Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[feathers]

Democracy Now!, piece with Anita Sarkeesian.

Femocracy, more like.

[Konrad_Cruze]

Well I had considered Mykeru's argument worth considering. It looked like a grey area. I am willing to entertain proposals & hash them out. And I find that is best done with other people providing their input & counter arguments.

That or I could go all Richard Carrier and decide whatever I think at any given moment must be superior & right as supported by my own words.

Exactly so. Discussion is by far the best way of getting to the truth and you can't have that discussion if everyone is in agreement. That is the fundamental error with FTB. There is no discussion only an echo chamber. If they actually opened up their forums to opposing points of view then a consensus would more than likely be reach on most issues. But there is a reason they choose not to do this.

[deLurch]

Ok, the, I'll take the lead.

what I see as a big diffrence between Myers doxxing Skep and Mykeru calling UMM is that Myers doxxed her publicly, including her employer's contacts, encouraging his sycophants to fuck with her job.

Mykeru called UMM, as an individual person, didn't give any intructions to thers to do the same, and did not (AFAIK) release UMM's contacts, even if they are readily available online.

So we have on the one hand one individual giving a phone call by his own decision, and on the other hand a doucheweasel sending his hord of demented freaks to harass someone's employer.

What Mykeru did was mild a kitten by comparison to shitlord Myers.

There, I hope that'll keep you entertained a few more minutes/hours.

Well, I don't consider what Mykeru did was completely unethical via the dealing with the schoolyard bully scenario. But I do consider Konrad_Cruze's argument as superior in terms of allowing for acceptable loses in order to win the long term war. He has the better battle plan which is evidenced by pz myer's continuing shrinking sphere of influence, not just amongst readership, but also amongst the leaders of the atheist movements.

Going Mykeru's route will inevitably turn the battle into a he-said-she-said "he did it first" argument that won't sell well for outside readership. If you muddy the water, it becomes more difficult for people to decide who is right & who is wrong.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I agree that it was mild in comparison but that doesn't make it right just not as wrong.

Sometimes, a bit of "just not as wrong" is all that's needed to a)keep the so-called moral high ground and b)remind the asshole that two can play that game, although with more restraint an civility because we're not assholes like you. If I remember correctly, Mykeru's call was to ask if UMM endorsed or approve such things as the doxxing of a doctor by one of their profs for some stupid internet joke. I'd say this is a very legitimate question and one of general public interest, as UMM is mostly funded with tax-payers' money, and I for one would not want to send my kids to an institution where Scientology tactics are endorsed, or approved of.

Plus, it might have given Myers a few uncomfortable bowel movements watching that video. No downside!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Well, I don't consider what Mykeru did was completely unethical via the dealing with the schoolyard bully scenario. But I do consider Konrad_Cruze's argument as superior in terms of allowing for acceptable loses in order to win the long term war. He has the better battle plan which is evidenced by pz myer's continuing shrinking sphere of influence, not just amongst readership, but also amongst the leaders of the atheist movements.

Going Mykeru's route will inevitably turn the battle into a he-said-she-said "he did it first" argument that won't sell well for outside readership. If you muddy the water, it becomes more difficult for people to decide who is right & who is wrong.

That's not where I'm arguing from. I actually strongly agree with you and Konrad's point. I'm just trying to set things straight WRT my views of Mykeru's phone call, especially vs Myers' assdickery.

[Konrad_Cruze]

Well I had considered Mykeru's argument worth considering. It looked like a grey area. I am willing to entertain proposals & hash them out. And I find that is best done with other people providing their input & counter arguments.

That or I could go all Richard Carrier and decide whatever I think at any given moment must be superior & right as supported by my own words.

Exactly so. Discussion is by far the best way of getting to the truth and you can't have that discussion if everyone is in agreement. That is the fundamental error with FTB. There is no discussion only an echo chamber. If they actually opened up their forums to opposing points of view then a consensus would more than likely be reach on most issues. But there is a reason they choose not to do this.

Sorry. To add on to that. All ideas need to be hashed out. This way you can see if it is in fact a reasoned position that have been fully thought out or are ideological standpoints which must never be touched.

[Opyt]

I agree that it was mild in comparison but that doesn't make it right just not as wrong.

Sometimes, a bit of "just not as wrong" is all that's needed to a)keep the so-called moral high ground and b)remind the asshole that two can play that game, although with more restraint an civility because we're not assholes like you. If I remember correctly, Mykeru's call was to ask if UMM endorsed or approve such things as the doxxing of a doctor by one of their profs for some stupid internet joke. I'd say this is a very legitimate question and one of general public interest, as UMM is mostly funded with tax-payers' money, and I for one would not want to send my kids to an institution where Scientology tactics are endorsed, or approved of.

Plus, it might have given Myers a few uncomfortable bowel movements watching that video. No downside!

At the moment there is no evidence that Myers is even aware of the video beyond the length of 40 minutes. He made a snide (and very much unaware of "out-group" opinion) remark that it was supposed to only be "2 minutes of hate" in the comments. I think I have personally gotten more laughs per minute out of reading the comment section than I have from the tag itself.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

At the moment there is no evidence that Myers is even aware of the video beyond the length of 40 minutes. He made a snide (and very much unaware of "out-group" opinion) remark that it was supposed to only be "2 minutes of hate" in the comments. I think I have personally gotten more laughs per minute out of reading the comment section than I have from the tag itself.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the video he posted of his recorded call with UMM. Not the #where'sPSMyers one.

[Konrad_Cruze]

Well, I don't consider what Mykeru did was completely unethical via the dealing with the schoolyard bully scenario. But I do consider Konrad_Cruze's argument as superior in terms of allowing for acceptable loses in order to win the long term war. He has the better battle plan which is evidenced by pz myer's continuing shrinking sphere of influence, not just amongst readership, but also amongst the leaders of the atheist movements.

Going Mykeru's route will inevitably turn the battle into a he-said-she-said "he did it first" argument that won't sell well for outside readership. If you muddy the water, it becomes more difficult for people to decide who is right & who is wrong.

That's not where I'm arguing from. I actually strongly agree with you and Konrad's point. I'm just trying to set things straight WRT my views of Mykeru's phone call, especially vs Myers' assdickery.

From what you are saying I think we are in fact in agreement with the point that Mykerus actions weren't completely ethical, just not as unethical as PZ. If you are happy to accept this, that is your decision. We each have a line that we never cross when it comes ethics. I set mine quite high. Some would say stupidly high. But that's how I choose to be. What others choose to accept is up to them however I will state my view as I think is right. This doesn't make me right and you wrong nor Vice versa. It is one of these glorious grey areas that need discussion.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I don't think Mykeru's phone call was unethical at all. Not from the POV of a citizen eager to clarify if UMM supports the revealing of private information by one of its tenured profs as a form of petty revenge for an online joke.

What's unethical with that? You could argue that that was not Mykeru's intent, but we could argue about this until the cows come home and still disagree.

[Guesticulating]

Hi, lurker for ~2 years, previously posted under some Guest nym about the Atheism Kiva takeover/logo change to A+. I've been following the atheism/skeptic movement for years, former fan of PZs, etc., and watched what I thought was a great movement for progress be taken over by the entryists. Writing today as I've been also following the GamerGate goings-on lately, as I know many of you are also.

I'm hoping the GamerGate debacle is a positive sign for the smoking husk of the once-vibrant and promising "atheism/skeptic movement", and we may see even more pushback from big names as a result, and here's why I think so: gamers as a group are a much, much wider target demographic than the remnants of the nascent A/S movement, and they have the numbers and thus likely a broader range of experience and connections to put up a much larger stink than our tiny niche interests were able to muster. Given the sheer level of mendacity and vitriol being spewed, there will probably be idiots who get carried away and go way too far resulting in a major lawsuit somewhere, dwarfing that of BR/KS.

As GamerGate grows even more and more into an obvious, ridiculous moral panic, and more crystal-clear evidence comes to light of slander and collusion using not just the same tactics, but indeed the exact same verbiage as the FFtBtards and skepstains, it will become even more obvious to the few A/S fence-sitters that SJWism is just a poisonous memetic kafkatrap (not implying here GamerGate is about SJWism). The parallels to the last VG post-Columbine/Jack Thompson crusades, the early 80s Satanic Panic, the late-80s/early 90s PMRC/Tipper Gore bologna, and going back in history, the Temperance movement, the Witch Trials, and the numerous other authoritarian movements in are so blindingly clear and obvious, I hope the remaining skeptics who haven't just washed their hands of it take notice and further speak up, as Nugent has been doing recently. Simply stunning that people who used to consider themselves skeptics are so fucking blinkered they don't recognize it themselves.

Anyway, I hope it all starts falling like dominoes, though I doubt it will ever recover to what it was in 06-09ish.

Keep on with the lulz, m'ladies and gentlemysoginists, and get better FT. Abbie is Cassandra.

:cdc:

[Kirbmarc]

Feminists are so incredibly predictable. You post a link to a view of GamerGate alternative to Futrelle's "satire" (about as funny as a punch in the teeth), and they all come yelling at you at a female developer who is pro-GamerGate doesn't count, that she's a chill girl, that she's a cheerleader to the assholes, that's she "driving away all the good people".

If the "good people" are all self-important whiny crybabies like them, good riddance.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Like, "driving away all the Good Christians"? :roll:

[Kirbmarc]

Also, Cracked has let Zoe Quinn write an article about how she's been "the most hated person on the Internet". Even when she's fishing for sympathy, she still manages to show her titanic sense of self-importance.

[Opyt]

Kirbmarc:
She's literally reading from Sarkeesian's playbook. Kinda depressing.

[Hunt]

Damn. I got bumblefucked by reality.

Last week, I noticed PZ had mentioned Mykeru only once on his blog. Ever. The other baboons loathe Mykeru and say so, but Peez had said nothing since he complained about a photoshop 2 years ago. I figured he was afraid his hardcase posturing might draw a real world encounter. So, I made this image and uploaded it to Imgur, but decided to hold off posting while I considered doing more work on it:

http://imgur.com/OCyaY51.jpg

While I dawdled, Peez posted about Mykeru. Krep.

(I think the pic is somewhat salvageable though, because PZ STILL hasn't used his name :) )

Personally I don't buy that PZ made a post about the twitter campaign without knowing about the video. Come on, he's been at this Internet thing for a while now. A 40 minute video all about PZ and he hasn't obsessively watched it, pausing at the good parts to resalt his popcorn? Zebrafish are more compelling than that? PZ would televise his own draw and quartering if he knew it would get him attention.

[Konrad_Cruze]

I don't think Mykeru's phone call was unethical at all. Not from the POV of a citizen eager to clarify if UMM supports the revealing of private information by one of its tenured profs as a form of petty revenge for an online joke.

What's unethical with that? You could argue that that was not Mykeru's intent, but we could argue about this until the cows come home and still disagree.

I would argue that it is unethical to call the Uni to ask its opinion on something that it should have no opinion on at all. Mykeru is forcing the Uni to get involved with PZs private life which the Uni has no right to do. As I stated earlier, if one of my employees wants to be a member of the KKK then that is their choice. It has nothing to do with me. The only time this has anything to do with me is if his KKK bed sheet has the company logo on it or if he tries to wear it to work. What Mykeru is effectively doing is forcing the Uni to get involved which if he tried to do that to me he would not be waiting for me to call back but instead have me reaching through the phone and tearing him a new asshole. Remember the Uni has to work with PZ and currently has no means of getting rid of him. Mykeru will possibly have destroyed the working relationship of PZ and his colleagues. This does not just effect PZ but also the people he works with as they must now work with someone they despise. It has knock on effects and does not just impact PZ.

Now he called PZs office and stated why he was calling. There will be doubt who he was calling about and so "a tenured prof" is not the case. I would give it a week before everyone on that campus knows that PZ received a call with regards to harassment. I will say it again. PZ is not representing the Uni on his blog. Therefore the Uni has no stance on any of its employees activities in their private lives.

[Cliché Guevara]

I don't think Mykeru's phone call was unethical at all. Not from the POV of a citizen eager to clarify if UMM supports the revealing of private information by one of its tenured profs as a form of petty revenge for an online joke.

What's unethical with that? You could argue that that was not Mykeru's intent, but we could argue about this until the cows come home and still disagree.

There's no need to argue about what his intent was. I'm pretty sure (though I don't give enough of a fuck to go dig it up) that he stated plainly in one of his final posts here that he was hoping against hope that the university would somehow call Peez onto the carpet. Even though, as many observed, Peez has long had a big honking disclaimer up there stating that the university has nothing whatsoever to do with what he does on his own shitty blog and thus doesn't "support" a damned thing to do with it.

It's striking that you try to rationalize it the best way possible. Yes, he just wanted to "clarify" a point of school policy. Just idle curiosity, that's all. Never once crossed his mind that calling the university's attention to such a matter could result in professional consequences, why, perish the thought.

My point being, given what we know about cognitive biases and such these days, shouldn't it make you leery about your ability to bend the occasional rule yet still hold the moral high ground when you find yourself spinning a version of events like that?

[deLurch]

I would argue that it is unethical to call the Uni to ask its opinion on something that it should have no opinion on at all. Mykeru is forcing the Uni to get involved with PZs private life which the Uni has no right to do. As I stated earlier, if one of my employees wants to be a member of the KKK then that is their choice. It has nothing to do with me. The only time this has anything to do with me is if his KKK bed sheet has the company logo on it or if he tries to wear it to work. What Mykeru is effectively doing is forcing the Uni to get involved which if he tried to do that to me he would not be waiting for me to call back but instead have me reaching through the phone and tearing him a new asshole. Remember the Uni has to work with PZ and currently has no means of getting rid of him. Mykeru will possibly have destroyed the working relationship of PZ and his colleagues. This does not just effect PZ but also the people he works with as they must now work with someone they despise. It has knock on effects and does not just impact PZ.

Now he called PZs office and stated why he was calling. There will be doubt who he was calling about and so "a tenured prof" is not the case. I would give it a week before everyone on that campus knows that PZ received a call with regards to harassment. I will say it again. PZ is not representing the Uni on his blog. Therefore the Uni has no stance on any of its employees activities in their private lives.

OK. This is purely a devil's advocate argument:
If one of your employees was rounding up people convincing them to call someone's employer to report what they have said on the internet. And in turn, people offended by this started calling up your company to complain about this, would you not take issue with the actions of your employee? Your employee is clearly encouraging people to call employers & thus it is getting turned right back around into your lap.

/Still-agree-we-should-not-do-this.

[Konrad_Cruze]

I would argue that it is unethical to call the Uni to ask its opinion on something that it should have no opinion on at all. Mykeru is forcing the Uni to get involved with PZs private life which the Uni has no right to do. As I stated earlier, if one of my employees wants to be a member of the KKK then that is their choice. It has nothing to do with me. The only time this has anything to do with me is if his KKK bed sheet has the company logo on it or if he tries to wear it to work. What Mykeru is effectively doing is forcing the Uni to get involved which if he tried to do that to me he would not be waiting for me to call back but instead have me reaching through the phone and tearing him a new asshole. Remember the Uni has to work with PZ and currently has no means of getting rid of him. Mykeru will possibly have destroyed the working relationship of PZ and his colleagues. This does not just effect PZ but also the people he works with as they must now work with someone they despise. It has knock on effects and does not just impact PZ.

Now he called PZs office and stated why he was calling. There will be doubt who he was calling about and so "a tenured prof" is not the case. I would give it a week before everyone on that campus knows that PZ received a call with regards to harassment. I will say it again. PZ is not representing the Uni on his blog. Therefore the Uni has no stance on any of its employees activities in their private lives.

OK. This is purely a devil's advocate argument:
If one of your employees was rounding up people convincing them to call someone's employer to report what they have said on the internet. And in turn, people offended by this started calling up your company to complain about this, would you not take issue with the actions of your employee? Your employee is clearly encouraging people to call employers & thus it is getting turned right back around into your lap.

/Still-agree-we-should-not-do-this.

I would take issue but I would be unable to do anything about it. I would be unable to do more than just talk to my employee. You have wasted my time, your time, my employees time and cost my company money. What my employee does outside the office I cannot get involved with. Legally. You have just made me have to work with someone who I now despise. You have no right to inform me what his actions are, he has the right to keep secrets from me so long as they don't relate to work. What he does in private, I have no control over. That is the position of the company and UK law. I can't fire him but nor can I work with him. I am now in a very difficult position where I am working with someone who is bad for moral and therefore costing me productivity. Your actions have now affected me, the rest of the workforce and the family of the employee. You have done more than hurt him you have hurt others in your attempt to get at one man. In essence you've created collateral damage. It is up to you to determine if that is acceptable.


And by you I don't me you you specifically.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Maybe, just maybe, it should be kept in mind that a fraction of his readers/commentariat are probably his students as well. I feel this should be part of the discussion. Authority figures in a position of power, and all that...

[Konrad_Cruze]

Maybe, just maybe, it should be kept in mind that a fraction of his readers/commentariat are probably his students as well. I feel this should be part of the discussion. Authority figures in a position of power, and all that...

So what. He is not acting as their professor on the blog. He is acting as a private individual. If he does in fact have that whopping great disclaimer on his blog then there can be no argument nor any scenario where his employer should be getting involved.

[BlueShiftRhino]

I always tell her that I am going to ebay her, but I haven't followed through with my threat!

One of my standard "threats" against the kids for misbehavior is that I will put them on eBay with free shipping and no reserve, but then one of them repeated this to a teacher at school....

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Like with the right-wing newspaper business, you mean?

[katamari Damassi]

Avalyne, I thought about it, but I didn't want to drag everyone on the 'Pit into it, just like I thought about sharing fuzzy's bouncing PZ.

I'm okay with you using my avatar if Ape+Lust is okay with it. He holds the copyright as far as I'm concerned.

[Konrad_Cruze]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... haryngula/

Under his photo in the side bar.

[BlueShiftRhino]

I look forward to being promptly put back in my place

Does it make a difference to you that UMinn-Morris boasts of PZ's online activities? Because they do.

[deLurch]

I would take issue but I would be unable to do anything about it. I would be unable to do more than just talk to my employee. You have wasted my time, your time, my employees time and cost my company money. What my employee does outside the office I cannot get involved with. Legally. You have just made me have to work with someone who I now despise. You have no right to inform me what his actions are, he has the right to keep secrets from me so long as they don't relate to work. What he does in private, I have no control over. That is the position of the company and UK law. I can't fire him but nor can I work with him. I am now in a very difficult position where I am working with someone who is bad for moral and therefore costing me productivity. Your actions have now affected me, the rest of the workforce and the family of the employee. You have done more than hurt him you have hurt others in your attempt to get at one man. In essence you've created collateral damage. It is up to you to determine if that is acceptable.

And by you I don't me you you specifically.

Thanks for the interesting response. The most interesting tidbit is that you are basing this off of UK law. In the US, in many states are considered "At-Will" states. Which essentially means, an employer can fire you for any to no reason at all, so long as the reason is not for a few select reasons such as gender, disability, race etc. Wearing a green shirt is a sufficient reason to fire someone in most states in the US. At worst, the company would be liable for temporarily bearing the burden of unemployment expenses. But companies are also due to pay that for laying people off.

So this may explain why this "call the employer" routine appears to be so popular with US social justice warriors. And honestly, I find it to be an extremely weak point in our (US) democracy. If your employer can fire you for nearly any reason, what if your employer doesn't like your stance on a political point? It keeps people quite.

[jimthepleb]

Well, I don't consider what Mykeru did was completely unethical via the dealing with the schoolyard bully scenario. But I do consider Konrad_Cruze's argument as superior in terms of allowing for acceptable loses in order to win the long term war. He has the better battle plan which is evidenced by pz myer's continuing shrinking sphere of influence, not just amongst readership, but also amongst the leaders of the atheist movements.

Going Mykeru's route will inevitably turn the battle into a he-said-she-said "he did it first" argument that won't sell well for outside readership. If you muddy the water, it becomes more difficult for people to decide who is right & who is wrong.

That's not where I'm arguing from. I actually strongly agree with you and Konrad's point. I'm just trying to set things straight WRT my views of Mykeru's phone call, especially vs Myers' assdickery.

From what you are saying I think we are in fact in agreement with the point that Mykerus actions weren't completely ethical, just not as unethical as PZ. If you are happy to accept this, that is your decision. We each have a line that we never cross when it comes ethics. I set mine quite high. Some would say stupidly high. But that's how I choose to be. What others choose to accept is up to them however I will state my view as I think is right. This doesn't make me right and you wrong nor Vice versa. It is one of these glorious grey areas that need discussion.

This rational, reasonable, accommodation of opposing views and the attempt to reach some kind of consensus is WAY OUT OF FUCKING LINE!
Where's the misogyny? where's the harrassment? and I'm seeing no rape whatsoever.
Call yourselves shitlords?
I am so disappoint. *wanders off muttering*

[deLurch]

So what. He is not acting as their professor on the blog. He is acting as a private individual. If he does in fact have that whopping great disclaimer on his blog then there can be no argument nor any scenario where his employer should be getting involved.

Baring legal/safety/threat issues. Say for instance pz threated to blow up the stands on the football field with students in it. Or say he states that he is fucking one of his current students in exchange for better grades. But I am sure those are obvious points you would probably agree with. Just pointing out that "no argument nor any scenario" has some pretty huge obvious if not rare exceptions.

I will agree that it should be true for most scenarios.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Or stealing and trashing a students' newspaper for differing political views...

[Konrad_Cruze]

I look forward to being promptly put back in my place

Does it make a difference to you that UMinn-Morris boasts of PZ's online activities? Because they do.

They should then be informed that the blog they boast about condones harassment not that one one their employees are harassing people. This is then a PR issue not a HR issue. The result would probably be that they would cease promotion of the blog. They still can't touch Myers, he has the disclaimer stating that it is a private blog and do not reflect the views of the the Uni. What the Uni chooses to support is nothing to do with Myers. No longer endorsing a blog does not require a complaint about a member of staff no matter who that member of staff may be.

[Guest]

So what. He is not acting as their professor on the blog. He is acting as a private individual. If he does in fact have that whopping great disclaimer on his blog then there can be no argument nor any scenario where his employer should be getting involved.

Baring legal/safety/threat issues. Say for instance pz threated to blow up the stands on the football field with students in it. Or say he states that he is fucking one of his current students in exchange for better grades. But I am sure those are obvious points you would probably agree with. Just pointing out that "no argument nor any scenario" has some pretty huge obvious if not rare exceptions.

I will agree that it should be true for most scenarios.

Or fantasizing about his students becoming mermaids and servicing him?

[Konrad_Cruze]

So what. He is not acting as their professor on the blog. He is acting as a private individual. If he does in fact have that whopping great disclaimer on his blog then there can be no argument nor any scenario where his employer should be getting involved.

Baring legal/safety/threat issues. Say for instance pz threated to blow up the stands on the football field with students in it. Or say he states that he is fucking one of his current students in exchange for better grades. But I am sure those are obvious points you would probably agree with. Just pointing out that "no argument nor any scenario" has some pretty huge obvious if not rare exceptions.

I will agree that it should be true for most scenarios.

Ok I will agree that if the Uni is involved with his activities such as sleeping with a student or threatening an attack. But when not involved then I can see no reason

[strayling]

[youtube]LkCNJRfSZBU[/youtube]

Probably not relevant at all. Don't mind me.

[jet_lagg]

Mykeru actually flounced? I did think he was becoming unhinged during that meltdown (not that he was ever really hinged to begin with, but that went to a new level). Still, I never expected him to actually leave.

As for the ethics of his actions, calling Myers' employer, I'm siding with those in favor it. I'd have done it myself, if others here hadn't convinced me my efforts were better spent on other tactics. It's pretty simple for me, if someone, without provocation, punches you, or a member of your community, punching them back is not "stooping to their level". It's justified retaliation.

We argued this out when the doxxing first happened, and everyone stated pretty clearly where they draw their personal lines. It's cool by me if people's personal convictions won't allow them to take action, but I share no such conviction. I went so far as to post a list of emails to people I thought could actually do something about Myers (which was borderline treasonous, according to Pit code), but Gumby (being a very poor fascist indeed) failed to ban me :p

[Za-zen]

How the fuck did I not get in on this earlier, and how the fuck did the pyt miss it.

We have a real life #gamergate Julian/Bruce lee called @misterbrilliant threatening to chop suzy gamergaters penises.

He is being trolled mercilessly. Epic insta-meme. Unfortunately he has no vagina, so doesn't qualify for talkshow victim hood status, and instead defaults to the "twat" category.

[Kirbmarc]

Oh, the lovely feminist double standards:

The loser who dumped me claimed “I don’t hate women, just women’s studies professors”. When I asked him if he’d ever taken a women’s studies class or met a women’s studies instructor or if he was familiar with anything taught in women’s studies he drew a blank. I mean, he was sure he knew what was being taught in those classes but had nothing to base it on.

Then one day in what he thought was a gotcha he drew attention to a woman and professor who advocates for women who have killed their male partners and goes as far as saying you can’t dismiss the possibility a woman was acting in self defense when she killed her sleeping partner. Naturally, he called this a pussy pass (vomit). I had to point out to him that she was a professor of law, not a women’s studies professor so fail, and that her story was being discussed because her stance is considered extreme. Most of us would say if you can kill him in his sleep you can probably also sneak out and go to the police while he’s sleeping.

Then he went off the rails, claiming comments made on the article proved men aren’t given due process because EVERYONE IN THE COMMENTS AGREES IT’S OK TO KILL MEN IN THEIR SLEEP. Dude. They’re fucking internet article comments. And we’re discussing people who physically assault women, not men in general. What was he so scared of?

So if it's women who approve the murder of abusive men on the Internet, it's just "fucking Internet comments" and "What are you scared of?".

If it were men who approved the murder of abusive women on the Internet, they'd be SHITLORDS RAPE APOLOGISTS PATRIARCHAL FUCKING MURDERERS WHO NEED TO BE LOCKED UP IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT A PROCESS.

[Za-zen]

And by the way, fuck Myers into the ground

[BlueShiftRhino]

I look forward to being promptly put back in my place

Does it make a difference to you that UMinn-Morris boasts of PZ's online activities? Because they do.

They should then be informed that the blog they boast about condones harassment not that one one their employees are harassing people. This is then a PR issue not a HR issue. [snip]

This is why a lot of the criticism of Mykeru is so misplaced. It was the Office of Public Affairs at UMinn-Morris that boasted about PZ's online activities and it was the Office of Public Affairs that Mykeru specifically asked to speak to.

[Old_ones]

Maybe, just maybe, it should be kept in mind that a fraction of his readers/commentariat are probably his students as well. I feel this should be part of the discussion. Authority figures in a position of power, and all that...

So what. He is not acting as their professor on the blog. He is acting as a private individual. If he does in fact have that whopping great disclaimer on his blog then there can be no argument nor any scenario where his employer should be getting involved.

IMO the ethical calculus hinges a lot on the line between what constitutes free speech, vs harassment, threats or stalking. I think everyone on the pit probably agrees that an employer shouldn't get involved for ordinary statements made on the internet, such as those that PZ might make in one of his posts decrying creationism of patriarchy. Similarly anyone who contacts UMM over Peez's political or scientific views is a garden variety asshole.

On the other hand if Peez is genuinely threatening someone or stalking someone; for example if Skeptickle had been receiving creepy messages from him indicating that he knew her address and was going to rape her pet squid in the middle of the night, then for me that is a different story. UMM has a right to know if Peez has behavioral problems that might come out in his interactions with his students, because that is a job performance issue, and it also reflects poorly upon them if they are harboring a stalker on their faculty. I think your klan example was wrong, because if you actually knew that one of your staff was in the klan you'd have to worry about their relations with non white colleagues and clients, and you'd also have to worry about PR.

To me what PZ actually did falls closer to the second scenario. He was very clearly setting skeptickle up to be harassed by his minons, and have her employers contacted for what actually does amount to an anonymous joke on a public forum. This reflects poorly on PZ's ability to deal with people who disagree with him or don't respect his views, and that is something the UMM has a right to know about. The next time Peez incites harassment against someone it might be a conservative student in his biology class. Personally I hope UMM is keeping an eye on him, because he is clearly emotionally volatile and has impulse control problems.

So I stand by Mykeru. I don't know that what he did was helpful to us in the atheism wars, but in my opinion it was ethical.

[deLurch]

Mykeru actually flounced?

Yes. He officially stated he flounced. There was no ambiguity in his statement.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

See Konrad? Once again, the Old Ones are correct. I hope you're now quivering in fear of Khorne and Slaanesh coming down here to give you a lesson!

(I think we did well with entertaining Konrad so far.)

[BlueShiftRhino]

Mykeru actually flounced?

Yes. He officially stated he flounced. There was no ambiguity in his statement.

And each time someone repeats this, it becomes harder for him to come back.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

And each time someone repeats this, it becomes harder for him to come back.

If I were him, I'd come back with a funny "they pull me back!" Godfather III videobit.

[Dave]

I look forward to being promptly put back in my place

Does it make a difference to you that UMinn-Morris boasts of PZ's online activities? Because they do.

They should then be informed that the blog they boast about condones harassment not that one one their employees are harassing people. This is then a PR issue not a HR issue.

If I recall correctly, Mykeru contacted the PR department, not HR or Meinersnitz's dept chair.

The result would probably be that they would cease promotion of the blog. They still can't touch Myers, he has the disclaimer stating that it is a private blog and do not reflect the views of the the Uni. What the Uni chooses to support is nothing to do with Myers. No longer endorsing a blog does not require a complaint about a member of staff no matter who that member of staff may be.

It seems to me that you are cutting a very fine line when you state that the complaint should be about the blog and not the staff member. Since they boast about Mynsers' twatter activity too, can we mention that? Where does it cross from complaining about the member of the staff's non-university activities to complaining about the member of the staff?

[Old_ones]

*Creationism or patriarchy. Blah. Stupid broken edit button.

[jet_lagg]

<snip>

You see, my issue is that I don't like Mykeru's approach. But I view our approach as ineffective. And I suspect that Mykeru's approach can and would be effective. So I am looking for option #3.

I recommend writing the big names in the skeptic movement (both professionals like Penn and Teller, and vloggers like Jaclyn Glenn) and give them a concise, easy-to-digest synopsis of Myers most egregious actions (with citations, of course). Encourage them to use their platforms to condemn the behavior, or, failing that, to no longer associate with Myers. It's exactly the same tactics proposed by Atheism Plus, with the crucial distinction being that we won't excommunicate someone who disagrees with us and refuses to take action.

I really do think, in our justified contempt for SJW tactics, we paint with too broad a brush when determining what tactics are off limits. In other words, I see an enormous difference between encouraging someone to take your side on an issue and campaign for a cause, versus demanding someone take your side on an issue or be labelled persona non grata.

Also, as a more roundabout tactic. I think getting involved in GamerGate is a good idea (even if you aren't a gamer). It wasn't originally about combatting SJWs, but, ironically, the SJWs have made it about that, and for once I'm more than happy to let them derail the original point. Gamers have the actual numbers to bring this to the public eye. It will be a slow fight, granted. The media coverage the past month, through its comically one-sided narrative, has completely eroded my faith in the press, but I still have some faith in people. The ones who do hear the story and bother to do their own investigating will likely see the validity of our position (consider just how many of us came to the pit, after only learning about it from an SJW).

[Matt Cavanaugh]

James:
Pretty sure "one of my boys" is one of his pals, and that "bollocked" is past-tense for the act of "busting their balls"/"chastising".

The correct terms are "droog" and "tolchok".

[Konrad_Cruze]

I would take issue but I would be unable to do anything about it. I would be unable to do more than just talk to my employee. You have wasted my time, your time, my employees time and cost my company money. What my employee does outside the office I cannot get involved with. Legally. You have just made me have to work with someone who I now despise. You have no right to inform me what his actions are, he has the right to keep secrets from me so long as they don't relate to work. What he does in private, I have no control over. That is the position of the company and UK law. I can't fire him but nor can I work with him. I am now in a very difficult position where I am working with someone who is bad for moral and therefore costing me productivity. Your actions have now affected me, the rest of the workforce and the family of the employee. You have done more than hurt him you have hurt others in your attempt to get at one man. In essence you've created collateral damage. It is up to you to determine if that is acceptable.

And by you I don't me you you specifically.

Thanks for the interesting response. The most interesting tidbit is that you are basing this off of UK law. In the US, in many states are considered "At-Will" states. Which essentially means, an employer can fire you for any to no reason at all, so long as the reason is not for a few select reasons such as gender, disability, race etc. Wearing a green shirt is a sufficient reason to fire someone in most states in the US. At worst, the company would be liable for temporarily bearing the burden of unemployment expenses. But companies are also due to pay that for laying people off.

So this may explain why this "call the employer" routine appears to be so popular with US social justice warriors. And honestly, I find it to be an extremely weak point in our (US) democracy. If your employer can fire you for nearly any reason, what if your employer doesn't like your stance on a political point? It keeps people quite.

In the UK we have a thing called unfair dismissal which is as it sounds. The only reasons someone can be fired is not complying with the job description or bring the company into disrepute. Now I know what you are going to say. By his actions PZ bring the Uni into disrepute however by adding the disclaimer it may be uncomfortable but does in fact distance PZ from the Uni

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

No they don't.

[Konrad_Cruze]

It seems to me that you are cutting a very fine line when you state that the complaint should be about the blog and not the staff member. Since they boast about Mynsers' twatter activity too, can we mention that? Where does it cross from complaining about the member of the staff's non-university activities to complaining about the member of the staff?

He contact about HR not PR

It is a very fine line but its all to do with what someone can legally do. Complaining about an employees non uni activity has nothing to do with the uni and you will be told so. Complain about the blog then the Uni may have to take action about the associating with the blog but can't touch the staff member.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

It was PR, not RH, I think.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

(I taught my autistic son to run Empathy v.1.0 in software in his head, as he just didn't have it hard-wired like most typies. I think he's up to v.2.9 now and has actually rewired his head enough that he actually feels some of the things he's supposed to feel. Sadly, I feel rather cruel for doing that to him....)

I think it's housing him in a plywood container for his first 18 months and making him peck at buttons for his food that you should be most ashamed of.

I used to joke that my mom kept me in a Skinner box when I was a baby, as a project for her child development degree. For some reason she didn't appreciate that joke.

screwtape's story about his son made me think of this film. At one point in the film the father says that his autistic son was "isolated from his peers," and now he is not. I have mixed feelings about the film, in part because I've met the family at horsey events, and also in part because I've really liked every autistic kid I've worked with in therapeutic riding programs, even if they don't "improve" in any obvious way. Of course I don't have to live with them 24/7.

The Horse Boy was just an excuse for a narcissistic dad to get an all-expenses-paid trip to Mongolia. The 'treatment' (sic) was exorcism of demons by some stone-age shamans.

I have serious reservations about equine assisted therapy from an animal welfare perspective. My GF, a licensed MFT, has serious reservations about it from a therapy perspective. Now, just spending time around horses, riding them, feeding them, grooming them, can mos def be therapeutic.


cf. Christie WIlcox slammed dolphin-assisted birth.

[Konrad_Cruze]

See Konrad? Once again, the Old Ones are correct. I hope you're now quivering in fear of Khorne and Slaanesh coming down here to give you a lesson!

(I think we did well with entertaining Konrad so far.)

Oh relax Tzeeench has sent them off in the wrong direction. Slaanesh is now trying to rape Khorne and khorne is trying to beat slaanesh around the head.

[Konrad_Cruze]

It was PR, not RH, I think.

Yes but his complaint was about HR. It doesn't matter which office he called the content of the complaint was a HR issue not PR.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I don't remember the HR thing. Might have been the audio quality, and I can't seem to find the video anymore.

[Konrad_Cruze]

"hello I would like to ask about the stance of the Uni on one of your tenured Profs with regard to harassment" or pretty close to that. That is HR. Complaining about the person NOT the blog the endorse

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

That was actually complaining (or inquiring) about the stance. Not the blog, nor the person, if I'm reading correctly from your quote.

[Konrad_Cruze]

Inquiring, complaining, makes no difference. Going after the person is a HR Issue