Metalogic42 wrote:My comment was not approved because I used "Ophie" three times. One was merely a mention of "nicknames are harassment" comment, so really, I only called her "Ophie" twice.
So, IF you want your comment to go through, resubmit using her full first name. Playground rules don't apply everywhere. I fully appreciate moderation rules that are clearly spelled out and applied in an even handed manner.
Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
EdwardGemmer wrote:How amazing would it be if the Center For Inquiry fired the CEO for asking questions.
It would be amazing. I doubt it'll happen. They'll probably push him into some sort of contrived "outreach" and reconciliation.
I wonder if it's occurred to any of the squalling brats that the CFI's drama magnet DC director might catch a reprimand or demotion from this.
I wonder if the main players really give a shit about her. How much amity and real friendship is there with that crowd?
None. They'll turn on each other for badthink in a heartbeat. Ask Justin Griffith, who, more than anyone else on that site, has actually achieved real, measurable change for the better for atheists in this country.
EdwardGemmer wrote:How amazing would it be if the Center For Inquiry fired the CEO for asking questions.
Amazing, but also, IMO, actually disastrous for the FtB lot. Talk about a PR disaster. At some point it really becomes a matter not just of Ron Lindsay's career, but saving FtBs from themselves, not that I particularly care if they go down in a ball of flames. But a responsible leadership would never allow a fringe continent to self immolate quite that spectacularly, even if they secretly think they dearly deserve it.
What "leadership" at FTB are you referring to? Yes, this entire debacle, started by Watson BTW, is a PR disaster for not only FTB/Skepchick, but also for CFI. Will the CFI board fire Lindsay? Probably not. Will they ask him to make some sort of statement of contrition/apology for his "200 words"? Doubtful.
Firing Lindsay over a "non incident" would be an unmitigated disaster for CFI. We've already seen here and in other venues (e.g., twitter) that people would be running away so fast from CFI that a vaccuum would be created in it's place.
Also, I cannot imagine Lindsay agreeing to making any form of apology. If asked, or they attempt to force him, he should just resign. Again, another gigantic PR disaster for CFI.
There would only be one single positive, if I may use that word: no other secular organization in it's right mind would ever invite anyone from FTB (the "core") or Skepchick to either speak or be a panel member at their event.
Metalogic42 wrote:Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
OK. He wasn't as clear to you as he wanted to be. This guy is clearly shooting for civil discourse. And quite frankly, I find it a breath of fresh air. I know many of you consider civil discourse with the FtB crowd a lost cause, and that is probably true. But being able to describe your position in a more professional manor is important for effectively communicating with the middle ground crowd. Treat it like you would writing a letter to the CFI board.
Metalogic42 wrote:Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
OK. He wasn't as clear to you as he wanted to be. This guy is clearly shooting for civil discourse. And quite frankly, I find it a breath of fresh air. I know many of you consider civil discourse with the FtB crowd a lost cause, and that is probably true. But being able to describe your position in a more professional manor is important for effectively communicating with the middle ground crowd. Treat it like you would writing a letter to the CFI board.
The "discourse" you refer to though, is just a lot of people from this forum.
welch wrote:Because Gurder's moderating as heavily as Ophie ever did:
Yes, Gurdur refused to approve one of my comments because it contained the indirect phrase "behaving like little shits" that wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just the practices of Freethought Bullies, particularly doxing.
He, however, thought that was "name-calling".
I would agree with him. Name-calling not of a specific person, but demonization of a different side. He clearly spelled out what he considered acceptable and what is not acceptable for comments on his blog. You are an intelligent person Mykeru. I know you are perfectly capable of describing bad behavior without resorting to calling people little shits. Your decision not to do so under certain circumstances is completely your choice.
EdwardGemmer wrote:How amazing would it be if the Center For Inquiry fired the CEO for asking questions.
Amazing, but also, IMO, actually disastrous for the FtB lot. Talk about a PR disaster. At some point it really becomes a matter not just of Ron Lindsay's career, but saving FtBs from themselves, not that I particularly care if they go down in a ball of flames. But a responsible leadership would never allow a fringe continent to self immolate quite that spectacularly, even if they secretly think they dearly deserve it.
What "leadership" at FTB are you referring to? Yes, this entire debacle, started by Watson BTW, is a PR disaster for not only FTB/Skepchick, but also for CFI. Will the CFI board fire Lindsay? Probably not. Will they ask him to make some sort of statement of contrition/apology for his "200 words"? Doubtful.
Firing Lindsay over a "non incident" would be an unmitigated disaster for CFI. We've already seen here and in other venues (e.g., twitter) that people would be running away so fast from CFI that a vaccuum would be created in it's place.
Also, I cannot imagine Lindsay agreeing to making any form of apology. If asked, or they attempt to force him, he should just resign. Again, another gigantic PR disaster for CFI.
There would only be one single positive, if I may use that word: no other secular organization in it's right mind would ever invite anyone from FTB (the "core") or Skepchick to either speak or be a panel member at their event.
In my opinion they should:
1. Say nothing or produce a statement of support for Lindsay restating their commitment to skeptisism as required under their mandate.
2. Do a WIS3 but not invite the trouble makers. That way is may actually be about what matters and not the fake drama.
3. Stop appointing people who's core aims are inconsistent with theirs just because they like to seem 'modern' and 'with it'
Metalogic42 wrote:My comment was not approved because I used "Ophie" three times. One was merely a mention of "nicknames are harassment" comment, so really, I only called her "Ophie" twice.
So, IF you want your comment to go through, resubmit using her full first name. Playground rules don't apply everywhere. I fully appreciate moderation rules that are clearly spelled out and applied in an even handed manner.
Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
Because the LARGER WORLD will think it's a play on "oaf" or "oafie". Just ask gurder, he's absolutely unanimous in that.
Metalogic42 wrote:My comment was not approved because I used "Ophie" three times. One was merely a mention of "nicknames are harassment" comment, so really, I only called her "Ophie" twice.
So, IF you want your comment to go through, resubmit using her full first name. Playground rules don't apply everywhere. I fully appreciate moderation rules that are clearly spelled out and applied in an even handed manner.
Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
Agree. Her name is Ophelia and there's no reason not to use it. There is nothing stopping people from clearly spelling out Benson's crimes without resorting to 'nicknames'. If Gurdur wants to focus on issues without the silly distractions then that's his right and it's not his issue if anyone doesn't like it. He doesn't ask anyone to change the substance of their posts. This is exactly what I was referring to earlier about anti-authoritarian puritanism where a reasonable request for self-restraint and moderation is seen as unacceptably censorious.
Metalogic42 wrote:Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
OK. He wasn't as clear to you as he wanted to be. This guy is clearly shooting for civil discourse. And quite frankly, I find it a breath of fresh air. I know many of you consider civil discourse with the FtB crowd a lost cause, and that is probably true. But being able to describe your position in a more professional manor is important for effectively communicating with the middle ground crowd. Treat it like you would writing a letter to the CFI board.
I should have been clearer. Gurdur contacted me on Twitter about the post in question, and was very clear what his stance was - that the general public will see "Ophie" and think of it not as short for "Ophelia", but as a derogatory term reminiscent of "Oaf". Frankly, that's bullshit. If I had said "Oafie", he would have a point, but I did not.
But anyway, I agree about treating it like a letter to the CFI board. However, given the circumstances surrounding such a letter, I think that at least some mildly strong language would be excusable. Not "fuck Batshit Benson, that fucking piece of shit fuck fuck fuck", but people are angry over recent events, and rightly so. Letters to CFI should reflect this.
I'm mildly surprised. I wasn't particularly nice, even though I avoided "bad werds". I did have to undo the TypeIt4Me macro that autoconverts "PZ" to PeeZus a few times.
I also refuse to register just to put comments up, and I forget to put my name. Oh well.
Metalogic42 wrote:
My comment was not approved because I used "Ophie" three times. One was merely a mention of "nicknames are harassment" comment, so really, I only called her "Ophie" twice.
He may be a toolbag, more likely he's the pontificating retired guy in a tilly hat and socks and sandals seen at local skeptical groups that I love to go on about.
I am intrigued by the 4:00 a.m. post-Lindsay WIS morale meeting.
Do we have any fly-on-the-wall speculation what was discussed, aside from trying to reassure, wrongly, I might add, Melody Hensley that she doesn't look like Foghorn Leghorn in drag?
Metalogic42 wrote:My comment was not approved because I used "Ophie" three times. One was merely a mention of "nicknames are harassment" comment, so really, I only called her "Ophie" twice.
So, IF you want your comment to go through, resubmit using her full first name. Playground rules don't apply everywhere. I fully appreciate moderation rules that are clearly spelled out and applied in an even handed manner.
Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
Agree. Her name is Ophelia and there's no reason not to use it. There is nothing stopping people from clearly spelling out Benson's crimes without resorting to 'nicknames'. If Gurdur wants to focus on issues without the silly distractions then that's his right and it's not his issue if anyone doesn't like it. He doesn't ask anyone to change the substance of their posts. This is exactly what I was referring to earlier about anti-authoritarian puritanism where a reasonable request for self-restraint and moderation is seen as unacceptably censorious.
However, there's an actual *point* to "ophie". If that is such a great crime, then why is "Dick" Dawkins okay? If diminumtives are a crime when used by people they don't like, why are they okay when THEY use them.
Mykeru wrote:I am intrigued by the 4:00 a.m. post-Lindsay WIS morale meeting.
Do we have any fly-on-the-wall speculation what was discussed, aside from trying to reassure, wrongly, I might add, Melody Hensley that she doesn't look like Foghorn Leghorn in drag?
She's more like Widow Hen in appearance and mannerisms.
Metalogic42 wrote:My comment was not approved because I used "Ophie" three times. One was merely a mention of "nicknames are harassment" comment, so really, I only called her "Ophie" twice.
So, IF you want your comment to go through, resubmit using her full first name. Playground rules don't apply everywhere. I fully appreciate moderation rules that are clearly spelled out and applied in an even handed manner.
Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
Agree. Her name is Ophelia and there's no reason not to use it. There is nothing stopping people from clearly spelling out Benson's crimes without resorting to 'nicknames'. If Gurdur wants to focus on issues without the silly distractions then that's his right and it's not his issue if anyone doesn't like it. He doesn't ask anyone to change the substance of their posts. This is exactly what I was referring to earlier about anti-authoritarian puritanism where a reasonable request for self-restraint and moderation is seen as unacceptably censorious.
As I've said before, people have the right to moderate their blogs and forums as they see fit (to their own detriment). But "Ophie", even if mildly disrespectful, is not "empty name-calling". If he wants to be a stickler about what he allows in comments, he needs to put more work into his rules.
When I wrote that post, I wasn't thinking, "hehe, this will show that old cunt! A nickname!", nor was I thinking, "I wonder whether this is going too far and might not be allowed through". I had seen his statement regarding the content of comments, and it never even crossed my mind that "Ophie" wouldn't be allowed.
Metalogic42 wrote:
My comment was not approved because I used "Ophie" three times. One was merely a mention of "nicknames are harassment" comment, so really, I only called her "Ophie" twice.
He may be a toolbag, more likely he's the pontificating retired guy in a tilly hat and socks and sandals seen at local skeptical groups that I love to go on about.
jimhabegger wrote:I’m planning to write to the board to suggest that Dr. Lindsay go through a training program to help him understand what he did wrong, and learn not to do it again.
I'm mildly surprised. I wasn't particularly nice, even though I avoided "bad werds". I did have to undo the TypeIt4Me macro that autoconverts "PZ" to PeeZus a few times.
I also refuse to register just to put comments up, and I forget to put my name. Oh well.
Its not about being nice. The purpose of Tims rules are simple. They are to avoid giving them an opportunity of using 'bad wurds' to attack the post rather than deal with what what actually said.
We all know without their ability to smear people as 'horrible' they lose the argument and they then have to make things up, as they did with Skep Tickle. So for me it is nothing not do with censorship but a tactical way to be more effective when making public statements.
Finally, my limited experience with Tim so far has shown me he is consistent and not arbitrary.
The one thing I do disagree with is there is a 'middle ground'. It is rationalists versus dogmatists. So it is the SJW's versus the rest of us.
The slympit is an incredible resource to get our message out there but it does not suit everyone. The more we can get on board to resist the clowns the better.
Metalogic42 wrote:My comment was not approved because I used "Ophie" three times. One was merely a mention of "nicknames are harassment" comment, so really, I only called her "Ophie" twice.
So, IF you want your comment to go through, resubmit using her full first name. Playground rules don't apply everywhere. I fully appreciate moderation rules that are clearly spelled out and applied in an even handed manner.
Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
Agree. Her name is Ophelia and there's no reason not to use it. There is nothing stopping people from clearly spelling out Benson's crimes without resorting to 'nicknames'. If Gurdur wants to focus on issues without the silly distractions then that's his right and it's not his issue if anyone doesn't like it. He doesn't ask anyone to change the substance of their posts. This is exactly what I was referring to earlier about anti-authoritarian puritanism where a reasonable request for self-restraint and moderation is seen as unacceptably censorious.
As I've said before, people have the right to moderate their blogs and forums as they see fit (to their own detriment). But "Ophie", even if mildly disrespectful, is not "empty name-calling". If he wants to be a stickler about what he allows in comments, he needs to put more work into his rules.
When I wrote that post, I wasn't thinking, "hehe, this will show that old cunt! A nickname!", nor was I thinking, "I wonder whether this is going too far and might not be allowed through". I had seen his statement regarding the content of comments, and it never even crossed my mind that "Ophie" wouldn't be allowed.
Because rules need to be as objective as possible so even names we would consider reasonable can't be included as that is a subjective decision.
Metalogic42 wrote:
As I've said before, people have the right to moderate their blogs and forums as they see fit (to their own detriment). But "Ophie", even if mildly disrespectful, is not "empty name-calling". If he wants to be a stickler about what he allows in comments, he needs to put more work into his rules.
When I wrote that post, I wasn't thinking, "hehe, this will show that old cunt! A nickname!", nor was I thinking, "I wonder whether this is going too far and might not be allowed through". I had seen his statement regarding the content of comments, and it never even crossed my mind that "Ophie" wouldn't be allowed.
Because rules need to be as objective as possible so even names we would consider reasonable can't be included as that is a subjective decision.
1) "Ophie", whatever it is, is not empty name-calling by any reasonable metric.
2) If he wanted to disallow something in addition to empty name-calling, he should have stated that up front.
Dear CFI Board of Directors and Secretary Tom Flynn,
I am writing to express my strongest support for CFI CEO Dr. Ronald A. Lindsay. In recent weeks we have seen calls for his resignation for statements he made during his keynote speech at the Women in Secularism conference in Washington, DC. This comes from a very small, but extremely shrill and vocal, minority that does not represent the larger atheist/skeptic/humanist (A/S/H) communities, in particular, long time supporters of CFI.
The first thing I must point out is that the so-called "rift" in the A/S/H communities does not actually exist. Even those supposedly on the "wrong side" support full equality for everyone, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation and other such labels that have traditionally divided humanity into identity groups. In particular, we all support equal rights and equal opportunities for women.
What we are presently witnessing, in a small portion of the A/S/H communities, is the emergence of a secular extreme left-wing dogma. This dogma has roots in social-constructivism and identity politics. The merits, or lack thereof, of such a dogma are moot as far this current inquisition of Dr. Lindsay is concerned. What is really of concern is the ability to question all beliefs, however strongly held, and subject them to scientific and skeptical inquiry. Those out to silence Dr. Lindsay want the leading secular and humanist organizations to adopt these dogmas and ensure that they are not challenged. This is contrary to the principles of free-inquiry, as is obvious to most of us.
A pernicious aspect of this dogma is the use of thought-terminating cliches. In fact, it is for questioning just such a cliche that Dr. Lindsay has earned the wrath of the dogmatists. As humanists, questioning the validity of religious dogma and its influence on society with robust free-speech, we must not erect our own set of unquestionable dogmatic and sacred beliefs.
I strongly urge the board to support Dr. Lindsay by issuing a clear statement to that effect. Further, I suggest that CFI look carefully at the roster of speakers at its conference and writers for its magazines. It appears that, perhaps inadvertently, the CFI is giving a platform to certain individuals, allowing them inject dogma into an otherwise vibrant and robust community of free-thinkers.
Metalogic42 wrote:
As I've said before, people have the right to moderate their blogs and forums as they see fit (to their own detriment). But "Ophie", even if mildly disrespectful, is not "empty name-calling". If he wants to be a stickler about what he allows in comments, he needs to put more work into his rules.
When I wrote that post, I wasn't thinking, "hehe, this will show that old cunt! A nickname!", nor was I thinking, "I wonder whether this is going too far and might not be allowed through". I had seen his statement regarding the content of comments, and it never even crossed my mind that "Ophie" wouldn't be allowed.
Because rules need to be as objective as possible so even names we would consider reasonable can't be included as that is a subjective decision.
1) "Ophie", whatever it is, is not empty name-calling by any reasonable metric.
2) If he wanted to disallow something in addition to empty name-calling, he should have stated that up front.
Do you disagree with either of these points?
He did he said shortening of names is not accepted although I agree this may have been a late decision and not well advertised. I know it though. Also some people do get upset by that even if I agree it's silly. More to the point they will pretend to be upset to attack it rather than deal with the point raised.
People can act as they wish of course and I would never suggest this sort of restriction should be a general principle.
Mykeru wrote:I am intrigued by the 4:00 a.m. post-Lindsay WIS morale meeting.
Do we have any fly-on-the-wall speculation what was discussed, aside from trying to reassure, wrongly, I might add, Melody Hensley that she doesn't look like Foghorn Leghorn in drag?
I would like to know if the 4am meeting started when the first attendee asked the second if they'd like to come to their room at 4am for coffee and discussion... in the elevator, after the bar closed. :o
Sarah Moglia, *
Carrie Poppy, *
Amy Davis Roth, *
Rebecca Watson *
Desiree Schell
Amanda Marcotte *
Rebecca Goldstein
Jamila Bey *
Vyckie D. Garrison *
Teresa MacBain,
Maryam Namazie
Stephanie Zvan *
Ophelia Benson *
Greta Christina *
Katha Pollit
Susan Jacoby
Jennifer Michael Hecht
Maryam Namazie
Soraya Chemaly *
Shelley Segal
OK, quick analysis of the speakers at the conference who were asked whether they wanted to sign (I've removed those who Svan said she specifically excluded.)
So thirteen signed.
That sounds a lot, but lets look into it a little deeper.
I see eleven on the list who are either writers for skepchick or who are their FTB allies, in addition to a couple of strongly gender feminist speakers (Soraya Chemaly and Vicky Garrison). I guess these may be the ones likely to sign.
That leaves just two more - which could include Shelley Segal, the singer and one more person.
Either way, once you take out the usual suspects you are left with the logical conclusion that there are a lot of big names who did not sign.
In other words, once you remove the skepchick-FTB axis from the picture, the vast majority of speakers refused to sign Svans letter.
I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in Katha Pollit signing on. I've enjoyed her work in The Nation for years and she never seemed to be the FC(n) type.
katamari Damassi wrote:I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in Katha Pollit signing on. I've enjoyed her work in The Nation for years and she never seemed to be the FC(n) type.
I thought Dick was just saying that this was the list of the speakers, rather than the list of the signatories. So whilst all the signatories are on the list - not everyone on the list is a signatory.
Mykeru wrote:I am intrigued by the 4:00 a.m. post-Lindsay WIS morale meeting.
Do we have any fly-on-the-wall speculation what was discussed, aside from trying to reassure, wrongly, I might add, Melody Hensley that she doesn't look like Foghorn Leghorn in drag?
I would like to know if the 4am meeting started when the first attendee asked the second if they'd like to come to their room at 4am for coffee and discussion... in the elevator, after the bar closed. :o
Who am I kidding... no one was drinking Coffee in that room.
Metalogic42 wrote:1) "Ophie", whatever it is, is not empty name-calling by any reasonable metric.
2) If he wanted to disallow something in addition to empty name-calling, he should have stated that up front.
Do you disagree with either of these points?
I will disagree with both of these points.
1) "Ophie" is a diminutive version of Ophelia. A parallel of this might be if they decided to start calling Richard Dawkins "Dicky." Or if people referred to George Bush as "Georgie." Basically it is a childized version of their names. You don't see any serious adults being known as "Chucky." It shows a lack of respect for the other. Much as refering to Richard Dawkins as "Dick" is just a cheap excuse to call him a dick.
I will agree with you that I had never considered Ophie to be a reference to Oaf. Otherwise it would have been more blatantly spelled that way.
Gundar is using a fairly strict metric for name calling. You may not like it, but at least he is consistent. On the three threads on the Women in Secularism conference, I can see zero references to "Dick." Gundar wants a more civilized discussion of the problems at hand, and as far as I can see, he is going about it the right way.
2) If you have ever moderated any large forums, you will quickly learn that you cannot foresee much less word-smith out a set of rules that covers every scenario. For instance, if I stated in his comments, "Justin Vacula fucks puppies," that is not name calling and would technically fit within his single stated rule of no empty name-calling. But I fully expect he would not allow blatant unfounded slander.
Metalogic42 wrote:My comment was not approved because I used "Ophie" three times. One was merely a mention of "nicknames are harassment" comment, so really, I only called her "Ophie" twice.
So, IF you want your comment to go through, resubmit using her full first name. Playground rules don't apply everywhere. I fully appreciate moderation rules that are clearly spelled out and applied in an even handed manner.
Gurdur states: " Note: the comments thread here underneath will be strictly off-limits to any empty name-calling."
I do not think "Ophie" falls under this. Should have been clearer about that.
Agree. Her name is Ophelia and there's no reason not to use it. There is nothing stopping people from clearly spelling out Benson's crimes without resorting to 'nicknames'. If Gurdur wants to focus on issues without the silly distractions then that's his right and it's not his issue if anyone doesn't like it. He doesn't ask anyone to change the substance of their posts. This is exactly what I was referring to earlier about anti-authoritarian puritanism where a reasonable request for self-restraint and moderation is seen as unacceptably censorious.
However, there's an actual *point* to "ophie". If that is such a great crime, then why is "Dick" Dawkins okay? If diminumtives are a crime when used by people they don't like, why are they okay when THEY use them.
Sigh. You don't get it. It's because of privilege. It's okay to say shit about Dawkins because he's an old white guy. It's not okay to even tweet a polite criticism of a certain old white woman because she's unprivileged. Unless you're an old black woman, then you can say shit, but you can't have have shit said about you, unless it's by an old black woman in a wheelchair.
And she's off limits, unless you happen to be an old black woman in a wheelchair who is a lesbian. But if you are, don't ever use such language against an old black lesbian woman in a wheelchair if she is an old black lesbian transexual woman in a wheelchair. Unless of course you happen to be not only a old black lesbian transexual woman in a wheelchair but you're blind as well. In which case who are you talking shit about, huh? Point them out to me.
The important thing to remember is, the thing you are actually saying doesn't matter.
Sarah Moglia, *
Carrie Poppy, *
Amy Davis Roth, *
Rebecca Watson *
Desiree Schell
Amanda Marcotte *
Rebecca Goldstein
Jamila Bey *
Vyckie D. Garrison *
Teresa MacBain,
Maryam Namazie
Stephanie Zvan *
Ophelia Benson *
Greta Christina *
Katha Pollit
Susan Jacoby
Jennifer Michael Hecht
Maryam Namazie
Soraya Chemaly *
Shelley Segal
OK, quick analysis of the speakers at the conference who were asked whether they wanted to sign (I've removed those who Svan said she specifically excluded.)
So thirteen signed.
That sounds a lot, but lets look into it a little deeper.
I see eleven on the list who are either writers for skepchick or who are their FTB allies, in addition to a couple of strongly gender feminist speakers (Soraya Chemaly and Vicky Garrison). I guess these may be the ones likely to sign.
That leaves just two more - which could include Shelley Segal, the singer and one more person.
Either way, once you take out the usual suspects you are left with the logical conclusion that there are a lot of big names who did not sign.
In other words, once you remove the skepchick-FTB axis from the picture, the vast majority of speakers refused to sign Svans letter.
I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in Katha Pollit signing on. I've enjoyed her work in The Nation for years and she never seemed to be the FC(n) type.
I gather that Strawkins has put an asterisk after the people he expects to have signed (there isn't one after Pollit's name).
Presumably there are 2 more asterisks to be added to the list.
katamari Damassi wrote:I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in Katha Pollit signing on. I've enjoyed her work in The Nation for years and she never seemed to be the FC(n) type.
I thought Dick was just saying that this was the list of the speakers, rather than the list of the signatories. So whilst all the signatories are on the list - not everyone on the list is a signatory.
Or something.
I took a guess at the likely signatories; all those with the * next to their name are, I'm guessing, those who signed.
I'm basing this guess on the premise that the skepchick/FTB team will stick together and sign.
I haven't marked Maryam Namazie as a signatory as I haven't seen her get involved with this nonsense previously.
I also marked a couple of those speakers who are strict gender feminists (Soraya Chemaly and Vyckie Garrison) - and thus might be inclined to complain about Lindsay dissing the "check your privilege" tactic.
That gives a total of 11 people.
Two more are needed to reach Svans thirteen.
I'm guessing that the two other signatories may be Shelley Segal and one more person - perhaps Desiree Schell. Either way it is embarrassing for Svan that almost every single one of the big name female secularists didn't sign.
Of course I could be wrong here.
Does anyone have a list of who actually signed?
Freedom of Expression and Pluralism is about generating and having options. Neither "everything goes everywhere" is pluralistic, nor providing only one option. It must be possible to have a capella music on one place, and instrumental music at another.
The problem with the Fainting Couch members is not that they moderate. But that they remove, censor, keep in moderation limbo comments they deem undermining their personal agenda. If Zvan would censor insults across the board, well, no problem. Just don't use them to make a legitimate point. But she clearly doesn't. She even cuts shorts reasonable arguments when she deems them going into an undesireable direction (not off topic, but against her line). The key difference is censorship of content versus moderation of formal violations. Gurdur looks like a principled person who does the latter in a consistent manner.
We should watch out that legitimate criticism of freedom of expression violations as outlined above isn't caricatured as Freeze Peach. That is the bogus version that misses the point.
I have been following the Slymepit for several months now, and the recent brouhaha and baying for Ron Lindsay's blood has compelled me to create an account here. If the only thing this accomplishes is black-listing by NoThoughtBlogs, its satellite puppet blogs and their self-flagellating penitenziagite commentariat (I call them the Buffoon Collective for short), I will be happy. I do not wish, simply from our common use of the adjectives "atheist" and "humanist", to be associated with the Buffoon Collective in any manner whatsoever.
Even before the breakdown of their sanity, I did not have much of an opinion of Benson, Watson and PZ. The first appeared to me as a ill-read and ill-informed, snarky blogger, the second as the least interesting and stupidest member of the SGU podcast, the last as a rude jerk. In fact, I think PZ even when arguing with creationists displayed extreme arrogance and dismissiveness, with his choice weapon insult and abuse. Perhaps at that point he seemed like a useful jester to have around, but now that he has turned on the community that made him (in)famous, his true, nasty, personality has been exposed, and we are regretting the attention we gave him then.
I was raised (in India) in the perhaps the most misoginistic religious tradition of all: Islam. My mother, despite extreme opposition, managed to get a PhD in biology and went on to found several businesses of her own, including a mushroom farm and a plant tissue-culture lab. This same woman, so succeful and educated, was beaten and abused at home, by my father and his extended family, for the crime of daring to work, and, making far more money my dad ever did. She took all this abuse in a stoic fashion. Once, she went to her father to get his permission for a divorce, but he turned her down, essentially showing her that she was trapped. Miraculously, my father underwent a radical personality transformation around fifteen years ago. He is now the most loving and kind person one can meet, although still very religious. Perhaps he repents his actions from his past, and now activly intervenes when he sees one his family abusing women.
I ran into the pernicious influence of the Buffoon Collective in discussions on the Facebook page of a local humanist community. Thought-terminating cliches like "safe space", "victim", "privilege" were used to silence discussion. I just left. Of course, the Baffoon Collective has now taken Frankenstein monster proportions, turning into a haven for uber sensitive, malignant narcissist fools. Their commentariat remind me of a tradition in some Indian communities that hire women to wail at a death. (Once these "professionals" started bawling in the middle of the night and kept going till about six in the morning, making it impossible to sleep.). Not much difference here, except, instead of death these professional victims wail and weep at every perceived slight.
Thank Allah that The Pit is not a safe space where one can earn victim points. And, I assume, no one will ask me to check my Brown, Male Privilege.
H. Korban wrote:I have been following the Slymepit for several months now, and the recent brouhaha and baying for Ron Lindsay's blood has compelled me to create an account here. If the only thing this accomplishes is black-listing by NoThoughtBlogs, its satellite puppet blogs and their self-flagellating penitenziagite commentariat (I call them the Buffoon Collective for short), I will be happy. I do not wish, simply from our common use of the adjectives "atheist" and "humanist", to be associated with the Buffoon Collective in any manner whatsoever.
Even before the breakdown of their sanity, I did not have much of an opinion of Benson, Watson and PZ. The first appeared to me as a ill-read and ill-informed, snarky blogger, the second as the least interesting and stupidest member of the SGU podcast, the last as a rude jerk. In fact, I think PZ even when arguing with creationists displayed extreme arrogance and dismissiveness, with his choice weapon insult and abuse. Perhaps at that point he seemed like a useful jester to have around, but now that he has turned on the community that made him (in)famous, his true, nasty, personality has been exposed, and we are regretting the attention we gave him then.
I was raised (in India) in the perhaps the most misoginistic religious tradition of all: Islam. My mother, despite extreme opposition, managed to get a PhD in biology and went on to found several businesses of her own, including a mushroom farm and a plant tissue-culture lab. This same woman, so succeful and educated, was beaten and abused at home, by my father and his extended family, for the crime of daring to work, and, making far more money my dad ever did. She took all this abuse in a stoic fashion. Once, she went to her father to get his permission for a divorce, but he turned her down, essentially showing her that she was trapped. Miraculously, my father underwent a radical personality transformation around fifteen years ago. He is now the most loving and kind person one can meet, although still very religious. Perhaps he repents his actions from his past, and now activly intervenes when he sees one his family abusing women.
I ran into the pernicious influence of the Buffoon Collective in discussions on the Facebook page of a local humanist community. Thought-terminating cliches like "safe space", "victim", "privilege" were used to silence discussion. I just left. Of course, the Baffoon Collective has now taken Frankenstein monster proportions, turning into a haven for uber sensitive, malignant narcissist fools. Their commentariat remind me of a tradition in some Indian communities that hire women to wail at a death. (Once these "professionals" started bawling in the middle of the night and kept going till about six in the morning, making it impossible to sleep.). Not much difference here, except, instead of death these professional victims wail and weep at every perceived slight.
Thank Allah that The Pit is not a safe space where one can earn victim points. And, I assume, no one will ask me to check my Brown, Male Privilege.
Hello and welcome! Many of us have had similar experiences with FTB and cohorts.
Metalogic42 wrote:For fuck's sake, it's just a TV show. There's a lot of motive-attributing here, but not much substance. You sound like Anita Sarkeesian.
Want to bet that one stung?
I have been noticing comments here and there, some explicitly and others that require just a little thought, to the effect that the MHRA is just the other side of the coin to feminism.
Jack wrote:
Because rules need to be as objective as possible so even names we would consider reasonable can't be included as that is a subjective decision.
Or there's this simple take on it.
His blog and he can be the puckered-assed Granny all he wants. I tried to comment, he found some "hello, this does not meet my standards thus proving that, in the purely XKCD sense of the term "agnostic", I'm superior to all of you combined. Please suck my balls, located in convenient sag distance at my knees".
Then I give up, don't knock myself out trying to contribute to his blog via several painful re-writes of FUCKING INSIGNIFICANT BLOG COMMENTS (just one of which, of course, can end the war and save millions of lives) and generally confirm my suspicion that anyone so arrogant and clueless to posture as fair broker has got to have a screw loose.
Yeah, yeah. I know a majority of you aren't keen on AVfM. However, there is a recent post put out there I find extremely interesting. The menz and those with male-type children might also be very interested in reading this - http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-he ... kills-men/.
I bring this up because this is *exactly* the kind of cancer my guy just dealt with.
H. Korban wrote:
I was raised (in India) in the perhaps the most misoginistic religious tradition of all: Islam. My mother, despite extreme opposition, managed to get a PhD in biology and went on to found several businesses of her own, including a mushroom farm and a plant tissue-culture lab. This same woman, so succeful and educated, was beaten and abused at home, by my father and his extended family, for the crime of daring to work, and, making far more money my dad ever did. She took all this abuse in a stoic fashion. Once, she went to her father to get his permission for a divorce, but he turned her down, essentially showing her that she was trapped. Miraculously, my father underwent a radical personality transformation around fifteen years ago. He is now the most loving and kind person one can meet, although still very religious. Perhaps he repents his actions from his past, and now activly intervenes when he sees one his family abusing women.
I think it is literally impossible for the whiny First World Woman's Problems brigade to appreciate how much intelligence and tenacity it took on your mother's part to succeed. And good on your father for breaking out of that cycle. We often forget that oppressive ideologies can suffocate the spirit of people who, in other circumstances, would not be the sort to victimize others.
Welcome to The Pit and, as custom dictates, go fuck yourself.
katamari Damassi wrote:I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in Katha Pollit signing on. I've enjoyed her work in The Nation for years and she never seemed to be the FC(n) type.
I thought Dick was just saying that this was the list of the speakers, rather than the list of the signatories. So whilst all the signatories are on the list - not everyone on the list is a signatory.
Or something.
I took a guess at the likely signatories; all those with the * next to their name are, I'm guessing, those who signed.
I'm basing this guess on the premise that the skepchick/FTB team will stick together and sign.
I haven't marked Maryam Namazie as a signatory as I haven't seen her get involved with this nonsense previously.
I also marked a couple of those speakers who are strict gender feminists (Soraya Chemaly and Vyckie Garrison) - and thus might be inclined to complain about Lindsay dissing the "check your privilege" tactic.
That gives a total of 11 people.
Two more are needed to reach Svans thirteen.
I'm guessing that the two other signatories may be Shelley Segal and one more person - perhaps Desiree Schell. Either way it is embarrassing for Svan that almost every single one of the big name female secularists didn't sign.
Of course I could be wrong here.
Does anyone have a list of who actually signed?
My mistake. I hope Pollit didn't sign on to that nonsense.
Metalogic42 wrote:1) "Ophie", whatever it is, is not empty name-calling by any reasonable metric.
2) If he wanted to disallow something in addition to empty name-calling, he should have stated that up front.
Do you disagree with either of these points?
I will disagree with both of these points.
1) "Ophie" is a diminutive version of Ophelia. A parallel of this might be if they decided to start calling Richard Dawkins "Dicky." Or if people referred to George Bush as "Georgie." Basically it is a childized version of their names. You don't see any serious adults being known as "Chucky." It shows a lack of respect for the other. Much as refering to Richard Dawkins as "Dick" is just a cheap excuse to call him a dick.
"Dear Dick". That's why it gets done. They want the "right" to backhand insult someone, I fail to see the problem in returning the favor on a very minimal level. As far as diminuitive go, please, if someone has a multisyllable first name, we regularly do that. "Rich" for richard, "Jon" for Jonathan, "peg" or "peggy" for Margaret, so on and so forth. Ophie is a bit of a poke in the eye, but only at her offense over not being allowed to control what people call her. Since she has no problem doing the same thing to others, I fail to see why I should care about her offense in this area.
deLurch wrote:I will agree with you that I had never considered Ophie to be a reference to Oaf. Otherwise it would have been more blatantly spelled that way.
yes, well, according to Gurder, that's how everyone but the slymepit sees it. THis is not a debatable point, he point blank said this via twitter.
deLurch wrote:Gundar is using a fairly strict metric for name calling. You may not like it, but at least he is consistent. On the three threads on the Women in Secularism conference, I can see zero references to "Dick." Gundar wants a more civilized discussion of the problems at hand, and as far as I can see, he is going about it the right way.
He is indeed being quite strict. He's the only one allowed to do it, and he shows this by dismissing any and all disagreement as "emo". Oh, and he's *already* gotten results. So clearly name-calling is bad. Unless Gurder's doing it, then it's totes okey-dokey. Gee, WHERE HAVE I SEEN *THAT* BEFORE?
deLurch wrote:2) If you have ever moderated any large forums, you will quickly learn that you cannot foresee much less word-smith out a set of rules that covers every scenario. For instance, if I stated in his comments, "Justin Vacula fucks puppies," that is not name calling and would technically fit within his single stated rule of no empty name-calling. But I fully expect he would not allow blatant unfounded slander.
Unless it's him doing the slandering. Then it's fully-founded.
Jack wrote:
Because rules need to be as objective as possible so even names we would consider reasonable can't be included as that is a subjective decision.
Or there's this simple take on it.
His blog and he can be the puckered-assed Granny all he wants. I tried to comment, he found some "hello, this does not meet my standards thus proving that, in the purely XKCD sense of the term "agnostic", I'm superior to all of you combined. Please suck my balls, located in convenient sag distance at my knees".
Then I give up, don't knock myself out trying to contribute to his blog via several painful re-writes of FUCKING INSIGNIFICANT BLOG COMMENTS (just one of which, of course, can end the war and save millions of lives) and generally confirm my suspicion that anyone so arrogant and clueless to posture as fair broker has got to have a screw loose.
H. Korban wrote:I have been following the Slymepit for several months now, and the recent brouhaha and baying for Ron Lindsay's blood has compelled me to create an account here. If the only thing this accomplishes is black-listing by NoThoughtBlogs, its satellite puppet blogs and their self-flagellating penitenziagite commentariat (I call them the Buffoon Collective for short), I will be happy. I do not wish, simply from our common use of the adjectives "atheist" and "humanist", to be associated with the Buffoon Collective in any manner whatsoever.
Even before the breakdown of their sanity, I did not have much of an opinion of Benson, Watson and PZ. The first appeared to me as a ill-read and ill-informed, snarky blogger, the second as the least interesting and stupidest member of the SGU podcast, the last as a rude jerk. In fact, I think PZ even when arguing with creationists displayed extreme arrogance and dismissiveness, with his choice weapon insult and abuse. Perhaps at that point he seemed like a useful jester to have around, but now that he has turned on the community that made him (in)famous, his true, nasty, personality has been exposed, and we are regretting the attention we gave him then.
I was raised (in India) in the perhaps the most misoginistic religious tradition of all: Islam. My mother, despite extreme opposition, managed to get a PhD in biology and went on to found several businesses of her own, including a mushroom farm and a plant tissue-culture lab. This same woman, so succeful and educated, was beaten and abused at home, by my father and his extended family, for the crime of daring to work, and, making far more money my dad ever did. She took all this abuse in a stoic fashion. Once, she went to her father to get his permission for a divorce, but he turned her down, essentially showing her that she was trapped. Miraculously, my father underwent a radical personality transformation around fifteen years ago. He is now the most loving and kind person one can meet, although still very religious. Perhaps he repents his actions from his past, and now activly intervenes when he sees one his family abusing women.
I ran into the pernicious influence of the Buffoon Collective in discussions on the Facebook page of a local humanist community. Thought-terminating cliches like "safe space", "victim", "privilege" were used to silence discussion. I just left. Of course, the Baffoon Collective has now taken Frankenstein monster proportions, turning into a haven for uber sensitive, malignant narcissist fools. Their commentariat remind me of a tradition in some Indian communities that hire women to wail at a death. (Once these "professionals" started bawling in the middle of the night and kept going till about six in the morning, making it impossible to sleep.). Not much difference here, except, instead of death these professional victims wail and weep at every perceived slight.
Thank Allah that The Pit is not a safe space where one can earn victim points. And, I assume, no one will ask me to check my Brown, Male Privilege.
Check your Wealthy Brown Male Privilege! (I assume you are wealthy since you apparently hire people to weep for you. Some of us have to do that ourselves. Thats triggering for those of us who have been taught by the Patriarchy that we cannot weep.)
H. Korban wrote:
I was raised (in India) in the perhaps the most misoginistic religious tradition of all: Islam.
As Salam Alaikum,
This may be a construed as none of my business so feel free not to answer.
However, I was wondering if you could tell me which branch of Islam you were raised in? Could you be specific in your answer and so for example say Dawoodi Bohra rather than just Shia? (I am not assuming that you are Shia).
Finally, you have already been given the traditional welcome so no doubt someone else will eventually post the traditional basket of links.
H. Korban wrote:I have been following the Slymepit for several months now, and the recent brouhaha and baying for Ron Lindsay's blood has compelled me to create an account here. If the only thing this accomplishes is black-listing by NoThoughtBlogs, its satellite puppet blogs and their self-flagellating penitenziagite commentariat (I call them the Buffoon Collective for short), I will be happy. I do not wish, simply from our common use of the adjectives "atheist" and "humanist", to be associated with the Buffoon Collective in any manner whatsoever.
Even before the breakdown of their sanity, I did not have much of an opinion of Benson, Watson and PZ. The first appeared to me as a ill-read and ill-informed, snarky blogger, the second as the least interesting and stupidest member of the SGU podcast, the last as a rude jerk. In fact, I think PZ even when arguing with creationists displayed extreme arrogance and dismissiveness, with his choice weapon insult and abuse. Perhaps at that point he seemed like a useful jester to have around, but now that he has turned on the community that made him (in)famous, his true, nasty, personality has been exposed, and we are regretting the attention we gave him then.
I was raised (in India) in the perhaps the most misoginistic religious tradition of all: Islam. My mother, despite extreme opposition, managed to get a PhD in biology and went on to found several businesses of her own, including a mushroom farm and a plant tissue-culture lab. This same woman, so succeful and educated, was beaten and abused at home, by my father and his extended family, for the crime of daring to work, and, making far more money my dad ever did. She took all this abuse in a stoic fashion. Once, she went to her father to get his permission for a divorce, but he turned her down, essentially showing her that she was trapped. Miraculously, my father underwent a radical personality transformation around fifteen years ago. He is now the most loving and kind person one can meet, although still very religious. Perhaps he repents his actions from his past, and now activly intervenes when he sees one his family abusing women.
I ran into the pernicious influence of the Buffoon Collective in discussions on the Facebook page of a local humanist community. Thought-terminating cliches like "safe space", "victim", "privilege" were used to silence discussion. I just left. Of course, the Baffoon Collective has now taken Frankenstein monster proportions, turning into a haven for uber sensitive, malignant narcissist fools. Their commentariat remind me of a tradition in some Indian communities that hire women to wail at a death. (Once these "professionals" started bawling in the middle of the night and kept going till about six in the morning, making it impossible to sleep.). Not much difference here, except, instead of death these professional victims wail and weep at every perceived slight.
Thank Allah that The Pit is not a safe space where one can earn victim points. And, I assume, no one will ask me to check my Brown, Male Privilege.
Another one of those pesky Franc's suckpuppets, uh?
deLurch wrote:2) If you have ever moderated any large forums, you will quickly learn that you cannot foresee much less word-smith out a set of rules that covers every scenario. For instance, if I stated in his comments, "Justin Vacula fucks puppies," that is not name calling and would technically fit within his single stated rule of no empty name-calling. But I fully expect he would not allow blatant unfounded slander.
I agree that no standard will be complete, but "no empty name-calling" seems a bit light and ambiguous. Perhaps its the lawyer in me, but my first thought is, "Is non-empty name-calling OK? And if so, what would that be?"
If you are going to spend time whining that people are not living up to your rules, I would think you could spend more than four words to specify what they are.
ReneeHendricks wrote:Yeah, yeah. I know a majority of you aren't keen on AVfM. However, there is a recent post put out there I find extremely interesting. The menz and those with male-type children might also be very interested in reading this - http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-he ... kills-men/.
I bring this up because this is *exactly* the kind of cancer my guy just dealt with.
I think that article was mostly fair.
I wouldn't, however, conclude that the fact that Gardasil is only routinely offered to girls is a form of discrimination against men. Immunization against HPV is relatively new in medical terms and as such they are likely to begin with the group most at risk (in which case it is females, who are at risk of HPV related cervical cancer.) Remember, women, like men, are at risk for HPV associated throat cancers but it's not those that the Gardasil is meant to prevent. But the vaccine is a good preventative for many HPV related tumors.
So yes, Gardasil should be offered for all children, regardless of sex.
If I ever refer to Ophelia Benson as Ophie, I assure you that yes, my purpose is to insult her. Without stating an opinion on whether Gurdur is right to block name-callers, I think he is right to consider 'Ophie' an example of such.
