Posts Tagged ‘dumb’

Feminism versus FACTS (Part 2), transcript

July 12, 2014


MANY thanks to Linda for creating this transcript 😉

[0:00] Thunderf00t: So, Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency was recently on CNN.

[0:06] clip: So I announced my intentions to create a video series examining the way women are portrayed in video games. And I was attacked by a section of male gamers. And I think part of the attack was based on their attempt to preserve the status quo of gaming as a male-dominated space, and all of the privileges and entitlements that come with an unquestioned boys club.”

[0:28] Thunderf00t: Well that’s one version of her “reality”, Anita. But here’s one that may be closer to the truth. You see, there was this gaming community that was about, well, playing games. And then you come along with this massively self-centered, and entitled behavior, throwing out these great shovels of troll-bait, saying, ‘why isn’t this gaming community pandering to my social preferences?’ Then, when you get the utterly predictable backlash of anyone who says such stupid shit online, you act surprised.

[0:58] Incidentally, Anita, I find it curious that it’s almost six months after you’ve given your TED Talk, the one which you were so proud that your fans had given you $150,000.

[1:09] clip: “I actually raised twenty-five times what I initially asked for . . . nearly seven thousand individuals contributed to make my “Tropes vs Women in Videogames” project bigger, and better, and more expansive than I could ever have imagined”

[1:26] Thunderf00t: Now, sure, I could note it’s almost a year since this project was funded to the tune of twenty-five times what you asked for. And thus far, this project of yours, the one that’s gonna be-

[1:38] clip: “bigger, and better, and more expansive than I could ever have imagined”

[1:41] Thunderf00t: -consists of ONE single twenty-minute video. That’s all you’ve made in an entire year.

[1:50] clip: “Instead of just being five videos, it’s now thirteen videos, plus a classroom curriculum that educators can use for free.”

[1:56] Thunderf00t: And to be honest, the video that you made was of the caliber that I would estimate is about two working days of effort in it. But that’s not what I noticed here, Anita. I find it curious, in that almost six months since your TED Talk, the one which you were so proud of all the money you’d raised, and this CNN interview, which was curiously titled: “Online trolls attack feminist media critic”. Now, what I noticed is, that you’ve not only apparently not changed your outfit, or your earrings, your hairstyle—but not even one single word of your troll baiting/professional-victim routine.

[2:33] clip: “-larger implicit goal here is that they’re actually trying to maintain the status quo of videogames as a male-dominated space . . . was based on their attempt to preserve this status quo of gaming as a male-dominated space . . . and all of the privileges and entitlements that come with an unquestioned boys club . . . and all of the privileges and entitlements that come with an unquestioned boys club.”

[2:55] clip: “So, in their minds, they concocted this grand fiction, in which they’re the heroic players of a massively multiplayer online game, working together to take down an enemy. And apparently, they casted me in the role of the villain. And what was my big diabolical master plan? To make a series of videos on YouTube about women’s representations in games.”

[3:14] Thunderf00t: But the crazy thing is, Anita, I can find no evidence for this “grand conspiracy” anywhere outside of your head. At least, beyond your claims that it exists. In fact, a quick search for images of you online shows that the internet has been far kinder to you, than it has been to me.

[3:33] but the gaming community constitutes all walks of life: libertarians, democrats, republicans, blacks, straights, gays, whites—whatever. And in many ways, it’s the ultimate, non-discriminating, and fair playing field. Which means in the sort of games that I play, when you get into the arena, the only thing that matters is: can you shoot faster, and more accurately than your opponent? That’s the only thing that matters. There is no socially constructed oppression for you underachievers to blame your failures on.

[4:08]: Well, maybe lag. If you cannot compete in such an arena, you cannot blame this on anything, other than your lack of ability, or your lack of performance.

[4:20] clip from The Matrix and “mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event,” Fatal1ty

[5:05] Thunderf00t: Even back in the day, when I was playing as part of a clan, we had the most incredibly diverse group I’ve ever been in. We had a gun libertarian, we had a progressive liberal. We had an immigrant Mexican, and a republican police officer. And some Ivy League researcher. This was a group I would’ve never usually met or socialized with. But in the arena, none of that mattered. The only thing that mattered was I knew these people played well. And I could trust them to cover me. Especially in games like capture-the-flag. And that’s why, as a clan we played well. Because we mostly understood that we were here to play the game. Not to fight over political, or social issues.

[5:49]: That’s why it’s called The Gaming Community.

And, yeah, curiously enough, Anita you go into this community with this outrageously over entitled attitude, and expect everyone to change their behavior to service your social whims. And then, of all things, to complain when there’s a backlash against your shit-stirring antics.

[6:10]: This is the metaphorical equivalent of going in to say—oh, I dunno—a baby clothes knitting society, and start demanding that they make it less about the “privileges” and “entitlements” of the dominant and unquestioning girls club; that they make it less homophobic and more welcoming to libertarians. And then, wondering why everyone thinks you’re a shit-stirring douche. And then you turn around and say, ‘Aah! Look at that backlash to my troll-baiting. That just proooves how much sexism and homophobia there is in a baby [clothes] knitting society.’

[6:45]: But anyway, this is the part where it goes hilariously off-script:

[6:50] clip: “What do you say about people who say, ‘don’t feed the trolls’?”

[6:59] Thunderf00t: Oh, you just got served, Anita. That coy little smile of: ‘oh my. She knows about trolls on the internet’. It’s almost like they read the comments on your YouTube channel, and came to the conclusion, ‘this girl is just crying wolf. She brings nothing in the way of intellectual content, so she’s playing the best card she can.’ And that’s to hold up this pathetic handful of trolling activity so she can get the attention for her professional victimhood.

[7:28] And then to claim that the community that for the large part only cares about gaming, actually has some scheming plan to keep women out of this fictitious boys club.

[7:39] clip: “larger implicit goal here is that they’re actually trying to maintain the status quo of videogames as a male-dominated space”

[7:47] clip from The Matrix, Fatal1ty

[8:06] Thunderf00t: But Anita recovers quickly, and gets back onto point.

[8:09] clip: “What do you say about people who say, ‘don’t feed the trolls’?
“Um, I think that that is a pretty good attitude to take. Um, but I think there’s a difference between not engaging one-on-one with the trolls. I think that—I never spoke to any of the people harassing me directly . . . There’s a sort of conception that what happened to me was trolling. Um, and trolling is largely thought of as, one individual who’s trying to get a rise out of another individual. And what happened to me was really a cyber-mob, right? It was thousands of individuals coming after me who were loosely working together.

[8:45] Thunderf00t: Bullshit, Anita. You say dumb shit online, you can EXPECT to get trolled by thousands. And yeah, when you get trolled by thousands, those trolls will occasionally end up talking to each other. This isn’t a manifestation of people conspiring together to discredit you. This is just trolls, passing in the night, and laughing at the stupid shit that you’ve said.

Advertisements

Feminism versus FACTS (RE Damsel in distress) : Transcript

July 12, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the following transcript 😉

[0:00] Thunderf00t: So Feminist Frequency has put a lot of work, and research, into her latest video of “Tropes vs Women”:

 

[0:07] Clip: “Each video in this new series will be between ten and twenty minutes long, with well-researched, in-depth analysis”

 

[0:13] Thunderf00t: Indeed, Anita told us just how seriously she would take the research on this video:

 

[0:18] clip: “As you might imagine, this project requires an enormous amount of research”

 

[0:21] Thunderf00t: -using her skills as a “pop culture critic”

 

[0:24] clip: “As a pop culture critic”

[0:25] clip: “Now, I’m a pop culture critic. I am a feminist, and I’m a woman”

 

[0:29] Thunderf00t: To make sure that this was very well-researched:

 

[0:32] clip: “This is an incredibly ambitious project because of the scope and scale of the research and production involved”

 

[0:37] Thunderf00t: Well let’s just see how well-researched this video actually was, shall we?

 

[0:41] clip: “So, without further ado, let’s jump right into the damsel-in-distress”

 

[0:45] Thunderf00t: For instance, she describes Double Dragon Neon, like this:

 

[0:48] clip: “Most recently, Double Dragon Neon in 2012 reintroduced new gamers to this regressive crap, yet again. This time in full HD”

 

[0:56] Thunderf00t: -without mentioning that the game Double Dragon Neon ends like this:

 

[1:09] some guy: Awww! Right in the baaalls!

 

[1:13] Thunderf00t: Which I kid you not, she then goes on to describe like this:

 

[1:16] clip: “-pattern of presenting women as fundamentally weak, ineffective, or ultimately incapable, has larger ramifications beyond the characters themselves. And-“

 

[1:24] Thunderf00t: Yeah. That’s right. The game that ends with Marian, breaking a twenty-foot tall, super-space lich man in half like a toothpick, by punching him in the balls, is apparently:

 

[1:36] clip: “the pattern of presenting women as fundamentally weak”

“ineffective”

“or ultimately incapable”

“has larger ramifications beyond-”

 

[1:47] Thunderf00t: I think we’re gonna have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes “well-researched” here, Anita. Now, this really wasn’t the best damsel-in-distress you could’ve used in your first “Tropes vs. Women” video.

 

I mean, really, did you have to start with a straw man in the title? Do you really think that tropes as specifically adversarial to women? Maybe I should title this video in a reciprocatively fair fashion. Maybe something like: ‘Feminism versus Facts’. You know, not just scoring on the parody, but on the alliteration as well.

 

[2:21] But like I say, Feminist Frequency’s ability to find patterns that don’t exist, is rivaled only by her ability to miss the most important, and bloody obvious pattern of all: these games are not made to keep feminists happy. These games were not designed to subjugate women. These games were designed to be fun to play, and thereby make a profit for the designer. And this is the point [that] seems to have completely eluded Feminist Frequency during her twenty minute analysis. And yeah, this does mean that in the case of the original Double Dragon, that if you’ve only got about seven seconds to explain the plot—trust me, seven seconds. I timed her—then the characters are obviously gonna tend to be fairly one-dimensional, and the storylines, simple.

 

The damsel-in-distress of course, is just one of the simple story lines you can set up very easily. Why? Because most people in healthy relationships care for each other and therefore, immediately willing to make significant sacrifices for their loved ones.

 

Indeed, the very fact that they’re willing to make such sacrifices does not show that you are thinking as your partner as the “ball” in the “game of patriarchy”-

 

[3:34] clip: “I’ve heard it said that in the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team. They are the ball.”

 

[3:39] Thunderf00t: -but it’s in fact a token of how much you care about them. I mean, let me just give you a couple of scenarios here, Anita. Billy’s girlfriend gets punched in the stomach, and abducted by a gang of thugs. Which of the following options defines the healthier relationship? That, he immediately sets out, risking his own safety to try and protect his loved ones. Or that he decides, ‘she’s a grown adult and can look after herself’. And then goes home to polish his car.

 

[4:09] clip from American Beauty: “1970 Pontiac Firebird. The car I’ve always wanted, and now I have it. I RULE!”

 

[4:14] Thunderf00t: Personally, Anita, I think that most women would regard the latter, as a relationship-ending lack of commitment. But Anita’s take on an abducted loved one, is a little different.

 

[4:26] clip: “One way to think about a damseled character is via what’s call the subject-object dichotomy. In the simplest terms, ‘subjects’ act, and ‘objects’ are acted upon. The subject is the protagonist, the one who the story is centered on, and the one doing most of the action.

So the damseled trope typically makes men the subject of narratives, while relegating women to the role of object. This is a form of objectification, because as objects, damseled women are being acted upon. Most often becoming or reduced to a prize to be won, a treasure to be found, or a goal to be achieved.”

 

[4:58] Thunderf00t: Or a loved one to be helped. I mean, Jesus girl, you are one sick puppy. So in your mind, if my girlfriend gets abducted, I can’t want to protect her. Or to keep her safe, without turning her into an object.

 

[5:12] clip: “-while relegating women to the role of object. This is a form of objectification, because as objects, damseled women are being acted upon.”

 

[5:19] Thunderf00t: I mean, damn. I thought I was cold. But that—that’s inhuman. Even the raptors in Jurassic Park showed more empathy than that. I mean really, by your feminist reasoning here, hospitals—you know, the places where patients come to be “acted on”—are actually ‘objectification centers’, where people are turned into merely objects to be acted on. And doctors—they’re not medical help providers. They’re the biggest objectifiers of all. Or the police. When someone gets abducted, are the police now to sit idly by because they can’t help without turning the abductee into an object? Yeah, it’s something they learned in Anita Sarkeesian’s “feminism class”. And this is the “well-researched” feminism that you weren’t taught in schools.

 

[6:04] clip: “-including seven new bonus videos, and a classroom curriculum”

 

[6:07] Thunderf00t: Yes, it really is this simple. It’s a sign that someone cares, that they are willing to make these sacrifices.

 

[6:13] clip from Star Trek (2009)

 

[7:21] Thunderf00t: This is a concept powerfully understood by almost anyone, with a sense of human empathy. Now sure, you can overanalyze this till you come out with your desired conclusions. Like, how selfish George was to rob his pregnant wife of a sense of agency by acting on her, and turning her into an object in the game of patriarchy. But your game, not only displays an inhuman lack of empathy—it’s facile.

 

Look, I’m gonna use this exact scene that you take from Dragon’s Lair in your Damsel in Distress video. And use my “well-researched” “pop culture critic skills” to come up with a similarly bogus conclusion to yours:

 

‘Have you ever noticed how men in games, almost always fall into one of the few stereotypes or clichés? We have to remember, that this regressive sexism is turning men into one-dimensional, clueless objects incapable of solving even the simplest of problems. Like, cages are locked with keys.

 

[8:23] clip from Dragon’s Lair

 

[8:26] Thunderf00t: ‘-without the cerebral intervention and puppeteering from an intellectually manipulative woman. It’s simply turning men into barely house-trained Neanderthal objects, for the purpose of doing the dangerous work for a woman.’

 

[8:41] some guy: “I’m starting to feel bad. Like, I love my girlfriend Marian. But like, these guys didn’t actually do anything”

 

[8:52] Thunderf00t: ‘We have to understand that such derogatory stereotypes are detrimental to our society and our cultural ecosystem. But to see really how much this regressive crap degrades men, you only have to compare how many ways there are for the princess to die in this game versus the knight. That’s right, the whole game is one purpose-built, giant death-trap for the man. And whereof by some miracle he survives, he wins the honor of being puppeteered for some object by the princess.

 

Or, for that matter, let’s compare how many coherent sentences either can offer. The knight’s only dialogue in this entire game is screams, and of muffled screams, as he’s killed over, and over, and over again. Why couldn’t he be a thinking hero, who talks to the dragon and thoughtfully negotiates a mutually agreeable settlement? Why does this game have to dehumanize the man, by making his only course of action killing things?

 

[9:52] I mean you say as much in your own video. ‘Yes, it’s the “beat-‘em-up” trope being used here to propagate the socially harmful myth that men are unthinking psychopaths who can only solve problems by beating them up, or killing them. You watch this media, and yet you fail to see the blatantly misandric elements in this game. Like this woman, punching a man, as spitefully as she can in his sexually reproductive organs. It’s a deeply symbolic gesture of how much these games despise men, by causing them as much pain as possible, while simultaneously stopping them from reproducing.’

 

[10:32] some guy: “Awww! Right in the baaalls!”

 

[10:36] Thunderf00t: ‘How simple do you need this hatred of men in these games to be? Now I’m not saying that all games that employ such tropes are automatically tying to reinforce and amplify the socially harmful stereotypes that men are easily controlled, brainless, fighting, troglodytes. But this does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing, and demeaning attitudes about men.’

 

[11:04] But like I say, you can overanalyze this to you leisure until you can parlay it into whatever desired conclusions you want. But it won’t change the real fact of why these games are like they are. Because they serve a market. It’s basically the same reason there are all these beauty magazines; because they serve a market.

 

[11:27] And it’s the same reason that you in your videos wear lipstick, eyeliner, nail varnish, and those big girly earrings. It’s not because you’ve made this conscious decision that women are naturally too ugly and unappealing, and therefore need to use these appearance-enhancing cosmetics. Although, I’m pretty certain that if a certain pop culture critic feminist were to be researching and analyzing your very video, she would happily bundle you into one of a few stereotypical women in the media, concluding that you’ve simply become a chill girl and sister-punisher by donning the Barbie-pink bondage-shackles-of-patriarchal-expectation by adorning yourself with attention-grabbing trinkets and by painting your face to resemble mild arousal.

 

[12:15] Trust me, it would be just as trivial to pin you into the role of the willing servant of this non-existent, scheming patriarchy as it was for you to parlay the damsel-in-distress into a systematic attempt to subjugate women.

 

No. You, like they, serve a market. The market you serve is telling feminists that they are oppressed. If you really thought there was a market for these feminist games, why not do the empowered-woman thing and lead by example, and design and market these games successfully yourself? I suspect that you know full-well that the reason these feminist games don’t exist, is not because the patriarchy is conspiring against you. It’s simply because there’s not a market for them.

 

[13:03] Look. Let’s be honest. We both know the free market doesn’t care what your ideology is. It only cares if it will turn a profit. Yeah. What you’re proposing is not viable. And this is why you’ve shown this masterly reluctance to cash in on this goldmine of feminist gaming that you think is out there. And this is the fundamental reason why you are a critic and not a creator. I mean, why take the risk of making a game that will almost certainly be an expensive failure, when you have this guaranteed market of selling the idea that ‘you are being systematically being oppressed by the patriarchy’, to feminists?

 

But the sad thing is, even if they did make this game exactly as you wanted—you know, like that game you were lamenting at the beginning of your video:

 

[13:52] clip: “The game was to star a sixteen year old hero named Krystal, as one of two playable protagonists. She was tasked with travelling through time, fighting prehistoric monsters with her magical staff, and saving the world. She was strong. She was capable. And she was heroic . . . Pretty cool, right? Well, it would’ve been. Except the game never got released.”

 

[14:18] Thunderf00t: And it’s a good thing it was never released, too. Because if it had been, it would’ve simply helped to ‘reinforce sexist, and downright misogynist ideas about women.’

 

You see, if your comprehensive research had included the master’s thesis of the feminist, Anita Sarkeesian . . . Oh. Well, if your research had actually included your own master’s thesis, titled, “I’ll Make a Man Out of You: Strong Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy Television”, you would’ve realized that—I’ll let this guy explain:

 

[14:49] clip from Instig8iveJournalism, “Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate: “She argues that strong, empowered, female characters still aren’t feminist because they’re only pretending to be men . . . According to her, any women in a TV show who shows strong leadership, is only doing so in a charade of strictly masculine trait . . . the second diagram illustrates what she wants TV to give her. Once again—at odds with herself. Notably, she proposes significantly fewer positive feminine traits than positive male traits, with women hilariously unable to show confidence, or self-control.”

 

[15:17] Thunderf00t: Not only that, but in your feminist world, ‘strong’ is only a favorable attribute for the masculine.

 

[15:25] clip: “She was strong-”

 

[15:27] Thunderf00t: This is just what it’s like to play this game of constantly moving goal posts, with this sort of feminism. It doesn’t matter what the game that’s made is. The conclusion will always be:

 

[15:40] clip: “games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist, and downright misogynist ideas about women.”

 

[15:46] Thunderf00t: However, the part in your video where you go from finding patterns that don’t exist, to La-La Land, is here:

 

[15:52] clip: “The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender, is a deeply ingrained, socially constructed myth. Which of course, is completely false. But the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.”

 

[16:09] Thunderf00t: Uuhh.BULLSHIT. You see, we are part of a sexually dimorphic species. That is, males and females, tend to have different physical characteristics. Look, the reason that we divide the Olympics up by sex, is not because we are inherently sexist. It’s because men and women tend to have different traits.   On average, in the upper body strength, it’s almost fifty-percent difference.  Ugh, come on. Tell me again how this is really a myth.

 

[16:38] clip: “The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender, is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth. Which of course is completely false.”

 

[16:46] Thunderf00t:  I’ve not seen this study yet. But I’m gonna go out there on a limb and predict that there will be no correlation whatsoever between the number of damsel-in-distress video games and the ensemble differences in the upper body strength between men and women.

 

[17:01] However, many who take a few seconds to read the Wiki page on ‘sexual dimorphism’ in humans, might come across this, where someone seems to be suggesting exactly that: “The smaller differences in the lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing. Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength” (Wikipedia, “Sexual Dimorphism)

 

[17:31] But this is the cute thing—when you actually take a closer look at those references, and you find this: “The Gender and Science Reader brings together the key writings by leading scholars to provide a comprehensive feminist analysis of the nature and practice of science.”

 

And just, take that to heart for a second. A ‘feminist analysis’. Not an objective analysis. Not a scientific analysis. A feminist analysis.

 

[17:59] Now let’s compare that to some of the other studies like: “One study of muscle strength at the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength. Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes” (Wikipedia, “Sexual Dimorphism”)

 

Hmm. And both of those from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I think I’m almost to the point where I can track down the difference between objective scientific research, and feminist research.

 

[18:37] clip: “As you might imagine, this project requires an enormous amount of research.”

 

[18:40] Thunderf00t: I’m now also firmly of the opinion that one of these has a place to be taught in schools. And the other, doesn’t. I also note in passing, Anita, that you have disabled comments and ratings on your video. Which, has become the standard line of people on YouTube who peddle bullshit that cannot stand up to public scrutiny. I also note the reason you say you’re doing this, is a claim of victimhood. But let me offer you an alternative suggestion. The pushback you get, might mention that you’re a woman.

 

[19:12] clip: “I’m a woman.”

 

[19:13] Thunderf00t: But it’s not because you’re a woman. The pushback that you get might mention that you’re a feminist.

 

[19:20] clip: “I am a feminist

 

[19:21] Thunderf00t: But it’s not because you’re a feminist. Now the reason you get this pushback, as, I hope this video has amply explained, is because what you say is bollocks

 

[19:34] clip: “Now, I’m a pop culture critic”

Feminist tries to get Veterans Fired over TWITTER! 

July 12, 2014

(MANY thanks to Linda for creating the transcript)

[0:00] Thunderf00t: So turning up at the funerals of dead soldiers with signs like this is just one of the most disgusting things you can actually do. Callously taking the grief of the relatives of dead soldiers and using that as a springboard to talk about your crazy religion—that’s just messed up. But surely modern feminists of the professional-victim sort would NEVER stoop that low. Right?

 

[0:26] Well, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is frequently found in soldiers who have experienced combat. War is ugly, and it leaves its scars on everyone it touches.

 

[0:38] clip from [?]: “-called in with some artillery and some napalm and things like that. Some innocent women and children got hit. We met them on the road and they had little girls with noses blown off, and uh, and like, husbands carrying their dead wives and things like that. That was extremely difficult to deal with ‘cause you’re like, you know, shoot. What the hell do we do now?”

 

[0:59] Well, Melody Hensley, that’s the DC Executive Director for the Center for Inquiry AND a staunch feminist, claims that SHE has got Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder . . . from Twitter. Now many would just regard that as incredibly stupid. I mean it’s like saying I’ve got Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because my cookie won’t dunk into my milk; or that I’ve got PTSD because the shampoo and the conditioner never run out at the same time; or that I’ve got PTSD from playing Call of Duty. It simply trivializes and undermines the serious nature of the condition.

 

[1:34] She even goes on to say how just asking her questions like: ‘how does your Twitter PTSD compare to the PTSD someone would get from being raped?’, is actually the very harassment that gave her PTSD in the first place.

 

[1:49] But this is where it goes into full “God-hates-fags” mode:

 

“If you’re in the military and you are harassing me about my PTSD” (that’s her Twitter PTSD) “expect that I will be speaking to your commanding officer.”

 

[2:04] Even for a feminist, that is REALLY, really messed up. You tell her, that the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that people get from watching people they know, love, and care about being blown up in front of their eyes is REALLY, really not the same thing as someone calling you “Smellody” on Twitter—YOU TELL HER THAT and she’ll try and mess up your career. And she just goes on and on about it:

 

[2:30] “Military/ex-military combat folks: there are groups that have higher statistics of PTSD than you. You need to educate yourself.”

 

[2:38] Oh, that’s wonderfully compassionate and sympathetic to combat veterans with PTSD. And:

“This week has been tough. There’s been a campaign against me. I’m blocking dozens of accounts of people telling me I don’t have PTSD and threats.”

 

[2:56] Oh, well aren’t you a bloody hero Melody. And then she replies to:

 

“You wouldn’t talk about it if you had PTSD” by saying “According to my psychologist, anything that makes ME feel in control is good for my health.”

 

[3:12] -even if it involves trying to mess up the careers of combat veterans with PTSD, simply so you can “feel in control”. And this is NO hypothetical about she will try and mess up your career. This is what she says:

 

“I get it every day. I’ve decided I’m contacting commanding officers, as I just did.”

“They have their info on Twitter. I just contacted someone’s commanding officer.”

 

[3:39] Really, Melody. You tried to mess up someone’s MILITARY CAREER because they didn’t think that you had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from Twitter? And personally, I think it’s optimistic BEYOND HOPE that after you contacted their employer, simply because it was on Twitter, that you’re not going to get an awful lot of VERY angry Veterans contacting the Center for Inquiry; which you have chosen to so very prominently display on YOUR Twitter account. You are SELF-CENTERED and DESPICABLE beyond words.

 

[4:13] Dear feminists: I wanna make this LOUD and CLEAR. You DO NOT get criticism because you are outspoken women, as people like Anita Sarkeesian, Rebecca Watson, and Melody Hensley would claim. No, no more than Westboro Baptist Church gets criticized for being vocally religious. You get the criticism you do because of the STUPID—or, actually more accurately in this case—the UTTERLY CONTEMPTIBLE things that you SAY.

 

[4:44] Pissing all over the self-same people who have put their lives on the line, in an effort to maintain the very blanket of freedom that you sleep under. You poison EVERYTHING.

IF men acted like Feminists (Part 2): Transcript

July 12, 2014

[0:00] Thunderf00t: Now, many would think that Anita Sarkeesian has said some pretty dumb stuff over the years, and that therefore no one would take her seriously. Well actually, this year, 2014 she got an Annual Game Developers Choice Award. Specifically,

“The Ambassador Award, honoring someone who is helping video games “advance to a better place” through advocacy or action, is going to media critic Anita Sarkeesian, creator of Feminist Frequency, a video series that deconstructs representations of women in game and pop culture narratives”.

[0:38] Woow, that’s impressive! I mean there really aren’t many towering intellectuals who could lay claim to the title of a “media critic”.

[0:47] But what would it look like if men acted like feminists in “deconstructing the representations of men in pop culture narratives? Well I think it would look a little something like this:

[0:59] “So I got a lot of feedback from privileged women on my last video about why men shouldn’t be used as sword practice by females. This was mostly from women in denial about the serious, social-ableist-oriented, neo-gendered boundary-integrity issues that this problem causes.”

[1:20] “Firstly, they need to educate themselves on that it’s possible to both enjoy a media while simultaneously being critical of its more pernicious aspects. That’s why I always ensure that ratings and comments are disabled—for your comfort and convenience. After all, I AM telling you the truth. And only man-haters would want to allow those telling man-hating lies to confuse the clarity of what I am telling you.”

[1:48] “This is why we need BrotherlyBroadcast videos to be taught without opposition in schools, classrooms, and even universities. It’s only fair.”

[1:59] “In this sense, it’s good for us to remember that we are ALL influenced by the media we watch in a way that closely resembles homeopathy.”

[2:08] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games” : “While it may be comforting to think that we all have a personal force-field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as a “third-person effect”, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media’s effects, even if others may be influenced or manipulated.”
“Paradoxically, and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment, are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.”
“In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

[2:44] Thunderf00t: “That is, the less you think you are affected, the more likely you are TO be affected. I mean, check out the extensive citations below, and you’ll see that I’m telling you the complete, academic, honest truth. But maybe that’s not enough for some people. Maybe there are some out there who say, ‘I’ve watched Star Wars a hundred times. I’ve never even once thought about turning into a Dark Lord of the Sith’; or, ‘I’ve watched The Matrix a thousand times. And no matter how much I think that it’s a fantasy, I still can’t dodge the bullets!’”

[3:20] “Well, facts really aren’t relevant here, because I’m citing feminist research. Specifically, over $30,000 of feminist research.”

[3:30] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

[3:36] Thunderf00t: “The first thing that you have to realize, is just how much these games OBJECTIFY men. Again and again, the men in these games are just portrayed as objects to be acted on.”

[3:50] clip from TEDxYouth, “The Sexy Lie: Caroline Heldman . . .”: “We’re thinking about the object-subject dichotomy. Subjects act. Objects are acted upon.”

[3:57] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “is via what’s called the subject-object dichotomy. In the simplest terms, subjects act, and objects are acted upon.”

[4:03] clip from lacigreen, “SEX OBJECT BS”: “-the subject. Subjects act, while objects are acted upon. Now I know you’re thinking, ‘crazy Laci, what’s this got to do with sexuality?’ And the answer is: everything.”

[4:15] Thunderf00t: “Because, once something has been turned into an object, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permissible. Now I know there will be many out there who will say, ‘that’s absurd. I mean everyone knows that the streets are full of cars, which are objects. But if you try to smash those objects up, you’ll get arrested for vandalism; because, just because something is an object, that doesn’t mean that violence against it is acceptable’.”

[4:42] “Well, once again—facts are really not relevant here; because I’m citing feminist research. Specifically, over $30,000 of feminist research.”

[4:54] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “Once a person is reduced to the status of objecthood, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permitted.”

[5:01] Thunderf00t: “The pattern of having men turned into objects by women such that they can be dehumanized and objectified such that the protagonist women in question can shoot them, hack them, or simply throw them to their deaths, is widespread in popular culture. It even encourages females to throw both old men and young male children off towers.”

[5:27] “Now, the more observant among you might say, ‘but the video you just showed, showed a man throwing a young boy off a tower’. Yes, that’s right—a man being puppeteered by feminist theory. Indeed it’s SO widespread now that almost ALL games are [oriented] to fulfill this deeply seated female need. Women are meant to derive this perverse sense of pleasure from having males desecrate the bodies of unsuspecting male victims. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to having the subservient gender trait of males controlling and punishing representations of other males.”

[6:11] “In my previous analysis, I came to the CLEAR, academic conclusion that MEN killed by women is actually due to the influences of feminist theory in the mainstream media such as movies and interactive media such as games. And now we find that feminist theory is actually ALSO responsible for all men being killed by MEN.”

[6:34] “That is, feminist theory is DIRECTLY responsible for ALL the violent killings of men in the world. This is clearly a very serious issue, and requires IMMEDIATE action—not just sitting around and talking about it, but to take action. I mean, we could all sit around here whining all day and it won’t achieve anything.”

[6:57] “This requires something serious, not just talk—something radical, something totally different from complaining; something dramatic. I don’t know, maybe as severe as a hashtag. Or better still, we can get this subject unpacked and deconstructed by a pop culture critic such as myself; because we all know that pop culture critics are the intellectual gods of our time. And we all know that if you want something done properly THAT’S where you should go.”

[7:28] “I just want men to be whole, complete, non-disposable characters in movies and not to be shot, stabbed, or disposed of by women; or by men who have been subverted by the detrimental normalizations of feminist theory. Is that really such a big thing to ask from the movie and gaming industry?”

[7:52] “I mean, I don’t care that people say this would make a really dull game, and that no one would want to play it. And I don’t care that people say that it would be an economical failure; because we all know that “economic viability” is just another one of those buzz-words that is used by feminists so that they can continue making these computer games with their erotic fantasies about getting men to kill other men. You just don’t know what it’s like to be a MAN, knowing that any woman out there might use you for sword practice. And yet women still pretend this is not a big social problem.”

[8:29] “Well, I think we should end this. Don’t tell ME not to dress like an interchangeable target. Teach women not to kill. Or better still, don’t tell me to sleep with one eye open. Teach women not to stab people to death in their sleep; like in the film, Basic Instinct.”

[8:47] “Now, I know there will be many women out there who will try and distance themselves from this saying, ‘that’s absurd. I would never stab you to death in your sleep because I saw it in a film’. Well that’s exactly the sort of denial you would expect BECAUSE”:

[9:00] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “Paradoxically, and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment, are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.”
“In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

[9:18] Thunderf00t: “That’s right. The ones who say that they are least affected are the ones who are most likely to stab you to death in your sleep. Remember, this is what $30,000 of feminist research looks like. So it must be true.”

[9:32] “Women simply can’t understand what it’s like to be used for sword practice because of their privilege. Women have the privilege of being able to express their sexuality while feminist theory has prevented men from expressing theirs; sometimes, physically.”

[9:49] “Now many women who have been brainwashed by this feminist theory will say that women don’t have privilege. Well yes, of course you can’t see your privilege. That’s like being raised your whole life in a red room, and then being taken out of that red room and being asked to describe what the color red looks like.”

[10:08] “But just because you can’t SEE your privilege, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, and you doubling down and denying your privilege—or even worse, asking me for evidence for it—is simply making the issue worse.”

[10:23] “And this is the reason why I make these videos on manlyism. And BrotherlyBroadcast Videos have been used in classrooms, high schools, universities, and even presidential speeches. Many a times, I received thank-you notes from parents who’ve used this material to educate their daughters, how stabbing a vulnerable man to death in his sleep with an ice pick, is BAAD. Remember, don’t teach ME to take precautions with MY safety. Teach YOUR daughter not to stab people.”

[10:56] “And with all this female privilege, is it any wonder that they’re incapable of understanding how hard it is, to be a man? In short, if you’re a woman, you are unqualified to tell a man what his oppression feels like. And no matter how much you feel the need to ‘femisplain’ why using men as target practice is just ‘harmless fun’, you just need to shut up and listen. You need to educate yourself on what it’s like to be a man. I mean, this is manlyism 101 here. We need for you to become manlyists, the radical belief that men shouldn’t be used for female sword practice; because if you’re not a manlyist, then you’re a bigot. A sexist bigot. I mean, there is nothing in between.”

[11:43] Clip from “Gloria Allred: If You’re Not a Feminist, Then You’re a Bigot”: “I often say that if you’re not a feminist then you’re a bigot. I mean there is nothing in between.”

Many thanks to Linda for providing the transcript!

Epic Feminist Fails of our time: ‘Ban Bossy

July 3, 2014

[0:00] Thunderf00t: The reason that the “Ban Bossy” Campaign was one of the most EPIC face plants of our time, is that it was so incredibly poorly thought out on the most simplistic and rudimentary levels.

[0:17] There’s an irony in telling people to, ‘ban the word bossy!’ It is, well, kind of BOSSY.

[0:22] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[0:25] Thunderf00t: I mean, seriously, did no one in this campaign think of the internal inconsistencies here? It portrays women as less suitable for leadership, in that if your dreams of leadership can be undermined simply by being called ‘bossy’, it’s highly questionable if you were ever suitable for making those tough decisions of leadership in the first place.

[0:44]: Then there’s the 1984 police-state solution of BANNING WORDS.

[0:49] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[0:53] Thunderf00t: It makes the incredible leap that girls lose interest in leadership when they become teenagers, and then attribute this to the word ‘bossy’.

[1:01] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[1:14] Thunderf00t: Even if it WASN’T a pure distortion of the actual original study, it would be one HELL of a leap of faith to NOT attribute the change in boys and girls with adolescence, and instead say, naah, it has nothing to do with adolescence. It’s all down to a SINGLE WORD.

[1:33]: Put simply the, uuh, factual basis of this ENTIRE campaign was BULLSHIT. They claim that being called ‘bossy’ keeps women from leadership. Yet EVERY single example they give of women in leadership says they were called ‘BOSSY’!

[1:52] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[1:56] Thunderf00t: And they STILL ended up in leadership of one sort or another. I don’t think you really thought that one through, did you?

[2:03]: And finally, even if EEVERY single thing they said was true, they’ve just advertised the way to destroy EVERY woman in a leadership role in America.

[2:14] clip from YouTube, “The Doctor Vs The Prime Minister – Doctor Who . . .” and clip from “Ban Bossy”

[2:43] Thunderf00t: I mean you can see ‘em now, all sat around, pumped up and brainstorming in their Donald Trump’s Tower boardroom:

‘We need something short, punchy, catchy—something people will remember. Oh! Alliteration’s good. I know—how about banning a word? But we need a word that starts with ‘b’. Not bitch. That’s a naughty word; we don’t want to ban naughty words, just ones that hurt women’s feelings. Ones we can portray as sexist. Okay—look, sure, I know that ‘bitch’ hurts women’s feelings too. And it can be portrayed as sexist. But look, we just don’t want a feminist campaign with the word ‘bitch’ in the title. Okaay? We need something short, something punchy. Wow! BAN BOSSY! Yeah, ban bossy! Now all we need is a load of women in leadership to say that they got called ‘bossy’ and how it destroyed their chances of leadership. Don’t worry about the inconsistencieees. No one’s that observant. And then we’ll just use their billionaire’s brown-nosed network to get the U.S. Secretary of Education involved with BANNING WORDS. And then all we need is a pretty object to put on the front of it. Yeah, a woman of some sort. Don’t worry, this is a feminist campaign. We only call it sexism and objectification when OTHER people use beautiful women to sell things. Ah! Perfection. What could possibly go wrong?’

[4:04]: This was all actually backed by an impressive array of successful women, most notably was Sheryl Sandberg’s baby. Sandberg is listed as being worth about a billion dollars. A billion dollars is actually quite a lot of money. Just to put that into perspective, let say this video gets 25,000 views. From her wealth, she could pay each one of those 25,000 people an average U.S. salary of about $40,000. So, she can’t be a complete idiot. Right? Eeeh, that’s until you realize that Donald Trump is worth three to four Sandbergs. Crazy thing is, if you watch Sandberg’s TED Talk, you’ll realize that she already understands why there aren’t so many women in leadership. She describes it EXACTLY: ‘women typically want to have children’:

[4:54] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “And from the moment she starts thinking about having a child, she starts thinking about making room for that child: how am I going to fit this into everything else I’m doing? And literally from that moment, she doesn’t raise her hand anymore. She doesn’t look for a promotion, she doesn’t take on the new projects, she doesn’t say ‘me, I wanna do that’. She starts leaning back.”

[5:14] Thunderf00t: And childbearing age comes right bang in the middle of career development. And then, a sophisticated and dynamic job [?] is typical of leadership, of those privileged enough to have those jobs.

[5:27] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “In the high income part of our workforce in the people who end up at the top Fortune 500 CEO jobs or the equivalent in other industries, the problem that I am convinced is that women are dropping out.”

[5:40] Thunderf00t: Being out of the loop for six months or a year-

[5:42] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “Nine months of pregnancy, three months of maternity leave, six months to catch your breath-”

[5:47] Thunderf00t: -makes it much harder to come back and compete at the top of the pile. So she basically describes how they play it safe—they lean back in more supporting roles rather than leadership ones. They lose interest in being at the top of the greasy pole.

[6:03]: After all, is it really worth pissing your life away, fighting to be at the top of the greasy pole, simply so you can say you have three billion dollars rather than one? Really, when you’re on your death bed, do you really believe that you will look back and think, ‘yeah, I’m really glad that I decided to spend so much of my life dedicated to staying at the top of the greasy pole, simply so I can die with a four and a lot of zeroes after my name, rather than a one and a lot of zeroes’?

[6:32]: In fact, to be honest, in your boardroom, Sandberg, if you were privileged with that choice-

[6:37] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “Everyone who’s been through this, and I’m here to tell you, once you have a child at home, your job better be really good to go back, because it’s hard to leave that kid at home.”

[6:46] Thunderf00t: I would say, that leaning back and living life is by far the best choice. Exchanging life for money that you could never possibly spend, is just a fool’s errand.

[6:58] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “When I was in college, my senior year, I took a course called “European Intellectual History”. Don’t you love that kind of thing from college? Wish I could do that now.”

[7:06] Thunderf00t: Seriously, she’s, say, 44 now. Let’s say she lives another 50 years. If she doesn’t earn a single penny for the rest of her life, she would have to spend TWENTY MILLION dollars a year. That’s five hundred times the average salary of an American, just to consume her wealth.

[7:25] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “Don’t you love that kind of thing from college? Wish I could do that now.”
“The numbers tell the story quite clearly. 190 Heads of State; 9 are women . . . And out of 193 world leaders, just 17 are women . . . 80% of political offices being occupied by men . . . less than ¼ MP’s is a woman . . . of all the people in parliament in the world, 13% are women . . . Men occupying the highest ranks in virtually EVERY industry in the world . . . in the corporate sector, women at the top, C level jobs, board seats, tops out at 15-16%. The numbers have not moved since 2002, and are going in the wrong direction.”

[8:08] Thunderf00t: Sandberg describes this women-losing-interest-in-leadership, in detail in her TED Talk. She UNDERSTANDS the reasons. But what I’m missing out on here, is where is the sexism in this picture? WHO is discriminating against the women here? The different representations of men and women she basically describes as being down to lifestyle choices.

[8:33] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “-and I’m here to tell you, once you have a child at home, your job better be really good to go back, because it’s hard to leave that kid at home.”

[8:41] Thunderf00t: WHERE is the sexism in that? Where is the sexism in not finding women at the top of the greasy pole?

[8:50] clip from DNews?: “-men occupying the highest ranks in virtually EVERY industry in the world.”

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript!

On the Failure of Atheist Organizations and Choosing Life!

September 1, 2012

Y’know I kinda knew it all along that feminism was the third rails here.  You can even see it in the very first video I put up on this subject, that I knew this was going to end ugly (“tactically dumb” I think were the words I used).  I really didn’t have a ‘dog in this fight’ beyond the fact that having all these professional victims trying to pass off the most mild transgressions as systematic and pervasive misogyny in the secular community, really did make the group that took this seriously looks like a bunch 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 prioritizing and focusing on important goals to achieve results.

Having said that, I don’t really feel too badly about how this all came out.  I certainly learned a lot on the journey about the nature of this community, and why so much (although notably not all) of it is operationally ineffective.

In the current case the problem seems to be quite simple, that a group, notable centered around Freethoughtblogs and Skepchick have mistaken (initially arguably accidentally, but later apparently willfully) the odd troll as ‘evidence’ that the community is ridden with misogynists etc.  Indeed now it seems that folks from these forums almost relish the trolling, as they can then use it to ‘score some online pity’.  This path of ‘embracing victim-hood’ is not healthy for them or the community and ends in this hypersentivity to criticism that really doesn’t do anyone any good (‘use the block and ban functions’ urges Rebecca Watson in 100% VFX terms, and we all know how well that worked out for him!).  For instance they see the word “bitch is a gendered insult that demeans ALL women” (a point which Rebecca Watson of Skepchick assures us is so uncontroversial that almost everyone ‘gets’ it), but will have no problem in using the words “don’t be a dick” in their guidelines for their new ‘Atheism Plus’ forum (whose rules prohibit degrading people using sexual slurs).

Yes, ‘Bitch is a gendered insult to all women’ but in the utterly consistent Utopian world of AtheismPlus, ‘dick’ (mentioned only one line earlier in the forum rules!) does not count as the hate speech of a gender slur.

When such casual and common use of language becomes a matter of heated debate, arguably you have already been rendered operationally impotent by your political correctness.  Take another example.  The founder of atheism plus is quite candid about being ‘banned’ from the internet by her boyfriend, while doubtless if I had similarly imposed such restrictions on my girlfriend I would have been labeled a misogynist intent on subjugating women (“WHY NOT JUST TELL HER TO GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN!” etc) and she a propagator of destructive submissive female stereotypes, a gender traitor and therefore a rape culture enabler etc etc.  This is the disproportionate destination you arrive at when you are so sensitive to criticism: seeing the most banal activities that you engage in everyday as fine and healthy but as evidence of horrible sexism endemic in society when anyone else does it.  It also seems to have enabled a formidable cognitive dissonance in these folks.  For example many of these people consider “you’re only a feminist because you are old fat and ugly” as some great evil that should get you pilloried, but have no problem in thinking that saying “you’re only a misogynist because your privilege as a member of the patriarchy means you don’t ‘get it’ ” is some great argument winner.  In both cases the statement may well be perfectly accurate, but even if they were, the arguments constitute little more than personal mudslinging, while the more virtuous path would have been to actually address the argument, not the person.  Yet the latter example here is typically considered by such folks to be an argument winner, but the former beyond the pale as an ad hominem.  The cognitive dissonance is formidable.

However, going back to the original problem though, personally I wouldn’t give such trolls the time of day.  Example in question, coughlan616 in a recent exchange (over a month ago at the time of writing) ended up suggesting that he had performed needless sexual exchanges with my mother.

Inject yourself into the free speech arena? Better be ready for the slings and arrows! However that does not mean those who have not injected themselves into that arena are ‘fair game’.  For those with an interest, this was the full exchange.

Did I go ballistic at this and get a load of ‘secular leaders’ to write letters of support saying that this sort of hate should not be tolerated?

Did I campaign for a code of conduct for the atheist community etc?

Did I demand that anyone who opposed my proposed changes be driven out as C.H.U.D.s, as rejecting my proposals clearly meant that they endorsed Coughlan’s views?

Did I sit there crying at how unsafe this made me feel until someone paid attention?

No! I just ignored him.  If he wants to use his freedom of speech in the open arena to be a dick, that’s his affair. However there are of course some limits, and arguably coughlan crossed those in this case. Not by insulting me, as I’ve CHOSEN to inject myself into the public domain, and in such a free speech arena you have to suffer the slings and arrows of that arena.  This is not true however of my mother (see ‘YOUR MOTHERS A WHORE.. and other stuff‘.  She did not inject herself into the public arena, and is not therefore fair game.  Nor is impersonation, and various other elements such as slander and liable etc, but outside that, everything else, within a VERY broad remit is pretty much fair game.

This is in stark contrast to the way in which the ‘atheism plus’ people apparently think things should go, where one of them says that saying something that hurts someones feelings should be regarded in the same fashion as physical assault.

This is simply bullshit, and it is a damning indictment of everyone in that room that not one of them, not PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson or Jen McCreight actually stood up or questioned this proposition that would involve no less than the abolishment of the first amendment.

AtheismPlus, as defended by PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight and other is about as popular with their own base (freethinkers?) as venomfangxs arguments are with his audience!  A religious man would say ‘God is trying to tell you something there!’

Indeed the mere fact that even with their ‘home audience’ (secularists and rationalist?) they can only get a video rating comparable to that of venomfangx should be giving them a warning that a lot of people actually have issues with what they are saying.  I mean did they not think this through merely on personal-gain-logistical-grounds?  That if just one person finds their comments hurtful, then they will be prohibited from talking about it on freethoughtblogs and skepchick or get prosecuted for ‘assault’.

However, I’ve become increasingly of the opinion that these people are functionally incompetent, to the point where ‘being drummed out of such a community’ is not actually a punishment but a welcome and valuable gift.

My opinions of this were further backed up by checking out the google ‘web interest’ stats on this which show that I actually have a sizably bigger footprint that freethoughtblogs (both comfortably unique search terms).  Not bad seeing as I’m only one guy and pretty much only work on this half time!

So according to Google Insight, ‘Thunderf00t’ has about twice the web interest of Freethoughtblogs. I’m not a big player in the grand scheme of things.  -Freethoughtblogs CLEARLY make a disproportionate amount of noise for their size.

So yup, I figure I’m pretty much done with these hapless noise makers.

Done with those folks who think patronizing ad hominem/ ’emperors new clothes’ style arguments like “you just don’t ‘get it’ ” is some great cerebral, thoughtful and persuasive argument.

-I’m looking ahead and choosing life!! (que upbeat music)

I’m getting back to making videos that can appeal to everyone, not just some petty drama of just how incompetent certain fractions of the secular community are.

There are bigger fish to fry!

A+ (atheism plus), For A Third Glorious Age of Total Agreement

August 26, 2012

New Atheism” was built on the backs of heavyweights who had all written hard hitting best sellers. The social fabric was shaken by the approach of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennet, appropriately dubbed no less than ‘the four horsemen’.

Now a series of bloggers, with conspicuously few achievements between all of them have decided that the community needs to be cleansed of subversive thought by expelling everyone who disagrees with them, and they are the ones to do it with a new movement called ‘Atheism Plus‘. The properties they most associate with folk like the horsemen are ‘old’ ‘white’ ‘male’ and ‘privileged’ (see below). Indeed a New Statesman article frequently quoted by the Freethoughtbloggers who started this, states quite clearly that:

“Atheism+ is a reaction against the “New Atheism” of Richard Dawkins”.

However they somehow manage to completely overlook the fact that the horsemen achieved their level of notoriety and recognition through ability and hard work, culminating in a series of best selling, ground shifting books: The God Delusion, God is NOT Great, Letter to a Christian Nation and Darwins Dangerous Idea to name but a FEW. The results of this can be seen when looking through the adword statistics where it actually turns out that Richard Dawkins alone is bigger than Atheism!

The Beatles may have been more popular than Jesus, but looks like Dawkins is now more popular than Atheism!

Dawkins, just so we are clear, has the prestigious academic title of Fellow of the Royal Society. That might not mean much to many, but it’s one of the higher awards given out by the Royal Society to people who made ‘ a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science”.
Seriously is there anything in the entirety of the ‘Atheism Plus’ movement that can even approach this level of accomplishment?

So the founders of ‘Atheism plus’ have decided that, despite their lack of any real achievement, that the real thing atheism needs right now is to throw the likes of the horsemen under the bus and to form a splinter movement (click, its sooo appropriate).  That’s right the ‘Atheism plus’ will be gloriously free of older white men, irrespective of their actual contributions or achievements.

Jennifer McCreight, the founder of ‘Atheism Plus’ says what she thinks about old white men. Oddly enough ability and achievement don’t seem to factor into this equation at all!

So what are the founding principals of ‘Atheism plus’?

We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

So ‘Atheism Plus’ gets off to this incredibly bad start where of their guiding principals, 2-4 are subsets of 1. Why that is becomes obvious when you see what’s bottom of the list of the ‘Atheism Plus’ manifesto. Bottom of the heap, no. 5 of 5 is ‘the use of critical thinking’. Yup critical thinking is bottom of the pile for ‘Atheism Plus’. I find it even more amusing as I am an atheist because of critical thinking (1. methodology, then 2. conclusion, y’know the logical way of doing it), whereas they start with the assertion that they are ‘Atheists Plus’, then later decide that critical thinking is a good thing. Conclusion before the methodology? very ass backwards!

Now enter the fray another Freethoughtblogger, held to be one of the more sane and rational FTBers (apparently), one ‘Richard Carrier’. Richard sets the standards high by asserting:

” And Greta Christina and others have taken up the banner: Atheism Plus: The New Wave of Atheism. I am fully on board. I will provide any intellectual artillery they need to expand this cause and make it successful.”

..and that would be all very fine and well if the rest of Carriers blog wasn’t so ridden with wildly over the top polarizing rhetoric of eradicating and purging dark evil impurities that threaten our purity of essence (as someone has noted, it sounds more like Mccarthyism and Ayn Rands hate child). Indeed, I can say without a hint of hyperbole or exaggeration that is more Third Reich like than ‘Third Wave of atheism’ like. Whats that? Godwins law I hear you say? Well judge for yourself! You really have see it to believe it…..here’s some highlights!

“Don’t assume that because someone else did that, that it’s covered and you can give it a miss. No, we need to show numbers. So speak out wherever you see these two sides at loggerheads, and voice your affiliation, so it’s clear how many of us there are, against them. And this very much is an us vs. them situation. The compassionate vs. the vile. You can’t sit on the fence on this one. In a free society, apathy is an endorsement of villainy.”

and

“Those who don’t, those who aren’t shamed by being exposed as liars or hypocrits, those who persist in being dishonest or inconsistent even when their dishonesty or inconsistency has been soundly proven, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.”

(yeah thats the way to win hearts and minds with your intellectual artillery!)

and

“I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.”

and

Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned.

Yup, it’s real unashamedly divisive, brazenly polarizing totalitarian ‘you’re either with us or against us’ type stuff. But the really disturbing thing here is that if you do not entirely back ‘Atheism Plus’s dogmatically stated priorities, you are to be marginalized, excluded and attacked. To many of those who have escaped cults such as Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism this is the sort of viciously vindictive talk of retributional tactics that would likely give you flashbacks! It is this stated desire that people rather than ideas should be targeted that I find most disconcerting. OBEY OUR DOGMA OR BE DECRLARED A SUPRESSIVE PERSON! (you really should read this article, it is frighteningly similar to Carrier vision for ‘Atheism plus’).

But Carrier with his ‘intellectual artillery’ really doesn’t seemed to have thought this one through. So lets see, if American Atheists do not rename themselves ‘American Atheists Plus’, and identify themselves as ‘Atheists Plus’, Carrier will ‘know who to avoid’?
Well that’s an interesting proposition because it turns out that Richard Carrier and Greta Cristina are both scheduled to speak at the 2013 American Atheist convention in Houston.

Oh yes, it’s time for very red faces to take their list of world class achievements (/sarcasm) and ‘intellectual artillery’ and eat a very very VERY juicy slice of humble pie.

Given that American Atheists are NOT going to rename themselves as ‘American Atheist Plus’, or identify with this splinter group, this puts Richard Carrier and Greta Christian in a very difficult situation. Personally I think Carrier should write to David Silverman (a good guy!), the head of American Atheists in exactly the same terms he wrote to someone on his blog who said that they would remain, ‘just an atheist’

‘Atheism Plus’  should really stick with his guns here and tell these inferior ‘American Atheists’ what they think about them.

If they had any dignity or commitment to their ‘third glorious age’ of ‘Atheism Plus’, they would lead by example and write to David Silverman telling him that he, and his organization, is to be marginalized and excluded as there is no room for fence sitter in their new empire of pure ‘Atheism Plus’ and they will no longer be attending any conferences run by these mere inferior ‘atheists’. Indeed, personally I would encourage them to hold with their beliefs and splinter off with their pious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou ‘witch hunting’ sect.

But I’ll wager their commitment to ‘Atheism plus’, despite all their pompous rhetoric, is paper thin, and that we will not rid ourselves of these Mccarthyism type atheists so easily. I’ll wager the parasites will realize that without ‘New Atheism’, which let us not forget was born from the achievements of people with actual ability, y’know hard hitting heavyweights types, they cannot survive.  I expect that they will now start trying to weasel their way out of this by any and all means necessary as long as the conclusion is ‘no, it’s okay for ME to attend mere atheist conferences, its just everyone else who should shun and marginalize these mere inferior atheists’

I guess we will have our answer soon enough about Richard Carrier and Greta Christinas commitment to ‘Atheism Plus’ by whether they pull out of the American Atheist convention or not.

FTB wants Thunderf00t ‘drummed out of the community’ and ‘forever a pariah’

August 10, 2012

So Ed Brayton, thats the leader, or owner or something of freethoughtblogs is now referring to me in these terms:

“I want to do whatever it takes to make sure that he is essentially drummed out of this movement, never invited to speak anywhere again and is forever a pariah.”

Awwww, what did I do to be referred to in these terms you may ask?

Turns out freethoughtblogs has a secret mailing list which they use, among other things to conspire against people (indeed I laughed when they cooked up what they thought was the ‘least damaging story’ to FTB for my expulsion.  Boy did the truth take a backseat in that thread!). Now as with many top secret mailing lists of course FTB has some footer saying how everything on this mailing list is ultra-confidential (kinda a contradiction of terms in my books sending out ‘secret information’ to an entire mailing list) but that doesn’t stop FTB OPENLY disclosing/ leaking whatever they want on that list when it suits their purpose. For instance they were quite happy to openly talk about Greg Ladens ‘threats of violence’ on the mailing list and PZ was quite happy to discuss the happenings of this ‘ultra confidential’ list in his video (sorry too late to delete the evidence boys, I’ve got it all!). Oddly enough, freethoughtblogs did nothing to admonish this sickening and evil violation of trust, or write blog posts about how this could result in the exposing of peoples real identities, people losing jobs, getting turned into newts and burned at the stake or some shit. Nor do they seem to realize that their main beef that I ‘stole their personal details‘ is clearly stupid. I, and everyone else on that mailing list, would have had all of those details (whatever they actually are, I still have no idea) anyways from when they originally signed me up to the mailing list. So what exactly are these personal details they think I’ve ‘stolen’ here?

Secondly I DONT FUCKING DOC DROP.

Even if I actually knew what this personal information was (I seriously have no idea who most these people are) I wouldn’t care, because:

I DON’T DOC DROP. Never have done. Never will.

Honestly if I were in FTBs shoes I would worry about the other guy they expelled, Greg Laden, who also has access to all their personal data. He has a history of threatening people on FTB and stalking people elsewhere. Like tracking people down in real life and trying to get them fired (Abbie Smith of the blog ERV) etc etc. Notably this was all done while Greg was at FTBs.

Now I always found the behavior of the folks on freethoughblogs on this secret list to be kinda cliquish, where chinese whispers morph from rumors to facts within one or two emails. For instance, when I first joined I was accused of being an ‘rape culture apologist’ guilty of ablism, devaluing addicts, and not being careful between challenging islam and outright racism, all based on no evidence whatsoever! ya freethought at work!

Many emails on this list were on points on which “everyone” on FTBs agreed, simply for the applause of everyone who responded. There was a LOT of self-congratulation and self-re-enforcement (herding) behavior there. Conversely even modest disagreement was greeted with snide derision. The sad thing is that freethoughtblogs refer to themselves in humor as ‘the hive mind’ and as ‘free thought bullies’, when in reality both are actually fairly accurate descriptions. So why is any of that important?

So a week or so ago a guy called Michael Payton who works for CFI Canada  (Center for Inquiry) put up a tweet about finding FTB unreadable. Now it turns out ironically Michael is on FTBs side on the issue of harassment policies at conferences (well mostly), however that didn’t matter if he was going to speak ill of freethoughtblogs and this precipitated an angry torrent of twitters from at least one FTBer and another to write an entire blog post about it (promoted by PZ Myers of course), and as with all such posts on FTB he (Payton) was repeatedly branded in the comments section with pejorative terms such as misogynist and MRA (the irony being that he posted an article on skepchick ‘speaking out against hate against women‘ FACEPALM). Indeed it turned out that merely hours after this tweet, CFI Canada had been contacted with calls for his dismissal. Yes his real life job was being threatened because of one tweet about FTBs!

That was a pretty disturbing turn of events having someones job targeted so quickly after a single tweet about FTBs, and after a brief chat with Michael, and knowing that FTB were going ballistic about this on their secret backchannel with some THIRTY messages being circulated on the backchannel about his single tweet, let him know what they were saying about him (naturally no personal details were passed on). Michael did not want to know, he did not need to know that personal info.

This is some of the chatter I passed on to Michael.

Just an early warning, I’m strongly leaning towards publicly making a minor deal of this – not focusing on Payton exclusively, but just as an example of the general attitude of dismissing all of FTB despite not being familiar with hardly any of us – *unless* there’s either an  actual apology to us or some kind of sufficient reason for why it would be a bad idea to draw attention to his remarks at this time, such as a relevant illness.

WTF is it with FTBs and skepchick always wanting people to apologize for stuff? Anyways they continue:

I’m usually not one to get involved in internal disputes in the movement, but if a national leader of the SCA or American Atheists had been so openly dismissive of FTB as a whole, I imagine we wouldn’t just let that pass unnoticed. So I’d just like to know if there’s any good reason why I shouldn’t do this, even if I can’t necessarily be privy to the details of it.

Translation: is it safe to do a knife job on this guy?

and

“But his statement was so broad, so casually dismissive of some of the smartest people in this movement (me among them, I’d like to think), that he can’t really be surprised that one of them took offense at it and criticized him for it, can he?”

What sort of person actually writes shit like that? (well Ed Brayton as it turns out). I’m guessing you can see at this point why they are so terrified of this stuff becoming public. Personal details my ass!

Well FTB found out that I had given Michael Payton access to this information, I then became the subject of the secret societies wrath. This is just one example of MANY. This is Ed Brayton (the head/ owner or similar of FTB) talking about what he wants done to me.

“I want to do whatever it takes to make sure that he (thunderf00t) is essentially drummed out of this movement, never invited to speak anywhere again and is forever a pariah.”

That’s right, all I did was clued someone in whose job was being threatened as to FTBs little conspiring (some THIRTY emails over his single tweet!) against him and for this heinous crime FTB now wants me ‘drummed out of the community’ as ‘a pariah’.  And now this whistle blowing action is being reported on FTBs as:

 It is clear now that he is a cruel man out to destroy anyone he thinks he can, either out of spite or out of a total disregard for collateral damage in his hatred for PZ.   -Ashley F. Miller

This was is not a surgical strike. It was a firebombing. And it seems to have been done for no reason other than to pursue a personal vendetta.

This is a gross violation of basic human decency. There is no possible spin that can make it into anything else. -Greta Christina

Yes, we want to make Thunderf00t/Phil Mason a pariah in the atheist movement, and for good reason: he’s a dishonest scumbag. The nice thing for us is that he’s making it easy: Phil Mason is destroying his own reputation with his sleazy behavior. Who in their right mind would ever trust that guy with any confidence at all? -PZ Myers

He is a vile hypocrite who has lost whatever shred of credibility he may have had left. -Jen McCreight

 

Skepchick go approval seeking from ‘White Male Privilege’

August 1, 2012

So having gotten roundly called for her shameful behavior at TAM (The Amazing Meeting), Amy ‘crying over a T-shirt’ Roth from Skepchick has gone approval seeking! Not from female bastions of the secular community like Harriet Hall (who clearly was distancing herself from folks like the evermore erratic and fringe Skepchicks), but ironically from what under almost any other circumstances the Skepchicks would call the ’white male privilege’ of the secular community.  However in reality she has not actual got any! NONE!

Ronald Lindsey, Dave Silverman and Nick Lee have all ‘spoken out against hate directed against women’ on Skepchick.


Y’see this is one of those ‘dissent from Darwin’ type stunts that the Discovery institute would pull.  For those who don’t know the dissent from Darwin thing was done to create the appearance of dissent when in fact essentially none existed, just like skepchick are suggesting that there is all this ‘hate against women’ when in fact essentially none exists (beyond criticism and/or trolling).  So how did the Discovery Institute and Skepchick achieve such a remarkable feat? Why by using language so broad that anyone and everyone, including myself, could agree with it.

In the case of the dissent from Darwin the statement was basically that all theories including evolution should be subject to critical scrutiny (well of course! who could disagree?), and in the case of Skepchick it’s ‘speak out against hate against women’ (well of course! who could disagree?).  Now firstly, if someone had asked me this question, my immediate response would be ‘why is Skepchick embracing sexism on this issue? Shouldn’t we be against all hate, irrespective of gender?’  Indeed at least two of the respondents actually elucidated to this. Kudos to:

Dave “American Atheists stands by all its members, supporters, and allies, and we will not tolerate hate directed at any of us. Period” Silverman, and Ronald “Hate-filled invective has been directed at many different people, male and female” Lindsey.

Then of course my second question could be, ‘why are you asking me such loaded questions?’  Really what do you expect me to say? is there ANYONE who would disagree with that position?  I mean if these people had been asked to speak out against hatred against males? or blacks? or puppies? how would they have responded? “No hatred against all of the above is obviously okay”?, of course they wouldn’t.  It’s such an obviously manipulative question.  Thankfully most of the respondent gave measured answers not far off where I would have planted my banner.

I would have started with the obvious and fair first question.

“do you think there is a real problem with ‘hate against women’ in this community? “

I’ve got to say I’ve seen essentially NONE.

I’ll tell you what I have seen, I’ve seen people get called idiots for saying and doing stupid things, y’know stuff about elevators (Rebecca Watson) and T-shirts (Amy Roth), although it is very conspicuous to those who can read what is obviously not said, that NONE of those who speak out against ‘hate against women’ actually specify that they think either Amy Roth or Rebecca Watson had a valid grievance in either case.

Indeed, while Amy Roths introduction to Nick Lee was glowing, if she had actually bothered to read what he wrote, she might have found precious little support for either her or Rebecca Watson.

“Not every flirtation is unwelcome attention, until one side announces it is, and then it should stop.”

So according to Nick there was nothing wrong with what happened to Rebecca Watson in the elevator. NOTHING.

“It is also complicated by the right of people to say what is on their minds even if it makes us feel uncomfortable.”

And there’s Amy ‘crying over the T-shirt’ Roth CLEARLY rebutted in the very next sentence.

Calling someone an idiot for acting like an idiot does not become ‘hate against women’ simply because the person in question was a woman.  This is one of the two general categories of the ‘hate against women’ that Skepchick encounters.  Look it’s obvious, how would people respond if I ‘embraced victim-hood’ like the Skepchicks.  That is any time anyone said anything ‘nasty’ against me I simply claimed that this was just sexism and misandry?  Yup, I would expect exactly the mockery that the Skepchicks get.  Far from sexism, this treatment represents equality in the secular community in that these people (the Skepchicks) are being judged on what they say and do, rather than on their gender.

The second general category of ‘hate against women’ Skepchick encounters is people trolling them.  Now it’s my reckoning that of the three ‘leaders’ Skepchick have thus far got to ‘speak out’ on this, two probably have no idea what trolling is.  Trolls do not hate anyone; they just get off on how easy it is to control people, particularly people who are hypersensitive on an issue (e.g. feminism) by pushing the right psychological buttons.  Skepchick is grade A trolling material and are seen to be some of the most easily puppeteered people on the webs.  What trolls will do is type some manipulative reactionary shit into a comment box and then laugh as those being trolled dance like puppets on strings.  With experience it’s easy to spot most trolls.  To be honest it is shameful that the Skepchick are so easily trolled as it shows their grotesque naivety to the interwebs.  So how can I be so sure that the Skepchick is just getting trolled?  Well it’s very easy, unless you actually think that there are really hundreds of atheists who are looking to rape Rebecca Watson (in which case the atheist community would have a huge fractional population of folks intending to be rapists and the ‘leaders’ response would be ENTIRELY inadequate), SHE’S BEING TROLLED!  Her ‘rape threats’ are exactly as valid as the ones I got on my first video that addressed this,

I’d just like to say thunderf00t should be raped, and I want to rape thunderf00t so he loosens up a little bit, and also thunderf00t is too ugly to rape.
Oh Noes, I’ve got multiple rape threats.  Where are all the atheist leaders speaking out against hate directed against men in the secular community?

and to be honest her parading these around like a ‘trophy proof’ of misogyny in the atheist community at conference after conference makes her, and anyone else who is taken in by it look as stupid to the new internet savvy generation of atheists as Oprah and the 9000 penises that she was worried a pedophile syndicate had ready to rape children.

Really leaders, you are showing your age in the internet generation to be taken in by this sort of thing.  There is only one way to win against a troll.  DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

Skepchick do not only openly violate this law, they put up glowing neon signs saying ‘we seek out and feed any and all trolls’.  On the internet this is almost as bad as feeding the gremlins after dark then throwing them in a lake Superior, then complaining about the gremlin infestation, it’s the equivalent of putting a big sign on your own back saying ‘kick me’ then crying about the ‘sexism’ of those who kick you.

Ana from the Young Turks pretty much calls it like it is on this segment.

Other than that, where are these people who ‘hate women’?  Does anyone actually have any evidence for this ‘hate against women’ that is NOT someone being calling out someone for saying or doing something outrageously stupid, or being trolled, or some mixture of the two?

In which case I have to ask these Leaders, who exactly are these people that they talking out against?  Where are they?  If no one actually knows, then why are they speaking out against a problem that doesn’t exist?  Inquiring minds need to know!

Feminist reduced to tears by T-shirt

July 19, 2012

Good God, your know someone is on the fringe when you cannot tell the difference between someone pretending to be a crazy feminist, and a skepchick-type feminist expressing their opinion.  That’s right, feminism in the secular movement has reached poe-tastic proportions!

So lets see if you can tell me which one of the following is someone pretending to be crazy, and which is a serious feminist (being supported by who else but ‘Freethoughtbloggers’ and skepchick).

Is it a)

There has been a lot of sexually harassing by text (textual harassment) at TAM, and therefore the skeptichicks are planning to implement a policy banning such harassment at their conferences.  To ensure that women feel safe at conferences this policy will strictly prohibit people sending unwanted text messages, specifically including the following:

( . ) ( . )

8====)
😉
=P

or is it b),

…that wearing a T-shirt at TAM saying that says ‘I’m a skeptic, not a skepchick, not a woman skeptic, just a skeptic’ constituted such powerful and dehumanizing harassment, that it reduced a grown feminist to tears, forcing her to spend the rest of the conference with her mother.  Then eventually when she simply couldn’t take the devastating harassment of the T-shirt anymore, she had to change her flight and leave early.

Well if you answered a), sorry to say you are wrong.  Textual harassment was from a parody site of ‘freethoughblogs’.  In reality it was one of those fearless feminist types, Amy Roth, who ended up crying because she didn’t like someones T-shirt at a conference (TAM).  What’s more is the absolute vanilla level of meek criticism that was required to turn this steely eyed feminist into blubbing girl.  I kid you not, it was no more than this T-shirt.  Seriously, this is not being mean, this is just like one of those “WTF is she going on about? there is no way she can possibly be that fragile and thin skinned”, type things.

Here’s the actual text of her describing the event, but if you can’t be bothered to read it, here is the video form (see 46s onwards):

This takes being thin skinned to a whole new level.  I mean really this level of offendability makes the ‘war on christmas’ people look positively sane, rational and thickskinned!  Really, did you ever see any of them in tears because someone wore a T-shirt slightly disparaging to xmas?  If they had would they not be laughed off the planet?  Then why should a feminist get any more slack than the craziest of the fundamentalists simply because shes calls herself a skeptic of sorts? And no surprises this horrible ‘harassment’ suffered by Amy was promoted by freethoughtblogs.

However deep at the bottom of this I can’t but help feel the skepchick-types REALLY needed something to be offended about, and they defiantly need to be the victims of something!  There clearly wasn’t any sexual harassment at TAM, without even a single instance of someone being asked for coffee in an elevator.  Then of course TAM had a sexual harassment policy in place.  Really what is left for the skepchick-types to get hysterical about?  Well, by a T-shirt saying they are “not a skepchick” of course- oh the horror… the horror.

Remember, if you oppose the T-shirt harassment policy at future conferences then you must be a bigoted, rape enabling, misogynistic radical woman hating MRA and you will get called an asshole before getting blocked for being a ‘troll’! It’s part of the inclusive forward thinking policy of this blog to promote equality. -jk or skepchick-style-feminism logic?