Periodic Table of Swearing

[Lsuoma]

I know it was a joke, but if anyone ever gets banned from here for no actual valid reason, you will have to count me out of the posters. Let the Periodic thread live and breath by itself.

/mood killer

Jeez, Phil - the rule here is that NOBODY gets banned except for spamming. This is Abbie Redux, OK? Lighten up...

(Oh, and in case anyone accuses me of obscuring the quotes by deleting the inner ones, the forum currently restricts to nesting three deep. I'll see if I can fix.

I saw it as a joke but considering how new this new pad is, and the behaviour of some of the fftb, I could see how it could upset people. I think we all learned something. Anyway, let's move on shall we? *ahem*

Roger that.

And apologies to Phil.

[franc]

The Monks from the UK leaked into this thread some time ago I believe. As wonderful as they were, I have just discovered that they were neither the first Monks, nor the coolest. I present the original Monks, a bunch of drug fucked Vietnam vets somewhere in West Germany circa 1964 and their Ode to Becky (Nectar might appreciate this, she seems to have a taste for this kind of stuff) -

[youtube]5eOuPeAfOeE[/youtube]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Lsuoma: no need to appologize. I was the one being pedantic. I just have a natural aversion for bans in general. Trigger word much?

And if I forgot to say so before, thanks a million for this ERV legacy thread. It brightens my days.

[Dilurk]

Thunder is going at them again on his blog. What interests me is at the tail of it. Copyright bs to stiffle debate, that tactic does not surprise me in the slightest, fftb have zero integrity, but i'm looking forward to whT underhand anti intellectual bs they have pulled now.

Wow does he ever

[youtube]96FtpDLi_Vw[/youtube]

[Lsuoma]

Za-zen: love your comment on the Dawkins/Fish thread at WEIT, at Posted July 13, 2012 at 6:34 am.

Made me smile...

[Lsuoma]

Lsuoma: no need to appologize. I was the one being pedantic. I just have a natural aversion for bans in general. Trigger word much?

And if I forgot to say so before, thanks a million for this ERV legacy thread. It brightens my days.

/HUG.

In, fact, hugs all round!!! Problem?

BTW, love the kitteh!

[Parge]

Kudos SN. Baby steps. We'll break the back of this phorum fobia yet.

Now if someone could just coerce Welch and MKG to poke their heads in and convince Justi to come out from under his cloud. Call me Mr. Nostalgia.

[JAB]

Thunder is going at them again on his blog. What interests me is at the tail of it. Copyright bs to stiffle debate, that tactic does not surprise me in the slightest, fftb have zero integrity, but i'm looking forward to whT underhand anti intellectual bs they have pulled now.

Wow does he ever

I read some of the expected comments... TF called on the comwenters to write strawmen for PZ and it some of them read like the pharangulation of FTBullies... But the funniest thing I saw was a new name coined for FfTBs... Closedthoughtblogs... got me thinking of different adjectives for what passes for thought at some of the ft5 blogs.... ChainedThoughtBlogs.. BorgThoughtBlogs... BannedThoughtBlogs... EdittedThoughtBlogs...

[Lsuoma]

Sorry for all the spam shit coming in: I guess The Slyme Pit is now on the spammers' radar, cos you bastards keep on posting.

I'm working on this.

[Notung]

I read some of the expected comments... TF called on the comwenters to write strawmen for PZ and it some of them read like the pharangulation of FTBullies... But the funniest thing I saw was a new name coined for FfTBs... Closedthoughtblogs... got me thinking of different adjectives for what passes for thought at some of the ft5 blogs.... ChainedThoughtBlogs.. BorgThoughtBlogs... BannedThoughtBlogs... EdittedThoughtBlogs...

SecularDogmaBlogs (SDB)?

I don't know, I quite like FTB - 'Freethought blogs'. The name, given ironically of course, is an appropriate one.

[real horrorshow]

Thunder is going at them again on his blog. What interests me is at the tail of it. Copyright bs to stiffle debate, that tactic does not surprise me in the slightest, fftb have zero integrity, but i'm looking forward to whT underhand anti intellectual bs they have pulled now.

Wow does he ever

Woo Hoo! Now, if PeeZus has a lick of sense he will back slowly away from this now. I am so hoping that ego gets the better of him. A thoroughly intemperate, irrational and - preferably - threatening response is what's needed now. Something ghost-written by Laden for instance.

Even if we don't get that, the twin acts of inviting Thunderf00t into FTB and then kicking him out have got to rate as Myers' two biggest mistakes. What a reaming!

*Hugs self with evil glee*

[Caede]

Eesh, this place moves fast. I second (third? fourth?) getting the Tapatalk mod installed so we mobile folks can use our squares of technology to read/comment.

What underlying views? how do those views differ? Do the views actually differ or are you accepting the FTB version of other peoples' views?

eh? How do you know? ;-) That's the thing here. Everyone here is a free thinker, I don't think the same as hoggle or SN or anyone else on here. Sometimes some of us might even agree with something said on FtB. Imagine that. That's the beauty with not being piled upon and bullied. Maybe there is something you have not considered, or I have not considered that's what civil discussion is all about between adults.

In posting here, I was deliberately rather vague, mostly just dipping a toe in the water. The fact is, I know I differ on a couple of key views, but I also have some probable points of agreement. I believe the facts, as I know them, support my conclusions and that I am not just parroting other beliefs. I feel these are things that we can disagree on without disputing the basic facts of the events.

So, perceived differing views:
1) I believe RW's initial call-out of Elevator Guy was appropriate and brought up a useful discussion. It made her feel uncomfortable and although nothing beyond discomfort (and sexualization in her opinion) occurred, it makes a good way to discuss the particular topic. Whatever happened after, I don't think she was wrong to mention it in the first place.

2) Dawkins was wrong. He simply does not have the point of view to understand what he was commenting on, and he just dug himself in deeper. That said, I may have lost a bit of respect for him for... well, being an old white dude. Misogynist is too strong of a word, because I doubt Dawkins HATES women in any sense and I'm certain he respects women. Ignorant and insensitive is more appropriate. (This leads to the comparisons that southern white folks in the last century weren't RACIST, they were just ignorant and insensitive. I don't believe this really stands up to scrutiny, but I believe Dawkins's attitudes here do highlight a very key point in how men view women, whether or not they 'know and respect' them.). I still respect his science and (usually) rational thinking, and especially what he's contributed for decades to science, skepticism and atheism.

...at this point, I'm going to really fast-forward through a lot of the back and forth mud-slinging that seemed to go on between RW/PZ/OB/GL/ETC and 'the other side'. This post is already too long and rambling, and I don't think I'm really making any specifically good points.

3) DJ Groethe was wrong. He blamed specific women for lowering TAM attendance and was either ignorant or lying about the reported cases of sexual harassment. He had a lot of opportunities to fix this, but he failed. The fact that TAM didn't have a harassment policy evident (from what I've heard) for this year seems a further slap in the face to women who felt things weren't being done to ensure a safe space. All these conferences should have a simple sexual harassment policy and reporting procedure in place -- this is true of any large, sponsored gatherings. There's a lot of argument going on in the 'larger world' about this relative to huge cons like ComicCon and PAX. It's a worthwhile discussion, if people get beyond the reaction of "OMG YOU WANT TO STOP EVERYONE FROM HUGGING, LOL. DON'T SHAKE MY HAND, THAT'S HAND RAPE, LOL".

4) Largely, I don't believe the FtB folks are being bullies any more than anyone with a public forum for making their words available is.

So, having said that, I do believe a few things that probably mesh here.
1) RW's call-out of Stef McGraw, publicly and from a position of authority with no (non-rude) rebuttal possible, was... well, bad form. Her and other's subsequent defense of this tactic was painful to watch, because it seemed to be utterly hypocritical.

2) RW's 'boycott' of Dawkins was a retarded knee-jerk reaction to his statements.

3) Mostly, the recent 'uber-vigilance' to misogyny has gone too far and perverted the word to mean 'someone who makes a comment a woman doesn't like'. There are legitimate misogynists, there is legitimate misogyny happening and it is far too prevalent. But I believe the word is now being used by many as a way to paint people as 'wrong' without having to disprove their points. I don't believe this forum, specifically, is a haven for misogynists or misogynist thought. I believe most of you probably respect and treat women properly.

4) As I said in another post, Greg Laden was dead wrong and he engaged in real, actual bullying behavior. I'm saddened that he still hasn't accepted this and feels, in his mind, that he was right. I'm also disappointed in a lot of people for making excuses for him and supporting him in his bullying.

5) Thunderf00t was pushed out of FtB in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.

Obviously he's not the only one with a vendetta to act out, but it's very on-display. Plus, it's easy to toss in 'but not Hoggle' in places.

The "FTB Baboons" horse is not dead, unfortunately. Why do you think that it's a vendetta?

I felt it was a vendetta with the sheer amount of work Hoggle was putting into his blogging and commenting/posting tracing every word and phrase that PZ and others were saying. Hoggle became synonymous in my mind with a stalker hanging on every word PZ uttered and trying to respond to it in some way, stretching when he needed to make a point that wasn't necessarily even there. I know this may be a misperception (especially since I rarely read the comments of any of these blogs, and I know that's where a lot of this comes from) and I'm not going to read through every one of his posts to try to document it, but even as I skim back through his blog now it seems apparent he was spending a LOT of time documenting everything they were saying. It seems obsessive, it seems like a vendetta.

The point of a skeptic community is not necessarily to find points of agreement. The point of much of FTB (Pharyngula in particular) is to browbeat everyone into accepting that that they are RIGHT, to the degree that they won't even discuss it. Rebuttals are "obsession" or "cyberstalking", correcting facts makes you a "kook" or "too stupid to breathe", self-defense makes it "all about you". Comments are deleted, posters banned and history re-written. FTB are a political entity, not a freethought community.

As I said in a previous post, I don't believe FtB is an honest, open forum for discussion for precisely these reasons. Part of the issue, as I see it, is that all of the bloggers are now hyper-sensitive to people who are just trying to get under their skin. It seems obvious to me that a lot of the folks here are trying precisely that -- to get under their skin, mostly due to old grudges and trying to remake old points. Both 'sides' are guilty of it. When they are banned and drummed out, everyone comes crying and calls foul... the end-result is that discussion is suppressed faster and faster, as the bloggers get more and more sensitive and more and more reactive. Eventually no one can say anything without being in an exact party line. I find both FtB and the folks on this board guilty of making this happen from different angles in a weird ouroboros of a community eating themselves.

I also feel a lot of the folks here are just as guilty of I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. Certain topics cannot be discussed civily by any parties, because EVERYONE has burned their bridges and holding onto grudges, and everyone needs to remake their points. Not just the FtB bloggers are to blame, but they seem to have the slightly louder megaphones.

I find myself asking why I spend time on online atheism/skepticism. The easy answer is that religious delusions damage thinking processes, woo and denialism hurts people, science and the environment. But what does following blogs and adding "me too's" and slightly differing views actually do. In my case I think it's actually a reaction to the almost painful frustration at being exposed to this irrational bullshit in person and in the media day in and day out. TBH, this online stuff is a release valve. Is FTB not motivated by the same thing, but with more of an evangelical and spitefully vengeful edge? They have somehow convinced themselves that failure to bend the knee to their definitions of words is going to have some kind of detrimental effect on gender equality. They have confused inconsequential bitch fests with actual, meaningful action. They have delusions of importance, they are on some kind of world-changing crusade.

Those last three sentences could be applied to a lot of people beyond FtB bloggers... replace 'gender equality' with whatever you choose.

I think the whole point of why I originally posted here (prompted by the unfair bashing, as I saw it, of Cristina Rad for posting videos that were even remotely close to the "FC5") is because this is how things are working on all sides. FTB is guilty, Paula Kirby is guilty, many here are guilty. We aren't fighting the fights we should be fighting, we're fighting amongst each other because of ego and personality getting in the way. A lot of times, I think people are fighting their own opinions.

Honestly, I think we all just need to have angry hate-sex with each other and get it over with. I'm pretty sure there's an angry hate-sex clause in most sexual harassment policies: if it is consentual and will resolve arguments, it's A-OKAY.

[justinvacula]

I surprised it still hasn't been you Justin. You're not some anonymous guy posting on a comment thread, you're an active member of an atheist organization, and you're willing to show your face in the slyme pit without reservation. Plus Ophelia really seems to dislike you (which is always good for witch of the week creds).

I was a witch of the week during the D.J. Grothe trials when Canuck used the term douchebag and I objected to it...thus earning the moniker of 'vacuous shitbag troll.

It is, though, pretty interesting that Ophelia continues to express so much dissatisfaction with my podcast that mentioned her e-mails she considered to be reason enough to back out of TAM (see above), but didn't want to have a discussion during the podcast or appear on a future show even though she was invited. Fun stuff.

[mordacious1]

I'm sorry, this comment is totally OT, but I see Phil is online and I wanted to make a comment to him.

I have a son who's autistic, with several other overlapping diagnoses including sensory integration disorder. Lights, sounds, touch...anything can send him into a "fit" (for lack of a better word). During this time he can hurt himself or others. When he was younger we tried EVERYTHING, my wife is a professional who deals with these kids everyday and he was the most severe she'd seen. We were at our wits end. Brushing teeth, showering...all were traumatic.

And then one day a friend asked if we had tried heavy metal music. I didn't understand why I would, but he convinced me to give it a go. It was like a GODSEND (if you'll pardon the expression). He'd crank it while in the shower and for some reason all his sensory problems would be masked. He now wears earphones when he'[s out-and-about, with metal music playing and he's a different person (this was all some time ago, but now he's twenty and still relies on metal to get him through the day). I even convinced his boss to allow the earphones at work (he works in a warehouse).

So why am I bringing this up to you? Well, the downside of all this is...I don't really appreciate heavy metal (or most of it anyway). So while he was showering, I'd be cringing. When I first read you posts on ERV, I looked at your music and decided to give it a shot. I bought one of your earlier CDs and my son loved it. He's now a big fan, not only of Fairyland but other groups in your genre. The best part is, I like it too. So the house is now a happier place for everyone. I just wanted to thank you for your art and your (even though you were unaware) contribution to my son's therapy. Thank you.

Sorry everyone for posting off-topic, I've just been meaning to say this to Phil for a while now.

[Caede]

Thunder is going at them again on his blog. What interests me is at the tail of it. Copyright bs to stiffle debate, that tactic does not surprise me in the slightest, fftb have zero integrity, but i'm looking forward to whT underhand anti intellectual bs they have pulled now.

Having watched the video and read his post, his argument that PZ is wrong is pretty weak. ("He can't have banned me for being a troll, because look, I wasn't really trolling.") PZ's argument that they banned him for trolling is equally weak, though. Need moar data! (specifically, the backchannel emails that get referenced)

This bit is definitely interesting:

It turns out that freethoughtblogs are not only happy to ban people as a typical creationist would (for something that they never actually said), but are perfectly happy to actively support the abuse of copyright specifically used to stifle active debate. More on that later.

Huh.

[justinvacula]

http://i.imgur.com/t0gAn.jpg

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm sorry, this comment is totally OT, but I see Phil is online and I wanted to make a comment to him.

I have a son who's autistic, with several other overlapping diagnoses including sensory integration disorder. Lights, sounds, touch...anything can send him into a "fit" (for lack of a better word). During this time he can hurt himself or others. When he was younger we tried EVERYTHING, my wife is a professional who deals with these kids everyday and he was the most severe she'd seen. We were at our wits end. Brushing teeth, showering...all were traumatic.

And then one day a friend asked if we had tried heavy metal music. I didn't understand why I would, but he convinced me to give it a go. It was like a GODSEND (if you'll pardon the expression). He'd crank it while in the shower and for some reason all his sensory problems would be masked. He now wears earphones when he'[s out-and-about, with metal music playing and he's a different person (this was all some time ago, but now he's twenty and still relies on metal to get him through the day). I even convinced his boss to allow the earphones at work (he works in a warehouse).

So why am I bringing this up to you? Well, the downside of all this is...I don't really appreciate heavy metal (or most of it anyway). So while he was showering, I'd be cringing. When I first read you posts on ERV, I looked at your music and decided to give it a shot. I bought one of your earlier CDs and my son loved it. He's now a big fan, not only of Fairyland but other groups in your genre. The best part is, I like it too. So the house is now a happier place for everyone. I just wanted to thank you for your art and your (even though you were unaware) contribution to my son's therapy. Thank you.

Sorry everyone for posting off-topic, I've just been meaning to say this to Phil for a while now.

Err... I don't really know what to say. This is one of the most touching and satisfying messages I've ever had. I am really happy if my music could help your son in any way, and I'm delighted that he likes Fairyland. Never hesitate to contact me in PM if you ever need informations, a signed copy of one of Fairyland's albums, anything... Sorry, I'm in tears of joy now.

Also, I'm really glad we have Caede posting here. Maybe a bit of introspection would do us more good than arm...

[LMU]

In contrast to Caede, I think the efforts of people like Hoggle are important. Without him it would be harder to keep track of people re-writing history by editing or deleting posts and comments. Without people like Notung, we wouldn't know that selective blocking of articulate opposition is occurring. Muckraking is a service.

[JAB]

I felt it was a vendetta with the sheer amount of work Hoggle was putting into his blogging and commenting/posting tracing every word and phrase that PZ and others were saying. Hoggle became synonymous in my mind with a stalker hanging on every word PZ uttered and trying to respond to it in some way, stretching when he needed to make a point that wasn't necessarily even there. I know this may be a misperception (especially since I rarely read the comments of any of these blogs, and I know that's where a lot of this comes from) and I'm not going to read through every one of his posts to try to document it, but even as I skim back through his blog now it seems apparent he was spending a LOT of time documenting everything they were saying. It seems obsessive, it seems like a vendetta.

Lots to comment in your comment, but I have to ask about this one. I don't think you know what the word stalking means. He wasn't hanging on every word PZ said... only those words that he posted in a public forum. The horde was hanging on his words more... franc just paid attention and analysed it instead of blindly agreeing with it. PZ didn't have to pay any attention to francs blog if he didn't want to. PZ also didn't have to try to cause him real life grief, but he did. All franc did was criticize and ridicule... not tools unfamiliar to PZ, at least the ridicule part. He also started to document when it became apparent that FfTBs was editting to change the record. This is not stalking. I'll leave looking up a dictionary as an exercise for the reader.

Also, you say you don't read comments, so maybe you aren't aware that the comment that started the anti Dawkins wave was not directed at RW, but at the horde that were running with crap in PZ's comment as is their standard MO.

This forum and it's predecessor were at least partly motivated to be a place where the topics raised at FfTBs could be discussed without being editted, deleted, banned etc, although it's grown from that, obviously. I may have dissagreed with francs use of the magic word, but it did have the advantage of keeping out those of the horde who don't think, as they've self censored. Unfortunately there are some there that can think, but don't come here to discuss because the others in the group they belong to would shun them if they came here. I'm not sure why they don't come here with another nym... although maybe they do. I don't go there because I don't trust them not to edit me, not to strawman me, not to try to screw with my life, like they have others. I figure they read here anyway....not that I'm that prolific or deep.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

In contrast to Caede, I think the efforts of people like Hoggle are important. Without him it would be harder to keep track of people re-writing history by editing or deleting posts and comments. Without people like Notung, we wouldn't know that selective blocking of articulate opposition is occurring. Muckraking is a service.

I totally agree with this statement. Franc is a big pain in the ass, but a good pain as it is. He has done invaluable stuff in highlighting the FC6 (6) hypocrisies. It might be perceived as obsession, but Franc is the one who collected every and all instances of FC5 (6) baboonery. Maybe his CK was over the top, but it doesn't mitigate the huge effort he has pulled out to reference everything with links, a totally undeniable source to witness FC5 (6) quackery.

Many kuddos shall be had...

[real horrorshow]

In contrast to Caede, I think the efforts of people like Hoggle are important. Without him it would be harder to keep track of people re-writing history by editing or deleting posts and comments. Without people like Notung, we wouldn't know that selective blocking of articulate opposition is occurring. Muckraking is a service.

Obsessed. So you don't have to be. ;)

I disagree with several things Caede said, but let's keep it to the essentials:

4) Largely, I don't believe the FtB folks are being bullies any more than anyone with a public forum for making their words available is.

Certainly there are worse bullies on the Web that the FC5, but that's setting the standard very low, and the FC5 have oh-so-often claimed to set it very high. You've only to take a look at PeeZus' reply to TF. Here's a man laying claim to 'freethought' 'science' 'rationality' the legacy of 'The Enlightenment' yet! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence wouldn't you say? Yet what is P.Z. Myers seen to be? A squalid little egotist and liar who'll stoop lower than a snake's belly to 'win' an argument.

As I said in a previous post, I don't believe FtB is an honest, open forum for discussion for precisely these reasons. Part of the issue, as I see it, is that all of the bloggers are now hyper-sensitive to people who are just trying to get under their skin. It seems obvious to me that a lot of the folks here are trying precisely that

Some of us - many of the posters here I'm sure - think that the principles PeeZus lays claim to are important. I happen to think that reason and science are humanity's greatest achievements. I'm sadded (and a bit scared) when I see how far we've fallen short of the ideals of the Enlightenment. When I see the FC5 taking a giant crap on such important things for the most petty and contemptable of motives, I get angry. Pricking their pomposity is the least I can do to vent my spleen. I'd cheerfully get 1793 on their asses!

[Caede]

In contrast to Caede, I think the efforts of people like Hoggle are important. Without him it would be harder to keep track of people re-writing history by editing or deleting posts and comments. Without people like Notung, we wouldn't know that selective blocking of articulate opposition is occurring. Muckraking is a service.

I totally agree with this statement. Franc is a big pain in the ass, but a good pain as it is. He has done invaluable stuff in highlighting the FC6 (6) hypocrisies. It might be perceived as obsession, but Franc is the one who collected every and all instances of FC5 (6) baboonery. Maybe his CK was over the top, but it doesn't mitigate the huge effort he has pulled out to reference everything with links, a totally undeniable source to witness FC5 (6) quackery.

Many kuddos shall be had...

I fully believe Hoggle's work in documenting edits and general fuckery is worthwhile and necessary, especially to 'keep history honest'. I really do appreciate it, and I've been spending a lot of time on his blog this morning reviewing a lot of what he's put up in the last year and a half. His collection of it is almost inherently conformationally biased (especially given his screeds that go with the storage of the data), though, which can't be helped. I don't question the hard work he's done in collecting and collating the data, I just have the perception that someone is obsessed with ruining PZ and others. I've stated I could be wrong.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I don't think you are wrong at all.

Franc is biased, as we all are, in certain ways. Maybe the most important thing to do with his blog writtings is ignoring any biased view he may partake to and just keep the many (and accurate) references he posts there.

He is far from being the monster he's been painted as on the FC5 (6) blogs. Some time ago, we had a couple of real misogynists (remenber Byron, anyone) and we got rid of them. Franc is not one of those assholes. He is, for all intent and purpose, a good guy.

[SenorBeagle]

I'm about to get all video game-y, so apologies in advance to anyone who has bugger all idea what I'm on about...

For anyone who's ever played Mass Effect, I always think of Franc as 'Renegade Shep', whereas somebody like Jean Kazez is 'Paragon Shep'. The point there is that renegades are explicitly not 'evil'; they're more pragmatic and are all about getting the job done, while paragons are more idealistic, and focus on building alliances through diplomacy.

Basically, they're both good guys, but and both have the same goal, but renegades are more Dirty Harry, while paragons are Jean-Luc Picard.

Everything I just said is only true for a given value of 'true', but it helps me to understand the situation.

[Guest]

Regarding Franc Hoggle - in the last couple of days before things were closed down at ERV James Onen made a GREAT post about Franc's role as a provocateur over the last 18 months or so. For me it was one of those rare moments when you read something and then suddenly see things in an altogether clear, new light. Franc was pulling the strings for a while, but eventually the marionettes (the FC6 bunch) were dancing on their own, and are now increasingly exposed for what they are. I believe someone else pointed out that Franc has gradually just sort of faded into the background like the grinning Cheshire Cat - his work being (largely) done.

So, while I don't always agree with him, I think we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Franc for his vigilance, his foresight, and his hard work. Also thanks to James for his statement, which I would LOVE to see re-posted somewhere for the benefit of anyone who may have missed it.

[astrokid.nj]

Byron was not a misogynist. Its just that many people didnt like the message that he was delivering. He's a "feminist-critic from the left" as per his own description. He has also studied feminism thoroughly for many years and concluded that its a 'hate movement'. Elsewhere on the web he clearly documents his criteria for a hate movement is, and how feminist ideology and actions (in law, academia, media etc) meets this. Elsewhere on the web where he contributes his political writings and is highly respected, other co-bloggers have concluded that he's just a 'manners asshole'. If any, I see his drawback as going aggressively after his 'targets'.
We know that arguments fall along a spectrum, and that the binary view (i.e 2-sides view) is usually too simplistic. But then several people are so damn confident that their position is the right one, and everyone else on one side (say) are GENUINE misogynists. I call bullshit on this. I suspect that its a matter of getting past all that offends you, getting oneself better informed, study their position properly. Realize that you may not have studied exhaustively. Thats SKEPTICISM.
How many times have we not seen similar stuff happening to Franc the bad-guy, even after James Onen has explained the entire goings on so well?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I hate people with Che-Guevara shirts. I hate most college students, because they think taking a class in "Women Studies" gives them magic abilities to fight the opressor.

I'm not a happy guy right now. Make of that what you will...

[Parge]

I'm about to get all video game-y, so apologies in advance to anyone who has bugger all idea what I'm on about...

For anyone who's ever played Mass Effect, I always think of Franc as 'Renegade Shep', whereas somebody like Jean Kazez is 'Paragon Shep'. The point there is that renegades are explicitly not 'evil'; they're more pragmatic and are all about getting the job done, while paragons are more idealistic, and focus on building alliances through diplomacy.

Basically, they're both good guys, but and both have the same goal, but renegades are more Dirty Harry, while paragons are Jean-Luc Picard.

Everything I just said is only true for a given value of 'true', but it helps me to understand the situation.

I haven't played Mass Effect, so I have no idea what you're on about, but I'll proceed anyway. Speaking of diplomacy and video games, I thought that Justicar's offering to Steffie was not so much "Baboon-ish" but rather more "Leeroy-Jenkins-ish".

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Byron was not a misogynist. Its just that many people didnt like the message that he was delivering. He's a "feminist-critic from the left" as per his own description. He has also studied feminism thoroughly for many years and concluded that its a 'hate movement'. Elsewhere on the web he clearly documents his criteria for a hate movement is, and how feminist ideology and actions (in law, academia, media etc) meets this. Elsewhere on the web where he contributes his political writings and is highly respected, other co-bloggers have concluded that he's just a 'manners asshole'. If any, I see his drawback as going aggressively after his 'targets'.
We know that arguments fall along a spectrum, and that the binary view (i.e 2-sides view) is usually too simplistic. But then several people are so damn confident that their position is the right one, and everyone else on one side (say) are GENUINE misogynists. I call bullshit on this. I suspect that its a matter of getting past all that offends you, getting oneself better informed, study their position properly. Realize that you may not have studied exhaustively. Thats SKEPTICISM.
How many times have we not seen similar stuff happening to Franc the bad-guy, even after James Onen has explained the entire goings on so well?

I will argue that Byron, and porny, were true misogynists. just look at their reactions to me being engaged to my Fiancée. Sorry, they might have been wronged in some way by a women, but it dosn't excuse their behavior. Not my problem...

[Notung]

I always think of Franc as 'Renegade Shep'

Or 'Chaotic Good' in Baldur's Gate?

[Lsuoma]

Regarding Franc Hoggle - in the last couple of days before things were closed down at ERV James Onen made a GREAT post about Franc's role as a provocateur over the last 18 months or so. For me it was one of those rare moments when you read something and then suddenly see things in an altogether clear, new light. Franc was pulling the strings for a while, but eventually the marionettes (the FC6 bunch) were dancing on their own, and are now increasingly exposed for what they are. I believe someone else pointed out that Franc has gradually just sort of faded into the background like the grinning Cheshire Cat - his work being (largely) done.

So, while I don't always agree with him, I think we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Franc for his vigilance, his foresight, and his hard work. Also thanks to James for his statement, which I would LOVE to see re-posted somewhere for the benefit of anyone who may have missed it.

'Zat you, Hoggle?

:-)

[SenorBeagle]

I'm about to get all video game-y, so apologies in advance to anyone who has bugger all idea what I'm on about...

For anyone who's ever played Mass Effect, I always think of Franc as 'Renegade Shep', whereas somebody like Jean Kazez is 'Paragon Shep'. The point there is that renegades are explicitly not 'evil'; they're more pragmatic and are all about getting the job done, while paragons are more idealistic, and focus on building alliances through diplomacy.

Basically, they're both good guys, but and both have the same goal, but renegades are more Dirty Harry, while paragons are Jean-Luc Picard.

Everything I just said is only true for a given value of 'true', but it helps me to understand the situation.

I haven't played Mass Effect, so I have no idea what you're on about, but I'll proceed anyway. Speaking of diplomacy and video games, I thought that Justicar's offering to Steffie was not so much "Baboon-ish" but rather more "Leeroy-Jenkins-ish".

Heh, that works, too.

I always think of Franc as 'Renegade Shep'

Or 'Chaotic Good' in Baldur's Gate?

And so does that.

:D

[Caede]

http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/07/freet ... lying.html

I just finally got around to reading this, and this sums up my feelings much better than my attempt to express them did. Very good post. I'm not ready to tune out on the FtB bloggers yet and a lot of them are 'clean' of this, but all of this is very dispiriting.

I said before:
[quote="Caede]4) Largely, I don't believe the FtB folks are being bullies any more than anyone with a public forum for making their words available is.[/quote]

This sentiment is clarified and well-modified by this statement from vjack's post:

To be clear, the majority of those writing for FtB have not been doing any detectible bullying. In fact, I am referring to a relatively small group of about 4 or 5 at most. Based on the comments I've seen here and on other atheist blogs, as well as the email I've received, I am fairly confident you know who they are. So while I am of the opinion that FtB and any other blog conglomerate is generally a bad idea, this is not an indictment of the entire FtB team.

[Caede]

CRAP CRAP CRAP. I saw the posts a few days ago about people not wanting an edit button and I heartily agreed... BUT THAT'S HOW I SAVE MYSELF FROM LOOKING LIKE AN IDIOT!

Let's just pretend I quoted properly.

Relevant: can someone post (or PM me) the post referred to here:

Regarding Franc Hoggle - in the last couple of days before things were closed down at ERV James Onen made a GREAT post about Franc's role as a provocateur over the last 18 months or so.

[Notung]

this is not an indictment of the entire FtB team.

I think everyone here would agree with you. Chris Hallquist looks like a good guy, as does Justin Griffith and I don't have any problem with Cristina Rad or AronRa (I must admit I'm not that familiar with them though). There are probably a few others that also don't seem to warrant the criticism that FTB has overall.

[astrokid.nj]

Phil,
Byron had said something to the effect "I dont use personal details to make a political point", and I agree with that and I dont want to revisit that issue because there's too much personal stuff in it that prevents a dispassionate argument. Other than that episode, he was primarily talking about feminist ideology and actions, even in the ones where he went after bluharmony and SN aggressively and in a manners-assholey way. Are you saying that you found him misogynistic there? I went through all his conversations about 5 months ago, and his facts were right-on, and I didnt find others countering his facts. Its just that people were offended. I plan to re-read his stuff after the old threads are restored here (hopefully).

[Guest]

Relevant: can someone post (or PM me) the post referred to here:

I would, Caede, but I think ERV took down the thread at her site. Lsuoma, didn't we have "Periodic Table of Swearing" archived here at one time? I can't seem to find it now. As someone else suggested ten or so days ago, I think James Onen should turn his message into a blog post.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Phil,
Byron had said something to the effect "I dont use personal details to make a political point", and I agree with that and I dont want to revisit that issue because there's too much personal stuff in it that prevents a dispassionate argument. Other than that episode, he was primarily talking about feminist ideology and actions, even in the ones where he went after bluharmony and SN aggressively and in a manners-assholey way. Are you saying that you found him misogynistic there? I went through all his conversations about 5 months ago, and his facts were right-on, and I didnt find others countering his facts. Its just that people were offended. I plan to re-read his stuff after the old threads are restored here (hopefully).

I wrote a very thoughtful answer, but it got swallowed, so I'll just pull a reGreta:

I never liked the guy. I apologized to him because I did something stupid and unwarranted (pointing at him on Pharyngula). That's a move i still regret to this day. But he said things that are unsuported and paint him as a true misogynist.

Again, that's just my own personal impression.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

@Caede:

FTB is guilty, Paula Kirby is guilty, many here are guilty. We aren't fighting the fights we should be fighting, we're fighting amongst each other because of ego and personality getting in the way. A lot of times, I think people are fighting their own opinions.

Caede, I appreciate that you are probably well-meaning, but I still don't think that you understand the bigger picture. How is it the responsibility of anyone here that the FC6 made it a crime to carry on a dialogue? Paula Kirby has an opinion. She expressed it, only recently, despite being dissed by an arrogant Watson a year ago. She made a minor error in using 2 words, the use of which she carefully expalined, and has been remorselessly trashed ever since. How is she wrong? Does using 2 words make her message wrong?

Not just the FtB bloggers are to blame, but they seem to have the slightly louder megaphones.

Isn't that a little disingenuous? Refusing to acknowledge what people actually say, deleting posts, challenging the banned to respond, piling on etc are not things that characterise the Slymepit. And to be clear, the FTb are not behaving this way in response to the Slymepit. Myers and RW in particular have shown authoritarian tendencies for a long time. These people are trying to gain influence and I do not want them to be seen as the face of the atheist/skeptic community.

3) DJ Groethe was wrong. He blamed specific women for lowering TAM attendance and was either ignorant or lying about the reported cases of sexual harassment. He had a lot of opportunities to fix this, but he failed.

Which reported cases?

[Evan]

http://memegenerator.net/Helpful-Ftbullies

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 344534.jpg

[Caede]

Paula Kirby has an opinion. She expressed it, only recently, despite being dissed by an arrogant Watson a year ago. She made a minor error in using 2 words, the use of which she carefully expalined, and has been remorselessly trashed ever since. How is she wrong? Does using 2 words make her message wrong?

Carefully explaining why she used 2 particular words doesn't excuse what she said, if you believe it is an error. Saying "I'm not calling you a nazi... but you're a nazi" is... well, yeah. Remorselessly trashed? It looks like she's had waves of support and waves of backlash. What was she expecting, equating a large number of people with murderous totalitarian governments? Did she want a giant hug, a round of applause and no one to argue with her? Isn't the point that we should be able to argue, and if someone calls me a Nazi I should be able to respond? I don't see Paula Kirby as being bullied, any more than she was bullying those she targeted. ...which is to say, not at all.

I'm curious: what do you believe her basic, underlying message is? My takeaway was that she was TRYING to say that women should be empowered and not play victims. In reality, I don't believe that's at all what she really said. She corrupted that message (in my opinion), and instead came off as bitching that people are talking SO MUCH about harassment when it's really not a big deal -- why can't they just be quiet, and work on being empowered to forge their way through?

There's a comment in one of the responses (from 'Ruth', on http://blog.chrisworfolk.com/2012/07/11 ... oppressed/) that sums up a bit of what I think Kirby is getting wrong:

The problem with Paula Kirby’s rant is that although she claims to be in favour of empowering women, she is objecting to the ways that are most likely to work, i.e. collective activism. She wants individual women to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and stop trying to tackle the systems that are holding ALL women back.

It’s a bit like scoffing at unions, and suggesting that individual workers should just be more assertive with their employers, and fight, individually, for improvements in their personal working conditions.

I also feel a lot of the folks here are just as guilty of I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. Certain topics cannot be discussed civily by any parties, because EVERYONE has burned their bridges and holding onto grudges, and everyone needs to remake their points. Not just the FtB bloggers are to blame, but they seem to have the slightly louder megaphones.

Isn't that a little disingenuous? Refusing to acknowledge what people actually say, deleting posts, challenging the banned to respond, piling on etc are not things that characterise the Slymepit. And to be clear, the FTb are not behaving this way in response to the Slymepit. Myers and RW in particular have shown authoritarian tendencies for a long time. These people are trying to gain influence and I do not want them to be seen as the face of the atheist/skeptic community.

I included my full quote above because I feel like you're saying "The slymepit isn't guilty because we don't do X,Y,Z", when I was saying the much larger issue is just that most people now have no interest in listening to each other. The slymepit definitely isn't directly responsible for the way certain FtB are acting, but I see some strong evidence of people here saying LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. You aren't banning people, but there are definitely grudges being acted out here and messages discarded or manipulated due to the messenger.

3) DJ Grothe was wrong. He blamed specific women for lowering TAM attendance and was either ignorant or lying about the reported cases of sexual harassment. He had a lot of opportunities to fix this, but he failed.

Which reported cases?

Ashley Miller (which Grothe didn't categorize as sexual harassment) and
Monopod Man (http://www.facebook.com/notes/rob-tarzw ... 2203392412 or
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... ment-76774)

In my opinion, whether or not you feel either of these are actually 'sexual harassment', the latter was reported to Grothe AS sexual harassment. For him to categorically state that there were no reports of sexual harassment at TAM 2011 was either ignorant or lying.

My initial opinion of DJ Grothe was formed by his response to Ashley Miller, though. She thought she had reported it, and he did not take her seriously.

(Full disclosure: I fixed the spelling of his name in my quote above. Oops, sorry DJ.)

[Gumby]

Paula Kirby has an opinion. She expressed it, only recently, despite being dissed by an arrogant Watson a year ago. She made a minor error in using 2 words, the use of which she carefully expalined, and has been remorselessly trashed ever since.

Yeah, I understand why she used those words, she explained it well, but all it did was give the baboons an excuse to attack the words and ignore all the truth in the rest of her article. Of course, they would have ignored the substance anyway, but they used "feminazi" and "femistasi" to try to discredit the whole document.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Saying "I'm not calling you a nazi... but you're a nazi"

She didn't call anyone a Nazi, she called them Feminazis, a BIG distinction. It is a commonly accepted thing to append nazi to the end of the word and it is understood that it means fanatical and authoritarian. Was Seinfeld accusing anyone of crimes against humanity when he coined the term Soup Nazi? Do you disgree that this is a common device? Please explain why you think that this is not the way Kirby was using the word. She explained that this was her intent, as if it needed explaining. What exactly is WRONG about that? An honest debater would point out those 2 words, and then say "OK, what is the gist of the whole message"

If you are wondering how that differs from the Benson case, this is what Benson said:

s Jews in Germany circa 1936 might have created “a climate where Jews — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe.” As the Southern Poverty Law Center creates a climate where people who are the object of systematic vocal hatred end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe. That’s not to compare TAM with Nazi Germany or racist pockets

She effectively did compare TAM to Nazi Germany. I don't think that anyone thinks that she meant to compare anyone to a Nazi, but that's what she did, and instead of admitting that she did and clarifying she piled on the bullshit. Personally, I wouldn't have made an issue of it anyway. It's the message she WAS trying to convey that matters.

[Slither]

Ashley Miller (which Grothe didn't categorize as sexual harassment) ....

My initial opinion of DJ Grothe was formed by his response to Ashley Miller, though. She thought she had reported it, and he did not take her seriously.

(Full disclosure: I fixed the spelling of his name in my quote above. Oops, sorry DJ.)

I strongly object to this.

Ashley Miller has stated not only that she did not tell DJ that it was sexual harassment, but at the time she said that DJ did handle this appropriately. The situation was that DJ was told that there was a drunk gatecrasher at an invite-only event, and he immediately had the guy thrown out. Period. He did exactly what he should have done.

The insinuation that DJ didn't "categorize" it as sexual harassment, and therefore was somehow not taking her seriously, is extremely dishonest and defamatory when it has been admitted that he wasn't told anything about it being such.

I think this is a disgusting example of the type of character slurs and harassment that we've seen from the FTB bullies during this past year.

[Parge]

Am I out of my mind here or is my memory of events faulty? Didn't Ashley Miller report that incident as sexual harassment after D.J. stated there were no reports of sexual harassment at TAM? i.e. - when he got the report at the time, it was not a report of sexual harassment? Wasn't the original report one of a drunken interloper and treated as such?

And didn't the person who reported on Mr. X clarify that she never reported that he was actually taking upskirt pictures, just that his monopod made xer uncomfortable?

So in both cases, neither was reported at the time as sexual harassment. They were modified after the fact - one, filling in the missing information, the other being a complete fabrication - to assist in demonizing D.J.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, these are prime examples of the dangers of historical revisionism. And the more they're repeated, the more plausible they sound.

[John Greg]

Caede (in http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... =700#p1591) said:

Ashley Miller (which Grothe didn't categorize as sexual harassment) and Monopod Man ... the latter was reported to Grothe AS sexual harassment.

It most certainly was not. It was neither reported directly to Grothe, nor was it reported (to other staff) as sexual harrassment. You are either reading something into Lee Delay's comments that is not there, or you are simply making false assumptions.

[JAB]

3) DJ Grothe was wrong. He blamed specific women for lowering TAM attendance and was either ignorant or lying about the reported cases of sexual harassment. He had a lot of opportunities to fix this, but he failed.

Which reported cases?

Ashley Miller (which Grothe didn't categorize as sexual harassment) and
Monopod Man (http://www.facebook.com/notes/rob-tarzw ... 2203392412 or
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... ment-76774)

In my opinion, whether or not you feel either of these are actually 'sexual harassment', the latter was reported to Grothe AS sexual harassment. For him to categorically state that there were no reports of sexual harassment at TAM 2011 was either ignorant or lying.

My initial opinion of DJ Grothe was formed by his response to Ashley Miller, though. She thought she had reported it, and he did not take her seriously.

(Full disclosure: I fixed the spelling of his name in my quote above. Oops, sorry DJ.)

I believe the best way to get good data on things like harrassment is to do anonymous surveys, which DJ did and was reporting on. He actually set out to get some measure of a problem and a baseline so that when they tried to fix a problem, they could see if it worked. Outcome measurement has been shown many times to be essential. So he reported the results, and those with a vested interest in making sure that their were victims, freaked out then went out in search of these cases you list. The women saying they had these problems were all handed the forms at the end of TAM. I haven't seen any of them explain why they didn't report those instances in the section so it could have been reported.. they could even have been anonymous. My theory is that none of these were big deals until someone got them all whipped up so they could get some victim cred.

So should they have more formal reporting structures in place etc... maybe. If you're looking for an overall picture of the problem they won't be as useful as anonymous exit surveys, but they could serve other uses I suppose. But here they are still trying to roast DJ and tell women not to go to TAM etc for a problem that none of them bothered to report in the exit survey.

[Dilurk]

Eesh, this place moves fast. I second (third? fourth?) getting the Tapatalk mod installed so we mobile folks can use our squares of technology to read/comment.

What underlying views? how do those views differ? Do the views actually differ or are you accepting the FTB version of other peoples' views?

eh? How do you know? ;-) That's the thing here. Everyone here is a free thinker, I don't think the same as hoggle or SN or anyone else on here. Sometimes some of us might even agree with something said on FtB. Imagine that. That's the beauty with not being piled upon and bullied. Maybe there is something you have not considered, or I have not considered that's what civil discussion is all about between adults.

In posting here, I was deliberately rather vague, mostly just dipping a toe in the water. The fact is, I know I differ on a couple of key views, but I also have some probable points of agreement. I believe the facts, as I know them, support my conclusions and that I am not just parroting other beliefs. I feel these are things that we can disagree on without disputing the basic facts of the events.


So, perceived differing views:
1) I believe RW's initial call-out of Elevator Guy was appropriate and brought up a useful discussion. It made her feel uncomfortable and although nothing beyond discomfort (and sexualization in her opinion) occurred, it makes a good way to discuss the particular topic. Whatever happened after, I don't think she was wrong to mention it in the first place.

Sure. We agree here. It was a casual comment she made at the end of a video. The thing is, personally I'd feel nervous having any stranger in the elevator with me at 3am, another woman, another man or even a fluffy white kitten. They'd all make me nervous in a confined elevator, especially if the fluffy white kitten asked me if I wanted coffee. That's the thing, we are each different. Some women would not at all feel nervous, perhaps they noticed the man in pub drinking hence knew they were harmless, or the woman had a black belt or any number of things. But yes, RW had every right to express an opinion on how she felt about this man in the elevator. I don't think there is anyone here that disputes that, the dispute is with her deciding that her opinion was the only correct position.

2) Dawkins was wrong. He simply does not have the point of view to understand what he was commenting on, and he just dug himself in deeper. That said, I may have lost a bit of respect for him for... well, being an old white dude. Misogynist is too strong of a word, because I doubt Dawkins HATES women in any sense and I'm certain he respects women. Ignorant and insensitive is more appropriate. (This leads to the comparisons that southern white folks in the last century weren't RACIST, they were just ignorant and insensitive. I don't believe this really stands up to scrutiny, but I believe Dawkins's attitudes here do highlight a very key point in how men view women, whether or not they 'know and respect' them.). I still respect his science and (usually) rational thinking, and especially what he's contributed for decades to science, skepticism and atheism.

We are two peoples separated by a common language. Considering how Dawkins goes out of his way to be respectful of women I think he wasn't at all saying RW was wrong at all. I can't guess, you'd have to ask him. The way I read his letter was, "Yes, you were bothered in an elevator fortunately nothing happened and I am glad for that. But you know in some countries you would have had much worse before simply being bothered in a elevator?" British sarcasm isn't understood by USAnians at all.

...at this point, I'm going to really fast-forward through a lot of the back and forth mud-slinging that seemed to go on between RW/PZ/OB/GL/ETC and 'the other side'. This post is already too long and rambling, and I don't think I'm really making any specifically good points.

3) DJ Groethe was wrong. He blamed specific women for lowering TAM attendance and was either ignorant or lying about the reported cases of sexual harassment. He had a lot of opportunities to fix this, but he failed. The fact that TAM didn't have a harassment policy evident (from what I've heard) for this year seems a further slap in the face to women who felt things weren't being done to ensure a safe space. All these conferences should have a simple sexual harassment policy and reporting procedure in place -- this is true of any large, sponsored gatherings. There's a lot of argument going on in the 'larger world' about this relative to huge cons like ComicCon and PAX. It's a worthwhile discussion, if people get beyond the reaction of "OMG YOU WANT TO STOP EVERYONE FROM HUGGING, LOL. DON'T SHAKE MY HAND, THAT'S HAND RAPE, LOL".

Sure. It could have been handled better. But not all of us can write clearly. That is why we really should give each other the benefit of the doubt in what we read from someone else's writing, remember to "sit on our hands" and let a flame response sit for a day until one has cooled down. This is the classic advice in email etiquette manuals, we suck at it.

I keep saying maybe if they had have sat down together and had a beer or a pint together, this would have been settled so much quicker without all this acrimony

4) Largely, I don't believe the FtB folks are being bullies any more than anyone with a public forum for making their words available is.

For the most part I agree. We do have some bullies there, but it's not everyone.

So, having said that, I do believe a few things that probably mesh here.
1) RW's call-out of Stef McGraw, publicly and from a position of authority with no (non-rude) rebuttal possible, was... well, bad form. Her and other's subsequent defense of this tactic was painful to watch, because it seemed to be utterly hypocritical.

Exactly what I and others take fault with. I agree, she was justified in feeling threatened. She is not justified in telling me I should feel threatened or any other woman. As good sceptics, we speak for ourselves.

2) RW's 'boycott' of Dawkins was a retarded knee-jerk reaction to his statements.

She's young. I remember taking umbrage far quicker when I was young.

3) Mostly, the recent 'uber-vigilance' to misogyny has gone too far and perverted the word to mean 'someone who makes a comment a woman doesn't like'. There are legitimate misogynists, there is legitimate misogyny happening and it is far too prevalent. But I believe the word is now being used by many as a way to paint people as 'wrong' without having to disprove their points. I don't believe this forum, specifically, is a haven for misogynists or misogynist thought. I believe most of you probably respect and treat women properly.

Yes I have been saying all along misogyny is not an atheist problem, it is a people problem. All I personally ask for is respect for the type of work I can do and not men telling me what I can and can't do or worse, telling me what kind of protection I want.

4) As I said in another post, Greg Laden was dead wrong and he engaged in real, actual bullying behavior. I'm saddened that he still hasn't accepted this and feels, in his mind, that he was right. I'm also disappointed in a lot of people for making excuses for him and supporting him in his bullying.

I find it sad that he does not get it either.

5) Thunderf00t was pushed out of FtB in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.

Yes.

Obviously he's not the only one with a vendetta to act out, but it's very on-display. Plus, it's easy to toss in 'but not Hoggle' in places.

The "FTB Baboons" horse is not dead, unfortunately. Why do you think that it's a vendetta?

I felt it was a vendetta with the sheer amount of work Hoggle was putting into his blogging and commenting/posting tracing every word and phrase that PZ and others were saying. Hoggle became synonymous in my mind with a stalker hanging on every word PZ uttered and trying to respond to it in some way, stretching when he needed to make a point that wasn't necessarily even there. I know this may be a misperception (especially since I rarely read the comments of any of these blogs, and I know that's where a lot of this comes from) and I'm not going to read through every one of his posts to try to document it, but even as I skim back through his blog now it seems apparent he was spending a LOT of time documenting everything they were saying. It seems obsessive, it seems like a vendetta.

The point of a skeptic community is not necessarily to find points of agreement. The point of much of FTB (Pharyngula in particular) is to browbeat everyone into accepting that that they are RIGHT, to the degree that they won't even discuss it. Rebuttals are "obsession" or "cyberstalking", correcting facts makes you a "kook" or "too stupid to breathe", self-defense makes it "all about you". Comments are deleted, posters banned and history re-written. FTB are a political entity, not a freethought community.

As I said in a previous post, I don't believe FtB is an honest, open forum for discussion for precisely these reasons. Part of the issue, as I see it, is that all of the bloggers are now hyper-sensitive to people who are just trying to get under their skin. It seems obvious to me that a lot of the folks here are trying precisely that -- to get under their skin, mostly due to old grudges and trying to remake old points. Both 'sides' are guilty of it. When they are banned and drummed out, everyone comes crying and calls foul... the end-result is that discussion is suppressed faster and faster, as the bloggers get more and more sensitive and more and more reactive. Eventually no one can say anything without being in an exact party line. I find both FtB and the folks on this board guilty of making this happen from different angles in a weird ouroboros of a community eating themselves.

I also feel a lot of the folks here are just as guilty of I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. Certain topics cannot be discussed civily by any parties, because EVERYONE has burned their bridges and holding onto grudges, and everyone needs to remake their points. Not just the FtB bloggers are to blame, but they seem to have the slightly louder megaphones.

I find myself asking why I spend time on online atheism/skepticism. The easy answer is that religious delusions damage thinking processes, woo and denialism hurts people, science and the environment. But what does following blogs and adding "me too's" and slightly differing views actually do. In my case I think it's actually a reaction to the almost painful frustration at being exposed to this irrational bullshit in person and in the media day in and day out. TBH, this online stuff is a release valve. Is FTB not motivated by the same thing, but with more of an evangelical and spitefully vengeful edge? They have somehow convinced themselves that failure to bend the knee to their definitions of words is going to have some kind of detrimental effect on gender equality. They have confused inconsequential bitch fests with actual, meaningful action. They have delusions of importance, they are on some kind of world-changing crusade.

Those last three sentences could be applied to a lot of people beyond FtB bloggers... replace 'gender equality' with whatever you choose.

I think the whole point of why I originally posted here (prompted by the unfair bashing, as I saw it, of Cristina Rad for posting videos that were even remotely close to the "FC5") is because this is how things are working on all sides. FTB is guilty, Paula Kirby is guilty, many here are guilty. We aren't fighting the fights we should be fighting, we're fighting amongst each other because of ego and personality getting in the way. A lot of times, I think people are fighting
their own opinions.

Exactly.

Honestly, I think we all just need to have angry hate-sex with each other and get it over with. I'm pretty sure there's an angry hate-sex clause in most sexual harassment policies: if it is consentual and will resolve arguments, it's A-OKAY.

Ooooo would you settle for a good beer?


I'm feeling too old to get too excited and too involved with children and trolls arguing in blogs. Still I have always hated seeing people bullied, that finally pushed me into delurking at least partially.

[LMU]

My understanding of "feminazi" was similar to Gumby's. For example why is feminazi worse than "grammarnazi" except that one makes fun of feminism? In this sense I'd actually expect a feminist to humorously refer to herself or another feminist as a "feminazi", which is how I understood PSK's comment at the time.

However, it was coined by Rush Limbaugh (which I didn't know about until recently), or someone similar, as a comparison of pro-choice feminists killing unborn babies, to actual Nazis committing mass murder. If that's the comparison then it is inappropriate.

Either way, I doubt she'll use the phrase again. In the meantime PZM still approves of his commentariat making rape jokes involving porcupines.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

There's a comment in one of the responses (from 'Ruth', on http://blog.chrisworfolk.com/2012/07/11 ... oppressed/) that sums up a bit of what I think Kirby is getting wrong:
The problem with Paula Kirby’s rant is that although she claims to be in favour of empowering women, she is objecting to the ways that are most likely to work, i.e. collective activism. She wants individual women to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and stop trying to tackle the systems that are holding ALL women back.

It’s a bit like scoffing at unions, and suggesting that individual workers should just be more assertive with their employers, and fight, individually, for improvements in their personal working conditions.

Where does Kirby dismiss the concept of collective activism? She is complaining about the witch hunting tactics that are being used and the failure of those conducting the witch hunts to justify their actions by providing any meaningful evidence that women are actually being held back in the "Skeptic" movement. What are they being held back from, exactly? She also points out that she has made efforts in the past to get women involved and that the reluctance of the women concerned is the problem, not harassment or discouragement.

[Caede]

Hard to reply and quote from my tablet, bleh.

I agree the -nazi suffix is freely used and I usually have no problem with it. When you write paragraphs justifying your use of it, it is much less off-the-cuff and "throwaway as part of the vernacular".

Regarding character slurs against DJ: I recognize that he could not have known about Ashley's incident. My memory is that she thought she had reported it to someone, the drunk was dealt with, and all was good and formal. No one questions that in the moment, JREF staff did the right thing. My problem is that after she made it known that it was harassment (well after the fact), DJ should have apologized for questioning her memory and said something along the lines of "I'm sorry, it looks like I was somewhat mistaken. We did deal properly with the incidents last year, but clearly there were some wires crossed in communication. To make everyone feel a bit more secure, we will put a better reporting procedure in place to reinforce our already strong commitments to making sure everyone is comfortable and has a good time." The tack he took was a bit different. So I feel he was wrong. He shouldn't step down and he's not a misogynist, but I believe he made bad PR errors here.

Regarding the other event, I was not aware it was a fabrication. Did DJ address it and debunk it or did someone else? I'll admit I didn't see it called out as such.

[Notung]

I'm sorry, but this thread is commonly referred to as the "slimepit". Please start rabidly attacking and insulting each other. We have a reputation to uphold, and this discussion is far too rational.

[Caede]

Its been used by Rush for years. I wouldn't object to using it in a jocular way because of that, and I could certainly imagine or forgive Kirby for not knowing that association. I stand by my statement that when you spend time explaining why you are right in using a -nazi term you cede the right to say it was in jest or that your weren't making a direct comparison to actual nazis.

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/5674 ... eeegq8.gif

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Caede:

I agree the -nazi suffix is freely used and I usually have no problem with it. When you write paragraphs justifying your use of it, it is much less off-the-cuff and "throwaway as part of the vernacular"

Which affects the message how? So rather than reading the article as a whole one should concentrate on how much thought went into a particular word?

[DW Adams]

Comments?

[Editorial]Atheism, Feminism and Ego

[John Greg]

When you write paragraphs justifying your use of it, it is much less off-the-cuff and "throwaway as part of the vernacular."

There is a difference between justifying and explaining, which you seem, to me, to be ignoring for the sake of your argument. Explaining something is not justifying it, it is explaining, for the sake of the zealots and fanatics who nether can nor want to understand, the intent and the underlying reasons and nuance for using such a weighted term.

My argument is that in general you seem to be overlooking the many, many possible associations that go along with the "nazi..." term. That it need not always and only be applied to and/or refer to the holocaust, and as a point of fact, was specifically not intended as such in Kirby's use of it.

By the by, I like your Hitler/Yahtzee animation.

[Lsuoma]

I'm sorry, but this thread is commonly referred to as the "slimepit". Please start rabidly attacking and insulting each other. We have a reputation to uphold, and this discussion is far too rational.

"Paging all Baboollies! Paging all Baboollies!"

Actually, I think it's very interesting that not a one has shown up to post here yet. My guess is that we are all beneath contempt.

One thing I have consistently noticed, though, is that there are almost always twice as many guests browsing as registered users. That may be bots, of course, but I'm certainly wondering who the lurkers are...

[Guest]

I'm one of the lurkers (I posted a blog link yesterday under guest). I'm also sympathetic to the views expressed here.

[Guest]

Caede:

I agree the -nazi suffix is freely used and I usually have no problem with it. When you write paragraphs justifying your use of it, it is much less off-the-cuff and "throwaway as part of the vernacular"

Which affects the message how? So rather than reading the article as a whole one should concentrate on how much thought went into a particular word?

Sorry, I thought I made clear that my primary issue was with her message. I said Paula Kirby was wrong, and you assumed it was because I found fault with her word usage. I did go on to explain why I don't think she did herself any good by her word choice, but the bigger issue I saw was of her telling women to shut up about making things that aren't that bad better by not being lazy and forging their own way without being victims. I think I understand what her Intended message was,but I think it was poorly communicated.

[caedenotloggedin]

Stoopid tablet logged me out, sorry for confusion. Tapatalk plugin or vicious CK!