[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!
[0:00] Thunderf00t:You ever sat down and wondered, what it would look like if men saw the world like pop-culture-feminists like Anita Sarkeesian? Well if you sit down and think about something, and DON’T conclude that you’re the victim, then you’ve just not thought about it long enough.
[0:16]: Well I think it might look a little something like this:
[0:19]: “In this video, we’re going to examine the trope of men as female target-practice. Now it’s no secret that throughout pop culture—in movies, videos, and computer games—that men are universally portrayed as little more than background objects that can be: shot, stabbed, or disposed of, without real world consequences, while simultaneously, feminist theory prevents this from being done to the women.”
[0:47]: “Now, remember, it’s possible to enjoy a media while simultaneously being critical of its more pernicious aspects and the socially harmful myths that it propagates.”
[0:57]: “In this series, we will critically examine, from a “pop culture perspective”, the trope of expendable men as female target-practice, and how this trope perpetuates and normalizes the acceptability of violence against men.”
[1:14]: “Now it’s well-known that Hollywood glorifies and encourages female violence against men. Indeed, it’s steeped in it. Like in this film, Misery, named after the man’s suffering in this film, where Ms. Chastain breaks the ankles of honest writer, Paul. It extends pervasively through modern media, where it’s seen that holding an un-consensual man captive against his will just because you like him, is fine.”
[1:45]: “Like in this Pink video, where we are encouraged to vicariously enjoy a man being held captive against his will, for no other reason than erotic entertainment of a female.”
[1:57]: “And notice, how fem-o-centrically sexist these videos are, in that the woman is fully allowed to express her sexuality while the man is simultaneously and physically precluded from expressing his.”
[2:12]: “Or in this Lady Gaga video, which takes it one step further, where she’s actually seen to setfire to the man and taking his property, sexualizing the aspects of a man that don’t even require him to be alive.”
[2:27] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Kanye West’s Monster Misogyny”: “I think that bears repeating. This video fetishizes the aspects of women that don’t even require us to be physically alive.”
[2:34] Thunderf00t: “You know, I’ve often heard it said, that in the game of feminism, men are not the opposing team. They are the sword practice.”
[2:41]: “In the film Kill Bill, a film whose verytitle glamorizes and normalizes the idea that fatal acts of violence against men are acceptable, and indeed should even be actively sought out.”
[2:55]: “Here, the interchangeability and disposable nature of these men is formally conveyed to the audience by virtue of the fact that they all wear masks. We are left with no other option, but to conclude that these men are generic, dehumanized objects with no distinguishing features.
[3:13]: “This is emphasized by the fact that we have no connection to these men. We know nothing about them. What are their names? What do they do at weekends? What sort of things do they seek out in a life partner, and so on? No, the only thing that we know about these people is they are utterly disposable. And the only thing left for the protagonist to decide is in which order to kill them.”
[3:36]: “We are simply left with the understanding that men are strictly indistinguishable, violable objects. And once they have been reduced to the level of objects, it’s okay for the protagonist to kill them with no more emotional investment than throwing away a fast-food container.”
[3:54] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The dehumanization caused by objectification inevitably leaves us to the concept of disposability.”
[4:00] Thunderf00t: “Again and again, we see the perpetuation of the widespread and regressive belief that the male’s primary role is that of mobile target-practice. And that’s a pity, because this medium presents such a great opportunity to explore why males shouldn’t be used for sword practice.”
[4:19]: “But that’s not what’s happening here. Here, it is clear that these men have been reduced to the level of objects. And once they’ve been reduced to the level of objects, you should feel no more pity about cutting them up with a sword, than a pizza.”
[4:33] clip from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
[4:45] Thunderf00t: “Remember, subjects act. Objects are acted upon. That’s what feminism taught me.”
[4:51] clip fromTEDxYouth, “The Sexy Lie: Caroline Heldman at TEDxYouth@SanDiego”: “We’re thinking about the object-subject dichotomy. Subjects act. Objects are acted upon.”
[4:58] 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.”
[5:04] Thunderf00t: “And these days, the indoctrination of impressionable children, starts younger and younger.”
[5:10]: “Like in the movie Kick Ass, where a young woman is shown just how exciting it is to go on a killing spree of men. After all, they’re only objects, right? It’s not like killing them should have any real world consequences. Like explaining to the children of this poor, defenseless man”:
[5:29] clip from Kick Ass
[5:30] Thunderf00t: “-killed in cold blood, as to why daddy won’t be coming home tonight.”
[5:35]: “Even law enforcement officers in the line of duty, are not spared from this trope of men as target-practice. It should be noted, that in all of these media, the portrayal of men is universally sexist. The women are allowed to project their sexuality in many aspects, while simultaneously this female privilege is strictly denied to the men, who must remain as generic objects.”
[6:05]: “Seriously, could this sexism be any more explicit than in this scene, where the only two clearly distinguishable people in the room, and the ones with speaking roles, are women, where the rest of the room is full of identical men, whose only purpose in the film is to gurgle blood, as they like dying slowly, on the floor.”
[6:26] clip from Kill Bill: Vol. 1
[6:31] Thunderf00t: “Universally, feminist theory dictates that men are robbed of their sexuality during these scenes where women are simultaneously privileged to be able to appear as thoughtful, independent, sexually appealing, protagonists.”
[6:50]: “Sometimes this is graphically true, as seen in the film, Serenity, where the men are literally portrayed as savages, who the female is valiantly fighting to defeat.”
[7:02]: “Or in Shawn of the Dead, where there is little distinction made between the men, and the zombies.”
[7:08]: “Even in children’s programs, it’s portrayed that because men are not really human, it’s okay to kill them with fire.”
[7:16] clip from Sailor Moon[?]
[7:25] Thunderf00t: “This is now being taken into a new realm with interactive media, such as videogames, where female protagonists are given a subliminal manual on how to destroy cars with a few swipes of a bat, and killing unsuspecting males by jumping on them from behind and launching into savage, and unprovoked fatal attacks, is seen as a good thing—something for fun.”
[7:49]: “The game mechanics encourage this. The men are seen as nothing more than something to be shot, beaten, or blown up for fun. Men, as target practice. Again, once the male has been reduced to the level of object, it’s okay to kill them. Because that’s what feminism taught me about the subject-object dichotomy, is once people have been reduced to the level of object, it’s okay to kill them.”
[8:15] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The dehumanization caused by objectification inevitably leads us to the concept of disposability.”
[8:21] Thunderf00t: “It even glamorizes the female execution of law enforcement officers in the line of duty, by striking a happy and indifferent pose next to the body of the police officer she’s just brutally murdered. Let’s just say that again: these games glamorize women killing exclusively male officers in the line of duty.”
[8:45]: “So these interactive algorithms transmit near constant cultural affirmation that female violence against men is acceptable—and, even virtuous. It’s simply the only message being transmitted on this Feminist Frequency.”
[9:02]: “So why does any of this matter? Why should it matter if young women are being sent messages about killing men in uniform? Well the obvious—and negative—impacts have been studied extensively over the years. And it’s been found to have a widespread, negative effect on the behavior of women. And the effects on all people are quite clear and very serious. Research has constantly shown that games like this negatively impact female perceptions about real-world men, and reinforces socially harmful myths about the acceptability of using men, as sword practice.”
[9:43]: “And that’s all without taking into account how videogames allow a more interactive role for the impressionable women, and encourages a more participatory form of this sadistic enjoyment of violence against men. In these ways, the systems work to facilitate female violence against men, into turning it to a form of play; something to be amusing and entertaining.”
[10:09]: “This forces female consumers of this media to become complicit with the game developers in making fatal violence against men a participatory activity. Scholars have again and again found that this has a profound impact on women’s behavior.”
[10:27]: “Now, inevitably, whenever these game mechanics, or the clear academic findings are questioned, many female consumers of this media try to dismiss themselves or distance themselves from the issue by insisting that they don’t personally partake in the options to kill men.”
[10:45]: “But if they do, or if they don’t, does not change the fact that the object was designed and placed in that environment for that explicit function. A game designed to normalize that it’s okay for women to kill men, is still a game designed to normalize the disposable concepts about men, whether you choose to use it, or not.”
[11:06]: “And this we’ve recently been taught. While many might think they have a personal force field that shields them from the effects of these games, this is simply is not true”:
[11:15] 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.”
[11:20] clips from The Matrix, Iron Man 2, Kick Ass, Kill Bill: Vol. 1
[11:39] 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.”
[12:16] Thunderf00t: I CANNOT BELIEVE that she comes out with this BULLSHIT!
Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript! 🙂
[0:00] Thunderf00t: So why does feminism poison everything? And I really mean EVERYTHING. I mean, let’s just take one of the most absolutely, uncontentious and difficult things to poison that you could get. Say for instance, ‘raising money to help blood cancer research’. And now let’s see how many seconds it takes for feminism to poison it:
[0:21] From Rebecca Watson clip, “Help Blood Cancer Research with Light the Night”: “Hello, YouTube. It’s been awhile. I’ve missed you. And, I’m guessing that you’ve missed me too. Because I’ve heard that if a male atheist on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a cunt, his balls will actually shrivel up, and then tuck up inside of him, forming what some call a ‘mangina’.”
[0: 37] Thunderf00t: And that was it. That’s how the face of feminism—in atheism—thinks it’s the best way to start a charity fund-raiser—using this passive-aggressive victim routine to spit poison at the entire male atheist audience.
[0:52] Rebecca Watson clip: “Because I’ve heard that if a male atheist on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a cunt, his balls will actually shrivel up, and then . . .”
[1:00] Thunderf00t: Huh. And they wonder why they get called ‘toxic’. And of course it goes without saying that if you call her—specifically her [out] on being a toxic parasite, she will say, ‘Aaaah! Look at all this hatred women get! It just shows how endemic misogyny is in the atheist community.’
Now where have I seen that victimhood routine before?
[1:20] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Anita Sarkeesian at TEDxWomen 2012”: “Now, I’m a pop culture critic. I am a feminist and I’m a woman . . . Turns out, that there are a bunch of male gamers out there who were, shall we say, not too excited about this project . . . I found myself the target of a massive online hate-campaign.”
[1:34] Thunderf00t: -because remember, calling Feminist Frequency a liar just shows how much you hate women! Right? It can’t possibly be because she actually lied to everyone’s face for her Kickstarter.
[1:48] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “This is a photo of me, at age ten playing Super Mario World on the Super Nintendo. So I’ve been playing games for quite a while.”
[1:56] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Anita And The White Knights” (her lecture at Santa Monica College, CA 2010): “-one song, except I’m doing videogames. So, it’s not exactly a fandom. I’m not a fan of videogames. I actually have to learn a lot about videogames in the process of making this. And also videogames—like, I would love to play videogames. But, I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. And it’s just, gross. So-”
[2:12] Thunderf00t: There you have it. Anita Sarkeesian in one sentence: “I’m not a gamer, because shooting people and ripping off their heads is gross”. But the fact this princess needed to be rescued is an outrage—because rescuing a princess will make society more sexist.
[2:31] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Support My Kickstarter Project – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “And as with all pop culture media, the gaming industry is playing a role in helping to shape our society. Either by challenging, or more often, reinforcing existing values, beliefs, and behaviors.”
[2:42] Thunderf00t: Yes, that’s right. Games clearly have an influence on society. I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that rescuing girls will make society more sexist. While games where you <Anita Sarkeesian> “go around shooting people and ripping off their heads” will clearly make it more likely that you will uh, kill people and rip off their heads. Huh. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the very core of Anita’s proposition here is bullshit:
[3:10] “And as with all pop culture media, the gaming industry is playing a role in helping to shape our society. Either by challenging, or more often, reinforcing existing values, beliefs, and behaviors.”
[3:20] “to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads”
[3:23] Thunderf00t: -that the whole crusade that she’s got here against games she doesn’t even play is built on one, single, fundamentally wrong premise?
But let’s be generous and say that even though she’s provided no evidence whatsoever that these games do make people more sexist. Aaand let’s just ignore the rather important point that everything else is built on this single, completely unsubstantiated point—now, let’s just ignore that for a moment and assume that she’s right. Doesn’t that means that she’s just got really, really messed up priorities?
You know, ‘look at this princess who needed to be rescued. Because that’s gonna make society more misogynistic. And that’s a very serious problem’. Whereas her expert pop culture critic skills seem to have completely missed the fact that there are thousands of games out there that are gonna make society more likely to kill people and to rip off their heads.
Now I think given that there are billions of people killed annually in these video games, and that that has no significant effect whatsoever on the murder statistics, suggest that playing video games really isn’t’ a significant factor. So that really does put the owners on Feminist Frequency to demonstrate why killing people in computer games doesn’t have any significant effect on society, while for some completely unexplained reason, ‘rescuing this princess is gonna make you more sexist’.
[4:47] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The trope quickly became the go-to motivational hook for developers, as it provided an easy way to tap into adolescent male-power fantasies.”
[4:57] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I would love to play videogames. But, I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. It’s just, gross. So-”
[5:04] Thunderf00t: Yeah, I can see how that really would be a problem for pre-Kickstarter. Anita, thinking that ‘it’s gonna be difficult for me to play the victim, if all I have to work with is, I don’t like these first-person shooter type games’.
[5:18] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. It’s just, gross. So-”
[5:23] Thunderf00t: ‘Oh, I know what I need to say. I need to say that the gaming industry that supplies people who want first-person shooter type games with first-person shooter type games, which I’ve got no interest in playing, of course, is actually a patriarchal, misogynistic, man-o-centric, man-ocracy trying to oppress meeeeee.’
[5:39] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “16×9 – Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying”: “It’s very male-dominated. And I think with that male-domination comes, a sense of entitlement; that these games are for men, and by men. And that women, if they’re going to participate, they need to shut up.”
[5:49] Thunderf00t: Hey, Anita, I can play that game too. I’ve got almost no interest in puzzle games. Really don’t. But I can tell you with absolute certainty, that the fact that there isn’t more first-person shooter type action randomly in the middle of puzzle games, just shows how this gaming section is very woman dominated. And this female domination comes through in the sense of entitlement; that these games were made by women, for women. And that if men want to participate, they just have to shut up.
I suppose I should congratulate her, ‘cause she’s managed to sell this bullshit all over the place. And managed to get people to give her a hundred and sixty thousand dollars for something that can be debunked in under a minute.
[6:33] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I’m not a fan of videogames.”
[6:35] Clip from“16×9 – Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying”: “By the pop culture critic and life-long gamer-“
[6:37] Thunderf00t: No, no, no, no, no. You gotta use feminist reasoning here. Calling her a liar because she lied to everyone’s face about being a gamer, just proooves how much misogyny there is in the gaming community.
This is why people like Madonna dissociate themselves from feminism. Instead preferring to call themselves ‘humanists’. For the simple reason that those who vocally associate themselves with being feminists, tend to be so toxic, that they poison absolutely everything they come in contact with. Including, the very term ‘feminism’.
[7:12] 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.”
[7:16] Clip from “mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event”: “-the assumption—I’m reading fuckface! I’m trying to fuckin’—I’m letting everybody else hear it, okay!? It’s not just for you Mr. entitled. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of the patriarchy. . .
Can you, shut the fuck up for a second too”
[7:37] Clip from?: “In particular, artists such as Miriam Shapiro and Judy Chicago championed what is today known as ‘vulvic’ or ‘cunt art’ to art historians. Which can be defined as a type of essentialist aesthetic that focuses on the universal, physical characteristics that all women share—their sexual organs or genitalia.”
[7:56] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “#6 The Straw Feminist (Tropes vs. Women): “Women are being institutionally oppressed all the time in nearly every facet of our lives.”
[8:02] Rebecca Watson clip from “Rebecca Watson – European Atheist Convention 2012”: “And when I point out that ‘bitch’ is a gendered insult that demeans all women—again, most people get it.”
[8:09] Clip from Aliens: “Get away from her, you bitch!”
[8:11] Anita Sarkeesian clip from ?: “because it’s basically a choose-your-own-patriarchal-adventure porno fantasy.”
[8:15] Thunderf00t: But recently, feminists have decided that Wikipedia is biased against them. Why? What’s the evidence for this? Because they say so, of course. The accusation ISthe evidence. And now, because of their asserted bias, they want to inject feminism into Wikipedia in an exercise they call ‘Wikistorming’. Yeah. Feminists are looking to poison Wikipedia as well.
The irony is though, on articles I’ve come across on Wiki, like, ‘Sexual dimorphism’, it’s already got the grubby fingerprints of feminist ideology-based edits all over it. But this is the thing. I don’t have to claim bias. Because claims are cheap, unsubstantiated. No, unlike feminists, I don’t claim bias. I demonstrate it.
[9:06] Thunderf00t clip from “Feminism vs Facts (part 1)”: “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.
[9:32] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender, is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth. Which of course is completely false.”
[9:41] Thunderf00t clip from “Feminism vs Facts (part 1)”: 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.
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)
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.
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”)
Hm. 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.
[11:32] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Support My Kickstarter Project – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “As you might imagine, this project requires an enormous amount of research.”
[11:35] Thunderf00t: That is, if anything, Wikipedia already has a feminist bias to it. But come now, feminists. It’s time for you to shine. Show me the examples of where Wikipedia is biased against women to the point where you need feminists to storm Wikipedia and inject feminist thinking into its heart.
So the other day I started making a list of videos I have planned (which are at various degrees of development).
—————————————————————
Interview with Lawrence Krauss (postponed)
How to spend a billion dollars.. What can you really buy with a billion dollars. Hubble cost average American 3 bux
Climate change videos
1) how much bioenergy to run man kinds biology compared to civilization compared to global warming flux
2) heat flow on planet earth
3) changing the volume of the oceans
Debunk Laci green feminist bullshit on feminism
Why do people laugh at creationists
1) giants – nephilimfree
2) Atmosphere -ian juby
3) What is science -ken ham
Noah’s arc theme park
Debunk radioactive bullshit
1) Depleted uranium
2) is it safe off Fukushima
How does a drinking bird work
sodium potassium alloy stuff
1) potassium exploding on ice
2) ultra high speed footage of explosion
3) large scale potassium, sodium and cesium explosions
4) ACTUAL mechanism of nak/water explosion
5) is it possible to get lithium to Explode
Make cesium thermometer- need to sort out high vacuum kit
Scientific research on Noah’s Flood- what happens to a plant under water for a year
Watching the go around the Sun (year in time lapse)
Time lapse of tracking telescope over several days (+ with without moon)
Debunk homeopathy (pico second qm simulation of water)
Who is thunder foot – scientific research
Getting drunk science – monitor blood alcohol level in resting and physically hard working thunderf00t
Comparison of sleep pattern while drunk and sober
Remaster why do people laugh at creationists videos
Anita sarkeesian master’s thesis and why having a ponytail is sexist
-Full reason why having gender bias in top field is probably nothing to do with sexism
Solar system in perspective. What if the solar system was all water
Death by meteorite impact…. Will you live long enough for your ears to go pop?
1) energetic of car crashes and statistics
2) comparison of car crash stats and rules and regulations with guns
call rationalwiki out on its comical degree of social justice warrior BS.
I know it’s been forever since I posted a written word blog!
But having rediscovered my password, I thought I would take this opportunity to get some feedback on how you think I’m doing, and to give suggestions of what you would like to see more of?
More Why do people laugh at creationists (believe it or not I have at least 4 at various stages of production)
More on the CRAZY (and VERY scientifically illiterate) radiation/ chemical fearmongers (at least two scripted)
More on the ‘any difference between men and women is sexism’ type feminists.(again I have about two scripted)
More simple science stuff….. and boy do I have lots to do here!
I have great memories of our group singing of ‘Always look on the bright side of life’ at the end of that conference! Telling ya, we have GOT to adopt that as our anthem!
We are responsible adults thank you, and do not need to be treated like children!
————————————-
…..anyway, I digress. However much fun conferences might be, they are effectively still a side show compared to the potential reach of the internet. Lets keep it real: the internet is a place where religions come to die!
-New media is a game changer in a way that conferences never were, and likely never will be!
In this sense, I see it as vital that we maintain a strong internet presence on viral media. Regrettably the secular/ rationalist community has a problem on youtube at the moment. Established players have been slowly drifting away, and because the barriers to entry are so high, there are not being replaced! To be honest, this is to me a far bigger issue than pretty much anything that is happening on the conference scene.
The way I see it we want people making good videos on a semi-regular basis. But how to encourage this?
Well I actually care about this a lot!, and so I am going to put basically all of the donations I received from last year into a fund to encourage this ($10 000).
So how best to do this? Well this is where I want your help, for many minds are better than one, and I have essentially no experience at doing this sort of thing.
So far my rough ideas looks like this:
The first thing is of course, while I will supply the prize money, I should detach myself from the judging. So far Eugenie Scott, Elisabeth Cornwell and ZOMGitscriss have suggested that they would be willing to help out with the judging. If you have any other names you would like to suggest, please leave them below.
I was thinking about three categories:
1) Merit grants. This is basically giving money to established people who have contributed much for little reward. Its just a small way for the community to say thank you for all you’ve done! I also think this would create a lot of good will among our established video makers.
2) Equipment grants. This is for folks are happy to spend their time making videos, but think that its a bit much to have to spend their own money to make videos for other people to watch for free. The solution is simple, buy them what they need, HD webcam, microphone, green-screen, etc. and everybody wins!
3) A video competition. Youtube is becoming an increasingly competitive attention economy, and what is really needed is people who are making competativley good media on a semi-regular basis. So I suggest that people get to submit their three best videos made over a period of 3 months with the winners taking home cash prizes, and getting their work featured on my channel etc. We do our best as a community to bring new blood in that are making good videos on a semi-regular videos.
So what do you think? Good ideas? How best to partition up the prize money?
That is, if you had $10 000 dollars to spend to invigorate the secular presence on youtube, how would you spend it?
So C0nc0rance had an exchange with PZ Myers about free speech. Needless to say C0ncordance hits basically every relevant point, and PZ sadly reaches for every justification for removing peoples ability to comment on a PUBLIC forum that’s been used by creationists, science denialists and pretty much anyone else on youtube whose ideas dont hold water. The video really says it all.
PZ has now disabled comments and ratings on videos that were unpopular, notably why I was thrown off ‘freethoughtblogs’ and ‘atheism+‘ (not surprising given the rating were comparable the VFX talking about the holocaust). This is taken straight from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, Dawahfilms, Nephilimfree and a horde of others. Even Venomfangx has backbone to allow ratings on his videos, but not PZ. In fact the real hoot is PZ’s ideas on free speech pretty much mirror those of dawahfilms, whose great ideas on free speech can be found here (oh yes, savor the irony of a private playlist on freespeech).
Indeed PZ justification for limiting free speech like this when he gets the chance makes it rather difficult to work out if his ‘forum rules’ are written in plain draconian English or as a rather unfunny joke.
PZ Myers forum rules:
The Absolute Law
I AM THE BOSS, and don’t you forget it. I have sole and absolute power here; I can ban you, I can destroy your comments, I can shut down whole threads. I am a being of caprice; I don’t have to justify anything I do. So when I tell you to stop doing something, stop. Don’t argue with me. You don’t like that I banned your friend? Tough. Don’t complain to me. I will do as I will to make this place the kind of party I want to attend, and that’s all that matters.
This law supercedes all other rules.
The sad thing is I predicted that the second PZ found out that people weren’t agreeing with him on everything he said, those comments would be straight off to the memory hole, and that’s why I took the precaution of caching the last 500 of them.
So here they are in all their glory, the comments that PZ doesn’t want you to see!
28000 words that PZ was more than happy to obliterate at the click of a mouse.
It is disingenuous and dishonest to represent an association based on self interest under a banner called “free thought”. It is insulting to reject any supernatural existence and use the term “spirit of enlightenment”. Poor, corrupt and undisciplined thought. It embodies evangelic dogma synonymous with dishonest sermonizing. Power corrupts even when perceived as intellectual power. Arguments aside, this video represents a small man with dogmatic corrupt thought. A disappointment.
The spirit of the enlightenment is completely compatible with rejecting supernatural claims. Any cursory review of enlightenment writers would confirm that. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the use of the word ‘spirit’ is wrong?
Progressive socio-political views and actions are also completely compatible with enlightenment ideals.
You have conflated so many contradictory positions that you must have trouble following the conversation.
If wrongheaded means my head not yours ….well said. My impression of your enlightened “spirit” suggests only that your reasoned definition should prevail, all hypocrisy notwithstanding, I question it’s compatibility. I reserve the right not to follow “the conversation” but to question it. I cannot accept ethical hypocrisy and dishonesty as progressive reason. Competition for popularity does not represent disciplined thought. It is corrupt and disappointing.
Full of yourself much? Ethical hypocrisy? They called their blog network “free thought blogs”…they didn’t copyright the words “free thought”. When saying that we reject the supernatural why don’t you substitute…”We reject supernatural claims which can’t be verified.” I can reasonably say that I reject the notion of the loch ness monster without having to follow it up with a disclaimer about undiscovered species that might be real. You’re being an asshat and pretending to be openminded.
I you cant read a sentence because there’s caps and italics maybe ou should get some glasses. CAPS add emphasis alon with italics so as to understand the way the sentence is MEANT to be read. If that annoys you than you to me would seem like a prude.
Plain and simple, thunderf00t simply said something PZ misunderstood, and didnt like.
I guess you can freely think about, and criticize anything you find on FtB, UNLESS, it contradicts what PZ agrees with. Makes NO sense!!!!!!!!!!
PZ, you’ve clearly misrepresented the function of his “forms in triplicate” argument. What he is doing there is called exaggeration for effect. No one, not him, his readers or anyone else actually believes this is what anyone at FTB would demand of him. He is simply making the point that obtaining consent would ruin the moment. Social interaction is messy, even the deeply conscientious sort. Now, I had no dog in this fight but this, along with your stream of ad homs, have made up my mind. 😦
No… “forms in triplicate” is plagiarism. If actually used as an argument it’s also called “Reductio ad absurdum”. It’s stupid, unoriginal and a really bad argument.
Actually, Doug, it isn’t plagiarism, it’s a common if somewhat particular expression. Further, it is not a reduction to absurdity for the simple reason that no one, other than you, is taking it literally. You do know what it’s called when one refuses to apply a charitable interpretation under these circumstances, don’t you? I think you do.
“IN ORDERS SIGNED IN TRIPLICATE SENT IN, SENT BACK AND BURIED IN SOFT PEAT FOR THREE MONTHS AND RECYCLED AS FIRELIGHTERS” is not a “common if somewhat particular expression” you moron >_> it’s plagiarizing Adams, and it is clearly reductio ad absurdum.
Whether it’s plagiarism or paying homage is debatable and very much beside the point. Further, referencing “orders in triplicate” or some variation involving triplicate was a common sarcastic complaint regarding bureaucracy prior to the development of word processing, as partially evidenced by Adam’s use. You should know this. What’s more, it would only be a reduction to the absurd IF there was the expectation that it be taken literally. Clearly, there is no such expectation.
How about this, for the sake of your fixation and because I really don’t care due to its lack of relevance, we’ll say it is plagiarism. Now, what impact on the original point does that have? Is it more than zero?
No, it isn’t.
For the record, I’ve debated fundamentalists with more manners AND apparent critical thinking skills than you. You make declarations and offer no supporting reason at all. It is as if you believe you can win a debate by fiat. I will waste no more time with you.
I don’t care what you think, why on earth would I? As for “supporting reason” I gave a direct quote… it’s plagiarism and a stupid argument. It doesn’t matter to me at all if you can’t accept that.
Here’s the money quote from your comment, JoeNietzsche:
“…obtaining consent would ruin the moment.”
Dwell on that for a few moments. Seriously, that’s meme-worthy. It works in so many situations: rape, burglary, trespassing, kidnapping, grand theft auto, pre-emptive military invasion, copyright infringement, ejaculating on your partner’s face without their permission… It’s like a universal catch-phrase for assholes.
Yes, why don’t you think about that for a moment? Why don’t you think about the difference between taking fifty cents without permission and fifty thousand dollars, for just a moment. Or do things like scale and consequences not have any meaning in your life? You’re right, it is meme worthy but not for the reasons you thought.
How is Free Thought not synonymous with Free Speech exactly? Doesn’t one use free speech to express free thought? Since when is Free Thought dictated by a collective of a small group of people? I’m not saying I agree or disagree with TF00t, I’m just arguing as to what Free Thought should really mean. Maybe you should change the name of your blog, it is misleading.
On this I agree in principle with Meyers and FTB; that communication has to remain polite and respectful.
But I disagree with the banning of TF. They have massively abused their editorial authority simply because someone disagreed with them – someone who easily met the minimum standards of decorum.
It’s a scum act that they will rationalize away until the day they die unfortunately. The attention drawn to the poll is pathetic. If they thought it wrong they only needed to say so.and explain.
I did watch the video. I just don’t agree with PZ’s definition. If he is describing the ideals of the enlightenment… fine. However, if someone is a Free Thinker then they should be able to use logic, reason and science to discuss anything. On the other hand, should one be respectful and use polite words when engaged in a debate with some one who does not agree with them? Absolutely!
I didn’t hear anything about “Free Thinker”. Are you accidentally making up a new category and suggesting he must subscribe to it?
It seemed to me that “freethough” movement has sensible boundaries. You don’t bother spending time discussing whether you should blow up a building with someone, on the basis that you “must” discuss anything. You draw a line somewhere and you move on. The line drawn by PZ is the “freethought” movement and it sounded completely sensible to me.
“the right of the individual to live their own life, with autonomy” But this doesn’t extend to people not liking feminism?
When did he say/ suggest a popular vote would settle this. And if he did, why would that be disturbing?
The only problem i can see with thunderfoot on this one, is that he trusted another academic because they were and academic. instead of getting to know how you behave in advance.
Have to say, did really care much for Tfoots drama on this issue, but now you’ve stated your side Im now with him. All youve said is is ftb is a place your free to agree with your group or leave. Its a good thing youve cited your case to peer review by the wider community, I suggest you look at the results. Maybe think of a new name for your blog stte, our way or the highway does not suggest to me free thought, or indeed any form of freedom.
PZ – Thunderf00t did not attack feminism, but merely pointed out that sometimes, some feminist positions might be over-stated. That is not trolling or disrespectful; it is merely thought-provoking. I find him often too negative in tone & likely to turn away the religious by style rather than win them with logic. You’re right about his poll. Nevertheless, your ban is clearly wrong. Extremism & intolerance are hypocritical & hurt our cause. You’re both acting on emotion/ego. Please stop.
Feminism IS religious dogma. It assumes that all men are brutes, willing to rape at any moment. It assumes that all domestic violence is initiated by men, even though it’s about 50/50. It assumes that most non-domestic violence is suffered by women, even though the vast majority of men murdered and assaulted are men, a claim that holds true even when you add in rapes. Feminism isn’t based on science (in this case statistics), it is based on the ultra-sensitive sense of women’s comfort.
Exactly. I rate Feminism below Homeopathy as a rigorous academic field. I am kind of sick of then having to explain that I don’t condone rape, am not a misogynist, believe in equal opportunity etc.
Feminism as a social science is utterly whimsical. And now it has hijacked Atheism.
Make no mistake, this is the catalyst for A+. The A+ group is clearly trying to demonize Tfoot and those who support him, for his alleged misogyny and general assholery, and the presumed misogyny and assholery of his his followers. All under a false banner of social justice and diversity. I’m not the biggest fan of Thunder anymore, he is a bit of an arrogant prick, but at least he’s not dishonest..
I admire a good deal of your work, Myers, and have greatly enjoyed some of your videos. Honestly I think you’re a deeper thinker than Thunderf00t, who tends to go after easy targets. I do however find Thunderf00t to be far more meticulous in his dissection of arguments, almost to the point of pedantry.
I don’t think this video does you a great service. You speak in extremely vague generalities, when we all know that what happened is Thunderf00t rattled your cage on Elevatorgate.
In this video, I heard a completely reasonable view point, explained clearly. I have no idea what you’re talking about – that he spoke in generalities – probably because you are the one actually speaking in vague generalities.
6:59 No, it doesn’t mean either or those two things. you completely forgot that perhaps you guys were so emotionally invested in the subject that you blinded yourself to what was said and started imagining statements that were never made.
Wow. I had some doubts about this argument between TF and PZ. But this video settles it. What serious person would call someone who simply disagrees with him a troll? I really hope that PZ just doesn’t entirely understand what trolling means, otherwise, he had lost all his credibility.
You know, its a sad, sad thing when you have admired someone for so long, only to find out that they aren’t as admirable as you thought they were.
Mr. Meyers, you’ve shown yourself to be a personally arrogant, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, sexist (against your own gender, no less) shitheel.
I know that you do not know me from Adam, but be aware that I am very, very disappointed in you.
Thing is, his views are compatible with the goals you’ve stated in this video. He presented a rational argument explaining why he’s skeptical that sexual harassment is as big of an issue as it’s being made out to be.
As a female who has been to multiple freethought/skeptic/atheist conventions, I’m inclined to agree. Sexual harrassment is not as big a deal as the few are making it out to be.
The fact that you won’t admit that you are attacking him dogmatically just disgusts me.
Aren’t you mistaking the significance of the issue as “how many times it happens” rather than what PZ is getting at: “how important the principle of equal opportunity is” ?
Please explain the “dogma” precisely, because I’m disgusted that someone can make that claim in light of what I see as a completely reasonable and justifiable position.
Speaking of censorship – my comments are now progressively disappearing from this debate, including the top commented 29 thumbs up comment opposing PZ Meyers. I guess its all in the name of free thought.
How would you have screened him more carefully as a candidate? Asked if he would choose to disagree with you in a moderate fashion on a reasonable topic of discussion?
You do realize you’re committing the exact same transgressions you accuse him of in this very video?
All you Motherfuckers that don’t agree with PZ Myers will be BANNED from this site! YOU don’t seem to get it, your job is to say what he tells you to say, when he tells you to say it, and with the correct tone! PZ defines what the Atheist movement is because that’s his right! He is smarter and more educated than you are, so just sit down shut the hell up and if he wants to you have an opinion he will give you one! If PZ wasn’t right, everyone would just ignore him!
Perhaps so. Or perhaps that’s quibbling over details. I mean, even a blog called freethought surely has limits on acceptable discussion. Being an apologist for the the rape of women probably falls outside their mission statement.
I don’t really remember his comments anymore so I could be way off the mark, but it seemed that he was suggesting that women at the conference somehow deserved to be sexually assaulted. In fairness, I have argued myself that when women knowingly draw sexual attention to themselves, that they must take a big share of responsibility when they then receive that attention.
He didn’t, and I still disagree with you. Women draw sexual attention to themselves just by existing – no fault anywhere.
Have a look around. Look at all the people everywhere – on the street, in the mall etc. Now remind yourself of how each one of those people came into existence.
Maybe the guy at the conference asked Rebecca Watson her name because he wanted to fuck her. It has happened before, so I am not counting it out.
The thing with Rebecca watson in the elevator was a disgrace – she’s an embarrassment to women. But I don’t think that’s what this was about – it was about comments TF left on the freethoughtblogs.
There’s a difference between simply being female, and consciously advertising and promoting your sexuality. Especially in a high risk area.
Your job is to listen to a video before commenting. PZ is clearly making the distinction between freethought, which is a specific philosophy whose definition existed long before PZ came along, and atheism, which is merely a lack of belief in the gods. He explains this at the very beginning of the video. If tfoot does not subscribe to the freethought philosophy, he shouldn’t be participating in a freethought forum.
I didn’t say that, I said you’re trying to justify a wrong. PZ was wrong, and like I said I’m happy to see all the people in here calling him on it. I Would like to see him resign or simply be ignored by the non-believers community.
No need to try to justify something that actually is justified. tfoot is not supportive of the freethought movement. He trolled the freethought blog. He therefore is no longer welcome there.
PZ labeled thunderfoot a troll because he found it the easiest way to dismiss his ideas. Classic ad hom. “Having a difference of opinion” does not equate to “trolling”.
Yes I did read it and I’ve followed this whole PZ vs Thunderfoot conflict, and it seems obvious that PZ went into damage control mode and concocted a story with the aim of maximum face-saving. His behavior here was reprehensible from such a “respected academic”.
PZ is educated and he has studied areas of biology that I have not. He’s not always right, but most of the time he has something interesting to say which makes me think. If my curiosity is peaked enough, I delve into my own further research. We need more people like PZ who add to the discussion, and less trolls like you who sarcastically roam the internet spewing nonsense.
Also, if PZ wasn’t right, everyone would discuss why, not ignore an egregious error.
PZ has the disturbing trait of exhibiting no self doubt. If wisdom is understanding how little one knows, PZ is very unwise. His smooth rationalizations in this video are breathtaking.
Being confident in your opinion because you have studied the evidence is not unwise. It is unwise to not accept valid criticism based on new evidence of a better interpretation of current evidence. His smooth rationalizations may seem breathtaking to you because you are not used such a calm, well thought out argument, as opposed to an emotional appeal.
Wisdom is understanding what you do know and what you don’t. I’d worry about an expert who exhibited a plethora of self doubt in his content.
No, obviously I wasn’t clear. It is breathtaking tosh delivered with nauseating indifference to reality, with no sincerity or rsepect for his audience. It is utterly self serving sophistry – hollow word games to satisfy his own ego. And he is no expert in this!
You’re still not clear. I’d love to hear your analysis of PZ and Tf’s respective arguments and actions. PZ never had such a grand lapse in judgement as to hack through a backdoor into the private mailing list from which he was recently ejected.
He is not expert, but he is pretty experienced with making rational, logical arguments. Tf mostly appeals to emotions and does not make judgments rationally, but by yelling louder and angrily tearing down straw men.
Straw men ought to be torn down – they are the bad guys, remember?
Well I don’t know about this hacking incident, but I am talking about Meyers on this Meyers’ video. Thinking Meyers has erred does not mean I automatically endorse everything TF does. TF is a whole other matter.
Surely this is just a diversion on your part – is it not?
Ok. I give up. You haven’t actually critiqued anything specific that pz has said.
However I give up because you don’t know what a straw man is. Straw men are built by the person who will then tear them down. Imaginary bad guys, and tearing them down diverts from the conversation. You haven’t said anything about the Meyers in this video.
I’m ready to give up on youtube comments all together…
OK my mistake about the straw man – I wrote that at 4:30 am!! My sincere apologies.I do know all about argumentation, but not at the moment I wrote that.
I, and many others HAVE criticized Myers’ act of banning TF from FTB. Think of the discussion positively!
* Effectively, you and Meyers have said that it is OK to ban trolls.
* I have argued tjhat TF is not a troll, but merely someone with a dissenting view, on an imnportant topic worthy our attention.
When I heard about the whole debacle, I watched a bunch of TF’s youtube videos. He has a few that are pretty good, and I can understand why he has such a large following. However, I read his blog postings on freethought, and the majority of it was an emotional appeal to his side, selfishly excluding other views.
I couldn’t understand his point of view, because it was in direct opposition to my own experiences. I haven’t seen any of his comments to others, but I understand they are inflammatory.
*cont* I am all for banning trolls; freethought has a specific purpose of creating a discussion which finds common ground and understanding. From what I understand, TF aggresively agreed with others, using accusatory language and being insulting when he did not object to anything the original poster said.
I’m all about protecting minority opinions, so long as they don’t trample on the rights of others. In any forum designed for discussion, it is important to kick out those who are hateful.
Finally the Atheist community starting to stand up to the extremist in their own movement!
When one openly proclaims political goals (as you obviously have) educated people everywhere understand that censorship of apposing opinions is a big red flag. PZ you removed him for not agreeing with you, THINKING human beings know that kind of reaction is simply not the actions of a reasonable man. I will be disappointed if your celebrity survives your behavior. PZ time to resign, you failed badly.
Disagree. In a closed group of his own creation, in which members are supposed to represent a set of common views or goals, it is PERFECTLY legitimate to censor those who vocalise contrary views.
If you create a members-only group called “Christians for peace” and a guy turns up who is a satanist that wants to fight, of course you’d silence him.
PZ Myers invited Thunderf00t to the blog, understanding the scope of his work. Did Thunderf00t make a dramatic change in his philosophy? No, so your example is nonsensical. Keep in mind that the whole issue has nothing to do with Atheism, it was over feminism issues!
PZ is trying to politicalize the Atheism movement and, that’s fine, so is Dawkins, but if PZ is going to run his political organization with an iron fist, that’s been done (Stalin) it went badly. I hope that PZ is soon irrelevant.
PZ addressed that in this video. He made it clear that issues such as basic respect towards all humans was one of the fundamental tenets of his blog. I agree that he was heavy-handed and ill-advised to boot thunderf00t so promptly, but having watched both of them in action, it’s clear that they are both mega-egos, who extend minimal courtesy to those whom they disagree with. I’m only surprised that thunderf00t would agree to go somewhere that he couldn’t be the primadonna. They’re both childish.
Anyone that claims absolute authority is (as demonstrated through their actions) absolutely certain. Censorship, political imprisonment, genocide, are all actions justified by the absolutely certain, who assert themselves as the absolute authority.
PZ is obviously willing to use censorship to enforce his brand of Atheism. By exercising absolute authority on another Atheist, PZ has elevated himself to a position of Lord. I’m glad to see Atheist calling him out on it! PZ, it’s time for you to go.
I’m sorry, but I completely disagree. Is a school teacher asserting himself as a lord by restricting the speech and actions permissable within the school?
Any community has limits on what is acceptable within that group or things quickly descend towards anarchy.
The shout for free speech anywhere, anytime by anyone is simplistic and unrealistic. PZ merely functions as a moderator for his community.
All you’re doing is trying to justify PZ actually being granted the absolute authority he has assumes he deserves.
There are 8 steps to a genocide, the last step is justification. Listen to the video, it’s all about trying to justify a stupid act. What you see as moderation is obviously asserting control and punishment. As I said, I’m glad to see Atheist being smart enough to call him out on this. It’s time for PZ Myers to simply go away, there is no room here for dictatorships.
But he DOES deserve it – it’s HIS forum – his kingdom if you like. Anyone who doesn’t like the rules is free to leave.
I agree, his overreaction was stupid, but in perfect proportion to his ego.
Your genocide comment is utterly irrelevant. I can’t even imagine what sane point you are making.
You seem to be arguing that people should not have the right to control their own kingdoms. That would be like me entering your house and saying I have the right to tell your daughter she should be raped.
If you can only repeat the same baseless mantra, why bother to comment? I was hoping for a reasoned debate, not a series of one-sided pz-hating soundbites.
For instance, you never answered my example about coming into your home. Shall I assume that you DO think I have that right and it would be wrong for you to oppose me?
A disappointing failure of a justification for a stupid act. Apparently your definition of ‘freethought’ implies that some things are sacred and are beyond criticism.
Just apologise already. You have shown yourself to be even smaller minded than I thought when I watched Thunderf00t’s complaint videos.
7:00, or option 3, PZ, what he was saying was pushing your emotional buttons and since he wasn’t in total agreement with you on the topic, you lashed out against what you presumed his position should have been, rather than what it actually was (the “you’re either with us or against us” mentality). I, for instance, understood what thunderf00t meant in his blogpost on FTB and I have to agree with him: you strawmanned him and quite badly so.
I used to like you, but recently I am looking more to tf00t and I didn’t even like him to begin with. It was after your irrational response with all that twisting of his words that I understood you gather people around you who only agree with you. Maybe you squabble, but you squabble and then jerk each other off it seems. A hive mind is not in any way the way of the enlightenment, dissenters should be welcomed and argued with based on the scientific method, not whatever you call your way.
I started paying attention to this argument about a week ago. I have recently watched all videos and read all blogs regarding the matter. PZ your showing your irrationality in this. I started this as a non-partisan by standard. I’ve donated to FTB and Thunder. PZ. In regards to the feminism disagreement please drop it. Accept you were wrong in banning Thunder. Accept that Thunder expected FTB to be Free Thought. Not Hive mind.
Yeah, there’s nothing “free” about freethoughtblogs. You’re “free” to post things we agree with or we will get rid of you. How “inclusive” of them. Way to embrace “diversity”. They are so hopelessly hypocritical I fear they are beyond hope.
The essential principle of both the enlightenment and freethinking is, “I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” In other words dissent is not only OK, respect for it is essential. It’s too bad Myers doesn’t like his blog being criticized from within but if your answer to criticism is to reject and censor the critic then you’re are not a freethinker. You’re just another pretentious asshole.
Anyone interested in this matter should read the offending entries at Thunderfoot’s FTB. The caps and other stylistic crimes Myers bitches about are highlights used by TF to emphasize Myer’s mischaracterization of TF’s words. TF quotes Myer’s version against TF’s quotes of what TF actually said. That should reveal to you why Myer’s is bitching about style.
Myers is a pompous bully and feminist lickspittle who can’t handle apt criticism. Paging Dr. Orwell.
Myer’s claim that he had no opportunity to respond is bull. Everyone is allowed to post video responses on Youtube and, of course, there is nothing to stop Myers from responding on his own popular blog site. I do think that self-selected poll samples are inherently bogus, though.
PZ’s massive straw man is the line “Free thought does not give people the right to say anything”
Granted. We all understand that notions can be angry, poorly thought through, reflexive,hateful etc, like trolling is, and can and SHOULD be censored from a “free thought” blog.
However, that is not the case here. It is simply because TF holds a different view on a sensitive topic. Don’t pretend it is otherwise.
If you want to trash his writing and argumentation – look at your own some time.
so you ban people that slightly disagree with you pz? that dosn’t sounds like anything you desribed after gathering all the information I can on this, I would have to say FTB is not any kind of reputable organisation
“So we were lazy in vetting him for admission and didn’t look all that closely at whether his views were compatible with our goals. They are not. As we discovered too late.” – PZMyers.
Wow, count me out of your so called Freethought blog. I’ll be sure to avoid any blog post from this source as any message will have been edited under a microscope to agree with what PZ agrees with. And I don’t buy that the blog is about progressive socio-political views. That is malarkey mixed with gobbledygook.
Thunderf00t never said his poll reflects the views of atheists in general. And it is true that his poll was heavily biased by the fact he presented only his side of the argument, so it was expected that he wins in that poll.
However, here is the funny part: you presented your side of the argument here (also only one side of the coin), yet your video is more disliked than liked. The fact Thunderf00t won this poll, too tells much, much more than the poll on his video.
The most amusing thing about all this is that it’s almost as if folks think the blog is something important. It just comes across as an atheistic circle jerk. Think about it: if Thunderf00t was trolling, he at least got results.
oh come on..tfoot a “troll”? thunder disagrees with “equal treatment”?? he has poor writing skills and uses caps and italisized words, his data and evidence is poor etc. you apologize for “poor screening”? i think THUNDER GOT YOU on this one PZ. its ok it happens sometimes but just remember the enemy…it’s those DAMN CHRISTIANS and the MUZZIES!
wouldn’t it be better to say free thought is a place where ideas would be scrutinized instead of persecuted.
after viewing this fight more and more i wonder what the line is between the people supporting tf00t’s ideas and those opposing them. I have been wondering how close to the line we could find.
this may be optimistic for me (like finding the line where brain becomes “mind”) but i think something interesting could be learned
PZ, I have been reading some of the feminists blogs on FTB’s. Basically, women are just whining about being victims which draws out certain people to pile on, feeding these women’s desire for attention and a cycle to whine some more. There are places where sexual harassment is an important concern, but your FTB women don’t make a case it’s a concern for them. Looks like “The movement” is simply your bowel movement.
You call Thunderf00t a troll as a means to justify your ends of kicking out someone you disagree with. Instances of sexual harassment doesn’t make it a significant issue seems to be all what Thunderf00t was saying, a point I’m inclined to agree unless shown otherwise.
If Thunderf00t endorsed sexual harassment, you may have an argument, but I don’t see that nor do you claim it. You’re arrogant and condescending toward Thunderf00t, but whatever it takes to rationalize breaking your promise.
You lie PZ. You say FTB pushes Enlightenment ideals – you don’t. You’re a bunch of dogmatic, group-think con-men. I can only hope people like Dawkins are getting as far from you as is humanely possible. You have zero credibility in the free-thought community – zero.
The fact you and your kin sat around discussing how to steal from TF says it all. Now shoo troll.
Understand that this is a scripted video in which a professional writer and scientist attempts to refute another person’s argument/explanation of what happened. I could likely come up with a better video than this extemporaneously.
Further, your story is utter bullshit. Thunderf00t has already released the emails stating that you granted him creative control to write whatever he wanted.
Thunderf00t doesn’t fit well in your circle because you’ve redefined freethought to mean herd-thinking.
Thunderf00t was “trolling” FTB?? BASED ON WHAT. Speaking of evidence, PZ has given none. And then jumped to a wild conclusion. PZ, all your efforts at saving face are transparent, and only serve to make you look uptight and close minded. You have your big cause, and no one can question it because then they “need not apply” to join your group. No diversity of opinion on FTB I guess.
I’m so ashamed of you PZ, on this one issue. I guess there was no way of explaining to TF what you expected of him by way of Conformation to your particular mindset, you just threw a hissy and banned him. Others have asked for evidence of sexist emails and have been told to F off by yourself and Greta. I am a woman and do not suffer from sexism. I am not a victim. If sexism occurs, I stand up to it, no problem, don’t need big strong PZ to do it for me. How condescending can you be??
I really wanted Thunderfoot to be right here, but he just isn’t. Game over. This video does not deserve to be disliked, you guys need to watch the whole video.
I’m staying subscribed to Thunderfoot because I like his anti-creationism videos, but he went too far here, and he messed up.
I have watched the whole video and I am familiar with this whole sad affair that is still going on, both sides are wrong to a degree, However PZ gets the thumbs down cause he caused all this by being a close minded tool and stifling debate instead of encouraging it. And he gets a personal thumbs down cause I think he is an overbearing, holier then thou, thuggish twit.
Sounds like you have a grudge and are a fanboy. Maybe there was no room for debate here, and he didn’t see TF as having a place on FTB. His description of what FreeThought means makes sense to me. I don’t see where you’re coming from with the personal attacks.
You conflate opposition to feminism with opposition to a fair deal for women. People oppose the “academic” brand of Feminism precisely because it does not further the cause of women.
This video is just plain sad – a self-serving rationalization of a unjustified and pathetic act. And the not so subtle ad-hominens were a disgrace and in direct contradiction to your expressed goals.
You seem to be assuming that only “academic feminism” is true feminism. You also seem to think that there is only one brand of “academic feminism”. Could you explain to us what is non-feminist about “a fair deal for women”? Could you give an example of any of PZ’s remarks which you consider to be “ad hominem”? Quite clearly, tf00t does not subscribe to the freethought philosophy. So, he doesn’t belong in a freethought community.
I clearly made the distinction between academic feminist theory and all of the nuanced views that might be defined as feminism. No assumption made or intended
Feminist theory is not about a fair deal for women – it is a social theory about power.
The video is ad-hominen because it ascribes motivations – such as “…clearly, TF’s only desire was to TROLL the free thought blogs”. It spends a lot of effort explaining what TF (according to PZ) doesn’t understand. Perhaps TF does understand.
You clearly counterposed feminism in general to “a fair deal for women” – which is an integral part of any type of feminism. You then replaced feminism in general with “academic feminism”, clearly conflating the two in supposed opposition to “a fair deal for women”. Women’s studies course in universities discuss a wide variety of feminist theories. It is not a single entity.
How can “a fair deal for women” be implemented if women don’t attain the power to enact this deal?
intr (computing, slang) to post deliberately inflammatory articles on an internet discussion board
From PZ’s description of tf00t’s actual behaviour, it sounds as though tf00t’s behaviour fits this definition of trolling. Some definitions at Urban Dictionary make a distinction between trolling and flaming, which sounds more like what tf00t was doing. In either case, calling some one a troll is not ad hominem if what they are doing is disruptive to the forum
I draw a distinction in being inflammatory just for the sake of it (trolling) and being inflammatory because what you are saying is relevant, but controversial.
In life, i don’t go out to upset people for kicks, but sometimes I upset and anger people because they don’t like my views.
Like TF, I think this is a very important issue, and hence needs to be raised. These feminists are divisive. It is nothing more or less than an attempt to marginalize dissenting views.
PZ, that was crap! Reason and science are guiding principles. Faith and dogma are the enemy.
Feminism is not reasonable. By scientific standards it is a dreadful theory, based on unjustified precepts (Patriarchy?). It is ugly, divisive, academically vacuous and humourless.
Your “spirit of enlightenment” spiel is complete tosh.
Yeah, Feminism’s a load of rubbish. How dare women want to be treated as equals? Don’t they understand that their rights are ours to give and take as we please? It’s almost like they think they’re human or something.
Seriously, though, your post is absurd. I assume you think race equality and gay rights are “not reasonable” as well? If not, what do you believe the difference is?
I believe in those things that you mention but that is NOT what theoretical Feminism is about. It is a social theory about the causes of injusttice and inequality – and it IS garbage. If Feminism were defined in terms of equal rights for women then count me a Feminist.
That’s exactly what feminism is. The very dictionary definition of feminism is about gender equality. Now if you disagree with certain feminists’ points of view about how gender inequality occurs and what should be done about it, then that’s fine. But in this case it looks like your argument is not with the core ideals of feminism, it’s with the implementation of those ideals. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one to make.
Sorry, I cannot agree. Dictionary definitions don’t cut it. Feminism is what it is, not what the dictionary says. Academic Feminism is defined by the absurd notions it promulgates, and the aggressive, irrational and nonconstructive behaviour of its supporters.
Please can you point out the strawman? Let me reiterate the point of my comment a bit more clearly and without the sarcasm.
garethb1961 said Feminism is not reasonable. According to the Oxford dictionary Feminism is “the belief that women should hold the same rights and status as men”. Therefore, by saying that feminism is not reasonable, gareth1961 is saying either that he believes women should be treated equal to men or that he is unaware of the definition of feminism.
Is “supporting the equality of women” the same as feminism? “Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.” Ooook going by that definition you are strawmanning Feminism and I can only assume unthinking Tfoot mooks are what thumbed up your comment.
Or perhaps some “dictionary definition’ of Feminism you’ve plucked from God knows where does not describe the actual thing itself.
Apparently a lot of TF mooks are pissed off with Feminism also. But I only speak for myself – Feminism is shit, a completely bogus pseudo-academic field that does not do any of things described by your definition.
Well thats opinion and Feminism is a concept that gets pulled around to mean whatever the person at the time wants it to mean. The problem here you are generalizing which is no different to what the ignorant and the fundies do to atheists. I’m pretty sure Tfoot said that the one of the marks of a civilized culture is gender equality and your generalizations here do nothing to provide a good argument.
Of course it’s opinion, as expressed here with a 500 character limit.. Shall we address out the tenets of Feminism (as it is taught and discussed in academia) one by one? Then I will describe in great length, with cogent arguments, why it is complete shit.
But I think you are just binding to a position here because it makes you appear to be the civilised man in support gender equality. I also support gender equality, but no rational person could support Feminism if they read it.
Its a pity that there seems to be a division in the meaning of feminism and gender equality. Since I do not know what is taught in academia about Feminism I’ll leave it that.
Reply 1: Your statement is factually true, though if extended it makes a de facto atheist nation.
Reply 2: All you have demonstrated is merely a correlation, not a causation. Coming up with a counter (i.e. USA, which you reject) was not really needed, since you have yet to actually demonstrate that your original premise, “Atheism was the causative factor in the [InsertScary CommunistState] brutality” was in fact true.
Horrible events one and all. However, the equivocation breaks when you take into account the fact that these acts were not perpetrated _because_ of the inherit atheism of the regime. These people were straight-up evil. Their evil came from a fanatical belief in collectivism and the desire to destroy anyone who stood up to them. Somewhat like a religion in that regard.
And while you are enumerating “atheist regimes” you forgot to include the United States of America in that list.
I can’t understand ppl who think anything goes. IRL you can’t do whatever you want. Neither can you do whatever you want on the net. There are RULEZ. FtB is feminist friendly. FtB doesn’t want misogynist twits on there. Enter Thundermisogyny. Big kick in the ass. All peace is restored,,, um until Thundertwit drops PM’s.
Part 3: your point bout free thought not being free speech was fair but in fact thunderf00t, like him or hate him, is all about rationality, liberty and freedom. His first video was about iraq, he was complaining about the murder of muslim civilians by soldiers. He is not a racist but certainly has issues with religion. He is very much a product of the enlightment
Part 2: i do not do one night stands. However, i dont think either part is sexualizing the other when they happen. I respect rebeccas right not to do or to wannt to do them either. I do think, the propsition in question, would be rejected by most women. I disagree with thundrfoots caracterization of her. I dont think she is “crzy”. I just think she was harsh on her elevator man. Again, she is right to complain about ppl glorifying rape or considring it sex. For the victim, rape is violence.
I dont always agree with thunderfoot but your video misrepresents what his post actually said, As for “values” he merely suggested that sexism in conferences was not the biggest problem. I sympathize with rebeccas sufffering through “rape threats”; i know thunderf00t and others have had death threats. Nobody desrves rape and violent crimees do not “losen” people up. I do disagree with her elevator gate. If somebody asks politely and backs off after a rejection, that is not harassment.
Indeed… Contrast that with when reglious sects have infighting: you get pogroms, heretics burned at the stake, laws against Quakers, Mormons, people blowing themselves up in a Sunni mosque because they are Shia, Ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting on children walking to school…
You go ahead and mock us for our arguments, but no religious person has a moral leg to stand on when it comes to schisms.
PZ is conflating Feminism and equality. Feminism in no way pursues equality between the sexes. Also, feminism is incoherent and covers many different groups of people with contradictory positions.
If you want to see a bigot you should check out what TF’s followers have to say. You’re obviously too much of a pea brain to understand what bigot means.
I got it from an Aspie in that Wrong Planet place I used to visit. No idea where other people get that meaning, but it is used that way sometimes. ‘shrug’
Anyone who thinks he needs to dictate what free thought means is automatically a bell-end. The clue’s in the title. It shouldn’t need to be explained. I was under the impression being part of a group mentality was something of a contradiction and detrimental to the ultimate goal…A bit like feeling the need to tell men not to harass women. If you need to be told then you’re a twat…. Telling everyone as a policy is to assume everyone around you is a twat.
I read the relevant blogs. You and others actually were guilty of extensive strawmanning.
“Either…such a poor writer that he was completely incapable of communicating what he meant or…such a sloppy thinker that he was getting angry with us on issues that he completely agreed with us.”
This is a false dichotomy if I’ve ever see one and a prime example of “sloppy” thinking. Ever consider that the fault might be with you? You show ever indication of willfully misinterpreting his arguments.
False dichotomy? Ok… explain to me how PZ was using that statement as an argument.
Seems to me he’s just saying these are the only two things he can take from Tf00t’s blog, if he’s not using it as an argument then it is not “false dichotomy”.
As for the straw-man, how about actually providing an example? If you look at 7:30you can see PZ doing just that, making an accusation and then backing it up. Let’s see you do the same, show an example of “willfully misinterpreting his arguments”.
Saying a statement is a false dichotomy doesn’t mean it is in itself an argument. A false dichotomy is simply presenting two alternatives, an either/or proposition, as if they are exhaustive when they aren’t. He refused to address even the possibility that the responders to TFs arguments, himself included, simply failed in reading/critical thinking regarding the nature of the arguments being made. As to examples of strawmen, TF actually points them out clearly in his subsequent posts.
What is text book strawmanning – not wanting to rehash the entirety of several of TF and PZ’s blog posts or my statement about what a false dichotomy is?
No that’s a crock of shit, if you’re not making an argument then you can’t commit logical fallacy. That’s like calling an insult an ad hom.
Typical for Tf00t’s followers to not comprehend such a simple concept. And I didn’t ask Tf00t… I asked YOU to point out PZ’s straw-man. Sheesh… and you wonder why people call you guys Thunderdrones >_>
I said, “A false dichotomy is simply presenting two alternatives, an either/or proposition, as if they are exhaustive when they aren’t.” True or false? You don’t need to say which option you prefer for such to be a false dichotomy. In this case, both serve PZ’s intended purpose of discrediting TF.
OK, but that’s the issue he was using to try to belittle me in the comment you were responding to. Did you just think, “Oh, someone agrees with TF and is under attack – I’ll throw a stone too?” He was specifically criticizing me for (supposedly) misusing the term “false dichotomy.” If that was not an issue, why call me a “follower” and dismiss me as incapable of “a well thought out argument?” How could you interpret your weighing in that way as anything but agreement with his criticism? Yesh.
For him to have made a “false dichotomy” in this context he would have to be lying, and it really doesn’t matter because he wasn’t making an argument and your patronizing copy and paste style definition doesn’t change that.
And, still… no example of a straw-man?!? I thought they were “extensive”?
You are a drone, and a follower. I ask you to make one example and you say to ask Tf00t and you STILL don’t even give the ex. that he supposedly has.
A false dichotomy doesn’t have to be intentionally dishonest. He simply showed he wasn’t willing to give serious consideration to any possibilities except those that would cast him in the right.
I didn’t do any copy and pasting. I wonder what you background in logic is. I’m sorry, but I can tell you it is something I have actually studied formally. I’m not making a mistake on what a false dichotomy is, sorry to tell you, but you are. Not sure if you noticed the illustration I made below.
So, you’ve called me a “clown,” as well as “follower” and a “drone” (for taking TF’s part in this). You’ve been summarily dismissive, and much of this has been predicated on my supposed misuse of “false dichotomy” which was actually your own lack of understanding of the term. Can you dispute that? Question: do you now understand a false dichotomy to be an argument or a proposition? If you still need me to clarify this for you, I can.
A background in logic means having devoted a significant amount of study to logic, especially in a formal setting such as college. To me, it seems as though you only have a passing familiarity with logical fallacies and you’ve chosen to launch a sniping attack on me on that basis when I absolutely know what I’m referring to. Granted I don’t have a degree in philosophy but I have taken several classes on formal logic and philosophy. In other words, I think I know what a false dichotomy is…
I was the one that wondered what YOUR background was. Honestly, you still think that a proposition can’t be a false dichotomy? Whatever. I suppose we can agree that neither of us cares what the other thinks at this point. I feel satisfied that I’ve defended my original statement from your misguided, sniping attack, though, and you’ve made yourself look silly with your insults, so at this point I’ll just say, Have a nice life.
“Honestly, you still think that a proposition can’t be a false dichotomy?”
I never said that, I would ask you to point out where I did but I know you won’t.
And he never made a “false proposition” you don’t “propose” your opinion you moron.
The point is that he’s not using it as his argument, it not a “false dichotomy, and really it’s a “petty attack” when you’re claiming that because he didn’t “get what Tf00t meant” it somehow means he’s a lazy thinker.
I wasn’t planning to respond, but I just thought this was funny: You don’t know the meaning of “proposition” in logic. It is a statement that can be said to have a truth value. An argument consists of propositions and a conclusion. A dichotomy is a statement that there are a two alternatives that are exhaustive (meaning they are the only possibilities) and mutually exclusive. If a so-called dichotomy has more than two possibilities, it is a false dichotomy. There, you learned something.
Have you even bothered to read the blog or watch he videos of TF’s defense of his blogs? Why should I have to rehash here (in limited comments section) what I endorse from there (a series of full videos or blog posts)? I am absolutely not a drone or follower of TF. In fact, I hadn’t watched a video of his or read his blog prior to a couple of weeks ago for years. Try again.
So not only am I a drone of TF, I’m the biggest one ever? Do you actually expect me to take you seriously? Now, if you insist on maintaining that a false dichotomy is an argument, that it is NOT and can’t be a proposition then I’d counsel you to better educate yourself on the matter. You tried to snipe me by attacking me over something you didn’t even understand and any impartial observer can see the truth of that if they care to. So, I’m just not concerned with what you think at this point.
Stop trying to split hairs. The implication of PZ’s statement that TF must be either a sloppy thinker or a poor writer is that IF he is an effective writer, he must be a sloppy thinker or if he is a disciplined thinker, he must be a poor writer. Either suits PZ’s purpose of discrediting TF. He doesn’t complete an argument, but he is still presenting a false dichotomy in the statement on which those arguments would be built. Calling me a drone is neither mature nor conducive to reasoned dialogue.
This argument is valid in its form but it can still commit a fallacy of presumption. If a third alternative exists, C, then P1 is a false dichotomy. The ARGUMENT is not a false dichotomy, only the statement P1 is. The argument commits the FALLACY OF false dichotomy. Even if you don’t go to the trouble of presenting P2 to argue for C, P1 remains a false dichotomy. Hope that helps clear up the terminology for you, Douglas!
Very poorly made statement. At least it does recognise the errors made by ftb but meets it by discussing definitions and stating that tf shouldn’t have been let in from the start. Followed by some casual, sloppy misrepresentation of tf’s actual standpoint. Oh, and not a single word about PZ’s personal reassurance about freedom to blog whatever he wanted.
What’s hilarious is that Thunderfoot put BOTH feet in his mouth and acted like his pal Kevin with the misogynist babbling. I see all these men blaming Rebecca and not ONCE try to understand how fearful and uncomfortable it can be to be approached by a stranger at 4am wanting you to come back to his room and asking her while she’s in a small space. People just blame her. They are also misogynists too.
Yeah – and repeating the lie that ANYONE is calling what EG did a “crime” is annoying. The only person I have heard say such a thing is “Desertphile” on a FtB comment – who is a satirist. Those who have discussed it seriously have NOT made that claim. RW said EG was not “socially awkward” was well, but that’s beside the point. Quit arguing against stuff nobody is saying. Of course it wasn’t a crime – nor was it harassment – nobody has said otherwise. It was uncomfortable and not ideal.
I personally think making it public was unnecessary…. If some lonely or desperate individual comes on to you, in a socially awkward manner, do you deal with it and let it go…. Or do you tell everyone about it humiliating the person involved and making an issue out something you probably should have kept to yourself?…. I have about 10 of these moments a day….Let it go. It’s part of being an adult.
Who freaking cares if it makes her uncomfortable. Her comfort should not be the entire focus of the skeptic community. This whole affair sounds like some spoiled child whining about not having the world conform to her child like needs for constant coddling and accommodation. She and her supporters need to grow up and recognize that adults can manage a request for coffee without going on youtube to tell all men on earth how to hit on a women the way she prefers.
Free Speech is essential for Freethought. Dissent is needed for progress, either to change the trajectory of the movement or to correct, admonish and/or educate the offending individual. Expulsion, shunning, and IN YOUR OWN WORDS…the destruction of another person is not Free thought.
It wasn’t his style of argumentation that got his ostracised PZ, that was why you love his Creationist debunking videos. It was simply what he said on a topic you are well versed (more so than him) and sided in. Apology accepted.
Your maturity shows when you call women defending a right to be included online “a harem of women who couldn’t get a date in high school.” My anti-male prejudice? I was calling you out on your blatant sexism. Sure, sure, belittle the problem and the people involved by calling us puritans instead of actually making a point. It’s not my anti-male prejudice. Males like you are blind to the hatred and continued oppression of women. Your first comment is an excellent example of your anti-female view.
These unfounded claims of sexism from a obviously sexist feminist are comical. Playing victim comes at a price, you do it to long and without just cause and nobody takes you seriously.
People like you and your sickening sanctimonious shaming tactics are not going to shut these men up. They have decided their self respect matters a whole lot more than your approval. You better get used to it because it’s only going to get worse for people like you.
You never offered evidence or reasoning to refute my claims. You only tear me down as a person, which does not help the discussion and is what has some females in the skeptical movement rightfully up in arms (saying I’m playing the victim is absurd).
You are speaking as one who has privilege. I am glad men finally decided their self respect matters more than ideals of the other half of the population. Oh wait, that’s how it has been for ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY, save for a few nomadic tribes.
i like PZ’s side of the story. Thunderf00t calls himself a rationalist, yet he applies his rationality only to race and religion. however his reaction on this matter comes close to insanity. Getting his YT followers to support his views, asking his YT followers to attack PZ’s messagebox with hatemail, crying about how he can’t trust in PZ’s scientific studies anymore. All that in just a few days after the firing incident, doesn’t sound very rational to me.
Don’t forget re-entering their listserve, sharing private e-mails, and insinuating that FtB was trying to get someone fired with the strongest “evidence” being ZJ asking if there was any reason she shouldn’t answer the his criticism by mentioning that there are almost 40 writers on FtB and that they shouldn’t be lumped together and mentioning statements and phone calls made by who-knows-who.
Exactly! Most of his appeals are to emotions. His silly poll posted on his channel (along with his defense that it has any validity at all) shows he clearly doesn’t understand the very fundamentals of science. And like you said, look at what his followers are doing at his urging.
He isn’t helping to bring both sides of the discussion to any sort of consensus, but driving them further apart. I don’t understand his motives, except they must be selfish b/c there is no logic in his arguments.
Yeah, I watched his video where he explains it, and I’m thinking you don’t understand the basics of science either (specifically collecting sample data that accurately reflects the population by minimizing bias).
His poll was no more valid than any worthless poll of Fox News. I wonder if Fox News draws specific demographics to its programming? I wonder who sees (not to mention responds to) the poll posted in Fox’s programming and website? Convenience sampling is lazy and highly, highly biased.
The poll is not OK to say anything, because it is extremely biased. Not only was it a convenience sample (only those who stumble their way onto TF’s channel even knew the poll existed) and only those who felt compelled to answer actually were surveyed.
It’s such an invalid poll that it’s laughable that anyone would try to say anything outside of, “People who like tf like tf.” The only conclusion is trivial. The sample does not measure the population at large, but only those on TF’s channel.
I think that TF’s statistical critique of his own survey is a little better than yours. I am not going to argue with you, because it has already been done by the man himself. What you have posted here is a disgraceful misrepresentation of it.
When did TF ask anyone to attack PZ’s message box with hatemail? He never did anything of the sort. When did he ask his YT followers to “support his views”? He never asked anyone to support his views. He made his case and put it to a poll to gauge reaction.
Doesn’t understand the fundamentals of science? No logic in his arguments?
Well ill tell you what my enlightenment is. Its that women arent delicate egg shells to be treated like fine china in the fear they may break. Sure theres some differences. And we should respect them. But just as i respect my male friends differences, i expect them not to get any unreasonable special treatment.
I’m not gonna lie. This movement is basically on a crash course to fall apart. Thank goodness I’ve only half paid attention to anything going on here. Firstly, PZ? You and the movement are turning into a bowel movement, especially given some of the sexist, disgusting stuff on FTB. Men Hate Women’s Body? Are you fucking serious? Taslima gets a free pass spouting that kind of childish nonsense that offends anyone with a set of testies.
What you claimed he had said was not what he had written. He showed what he had written and what you had written.
Mega superuber straw man?(child wrote that for you?) It wasnt a straw man, he was just making a point about how people who run an event have no right to try and control people who are not even at the event. (so that means the Mega super-uber straw man comment is a straw man:)
Clearly you are the one who has trouble understanding
Also typed that title into a search on FTB, it didn’t come up. Even if there are anti-male posts on FTB, it’s probably from established posters. You don’t wear a stained wife-beater t-shirt to your first day on the job, do you?
Are you somehow suggesting that PZ is responsible for Taslima? How do you think that fucking works? If anything, her blog is a good example about how those on FtB don’t always agree on stuff. Her writing isn’t always that great, probably due to growing up in a non-English speaking country. She has quite a bit of credibility because of her work and she has an interesting perspective. She’s also not a complete ass to everyone and can usually take criticism in stride – that sort of helps.
Sorry – I guess it’s ridiculous to point out that Taslima is not under the control of PZ, FtB is a group of about 40 writers, or that the main reason that TF was kicked out (beyond being a bad writer) is that he was difficult to deal with – which seems likely since he is so obsessed with FtB that he re-entered their private e-mail listserve right after he was kicked out.
“TF was kicked out (beyond being a bad writer) is that he was difficult to deal with”
I checked out several bloggers over there and several of those are hardly better writers than Thunderf00t. Neither seem they have improved (stylistically or content-wise) over time.
Yeah, a few writer’s writing isn’t that great. It’s the one-two punch of the writing sucking and the writer being difficult to deal with that caused him to be kicked out. Carrier wrote a post on how to write about the subject without looking, well “embarrassingly clueless” and Carrier and even PZ have voiced disagreement with wording in harassment policies, etc. TF just attacked, and he didn’t attack well. Being an ass and a bad writer, or just a really big ass is going to get you off FtB.
I have been following Carrier for quite some time. I would even claim that I am quite “intimately” acquainted with his philosophy and theories in history studies.
The treatment of this “issue” was one of the weakest I have ever seen from him. For example some key sources he was referencing were “90%” about harassment at the workplace and not at conferences. Those two are by far not analogous. Making “purely logical/deductive steps” won’t be that easily applicable there.
By far not analogous? – cause there is such a large body of well-designed studies concerning sexual harassment at conferences. So, what are you basing your opinions on? Arguments from ignorance? Not that it matters, my point in mentioning him is that TF’s IDEAS were engaged on FtB when he was there, as well as his writing. HE (the guy) was dismissed from the network, but that doesn’t equate to his ideas being dismissed out of hand or silenced.
Sorry I assumed you were trying to make some of the points that others have actually made by chiming in with “Look Talisma wrote something!!! Shame on you PZ” – or whatever the hell that was. So, you are basing your opinions on our “ignorance” (not yet defined) – yeah, that’s sort of the definition of an argument from ignorance.
Yes, his ideas were engaged, including a FOUR part point-by-point from Great Christina, a post explaining polling biases by Zinnia Jones, advice on discussing the subject from Carrier, and access to a summary of the discussions on the subject up till now including a series of links – and that’s just what I noticed other than what PZ wrote. Perhaps you’re under the impression that FtB = PZ?
PZ responded to TF for a while, but by and large (at least on the blogs) they have been stating that they were done responding. Until recently when they found out he had re-entered their listserve they weren’t generally writing about him. A few have mentioned that they have tried to talk to him personally. Matt Dilahunty become so frustrated with him that he blocked TF on twitter and at this point few people want anything to do with him. They’ll be talking through lawyers at this point.
I did sift through “all” available online material related to this matter. Obviously TF has not been playing the nice guy’s game. However, the sheer ignorance demonstrated on PZ’s part, just as it is seen in this video, is unworthy of an academic and maybe even more so of a person who claims to be advancing freethought. But then again, we learned directly from PZ what he and perhaps FtB understand under “freethought.”
Ignorance of what exactly? He’s a humanist. Even if this was about a difference of opinion, how does: “We can’t work with this guy and we don’t like his writing so we are kicking him off our blog network” equate to being against Freethought or censorship or whatever else? TF is not being silenced, if anything this issue is giving him a larger stage. The listserve thing is the end of it though, nobody wants to talk to him and that is squarely because of his behavior – that’s on him.
No, cause I can’t read your damn mind. “He is showing ignorance and that ignorance is very large…blah blah blah” is not telling me anything what-so-ever. I know, “It’s self evident and you’re stupid if you don’t get it” is a much easier thing to do than actually trying to articulate a point.
You may have a point, but your childish name-calling cancels it out. Your commentary is most unintelligent and far less enjoyable than PZ Myers’, other men’s, and the women for whom they are advocating’s dialogue on the very real issue of sexism. How typical of (what I’m assuming is your male perspective) to bash another human’s natural social desire to feel welcomed and respected by a community.
OMG, I get it. Your comment is satirically sexist. You’re a troll! …are you thunderfoot??
“You may have a point, but your childish name-calling cancels it out.”
I’m hoping this is not too subtle for you, but points are not “canceled” by “childish name-calling”. Rational discussion is not tally counting, and either he has a point or he hasn’t.
I meant he might have a point inside his brain, but he fails to make it here. He resorts to name calling instead of providing reasoning and rational for his opinion, which I understand is the misunderstanding in this whole ftb and tf debate. People like PZ Myers are promoting a healthy community of like minded people, like-minded in that the rely on reasoning and evidence to inform opinions and beliefs. Name calling is hurtful and unproductive.
You don’t have a real issue of sexism unless you count how men are being mistreated by the feminist in the skeptic movement.
“How typical of (what I’m assuming is your male perspective) to bash another human’s natural social desire to feel welcomed and respected by a community.”
Referring to a person by gender then calling their behavior typical of that gender is clearly sexist. This is the kind of sexism skeptics should be concerned instead of the hypocrites making false claims.
I cannot believe you actually made this video. You just affirmed every fvcking accusation that has been made against you… it’s really unbelievable just how goddamn clueless you are.
Criticicism of Thunderf00t’s writing style? I guess PZ has never seen Physioprof’s blog then-and half of the FtBloggers should be dismissed because the writing is so poor!
Actually, I didnt know that FTB had some core ideals that had to be shared across blogs. This is news to me. I do not think free thinking means being chained to ANY ideals, so I think the title of the site is a tad misleading.
Honestly from all I’ve seen, PZamyers is a hypocrite. And as far as FTB is concerned, its a BLOG privately owned(subject to only the owners ego) and should be treated as such…
No, it’s 30 blogs – but yes, it isn’t public property which means that perhaps people should stop complaining that they don’t do what they want them to do. If you don’t like FtB, there is very littler stopping you or anyone else from starting your own blog network.
That first sentence is a brilliant example of bad arguments, and I think I’ll (anonymously, unless you want credit) use it as an example in the future. 🙂
I wonder how many of them will tell me Thunderf00t is rational and deny his overinflated ego he gained from being a guy with a video camera on the internet.
Your side of the story as of now has 825 in favor, 988 opposed, you lose on your own site. The motion to declare PZ Myers a feminist troll is passed! Please leave the atheist community. You belong in a feminist community as an atheist auxiliary more than you belong in an atheist community as a feminist auxiliary.
Oh hi! This is so cool, I didn’t know that the concept of the ad populum fallacy had actually personified and developed the ability to type on a computer.
Try actually being honest. It was PZ Myers who criticized thunderf00t for using his own channel for a poll, despite believing his self moderated website is a perfectly good example of the wider atheist community, and now on his own channel, he sees that without censorship, he is the one who clearly acted like a fool. Trying to backpedal isn’t going to save him. Sorry, but FTB is a total group-think circle jerk. It is a loony fringe of the atheist community, devoid of intellectual merit.
Who said anyone thought FtB was a typical of the “greater atheist community” in some sort of randomized sample sense? Nobody. Which is another reason TF’s “argument” didn’t make any damned sense. His argument: you aren’t “representative” therefore you are wrong = ad populum fallacy.
I remember when I thought highly of Thunderf00t(Sad I know), it always rubbed me the wrong way when you saw him write in his video’s, and later when I saw his twitter messages, he would write like a 15 yo teenager with tons of smileyes and just a wierd style overall. It was obvious when he had “conquered” VenomfangX that he wasn’t that great a guy, he didn’t do his research on the people he was trying to debate, he made himself look like a complete ass when he went after Coughlan.
No one said to PZ Meyers that he must support thunderfoot. if PZ has determined supporting a view point mean something as simply having a blogger on FtB, then he has asserted he agrees with everyone on FtB. IMPOSSIBLE!
Progressive socio-political views? who defines that? If you have a specific political agenda on FTB that can’t be challenged by it’s members change the name of the site, it’s not free thought.
The enlightenment ideals expand from the adoption of reason, nothing more. I don’t see why anyone who is in support of universality should have to advocate a RW brand of feminism with all it’s baggage. If you used those flyers at any con you’d be showing an insultingly low regard for the attendees.
It still boils down to one thing: You axed him for disagreeing with the party line on sexual harassment, and labeled him and anyone else who disagreed with Twatson as trolls.
Dang PZ, I thought you were better than this. Seriously.
No, I don’t think that people are labeling everyone who disagrees with Rebecca Watson a “troll”. I do think however, they are labeling everyone who uses the term “Twatson” a troll. That would be you.
If you wanted to cast your side of the argument as respectful disagreement, then you shouldn’t have used the childish and offensive nickname “Twatson”. That kind of thing is exactly why Thunderf00t and his supporters are not a good fit for FreeThought blogs.
I sure as hell would never waste my time with these so-called “rationalists” “enlightenments” and registering with freethoughtsblogs, because as much as I am an atheist and progressive and radical, I am also a nihilist and do NOT equate “reason” with this bullshit “maintain the status quo” or “use only nonviolence” garbage. These so-called self-proclaimed “rationalists” have NO, NO idea what real hardcore formal mathematical and logistical modeling means, which IS what “being logical” means.
Obviously you can ban who you want from FTB but you can hardly claim to support free thinking if you cannot accept other views. How is conducting a poll somehow disturbing? As to why did he accept the offer to join you, maybe a better question is why did you offer him a place at FTB?
‘Free thinking’ on harassment has been reduced to agreeing with you or being banned.
Guess you didn’t see the video did you? Should they have creationists on as well? Afterall they are just expressing their opinion. Thunderf00t was acting like a child, writing like a child, and being extremely hyper sensitive to criticism, and projecting what he did onto everybody else(Strawman’s etc.)
I did see this video, several blogs and other video’s too, and the evidence does not support that Thunderf00t was the only one at fault. He was a known quantity before being asked to write at FTB, he did not suddenly change overnight, so if he is so unacceptable it can only raise a question over the judgement of the person who recruited him in the first place. His writing style was not perfect, but that does not mean the content should be dismissed, and he was not the worst example at FTB.
It’s pretty well established that FtB regrets asking him to blog there in the first place. Ironically, it was because of his friendship with PZ that he was asked in the first place.
We can only wait and see, but if the complaints about Thunderf00t’s writing style have any validity there should be at least a couple of others exiting FTB soon. I certainly do not think Thunderf00t is without faults, but this decision has proved a costly own goal at best for PZ.
Atheism should not be dominated by feminist discussion or be one where everyone is expected to conform to a single view on all issues. Some people are using a secondary issue to promote their own agendas.
From this vid – they are saying it was both writing and not being able to get along. I know some of the writing at FtB isn’t so good. “Dominated by feminist discussion” – you mean like TFs?! Because he wrote about NOTHING else.
As I said, I am not defending Thunderf00t, or for that matter even saying he was behaving well in this incident or in the fallout over it. However, he is not responsible for PZ asking him to FTB in the first place, and presumably PZ somehow missed that Thunderf00t can be a pedantic and obnoxious ass at times. Serious, the guy has been online for a decade, acted much the same in that time, and PZ was somehow unaware how he acted? The key part as PZ says in his video is that the common cause –
that everyone has in common is atheism. It is not, and should not have to be the same view on feminism. As I said in my first post here, PZ can ban whoever he wishes on his own sight, but it diminishes the claim to ‘free thinking’ when it is done because somebody has divergent views.
Should Thunderf00t have acted differently, yes. Should PZ have acted differently, yes.
There is one figure rapidly polarizing the Atheist movement, and their issue is not even one about Atheism itself. That is sad.
PZ has the authority to ban as he sees fit with a unilateral decision. Effectively that places him as the person controlling the site, with abilities to act above and beyond the abilities other contributors are capable of. I believe you would be correct in saying he does not own the site, though I too cannot remember who might do.
Well, crap. One of my first posts when I got up the guts to put my face to camera was going to be calling him out on that. Ah well, guess I’ll have to find another problem to whinge about.
I did watch it, I also read the relevant blogs and other related vids too. The issues are not being dealt with, they are hedged around. Notably the writing style claim. If Thunderf00t was so bad there are a few others who are far worse at FTB yet they have yet to be banned. Why?
Look at the body of evidence on this subject and related matters, you will see a theme, and it is not Thunderf00t, it is how people are not allowed to disagree with certain views and more notably a certain person.
Okay – let’s do an experiment. I’ll go on PZ’s blog and disagree with him about something and see what happens. Which views exactly should I disagree with?
Is there a point? You would have to pick exactly the same arguments with the same contributors to make it valid in any way, and nobody needs a repeat performance. This entire episode has been divisive enough without conducting such a test.
My own view with regards to conferences, blogs, comments, & any dealings with others is that you should treat everyone with respect & decency and have a right to expect such courtesy in return.
You sated that if some disagreed with “someone” on certain topics on FtB that they get banned. So – I said that I could go on FtB and disagree with someone about that “certain topic” and see if I get banned – you said, what’s the point for the test because you’d have to make the same ARGUMENTS? Arguments aren’t the same as disagreements. Such a test would not be the least bit divisive because disagreeing with people doesn’t get you banned from FtB – what’s divisive is this type of slander.
Semantics. Arguments/disagreements. Go pick the same subject as the original disagreement, arrange pre-posting objections to your presence too to match the environment TF had so people there clearly object to your presence even before you have posted a single word.
Your brand of dishonesty is what is divisive, unless you are too stupid to comprehend simple facts of a complex subject. My guess is that you would lack the balls to pick any real disagreement anyhow, but instead bleat a party line.
I’m asking you to pick the thing I disagree about. No, we know what happens when TF is invited to FtB – that didn’t work out so well for many reasons. However, you are pointing to his disagreement (his actual stance on something) not his arguments (which refers to HOW to try to make your point, not what your point is), as well as being difficult to work with. You’re making a positive claim that FtB is lying (not just PZ) and saying that disagreeing gets you banned. So, we can test that.
I fail to see why I should encourage you to troll another site, you already manage that here it seems, as well as having an apparent inability to see that further pointless disagreements at this time are serving no purpose. I sincerely doubt you are able to put up a good case for something you yourself do not agree with, you struggle here on your own chosen issue.
Troll FTB with pointless further manufactured disagreement if you wish, but I will have no part in it.
Suppose somebody was invited to join FTB because they had made videos that effectively exposed anti-vaxxers, then immediately wrote a series of blog posts advancing Catholic dogma and arguing that homosexuality is sinful. Would it be a violation of the principles of free thinking to not accept their views?
That was not the case though. Thundef00t’s posts did nothing to suggest anything but that he viewed everyone was equal & deserved equal respect. Because he did not subscribe to the self-promotion of Rebecca Watson and her brand of feminism – which has little to do with equality and a lot to do with attention and power – was not a reason to ban him. The excuses in the video do not address that. PZ uses the words ‘we decided…’ yet it is clear the decision was made by him in isolation. Dishonest.
“It is clear” is was made by him in isolation? Really? It’s not like other bloggers have said that TF was impossible to deal with. Oh wait – they totally have.
Yet none were involved in the decision to ban him by PZ and Thunderf00t’s own versions of events. This was a unilateral decision & there is little reason to pretend it was otherwise. The short timescale involved indicate that finding somebody impossible to deal with is unlikely, some bloggers do not even visit daily. Many had decided to take exception even before he posted, by PZ’s admission too. I was never aware there was a compulsory line on feminism that must be adhered to at FTB.
The point is that freethoughtblogs is an organized group of bloggers working together to advance a particular philosophical, political, and ethical perspective. That perspective includes feminism, which Thunderf00t’s posts clashed with. He therefore had no reason to be blogging there.
How is asking for a harassment policy or asking to not be propositioned in an elevator a means of attaining attention and power?
As I noted PZ can do as he likes with FTB, but it lessens its credibility when a dissenting voice on a side issue has to be silenced by banishment. There has never been a group statement at FTB that feminism is a must, so presumably until now that was not the case.
I agree there should be no harassment, though making a statement will not change it happening in itself. However, we should maybe be shown proof that some harassment has actually taken place, So far all we have is verbal claims.
A side-issue? I’m afraid not. Feminism is an integral part of humanism, because it aims to correct one of the greatest harms that religion has caused, namely the systematic oppression of women. Whence my earlier comparison of Thunderf00t’s position with Catholic doctrine.
Do you think that people are lying about being harassed at conferences? Why would they do that? And how would a policy designed to address such claims not clarify the situation?
The main issue linking all is Atheism, all the other aspects are side issues not part of the main one. Not believing in God does not mean every one must embrace feminism. Certainly wrongs were done, and still are, but not all happen in the name of a God.
As to lies about harassment, it has been known hasnt it, I said nothing about a policy at all, though writing down ‘please do not do X’ will not deter those who actually intend to do X. Best policy is treat all with respect.
Sorry, but you don’t get to dictate FTB’s priorities to them. They have chosen an approach that integrates atheism with humanism at a foundational level, and that entails a commitment to feminism. If you and Thunderf00t want to be dictionary atheists, then that is your prerogative, but you should look for other outlets for your ideas.
A harassment policy is not just about saying “please do not do X”. It also prescribes a plan of action, which includes consequences, for when X happens.
“Sorry, but you don’t get to dictate FTB’s priorities to them.” – What part of my initial sentence here – “Obviously you can ban who you want from FTB” did you fail to understand?
As to harassment ‘rules’ how do you propose to cope with an incident such as Elevatorgate? A girl says a guy did something that offended her. No other witnesses, no evidence, just her word vs his. Then what? Ever heard of malicious accusation?
Such a policy is a nice idea that is almost impossible to enforce.
Nobody has ever said that RW experience with EG was harassment or has anything to do at all with harassment policies. RW just said it was uncomfortable – that’s it. Just saying that you don’t like something is not a call for legislation or even anyone doing anything about it. Nobody is saying harassment policies will solve all problems. You’re just conflating a bunch of stuff that doesn’t have anything to do with one another.
My point is that one individual comes out of an elevator claiming the other person in there has harassed them. Then what? Who do you believe in the situation outlined?
My guess is that you do see the problem in such a scenario, that is why you are now trying to shift what I said to a specific named individual & not what I outlined which was a purely random event in similar circumstances.
It would appear your position is now one to be getting close to trolling as you lack an defensible position.
If someone comes out of an elevator and says they have been harassed? You document the situation (to see patterns of harassment or accusations). You give emotional support (you don’t assume either lying or not lying). You tell the two people to avoid one another (when possible). If either one wants added security you provide it (within reason). You don’t kick anyone out or make the incident public through official channels, but you don’t put restrains on what anyone involved says either.
Providing one party with security effectively means you are taking sides in the claim though, thereby losing impartiality. By taking no action you risk alienating the offended party who will point to the policy and say you have undertaken to protect them. By taking action without evidence you will see some people make complaints or threaten to for a variety of reasons from personal enmity to purely malicious attention seeking. It is far from easy to deal with and why the police have trouble too.
Who said that added security was going to be provided only to one side? I think you’re just sort of assuming that we’re all sexist and that no harassment policy has ever been enforced ever at a conference and nobody knows how to actually deal with this sort of thing. It sounds like you had a bad experience at work – quit projecting it. Also, you are wrong about policies not dissuading bad behavior – just articulating social expectations can be helpful.
So you propose to guard the person accused, presumably they have the right to be safeguarded against further allegations if untrue, plus the original possible victim. One guard per guest will make a great conference. Why not make everyone stay home and just watch online, that way everyone must remain safe!
Maybe you need to consider why the police and professional security people think this area is a real minefield and difficult to deal with before you suggest simplistic and unworkable solutions
That wasn’t completely fair – how about this – of course I (and a many others) understand the realities of harassment policies and just because we might think it’s a good idea doesn’t mean we don’t. Heck you seem to share that opinion – and doesn’t it seem like a good idea to figure out WHAT, if anything, to do before it happens? Talk about these possibilities? It wasn’t that TF disagreed. He didn’t bother figuring out what people were actually saying before attacking. That was “clueless”.
I did not and will not defend Thunderf00t, I have even noted here or elsewhere he can be a complete prick.
I did not even start the comments about harassment policy. Yes it is sensible to have a policy. It is bloody difficult to get it right. It does make sense to talk about it. It does not make sense to simply believe all claims, nor to always give the benefit of the doubt to a female. You need experienced security people to deal with this, and that might be more than a conference can afford.
Nope – you didn’t defend him you just got over 40 likes for assuming that he could not have possibly been so difficult to deal with that he was kicked off for being a bad writer and a jerk; and therefore all the people who made the decision to stop working directly with him “can hardly claim to support free thinking” because they don’t accept his views (wtf really?) and that they ban people that disagree with them about harassment (false).
So your whine is that more people agree with me than with you. Oh dear, how sad. Grow up.
Maybe more people see my comment because you keep spamming more and more here, and thereby draw attention to it. I seldom leave comments anywhere because of protracted nonsense like this.
Do I believe PZ’s version of events? No. Do I believe Thunderf00t’s? No. Both have come out of this badly and done nobody any favours.
Yeah – sort of frustrating when people “like” stuff that’s not true. At least it’s a might better than the last much liked comment that used the term “Twatson”.
In your opinion it is not true. Presumably you have only really looked at one side of events and accepted that without question. Maybe you like the latest FTB leak about keeping money derived from TF’s hits and dividing up the money between other FTB bloggers, or how PZ ‘hacked’ into a conversation himself yet now complains about others hacking?
As I noted, neither side has come out of it well, but it is far from one sided on who is/was to blame.
“It does not make sense to simply believe all claims, nor to always give the benefit of the doubt to a female.” – who said this? Nobody. We agree on this. Pointing this out implies that you are assuming the worst of other people’s positions and attitudes for no reason at all.
I have said repeatedly that accusations need to be investigated properly, that it is not a case of simply acting on the basis of a complaint. I did not say anything about assuming the worst, I pointed out you cannot take this at face value or just take the first to complain as correct. There would appear to be a problem with your comprehension of English.
What positions do you think I have – because it’s not that FtB is perfect. It’s that the positive claim that FtB bans people who disagree with them (or has any number of opinions as en entity of 39 writers) however much repeated, is not a fair accusation. TF shouldn’t have been invited, he wasn’t treated very well, he was hard to work with, his writing wasn’t that good, he went on the attack, he was asked to leave – that sucks, it’s not an important ideological indictment.
You may find it hard to believe, but I really do not care what positions you have.
FTB are far from perfect, and have not done themselves any good service over this entire episode. That Thunderf00t has behaved at least just as bad, if not far far worse – I expect far more shit to fly from both sides sadly – does not change problems from the FTB side. This entire sorry episode should have been handled very differently by both sides.
So, my positions are indefensible but you don’t care what they actually are. Brilliant. Of course more “shit is going to fly” – and it didn’t need to. We could all put this behind us “mistakes were made” – the end. However, then you have everyone high-fiving statements like: At FtB you get banned for disagreeing.
I never said your positions were indefensible – Strawman 1
I never said you got banned at FTB for disagreeing, I noted a qualification you have left out because as others have noted, some issue are key to FTB and if you do not agree you have no place there. – Strawman 2
All put this behind us – Strawman 3 or stupidity 1? You are the one determined to take issue endlessly here. Is this the ‘attack any dissenting view’ that is often reported too?
Okay – you saying that disagreeing on harassment gets you banned. Which we already know isn’t true since bloggers on the network (who remain on the network) have disagreed on it. People commenting have disagreed STRONGLY and don’t get banned from FtB (if there is even a WAY to do that – since the blogs have separate moderation) TF didn’t have the ability to have an honest conversation about this and was difficult to work with – that’s why he was kicked out.
Oh yeah – and PZ has disagreed with the wording in the AA policy – I wonder if anyone reading this just had their brain explode. I suppose that means that PZ is going to ban himself.
Then what’s your point? That FTB’s philosophical outlook is different than Thunderfoot’s? I think that was already established, and nothing about what you have said suggests that thunderfoot had any absolute right to write anti-feminist posts.
A good harassment policy wouldn’t have anything to say about elevator-gate unless it recurred, which it did not. In that case, Watson’s “no” and later rebuke was enough to deal with the problem.
If you’re concerned about malicious accusations (which don’t really exist anyway), then it’s possible to write a policy that accounts for them! You can have standards of proof, requirements of witnesses, and the like as part of a harassment policy. Your argument is comparable to saying we shouldn’t have fire evacuation procedures because sometimes fire alarms go off when there is no fire.
Equality does not mean ‘anti-feminist’ unless you seek to grant more rights to females than to males.
I said ‘such as elavatorgate and gave a specific situation that did not occur, namely that one party does pursue a claim of harassment. Now what do you propose to do to resolve this under a harassment policy? Please try to avoid making another strawman.
Opposition to a harassment policy is opposition to equality, because sexual harassment is one of the ways that women are, intentionally and otherwise, discouraged from participation in events such as atheist conferences. To turn a blind eye to it is to condone gender-based oppression.
If Watson had made a complaint, then an anti-harassment officer would have probably gone to the offending party and said exactly what Watson said later: “Don’t do that”. That’s all.
I never said I objected to a policy, legally they are essential. I just said they are often impossible to enforce and gave a specific example where this is the case, and similar to how many claims arise – one persons word against another.
As to ‘if the girl makes a complain’ why is she believed and the guy told to ‘not do’ something he may not have done? That is discrimination in itself. Having seen several instances of malicious claims like this over many years gives a good insight to problems.
If elevator-guy did not believe that the incident had happened the way Watson had recounted, then he would have an opportunity to say so when confronted by the anti-harassment officer. The conversation would go something like this:
“There was a complaint that you did X. You shouldn’t do that.”
“I didn’t do X. There was a misunderstanding.”
“Okay. Well regardless of that, remember to respect peoples’ boundaries in the future. Thanks for talking to me”.
“Okay. Well regardless of that, remember to respect peoples’ boundaries in the future. Thanks for talking to me”. – That isnt the end of it. This person now objects to you suggesting he ‘respect others boundaries’ and says he has never failed to do so, then making a counter claim that the other person has lied about it all and demands that they are dealt with for harassment. Now what?
This situation happened at a place I worked. Trust me, it was not easy to resolve.
If the subject of the complaint objects strongly to being reminded to respect others, then he needs to relax. A brief conversation is not a huge imposition on anyone, and there’s nothing wrong with an innocent party being reminded to be careful all the same. The most well-intentioned people still need a reminder from time to time. The officer does not need to take a position on the truth of the complaint.
The subject objects because he says he has respected other people and now says the initial complainant has lied & is therefore harassing him – true enough if the complaint has no substance. Unless the officer now takes the same action against this initial complainant, then this is discrimination & by not doing so is taking sides. Do you think no woman has ever made up such a claim? It is really hard to tell. Police forces with far more resources than conference staff struggle to find the truth.
You’re drawing a false equivalence. Nobody, whether guilty or innocent of harassment, has ever been seriously harmed by being asked to respect other people. Harassment itself, on the other hand, can cause serious harm. The interaction I have described does not convict anybody of anything, and can occur even if the complainant’s story is highly suspicious, because it does not cause any significant harm for the subject of the complaint. It has nothing to do with discrimination.
If the complainants story is highly suspicious, why are you even bothering to talk to the other person? The worst cases I have seen were where a man openly groped a woman and then simply denied it, and where a woman claimed a man raped her because he had earlier upset her in a row over a parking space! Both were fairly convincing for some time and it took a reasonable investigation to get to the truth in either case. I have even seen people actively avoid someone because they make so many claims
So then what is worse of the following two scenarios: slightly hassling the man who had the argument over a parking space, or allowing the man who committed an act of sexual assault to get off the hook?
Do you honestly believe that the rights of the innocent to not have a slightly uncomfortable conversation trump the rights of victims to have their complaints taken seriously?
It’s even simplier than that – with no reporting policy or well-thought-out remedies to various situations – people who falsely accuse (and however rare, they do exist) are more likely to be found out as false accusers – and the documents can be used as evidence for slander claims. The majority of harassment is generally people who think it’s funny or feel socially entitled – simply knowing that there may be consequences (official or social) goes a long long way.
Actually it was a case of a woman claiming rape against a man because she had lost out in a parking place dispute and took advantage of a situation later to extract revenge. So hassling the man in question over this was indeed wrong. Believing any female simply because they are female is absurd and discrimination.
Your last paragraph makes little sense. People need to be treated fairly and equally, with no priority to any gender. Investigations of claims are the same and need experienced people.
You’re strawmanning me pretty hard. I never once suggested that priority would be given to any one gender, or that women would be believed simply because they are women. A harassment policy can protect men who are harassed, as well. The point is that if you have a complaint of harassment to make, you have a right to have somebody listen to that complaint and take it seriously. That does not mean that somebody will automatically be punished.
I doubt the truth of your parking space story, but even if it is true, it was right to approach the man to hear his version of events. It was not known that the woman was lying, and to not investigate the matter would risk allowing a real rape to go unpunished.
It also merits mention that the kind of harassment that would be dealt with by these policies is much less severe than rape, which demands the involvement of the police. These issues can be solved with a simple conversation.
Police officers, which are a good deal more intimidating than anti-harassment officers at a conference, do not hesitate to interview suspects, witnesses and persons of interest (most of whom will be innocent), regardless of the inconvenience or offence it might cause them. Nobody objects to this, because it makes us all safer in the long run. Same goes for harassment complaints.
But the police interview both sides and look for evidence, they do not just listen to one person and then go and tell the other to do anything. When you end up in a situation where two people are accusing each other of harassment via one method or another – improper suggestion or false accusation – you cannot just ‘talk to one and remind them of how people should behave’ and not the other. Either way you have now likely offended an innocent party and been unable to help the real victim.
I’ve already said that a quick reminder to respect other people does not cause anywhere near the same amount of harm as sexual harassment. The utilitarian calculus here is pretty clear: it’s better to mildly offend a few overly-sensitive people than to allow real instances of harassment to go unanswered.
Also, false accusations really don’t happen that much. Why would a person waste their time at a conference by falsely accusing other people of harassing them?
How much harassment actually happens? So far I have yet to see how many incidents have ever been reported at conferences. I would have no idea if any were false, but it is always possible.
Why do people make such claims, sometimes to discredit a person, sometimes because they themselves made a sexual advance that was refused so they reported the other person for ‘revenge’.
I have never said I am against a harassment policy, all I have said is that it is far from easy to enforce properly.
However, if someone denies that it happened at all – it is useless to act as though they need reminding. If they say they didn’t do it, you privately consul them as if they didn’t do it – and most likely suggest they avoid the accuser and offer security support if they want it. If they did something and then said they don’t think they did anything wrong – then you take out the policy and explain that they need to follow the policy and if they are unwilling, they should leave.
If the person claims it never happened, then it’s best to remind them of the policy and of the need to treat other conference-goers with respect, then leave them alone. If they continue to behave in that manner, then there will be further complaints about them which will serve as further evidence for the truth of the original complaint. If this goes far enough, it will warrant some form of discipline.
No. “Continue” to behave in that manner? What if they didn’t in the first place? I’m not saying the issue shouldn’t be documented, only that if you speak to the person as if they are lying that’s going to cause a problem – regardless of whether or not that person is actually lying or not.
If the original complainant was lying, then there are unlikely to be any other people who complain about the behaviour. If there are further complaints, then they serve as corroborating evidence that something is going on.
No PZ can’t do what he likes at FtB because he isn’t actually dictator for life of it – he is one writer of many and he CANNOT make unilateral decisions for the entire network.
FtB is humanist – so yeah – feminism as in women don’t have less value than men is a must, just like not thinking black people are inferior is. What type of feminism or what specific stances you have on feminist issue or issues of harassment are not.
There was no harassment, just a feminazi getting offended at being addressed by a male without Her giving him permission first, so I don’t see how it’s relevant.
You make a very interesting counter-argument. Allow me to retort.
“Please don’t take this the wrong way” is harassment -how-? “I find you interesting” is a code for “I’MA RAPE YOU BITCH” in what twisted pseudo-reality, exactly?
Go fuck yourself first (Look, I’m even communicating at your level to put you at ease!). And while you’re at it, get Skepchick to take a good, long, hard look at how hypocritical she is, the sexist bitch.
“Accepting” views isn’t freethinking, in fact I’m pretty sure it’s the opposite of that. The poll was disturbing because it was a really bad way to make his point and his point wasn’t even relevant. PZ just said that it was a mistake to invite him in the first place. The reason he was invited is because PZ and he were friends. He wasn’t banned, he just doesn’t have a blog at FtB anymore.
If you are unable to accept others with views different to yourself, that is a dictatorship of thought where you determine what is and what is not acceptable for others to think and believe. Little different from the religious dogmas of the past. Does Atheism now have to come with radical feminism attached? I didnt see where Thunderf00t ever suggested people should be treated differently, indeed his message was equality, apparently equality is not what feminism is all about now though.
That fact that you immediately confused “people” with “views” says something. I said accepting views is not freethinking – it is criticizing views that would otherwise be held by the majority without question. However, this issue isn’t about that – however much TF thinks it is. He was difficult to work with AND his writing was bad. Other FtB bloggers have disagreed with specifics of sexual harassment policies, and not everyone at FtB has the same views on feminism.
Other FTB’s bloggers are not always easy to get on with, and some have bad writing styles too. That would therefore appear not to be the reason he was got rid of. Almost anyone with any workplace experience will have seen some people fail to fit in well in the first few weeks at times & subsequently fit in well enough.
His subsequent behaviour has been appalling if what is now being said is true, & it was childish enough anyhow. That was not the reason he was axed though.
How do you know? Seriously. Are you an FtB blogger? Were you involved in conversations behind the scenes? So, some bloggers are not always easy to get along with so there is NO way you can imagine he might have been worse? Are you so sure that they were ALL being so terrible that they deserve your insults for making a decision that you know isn’t your call? PZ is a disappointment. Carrier is apparently a liar. Do you understand how that isn’t being respectful.
FTB bloggers not getting on? Wow, see Greg Laden’s threats to other FTB bloggers, notably Justin Griffin, ironically published on FTB from the supposedly secret back channel. How can you not know this stuff?
PZ made two bad decisions maybe three, nowhere did I say he was a disappointment. Carrier I have not even mentioned yet alone called a liar. You clearly are a rather desperate individual now making things up. People earn respect, it is not deserved. FTB is no different & far from perfect.
Yeah Greg was kicked out for that. Really “secret” back channel? Yes, Justin published a private e-mail that was directed at him. He didn’t hack into the private listserve after getting kicked off. Of course you called Carrier a liar – and other bloggers too – with the insistence that FtB kicked off TF because of a disagreement on issues. You just said people should be treated with respect, right? PZ isn’t even the one who made the decision. I’m just sick of the misinfo.
So you shift from my not being able to know if FTB bloggers are difficult to get on with to agreeing one made actual threats to another! Presumably you do now concede not all FTB bloggers are easy to get on with, exactly my statement to start with.
If TF was only removed over writing style and being hard to get on with, why had problems arisen before he wrote a word? PZ admitted fault here.
PZ said he was the one who made the decision, so maybe you are source of your own ‘misinfo’ sickness.
PZ – you are an excellent biologist but when it comes to bar room behavior where people are drinking, getting drunk and having a good time, I would most humbly say that you don’t know what you are talking about. I agree with thunderf00t’s assessment in a bar 100%. It’s not a “safe place” and the bar ISN’T the conference. It’s an after conference hangout spot. Enter at your own risk of getting punched, have a beer tossed in your face or having your leg bitten. If you don’t like the bar, don’t go
I directly you to a point-by-point of one of his posts, which I wrote. If you are satisfied with only one example of his bad argumentation, he said that people who use the word “misogynist” to characterize their opponents are more likely to be wrong and posted up a fake graph showing a supposed linear correlation. Cute – but not good argumentation. I’ll send you the link through IM.
You are likely confusing his demonstration of bad arguers as a bad argument. It is a statement of fact not about what he thinks, but about what others think.
No – HE is confusing that. I mean, for F-sake he has a GRAPH explaining how the more you used labels the shittier your argument was. When his first post was torn apart, he did a bias poll of his own audience. He didn’t even bother presenting the alternatives neutrally – which is SUCH bad argument it’s borderline unethical. He also did this to attempt to show that FtB wasn’t representative of the “greater community” which they never claimed they were.
I just saw your correction. If you take it as a statement – it is that statement that a logically fallacy is true. Ironically it is actually an argument ad hominem. 1) If people use this language 2) they are wrong. So, he is implying that you can make a conclusion about a stance based on who said it – which is classic argument ad hominem.
You are right that this statement is a general statement that should not be used if “that people” are someone specific. General statements, even if they are true, should not be used against any specific person.
If “that people” is just anyone who use the word “misogynist” to characterize their opponents and not someone specific he is right to say so.
If used against someone specific in a specific debate then that would be wrong.
No, 1) labeling someone is not an argument ad hominem, unless you are attempting to use the label AS an argument 2) beyond that, using logical fallacies doesn’t mean you are more likely to be wrong, it just means your argument sucks. “Are you just trolling me?” is not an example of an argument ad hominem since it’s not even an argument.
Wrong. I am not a computer and neither are you. I can put a ? behind a sentence, but that doesn’t necessary make it a question. I can formulate a sentence so that it is not an argument, but yet the effect is the same. The effect of me saying George Bush are stupid when discussing he said, is the same as me saying he is wrong because he is stupid. Whether it is technically formulated as an argument or not is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
People who do not understand the function of fallacies are more likely to fool them self, thus more likely to falsely believe the foundation for their opinions.
Alternately when people feel strongly about whatever they have certain ideas they consider to be a given. Sometimes they are good ideas, other times they are crap. I’d be interested to hear about one of PZ’s strawmen though. Do you have a specific example?
Well for instance when Tf00t asked why Rebecca didn’t report the rape threats if they weren’t trolls and PZ then claimed that Tf00t said that all sexual harassment that isn’t reported to the FBI should be ignored.
Another straw-man is when PZ claimed that Tf00t tried to settle it by popular vote when in fact he was trying to show that the membership of FTB was not very representative of atheists and skeptics at large.
The 1st one isn’t a strawman, it’s gross misrepresentation. AKA lying. I haven’t seen it but it wouldn’t be the first thing I’ve facepalmed after hearing PZ say.
As to the second, a internet poll on TF’s page is a popular vote, and a hugely slanted audience. As for the later bit, the poor representation of women’s concerns in the larger activist atheist community is the speech RW gave, that made RD uncomfortable, which got the whole mess rolling.
Thank you for this PZ. I like both you and Tf00t. Both of you were instrumental in my journey from YEC to, you know, being right. Sounds like there is no chance you guys will kiss and make up.
Thank you.. now I have to go get a bottle of Brain Bleach and an SOS pad just so that I can get the mental Image of TF00t and PZ kissing out of my head.
There are a lot of smart people in the skeptic movement that are amazing at presenting facts and supporting arguments to back up their position, making it accessible to the most ignorant people. Points are repeated even when obvious.
But when it comes to the position of why men should not ask women for coffee-dates, I have yet to see/hear/read a single supporting idea other than Rebecca’s emotional comfort.
I want to believe it is possible to support equality while not siding with BW on this.
Why the hell is it called “freethought” if you are only able to think freely within the confines of naturalism and certain political veiws. That sounds more like dogma to me!
As for the definition of “free thought,” it would seem Myers is once again going on about matters he doesn’t understand. Free thought is defined by dictionary[dot]com as the following, “thought unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, especially in matters of religion.” I’ll leave it up to you the reader to decide whether or not PZ Myers is for free thought.
“… sometimes you just have to be intolerant to wrongness.”
PZ is referring to the result and not the method. According to what PZ says in this video he believe that freethought is a result. Personally I’m leaning towards it being a method, and not a result.
Freethought is not a guarantee for rightness, dogma is not a guarantee for wrongness.
I’m no fan of Thunderf00t in the sense that I disagree with his stance on religion and theism.
However, PZ Myers is a little shit with a Napoleon complex. He appears to be a perverted old man who enjoys siding with naive malleable college girls no matter how irrational they’re being. Why? Who knows. Perhaps one day we’ll find out. Perhaps one day we’ll find out that PZ Myers has a dungeon filled with little girls.
I’m not a huge fan of thunderf00t, but PZ, you screwed up royally and you’re far too proud to admit it. I agree that there are limits to the kind of commentary that should be allowed on FTB, but did t’f00t’s stated opinion tread anywhere near this limit? I don’t think so. You’re normally a very rational guy, PZ, and I love your other work, but when it comes to gender issues you regress into a raving, irrational lunatic, like the creationists you so despise. I sincerely hope you right this wrong.
I have no problem with agreeing that Tf00t is a duchbag who is incapable of reasoned debate and I also agree that supporting the equality of woman and other minor groups is important. But does that mean aspects of feminism are exempt from criticism PZ? This isn’t an MRA making the point PZ, there are aspects of feminist discourse that appear to work against equality and I think it is worthy of raising in civilised debate.
Oh, don’t be silly. MRA is just a convenient label he can apply to people who disagree with him so he doesn’t have to deal with their real criticism.
Just like “chill girl” for women, just like they use “mansplaining” or “privilege”. I keep comparing it to the word “infidel”, because that’s really how they use it- Marking the “outsider” so that they don’t have to listen to them.
Why am I being silly? He does use the label MRA to dismiss people and their opinions. I wasn’t using it as a slur just trying to appeal to his reason.
I feel that aspects of Feminism should be open to criticism and it disturbs me as a rationalist and Atheist how dismissive PZ is of anybody who brings it up. Tfoot is often a Duchebag but PZ utterly not engaging with the matter is silly, that he might use the “MRA” excuse should be called out.
As I said there are good people within the mens rights movement and bad people, I feel it is unfair that mens opinions on their sexuality or control over their body (something Feminists have battled for) can be utterly dismissed and twisted into accusations of misogyny or being part of some supposedly radical camp with a particular label. For me it should be about equality but also recognising and celebrating the biological differences.
For the mens rights movement to work people who are activists within it shouldn’t leap into battle (as you have) against people who actually support many aspects of what they are campaigning for. I wasn’t attacking the mens rights movement, I was purely using the term that PZ himself does to dismiss their viewpoints and pointing out I was not an activist within that movement.
Oh, I thought I made my sarcasm clear enough. I was just poking fun at PZ’s behaviour.
I wasn’t in any way criticising you. If anything, I was saying what you were- That whatever they say is twisted and destroyed.
Honestly, Feminism by now is becoming just plain cruel. Look at what happened with the education system. They got what they want, men are underrepresented now, and they’re cheering.
Oh, except for the three fields (math, engineering, hard science) that they aren’t dominating yet.
OK, so, apparently “free thought” doesn’t actually mean “thinking freely”, but, I only found that out after looking on wikipedia.
“Free thought” has a very unintuitive meaning, and I don’t think anyone who didn’t already know what it means can be expected to understand it.
Although, even by the definition of free thought, Skepchick continues to steam ahead, utterly and embarrassingly oblivious to the nature of the internet, obsessing over anonymous youtube comments.
Well, before anyone accuses me of being a Tf00t fan… let me just say that whilst I greatly admired his science stuff & his early anti creationist work – I think it all went to his head. He enjoys public squabbling far too much for me to take him seriously these days.
But after re-reading the original posts & listening carefully to this vid one thing is absolutely clear:
PZ definitely DID straw-man him – then they both fought like 14 yr old youtube kids.
Check out zomgitscris channel, it’s her next to the most recent posting, I think it’s called convergence or something like that. It’s an hour long video, but I stopped watching it when the guy on the panel said that a man’s brain was a female brain damaged by testosterone and everyone laughed and clapped and he went on to say it wasn’t a joke.
Oh wow… that’s pretty fucking retarded. I mean I know a lot about neurology and how neurons work and if any of that panel had any degrees in neuroscience they would have called him out on that bullshit. Plus testosterone doesn’t fucking effect the chemical makeup of the brain other than the area that encodes for survival which also acts for aggression. I mean there are differences between the female and male brains… but what he said is pure bullshit.
He claims to have been making some rhetorical point, but I think that is only because he was called out on it and had to make something up. Feminism is a very polarizing issue and it doesn’t belong at atheistic conventions. We don’t go to their conventions and tell them their is no god.
I never thought I would hear PZ Myers making the typical internet mistake of confusing disagreeing with trolling. “He disagreed with us from the start. Clearly he was trolling.” Or, maybe he liked everything but one thing and was hoping he could bring about some change for the better. And the “not-an-apology” early on for “not having prevented him from joining” instead of kicking him afterward? Amazing. Stay classy, PZ.
What an interesting and unnecessary experience this has been for those at FTB and for numerous others. At the very least, it is not unreasonable to share that the trait of being unreasonable is a universal trait that can be possessed by even those who are self-professed as being rational. I so very much concur with the warranted vetting of potential applicants for when one’s organization possesses a meaningful mission and goal.
It’s an invite-only blog network with about 30 bloggers. If they asked me to blog on the network, I would be thrilled. The term “banning” is generally used for people who can no longer comment. He was not “banned”. His blog is no longer hosted at FtB. His blog is hosted elsewhere.
free thought and humanism aretwo different things. I could only watch the vid until you explained your “enlightenment” views. If anyone is against humanism (which is exactly what you are) They are banned. You are just as bad if not worse than the religious. Change your name to humanistsblog and you won’t be a liar.
To be honest when I first got the take down notices, about 6 of them in an hour or so (4 content inappropriate with no chance of appeal, and two privacy complaints) I thought,
‘another harassing and minor annoyance in running the channel. A quick email to YT should sort it out.’
I was then simply stunned when youtube claimed these videos had been reviewed by professional and impartial moderators and were removed for either hate speech or privacy violation. The more so as some of these videos constituted some of the milder things I’ve said about religion. The bottom line was, if this really was the new bar for hate speech, not only would it in an instant render the Thunderf00t channel unviable, it would render virtually every rationalist channel unviable. Youtubes actions were simply unintelligible. Indeed if someone had told me these were youtube actions, I simply wouldn’t have believed them. But there were the words on the screen in black and white.
I had no option but to make the video “Youtube starts banning ‘religiously offensive’ videos“. There were simply no other alternatives. A fairly high stakes game given that youtube could easily have said my action violated the terms of service and just killed the account. But then again, if the words I had in black and white on the screen were correct, then channel was already dead, and the only thing left to do was give a good accounting of itself before the inevitable banhammer.
By coincidence this happened about one week after the Hamza Kashgari incident.
Kashgari made about 3 vanilla tweets mildly critical of Islam only to find himself in fear for his life. He fled Saudi, only to be arrested in Malaysia. There he was deported back to Saudi with no due process to face a potential death sentence over three tweets. That’s fucked up beyond ALL recognition. But it really underscores the problem that religions find arbitrary things offensive. Given this simple observation, having a clause in the Terms of Service about not offending religions is simply incoherent.
If youtube really is willing to give religion this latitude of freedom, and to further scale what they consider ‘hate speech’ by how offended people are, then youtube would inevitably find itself in thrall to the Imams. Many of them find anything that is not Islam offensive beyond comprehension, as was demonstrated by the Imam crying over the three tweets of Kashgari calling them ‘the worst thing he’d ever read’.
So it was that I wrote potentially my last email to youtube asking them to apply whatever policy they had uniformly, which, taking ‘The Best emotional PORN‘ as the benchmark, would mean either about 7/10 of my videos would be hate speech, and they should delete them and ban my account, or reinstate the videos (which are vanilla compared to some of the videos on my channel).
The BEST emotional PORN, the new bar for ‘hate speech’, Really?
Thankfully, some 48 hrs later, with over 17000 thumbs up, well over a thousand mirrors and ~160k hits Youtube had a change of heart over what constituted hate speech.
Now I have mixed feelings about this. The Churchill quote about ‘The United States will always do the right thing…. once all other options have been exhausted’ kept coming to mind.
Sure Youtube had done the right thing, and had the humility and plasticity to correct their previous mistake (a fairly honorable and humble act), but only once all other options had been exhausted. You then look at what other options youtube had on the table (banhammer, ignore or stick to original judgment), and this is BY FAR the most dignified thing they could have done.
So all things considered, I think this is as happy an outcome as could have been hoped for. For the strong response of the community (and yes, it was the communal action that made this possible, for I as an individual had tried to take this to a sensible resolution and failed (I have the gut feeling it was not my email that swung the balance here)) ensured that free speech is maintained on this forum.
Many Thanks to all who made this outcome possible!
When I staggered out of the wilderness last night, in the dark, exhausted, without any food, or drinkable water and with a broken plane, I had only one thought. What a fantastic couple of days!
Panorama looking down on Jack Ass Pass near the Cirque of the Towers
The story starts with wanting to go see the ‘Cirque of the Towers’, one of the most beautiful places on Earth. However I wanted to get some video of it from the air! Now the story of my failure is long, and surprising short of predators, although, for some unexplained reason it has a llama in it!
Now getting into the Cirque is a bit of a chore in that you have to drive some 30 or so miles down dirt roads (which can require a LOT of attention if you are in a low clearance 2 wheel drive car). However once you get to the Big Sandy trailhead, it gets interesting! Getting to the Cirque is a hard days hike, but easier as a 2 day trip. Its about 8 miles in, and about 2-3000 feet of ascent. However I was packing in a plane and all the kit to go with it too! Not to mention a tent, enough to stop me freezing in the expected well below freezing temperatures, and enough emergency kit that I could make it back to the car in a tight pinch.
INTO THE CIRQUE!
The first thing I noticed was:- no mosquitoes! That was such a blessing. Previously when I’ve been here they make your life a torment in that whenever you stop, great clouds of them descend on you, and bug spray and nets or not you get peppered with bites. Same goes for when you pitch the tent, you basically have to throw up the tent and get in it asap just to escape from the bugs. This time, NOTHING, nada, not even a hint of a mosquito. That made the walk through the dry piney forests of Big Sandy incredible pleasant, but in the back of my mind I was fully aware that the reason there were no mosquitoes was that a hard frost had killed them all. It was likely to be cold that night.
I left the car at 2pm, not out of any great plan, I just knew that was plenty of time to set a ‘base camp’ of sorts. There are also significant wildcards about heading out this time of year. Thankfully it’s too late for nasty thunderstorms, but snow is more likely to be the real hazard. First sign of bad weather and I would have to abort. No way was I prepared for harsh weather, and even getting back to the car would only be half the battle. However the cirrus cloud which I wasn’t quite sure if it was a front coming in (in which case I would be screwed) or was just some weather created by the mountains, burned off, and the rest of the day was as beautiful, pleasantly ambiently warm as a man under a deep blue sky could hope for.
The place was near deserted (the crowds of summer gone!), and I only passed maybe 5 people heading up to Big Sandy lake. Then came the first choice, to head up to Temple or into the Cirque? (right or left at Big Sandy lake?) I opted for the Temple, a giant triangular looking granite monolith. Merely to sand under Temple is an intimidating experience. I pitched camp in the last trees under Haystack. In this case it primarily wasn’t for fear of lightning, but in the full knowledge that it would be several degrees warmer in the trees, and given that I really wasn’t sure how my sleeping bag (‘rated’ to below freezing) would actually perform. As it turns out it did just fine, however my pillow was a pair of boots with a pair of pant (trousers) and fleece thrown over the top, prove more troublesome in getting a good nights sleep. Also there is the latent fear of the night predators. I’d hoisted the food into a tree, but you know that you are ALONE. There is no help. That sort of exposure sharpens the mind, and gives on a very light sleep. Was up about sunrise, although no direct light filtered down into the valley.
The view of 'Haystack' from the tent in the morning
After a breakfast of ‘instant noodles’ I headed up towards the cirque of Temple, taking only the plane and some food. It was a pathless bushwhack, but not difficult. The sharp spike of Steeple rising steeply over the lake making for some excellent views before coming into the presence of Temple. And YES, I went to Temple on a Sunday!
View of Steeple over Clear lake
I was completely alone in this cirque.
The condition for flying were as good as one could hope for up in the mountains. Scarcely a breath of wind, with giant mountain shadows littering the landscape. Bummer was the voltage regulator had fallen off the transmitter side of things on the plane, and I assumed my wiring was regularly color coded. Well anyway, I plugged in the battery, and theres this futt sound and a smell of burning electronics. I’ll wager that’s smells not graced the presence of Temple before! So that was the end of the possibility of remote video, however, I could still just record with the camera on the plane. It’s SOOO much easier to fly without the Helmet of Magnetar! Sure you can’t fly out of line of sight, but you only have to worry about flying the plane. Flight was fantastic!.
Best flight EVER! 🙂
I then decided to head up onto the unnamed mountain in the middle of the cirque (the mountain of broken planes?). By the time I had gotten up there, there was a random wind blowing up to 15 mph, but the view was phenomenal!
Random un-named mountain (Plane Destroyer Mountain?) near the Cirque of the Towers
-The location of ‘Plane Destroyer’ mountain
But a 15mph wind that’s tricky. The plane is already heavy (almost 1kg) which means it has to fly faster to maintain its lift. Further I was already at almost 11000 feet which means that in order to get stable flight you need to fly faster due to the thin air. Getting into the air proved trivial. Getting it to land, that was difficult. You see I probably only had 10ft or so of uneven granite to land on. I was ontop of the mountain, to overshoot means the plane falls off the cliff on the other side. To undershoot means flying into a granite block! In the end, after several aborted attempts where the plane, due to its slower speed and the irratic wind had almost been tipped over, pretty much out of desperation, I bought the plane in ‘hot’. Sure it was fairly stable, but on ‘landing’ the camera and motor broke off. In many ways it was a relief, in that there was now no way I could do aerial video of the Cirque of the Towers (meant I didn’t have to take all this kit up to the pass). I packed up and took the short way down. Risky to be sure as I had no surety that the path wouldn’t end in an impassible cliff. Thankfully it didn’t and I saved myself about a mile of bush-whackin’ down to Temple lake and back again. On the way down, of all the bizarre and unexpected things, I found a llama with no apparent owner. WTF?
Random Llama!
It took to its heels as I approached. Dropped down to base camp by about midday, packed up and cooked what food I had left (more raman noodles!). Then the trek down to Big Sandy lake. Got to the path up the Cirque of the Towers by about 2ish. Took basically all the water, wine and food I had left, and headed up towards the cirque. I was very tired by this point, and to make matters worse, lost the trail just before the first lake and ended up in a giant boulder field. There was many a hole you could have fallen into and never been seen or heard from again! I reached an overview of Jackass Pass (my target) by 4pm, but I was a spent force. I could go no further. It was a double blessing that the plane had crashed, for there was a steady 30 mph wind gusting higher near the cirque, all but impossible to fly in. I hung around on the pass till 4:30, full in the knowledge that I would be walking out in the full dark. Going down was fast, aided by the fact that I kept the path the whole way.
Defeat at the Cirque
Got back to my pack at 5:45pm and began the weary trudge out. I was all but out of food, all but out of drinkable water. Now its true that I had both water treatment and a water pump, but was reluctant to risk using them if I could avoid it. (theres a really nasty bug in the water around here called giardiasis). By 8pm it was near full dark and I was walking on a head lamp, so tired that I could only walk for 10 or so minutes at the time. Turns out the headlamp was fantastic, as not only did it free up both hands, but periodically you could sweep the local area looking for glowing eyes! However it could only penetrate the murk for 20 or so feet, and I was ever fearful of losing the path. I eventually managed to get onto the flats near the trail head, but was lost in what turned out to be the campground. It was both a delight and a nightmare to find those park benched. I knew I was REALLY close to ‘home’ but had no clear idea which way to go. I then found a road. Again, great, but which way to go when you can only see 20 feet? Turns out it was the one way loop around the campsite, and if I had known I was probably only a couple of hundred feet from my car. I guessed good and as I came over the gentle rise, what do I find on the other side, but my ‘little blue New Yorker’! Dumped everything asap, tanked up on water and chocolate before crashing for the night, having to run the engine periodically to stave off the cold of the night freeze.
So for night time I decided to indulge in a guilty pleasure, and just drive off into the quiet forests of Oregon, and just, well, sleep! Well mostly sleep. I did leave a timelapse going of the milky way from the forests of Oregon…. Pretty!
The next morning I was up early, and spent it bumming around crater lake. When I first got the lake, it was mirror still! It’s rarely that still at crater lake (normally wind disturbs the surface, as it had does by the end of this timelapse), so I set up the camera… more pretty!
While that was going down, I got accosted by one of the GIANT VOLCANIC CHIPMUNKS that roam the area!
And boy did that 4.5mm sigma 180 degree fisheye lens earn its keep at crater lake. Y’see Crater Lake is just so big by the time you can see it, basically only a 180 degree lens will get it all in!
A keep back sign? Now that's just being a 'cliff tease'. Seriously though, these signs litter Crater Lake, which to be fair has a lot of cliffs, but does it really need all the idiot warning for people too stupid to spot poor footing and a terminal drop off?
and these ‘keep back signs’ litter the area in a way that smells of ‘frivolous lawsuit evasion’, or maybe it’s just to keep the number of Darwin Award winners from Crater Lake down.
Spent that evening on top of Mount Scott, well actually a rocky outcrop you have to climb up on near the top of Mnt Scott. But the views were amazing. Just sat there and watched the sun go down over the lake!
Thunderf00t on mnt Scott looking down on crater lake. And yes, its about a 50ft drop off that rock! Mnt Scott is the highest point in Crater Lake NP. The actual summit has a fire lookout built on it and smells of urine. However for those willing to do a little hand n foot scrambling, there are a couple of satellite summits that have amazing views.
Spent the early evening helping doing some astronomy outreach (of a sort). Skies were dark, but a little murky. Had the scope catching photons from the M101 supernova till about 2am before packing up. However Jupiter rising over the lake gave some captivating specular reflections! Left the timelpase running till about 4am, would have been longer, but I feel asleep before changing the battery. Damn my intolerance to sleep deprivation!
Next morning, a very tired Thunderf00t decided the air was still enough to take to the skies, using the helmet of doom! Here I was alternating between first person flying, and flying by direct sight. It’s really ballsy stuff in that by the plane has to be quite close (relativley) to fly by direct sight, and if you go further, you are 100% reliant on the video and RC gear working. There is also the problem that by the time the plane is so far away, that you cannot see it, the plane also cannot see you! So bascially you have to navigate by big cliffs and the sun to find your way home. The bottom line is, while the plane was almost beyond the point where you could see it to fly it, it still didn’t make it over the lake.
After that little adrenaline rush I was ready for some excitement, which came in the form of swimming in an ice-cold lake formed by a collapsed volcano!
and yeah that water looks perty and blue, its just as amazingly blue when you get your head under it! Regrettably, by the time I’d worked that out, I’d left the contraption for getting the camera underwater (a sort of ziplock bag) back in the car, 1000 ft above me on the crater rim 😦
Thunderf00t 