

      • scordova Says:

        “whether it was relevant or not. Comes the next day and she’s still trying to understand her reaction, fails dismally, and puts out the vague/lame “that wasn’t it at all” post.

        She probably still doesn’t understand it all, but she’s still fiercely defending her right to not understand it.”

        Very well said!

        Amy wasn’t seeing a T-shirt that dehumanized women, she saw a T-shirt that humiliated her by calling her and her skepchick sisters out as loons.

        PZ Myers said:

        ” I now know of one woman who was so harassed she had to leave the meeting early. ”

        Er, perhaps a more accurate characterization would have been:

        “I know of one woman who was so humiliated after being called out for her looniness by an accomplished Sketpic woman (Harriet Hall) that she (Amy Roth) had to leave the meeting early and take an early flight out of town in disgrace.”

      • rjmx Says:

        I didn’t know PZ had said that, but then I gave up reading Pharyngula a year ago when this all started. I do have to say that I’m not in the least surprised to see it though.

        I think we need to remember that these people are seriously under the impression that they’re speaking for *all* women. When they’re faced with evidence that this isn’t quite true, unpredictable things happen. Cognitive dissonance will only carry you so far.

    • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

      Except as an army officer, she can tell the difference between sexual harassment and coffee invites. But if you really want to go there (and I wish you hadn’t), what’s Benson’s excuse for her loony behavior, since her victimhood and vitriol is unparalleled?

      • stealthbadger Says:

        I dunno, I’ve met some officers who were socially clueless (unless you were joking with that). I still find Amy’s claim very plausible that her reaction to the t-shirt was the product of the cumulative suck of the day.

        Ophelia Benson, though? I got nothin’. I won’t even pretend to understand what’s going on there.

      • rjmx Says:

        @bluharmony:
        “what’s Benson’s excuse for her loony behavior … ?”

        You said it right there. Loony.

      • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

        What I meant to say is that there is no place where sexual harassment is more prominent in the army. Especially in Hariett’s days, but even now, more than anywhere else. I can’t believe PZ said Roth was harassed by a t-shirt and an anti-harassment policy. Because that is, indeed, what he said.

      • John C. Welch Says:

        Minor point: Air Force, not Army.

      • Maria Maltseva (@bluharmony) Says:

        Thanks for the correction. Regardless, she’s impressive as hell, and every time a woman stands up for autonomy, education, independence, and competence, that’s a win in my book. I admire her and look up to her. I think part of the problem is that some of the first women in the skeptic/atheist movement presented themselves as “booth babes” (aka the Skepchicks), and now they want to be leaders, but that’s not how the world works. As for Ophelia, it’s probably just sour grapes. Her personality makes her unattractive. And it’s absolutely bizarre and perverse that PZ is putting down real feminists, real strong women with real accomplishments in the name of — yep, you guessed it — feminism.

      • The Devil's Towelboy Says:

        As for Ophelia, it’s probably just sour grapes. Her personality makes her unattractive.

        Hold the grapes. Keep the sour. Add bitter, resentful and self-loathing. You have to wonder how a mind like Orwellia’s got deformed into such a spitting, snarling and hateful shrew.

    • brainfromarous@yahoo.com Says:

      Scordova,

      Good call on the extra sting of the rebuke coming from “their side” – a well-known, respected woman.

      Harriett Hall’s age may well render her hors de combat in terms on unwelcome attention from young men on the make. That’s a fair point.

      OTOH, being born in ’45 also means she grew up in a time and culture of widespread, socially-sanctioned and legal harassment and sexist discrimination… the likes of which would make Amy Roth’s head explode.

    • AV Says:

      Scordova, as for your argument that Harriet probably won’t be in as big risk for sexual harassement cause her age: Old people do also hit on each other, find new partners and have sex.

      No, the difference is that Harriet know how to say No (or yes if she wants to) and go on. She probably has more life experience than those “twenty-something” young girls combined. And she doesn’t show her personal issues in public to get comfort.

      Whithout knowing any of them, I’m pretty sure if a boy destroied Harriets sand castle she destroied his, instead of calling for mommy. A difference in personality. I don’t think either of Rebecca or Amy would last more than a week in the air force.

      • brainfromarous Says:

        “I don’t think either of Rebecca or Amy would last more than a week in the air force.” (AV)

        I wonder how they function in the regular world if all it takes is a snarky ‘blog post (Watson) or t-shirt (Roth) to knock them so badly off kilter.

  92. Jeff G Says:

    I believe Harriet Hall is a more mature and a more experience women. Someone whose career was spent trailblazing and breaking down barriers in the Air Force. No doubt Ms Hall is, shall we say, “Battle Harden”. She’s probably (not knowing her, who can say?), learned a bit about boys being boys. Especially after hours with adult beverages. I can’t say I understand Amy’s reaction. Perhaps Amy still has a level of idealism that perhaps has yet to be tempered with a lot of real-world experience. Perhaps she expects all women in the skeptical movement to simply ‘fall in line’. This of course is the antithesis of people in the skeptical movement and she and Ms Watson should know better.

    I applaud Ms Hall for her courage. As a vet of the armed forces it’s no surprise to me that Ms Hall is outspoken, a leader not a follower, and does not adhere to being politically correct. And I’ll bet she can handle herself in about any situation. Skills, just to name a few, a few more of the skepchicks would do well to learn.

    • Strakh Says:

      Thank you.
      I really do get tired of these sloppy, never been in enough shape to even come close to being out of it slobs that lie around and bitch and whine and cry over how hard it is to do anything in this “horrible rape culture.”
      I’ve read Dr. Hall’s work for years and always found it to be exemplary. Ashamed to realize that she is such an accomplished fellow Veteran as well as MD.
      You are right that she is obviously a leader, and that means she is anathema not only to Crying Amy but to any group of people who are nothing but unaccomplished parasites living off the teat of undeserved sympathy for imagined suffering.
      Too bad real equality has not yet been reached and Crying Any hasn’t gotten her candy ass drafted. I’d love to see her try out her crying act in the military. The brig is a cold and lonely place, but it’s the best for parasites to learn to cope with the big, bad world.

  93. Language Is Courage Says:

    You’re getting a little bit creepy, Thunderf00t. Let it go.

  94. An Onymous Says:

    >Implying that WBC isn’t allowed to do what it likes because the people in control of this country are Christians themselves, to various degrees of bible-thumping-hood.

  95. brainfromarous Says:

    Regarding PZ Myer’s remarks:

    “Although it is offset by the fact that I now know of one woman who was so harassed she had to leave the meeting early. Let’s hope some of the organizers were actually listening to Gay, and that they’ll do better next year. (PZM)”

    It is instructive that he uncritically echoes Roth’s description of the t-shirt incident as “harassment:”

    Given that the “harassment” in question was a prominent Skeptical woman wearing a humanist t-shirt, what exactly would “do better next year” entail?

    A dress code? A list of pre-approved slogans, catchphrases and memes acceptable for t-shirt display? Enforcing a free-floating, opportunistic standard that expands “harassment” to include IDEAS as well as conduct, so that “harassment” becomes whatever the accuser says it is?

    When all this recent talk about anti-harassment “policies” and whatnot began, people expressing concern about heavy-handed enforcement or partisan politics therein were dismissed as crackpot MRA alarmists.

    Only now we have PZ Myers hoping next’s year conference staffers will “do better,” even though that would entail them telling Hall to cease displaying a humanist idea because the mere sight of it offends someone.

    Seems those crackpots weren’t so cracked after all.

    • bluharmony@gmail.com Says:

      This.

      Especially after all the harassment, effort and expense DJ went through to make sure that TAM not only appeared safe, but actually was as safe as humanly possible. Shame on PZ Myers, Watson, and their ilk. And kudos to Harriet Hall for representing professional women rather than professional victims.

  96. secular Steve Says:

    PeeWee Myers is a lesbian. Wait, what? PZ Myers should keep his hormones under control and stop abusing anyone who has a differing view to his precious precious rape threat victim Rebecca Watson. Grow a pair PZ. Seems yours are neatly stuffed deep inside Rebecca’s tampon purse.

    • Mcguffin Says:

      Thanks for this. I sometimes wonder if sexism and delusion is really as delusional and desperate as it seems, but thankfully something like this trots along gladly, naively, and promptly to restore my disappointment.

  97. Skepchick go approval seeking from ‘White Male Privilege’ « Thunderf00t Says:

    [...] Thunderf00t Science and Education FTW! « Skepchick: Embrace Victim-hood! [...]

  98. secular Steve Says:

    Elevator Guy comes out http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=M9DWGcFEw2s&sns=tw via @youtube could this be the man himself?

  99. secular Steve Says:

    Elevator Guy comes out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9DWGcFEw2s&sns=tw via @youtube

  100. secular Steve Says:

    Let’s hope elevator guy’s video doesn’t get DMCA’d for the sake of silencing the truth.

  101. Fabricio Says:

    So… Godwin much, Becky?

  102. On the Failure of Atheist Organizations and Choosing Life! « Thunderf00t Says:

    [...] of jokers, and then to have ‘leaders’ of the community take an accommodationist stance to such professional victim-hood really doesn’t inspire one with much faith that these are dynamic organization capable of [...]

  103. london clubs Says:

    Hi there, just wanted to mention, I liked this blog post.
    It was helpful. Keep on posting!

  104. http://tinyurl.com/seve-8153948515 Says:

    This specific blog, “Skepchick: Embrace Victim-hood!
    Thunderf00t” demonstrates that you fully understand exactly
    what you are talking about! I really 100 % approve. Thank you ,Bebe

  105. urlspion.dk Says:

    Hey there, You have done an excellent job. I will definitely digg it
    and personally recommend to my friends. I’m sure they will be benefited from this site.

  106. Reason Says:

    A friend described them as having “problems of the well-fed”. Perfect.

    Don’t ever make the mistake of calling them feminists; they’re narcissistic, overprivileged misandrists.

  107. Truth Says:

    Feminism has no place in the atheist community, or even in today’s western society for that matter. Feminism today is not about women’s rights or equality; it has become an ideology driven by greed and hate. They employ a lot of drama, fake statistics, fake allegations and accusations. They also furiously attack science (see Richard Dawkins’ criticism of feminist academic fraud). They also attack men for no reason. I recently saw an article by a woman at a group called A Voice For Men who clearly points out how feminists have lost their way.

  108. the Acne Killer Says:

    Afterwards you can wash your face and never use toothpaste
    to damaged skin. Pcos affects around one in 10 women in the UK.
    Keep your hair clean and off your face, even with guys!
    The product has been in use for more than two times a
    week. Using a product like Glumetza which allows them to reproduce quickly, creating an ideal environment for the bacterial growth.

    Now apply the paste to your skin.

  109. How to get rid of acne Says:

    how to get rid of acne has a variety of ways! If you do not have to suffer through and expect that they” grow out of” how
    to get rid of acne. As the skin regenerates it comes back regularly at the beginning
    of the year or was there some kind of problem in our digestive system.
    Remember that vinegar is acidic in nature, unfortunately other harmful untested substances exist in nature, so no fact can be proven for
    sure yet.

  110. Mike Taylor Says:

    Scordova, as for your argument that Harriet probably won’t be in as big risk for sexual harassement cause her age: Old people do also hit on each other, find new partners and have sex.

    No, the difference is that Harriet know how to say No (or yes if she wants to) and go on. She probably has more life experience than those “twenty-something” young girls combined. And she doesn’t show her personal issues in public to get comfort.

    Whithout knowing any of them, I’m pretty sure if a boy destroied Harriets sand castle she destroied his, instead of calling for mommy. A difference in personality. I don’t think either of Rebecca or Amy would last more than a week in the air force.

    http://www.polygon.net

  111. Johnd611 Says:

    hi and thanks for the actual blog post ive recently been searching regarding this specific advice online for sum hours these days as a result thanks bcdfdeedeged

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 21,791 other followers

%d bloggers like this: