Second Chances

| Tue 2 Oct 2012 | 123 Comments | 3705 Views

Author Emily Dietle

My focus is on state-church separation & social issues. I'm an avid reader, and feel that one of our most valuable tools is the free movement of information and ideas. | @emilyhasbooks

For those not in the ‘know,’ controversial Justin Vacula has been appointed as one of two co-chairs for the newly launched arm of the Secular Coalition for America (SCA) in Pennsylvania. This pick has created an uproar of criticism aimed at the SCA, including denouncements here & here, along with a petition for his removal, from persons it should be noted that I respect and admire. Along with lengthy opinion pieces, there were numerous tweets and facebook posts about how horrible the pick was and that Vacula should be scrapped. There have also been a few cries of withdrawing  support from the SCA.

None of this made sense to me, it didn’t align with the image of Vacula that I’d formed. Though I’m not usually a fan of Vacula’s writing style or some of his views, I’ve always found Justin to be a kind person with a determination for supporting the famed wall of separation of church and state. So, I did a bit of digging, looked at the concerns of others, and found their claims somewhat substantiated. Regardless, I’m one to give second chances, and let people prove themselves. Also, I must question the gravity of the concerns raised. Considering the stressed importance of the claims, shouldn’t they have been handled swiftly and privately with SCA leadership, and not via public defamatory posts?

As a humanist, I seek to resolve differences cooperatively, joining our unique individual selves into a web of support, so that we can enrich society together. Sometimes, those individuals make horrid mistakes, or present unfavorable characteristics. They still have value, and are part of the web, and are able to change. It’s against my better nature to blacklist, berate, and defame.

In summary: Even if the SCA’s pick was the wrong choice, there must be more productive things to do than bash Vacula publicly. He’s a human-being, with feelings, and the ability to grow. Secondly, I’m not ashamed of endorsements that he, or others make of myself, or of organizations like the new and fabulous Secular Woman. Lastly, the Secular Coalition for America is still good in my book as great organization, fighting endlessly to uphold church-state separation.

«
»
  • http://www.facebook.com/laden.greg Greg Laden

    All good points. But one could also argue that without a certain degree of stridentcy (is that a word) in the response, the concerns many of us have would be ignored. Also, the earlier appointment of Rogers as exec has made many of us worried that the SCA leadership was not fully aware of the significance of the long standing Republican War on Women, which incubated in the Bush White House and parallel right wing entities such as Fox News, both home to Rogers. This latest event probably has a different significance because of that.

    Personally, I see Justin as part and parcel of the community that we refer to as MRAs, and he seems to have been part of the particular part of that group that has spent the last year or so doing nothing productive but harass a handful of outspoken feminists. This has been verified by the very comments proffered to defend Justin on my blog post on the topic. So yeah, the worst case scenario could be equivalent to having a person outspoken against “mixed marriage” in a leadership position in the NAACP.

    Having said that, I suppose I should not assume that the SCA is progressively aligned and essentially feminist or anti-sexist. But if they are, then they should probably not be sending such mixed messages.

    So, I’m more than willing to be corrected on Justin’s alignment with the MRA. I suppose I could look at his twitterfeed and other evidence related to his active involvement with the Slymepit. But if either of those continues to pan out than I would not be happy about alignment with him. I’m more than willing to be corrected on the role of the SCA as representing a progressive movement, which in my view, Secular Humanism and related movements are. No big deal if I’m wrong, I have no stake in the SCA as far as I know. But I’d be concerned about the association between organizations I do have a stake in (SSA, other groups) and an organization that is willfully blind of critically important political considerations.

    • Steersman

      So, I’m more than willing to be corrected on Justin’s alignment with the MRA.

      Really? For true? So then since that supposed alignment could only be construed as problematic if all MRAs are beyond the pale, I suppose that, in support of that position, you’re going to stand pat on your post on your own site on the topic? [“Secular Coalition’s Big Goof”] To wit:

      The question of whether or not MRAs are sexist misogynist jerks that need not be taken seriously was settled a long time ago.

      A rather categorical statement, in my view. And that in spite of the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center has conceded that not all of the claims and positions of all MRAs are “without merit”:

      It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.

      But maybe you have a whole slough of citations to a raft of studies that clearly proves that all MRAs are “sexist misogynist jerks”?

      Considering all of the largely spurious and specious demands for an apology from Justin and in light of the foregoing, one might more reasonably expect that you in particular and others in general should be the ones tendering apologies for tarring all MRAs with the brush that is, one concedes, applicable only to some subset of them. Not to mention for failing to apply skepticism “to the things [you] want to believe.”

      • http://twitter.com/Luna_the_cat Luna

        The SPLC’s very next sentence in that paragraph:

        “But we _did_ call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence.”

        Cherrypicking and selective quoting are not tools for honest discussion.

        • Steersman

          @twitter-6664022:disqus,
          If someone makes a categorical statement – all of the class X is Y: all swans are white – it is not cherry picking to point out that one member of X – one swan – is not Y: is not white. It is a simple refutation of the claim.

    • Alan James

      Seriously? Greg “I’ll try to set off your PTSD and threaten to beat you” Laden sees Justin as part of a group of people that has spent the last year doing nothing productive but harass a handful of outspoken feminists. I guess it takes a harasser to know one.

      You lost your credibility about critiquing harassment when you decided to become violent and threatening towards one of your own. You have no stake in SCA, and if you do have a stake in SSA, other groups, then ethical people will have nothing to do with them until you offer a full and complete apology for your despicable behaviour, which acknowledges your disgusting Ableism and choice to use the privilege of never having seen combat to attempt to set off another man’s PTSD.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

    I would like to believe that Justin’s endorsement of Secular Woman is sincere and that from here on out he demonstrates that he cares about women’s issues as much as the next humanist. I also hope that, if the SCA chooses to keep him on as co-chair that he does it well. I do not approve of some of his actions but I feel really strange about taking opportunities away from someone… That might be the bleeding heart, liberal social worker in me..

    • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

      Terrific, and if Paul Elam endorses Secular Woman with the same sincerity I am sure you will offer him equal opportunity?

      Humanists do not mock others with parodies of their jewelry as Justin did to Amy. Humanists do not take joy upon hearing a blogger is quitting as he did when Jen left.
      Humanists have empathy and would have put themselves in Ophelia’s position when she received what she perceived as threats. Justin refused to do that.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

        So elevatorGATE is on the case and has tweeted for your defense Bridget. Doesn’t that make you feel warm and cozy?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

          I give no weight to twitter accounts where people don’t use their real name. You shouldn’t either.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

          I’ll take your advice for what it’s worth.

        • Chas Stewart

          Brava! Edit: Changed to feminine as if I know anything about Italian.

        • CommanderTuvok

          Here’s EllenBeth again, using the “guilt by association” tactic. Obviously Bridget must be wrong if somebody YOU don’t like tweets their message.

          Some of you are like schoolchildren, ie if you are friends with them, you not my friend any more. Na Na Nah Nah Na.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

          Try reading again.

        • PG

          To reiterate: someone calling him/herself Elevatorgate on Twitter tweets in defense of Bridget. You wondered if this made her feel warm and cozy, implying that Bridget endorses said person. As it is, Bridget has said she gives no weight to people who don’t use their real name and you say you’ll “take her advice *for what it’s worth*” implying she’s being disingenuous. This is guilt by association as an ad hominem. Maybe you should avoid Jason Thibeult’s blog for a while, since it has clearly muddled your judgement.

        • PG

          Oh what the fuck, EllenBeth. You’re going to guilt her because someone who you don’t like tweets for her defense? Because guilt by association is such a brilliant tactic to prove you’re right. -facepalm-

      • John Brown

        Oh, please. Humanists do this all the time. They just do it to the ultimate out-group. You know…theists, or Republicans, or whomever.

        You’re just pissed that these tactics are now being used against someone in the in-group.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

          You don’t know what I am or am not “pissed” about so keep your speculations to yourself.
          and no, Humanists don’t do those things.

        • John Brown

          Well, if you want to have it both ways (plainly stating what you’re pissed about and then claiming that nobody else could possibly know what you’re pissed about), have at it. That kind of cognitive dissonance seems par for the course in the A+ community.

          And, well, obviously Humanists DO do those things, because, you know…those types of things were and are done by Humanists.

          No True Scotsman fallacy in three..two..one..

        • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

          Yes, right because you are clearly a mind-reader since I did no such thing.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

        I am a social worker. Some of my clients are thieves and prostitutes. Others have neglected their children and been imprisoned for violent crimes, etc. I don’t write people off very easily for their bad behavior. I believe in the power of change. I have seem AMAZING changes in behavior.

        That doesn’t mean I condone the behavior, it simply means that I believe that almost anyone can change for the better.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

          Others have already said it but it bears repeating apparently, one needs to acknowledge the bad behavior and make amends for it to the ones harmed before any meaningful change can happen. As a social worker, you should know this. And you think that prostitution is bad behavior?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

          I want Justin to make amends. I never said I didn’t. *I hold out hope that he will*. I HAVE to live my life hoping that people will change for the better otherwise I would follow people around on the internet making nasty comments and appearing perpetually angry ;-)

          Very commonly people come in my office angry, recently released from prison, still doing the things that got them in in the first place. I help them find a job, reunite them with their children, get into rehab and see AMAZING changes! There is no rule on how to change behavior. The person doesn’t always have to WANT to change. Aging changes behavior. Emergencies change behavior. Hitting rock bottom changes behavior.
          –
          I do not think prostitution is bad, I am pro sex workers. When they have HIV (which my clients ALL have) and do not disclose, it is bad behavior.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

          Justin has had plenty of opportunities. He hasn’t even acknowledged his behavior. I know a woman just like him coincidentally.

        • CommanderTuvok

          Rebecca Watson?

        • BruceMcGlory

          And everyone has agreed with that. Vacula, however, does not agree. As evidenced by his ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF OTHERS OVER HIS PERSONAL BEEFS WITH THEM.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

          Just because Justin feels a certain way doesn’t change MY personality and “faith” in humanity.

        • PG

          Can we (meaning you) please stop with the misinformation that Justin Vacula endangered the life of Surly Amy? Her address was public information (which was her business, not her home address, for posterity), anyone could have found it if they Google’d “Surlyramics CA”. It’s the fourth on the list, for crying out loud. Secondly he did it to prove he wasn’t filing a counter-claim to the DMCA *just* to get her address. (Blaming the victim?) Thirdly to insinuate posting it on the Slymepit he’s “endangering” her life is frankly absurd. (He has also acknowledged he made a mistake, removed the posting and apologised. That’s more than Greg Laden ever did.)

          By the way, should we ignore this?

          http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/rebecca-watson-doc-drops.html

          That’s Rebecca Watson dropping someone’s docs, someone’s real name, someone’s IP address, something which was not public information, on Twitter. That is, not within the confines of a small forum. (Should we also ignore that Amy herself exposed her own address on Twitter after she found out it’d been posted on the Slymepit? She’s threatened when it’s posted on the Slymepit, but not when it’s revealed on a worldwide medium that anyone can read? -knock on wood-

          Greg Laden also posted Maria Maltseva’s home address, stalked and called Abbie Smith’s employers attempting to get her fired not to mention threatening Justin Griffith with physical violence. How’s that for moral relativism?

        • http://www.facebook.com/laden.greg Greg Laden

          We don’t need to be writing off Justin as a human being. But he does need to not have this particular position of responsibility. Or, actually, he needs to not have this position of responsibility.

        • PG

          Oh, be quiet. You have literally no credibility to speak on this having threatened people with physical violence, doc dropped people and attempted to get people fired from their jobs. Justin Vacula has done none of these things, so maybe you should clean the shit in front of your own porch (by the dungload) before complaining to others about theirs? (Or lack thereof.)

        • http://karlaporter.com/ Karla Porter

          Well said Bridget. All of us have room for growth no matter our experience. Real communities embrace, coach, counsel, care, and facilitate positive change for those who could benefit from it. Perhaps the tactics of the ‘community’ are as faulty and responsible as anyone’s for behavior.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Fine, Karla. You’re more than welcome to “embrace, coach, counsel, care, and facilitate positive change” in Justin Vacula on your own time. When you’ve succeeded and he’s a trustworthy human being, we may actually consider entrusting a leadership position to him. Until then, however, we are not obligated to.

          I will also point out that your blatant condescension about those who are speaking up about being mistreated, and your willful refusal to understand that contexts of certain actions are very very different in a climate of rage and threats, as expressed in this very thread, indicates to me that you are drastically under-qualified to effect positive change in how someone treats marginalized groups.

          And even if all of us have “room for growth” doesn’t mean everyone will actually grow. Leadership positions belong to those who have grown, and who can actually DEMONSTRATE a track record of being responsible, caring people.

        • real horrorshow

          Are you a member of SCA LeftSidePositive, in Pennsylvania or anywhere else? Because if you aren’t, the whole question of “entrusting a leadership position” to Justin Vacula is not actually your decision to make. I know that you and your friends enjoy the fantasy that the whole atheist/sceptic ‘movement’ has some obligation to obey your diktats, but it isn’t actually true.

        • LeftSidePositive

          And so, Bridget, you’re telling me you think these people you work with should be entrusted with leadership positions even given their bad behavior?! Would you hand these thieves your wallet or let them babysit your kids?

          Look there’s a huge difference between “writing people off” and understanding that they’re simply not trustworthy NOW, and until that changes, there is no need to put them in a position where they can do further harm.

      • CommanderTuvok

        “Humanists do not take joy upon hearing a blogger is quitting as he did when Jen left.”

        Greg Laden, Rebecca Watson, Stephanie Zvan and Ophelia Benson ALL took joy in shutting down Abbie Smith. They proudly boasted about it at a conference. Further, Jen is not some innocent bystander in all this – she actively backed the witch hunts led by FTB and said nothing when various people were bullied and harassed simply not for toeing the line.

        “Humanists have empathy and would have put themselves in Ophelia’s
        position when she received what she perceived as threats. Justin refused
        to do that.”

        Why should Justin have empathy for Ophelia Benson? Ophelia Benson is the one who revels in allowing her commentators to label women as “gender traitors”, “sister punishers” and “chill girls”. Anything that can demean women who she opposes.

        Ophelia Benson does not deserve any empathy. I actually have empathy for the man who DID receive violent threats from Greg Laden. That was Justin from Rock Beyond Belief. Strangely though, Ophelia is rather quiet about those threats, and very loud about the non-threats she got that day. That is why a lot of people find if difficult to trust Benson. She applies double standards.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Abbie Smith was actually DOING HARM. We weren’t elated that Abbie was under psychological distress and quitting blogging (to my knowledge, she wasn’t and she hasn’t), we were pleased that she no longer had a platform (whose terms of service she was flagrantly violating) to condone people working themselves up into rages and coordinating harassment campaigns.

          I think you need to redefine what “bullied” and “harassed” mean. They do not mean “whenever anyone says anything unpleasant.” They mean intending to cause psychological harm, taking advantage of someone’s weakness, intruding into someone’s personal life, etc., etc., etc.

          Furthermore, “gender traitors” (FTR I never use this because some people use it against trans people, so I don’t want there to be any confusion), “sister punishers” and “chill girls” are not slurs. They are descriptions of misguided and/or harmful behavior by which women diminish the status/security/respect of other women to get ahead themselves. These are real things–it’s not “demeaning” to women to mention them; it is criticizing harmful behavior.

          Moreover, did Greg Laden actually say anything to Justin Griffith other than “kick your ass”? Because I’m pretty sure that’s a colloquialism. Now, I think it’s a colloquialism unbecoming of a major blogger and a shitty way to treat a colleague, but it is not in any way a sincere threat of violence and for you to pretend it’s anywhere NEAR the same league as what Rebecca, Amy, Greta, Ophelia, Stephanie, and Jen have gotten is false equivalence of the worst degree.

        • CommanderTuvok

          “Now, I think it’s a colloquialism unbecoming of a major blogger and a
          shitty way to treat a colleague, but it is not in any way a sincere
          threat of violence”

          So, Laden was fired from FreeThoughtBlogs because of what…if it wasn’t issuing threats of violence to another blogger. Another blogger, who if I recall, published an account of it, and then stated how it had affected him. Then, Laden “victim-blamed” the victim, and criticised him for revealing what happened. Unlike you, I don’t have a selective memory.

          You are the epitomy of FTB. You have very low thresholds of what constitutes “harassment” when it comes to your fellow travellers, but are defensive of the actions of people like Greg Laden. Anything said by your opponents is taken as a literal threat, while threats issued by FTB affiliates are “metaphor”. I’ve heard all this crap before, and it is BS.

        • LeftSidePositive

          I told you, I think Laden’s response was unbecoming of a major blogger, and I support FTB’s decision to get rid of him. I don’t like what Greg Laden did, but as far as I know, it was ONE statement that is commonly used colloquially. I don’t support it, but I think it is blatantly false equivalence to try to pretend it is the same thing that the pro-feminism side is going through.

        • CommanderTuvok

          “it was ONE statement that is commonly used colloquially.”

          Colloquial statements get people fired, do they? Anyway, what about Laden’s attempt to meddle in people’s private lives by contacting their employers? Don’t you people constantly moan about “cyberstalking”?

          “I don’t support it, but I think it is blatantly false equivalence to try
          to pretend it is the same thing that the pro-feminism side is going
          through.”

          You present the false dichotomy of the “pro-feminism” side, hence, your opponents are “anti-feminism”. This is not the case. It is the same as saying ERV/Slyme Pit “hates women”. No they don’t. They are, however, critical of some of the women involved in the movement, but women are not targeted above and beyond men as some of you portray. Criticising your ideas, highlighting your hypocrisy, documenting your double standards, etc. is not “hating women”.

          About equivalence. When FTB attacks somebody, it is usually in the form of several blogs at the same time. Sometimes the facts are innacurate, or important context and information missing (such as the latest efforts about Justin). Any attempts to address the misinformation is met with banhammers, edits and memory holes. Then, they encourage their posters to mock and bully their target, and to back up their false narrative. So – enough about equivalence!

        • LeftSidePositive

          Yes, in that case, I do think it was appropriate that this colloquial statement got Greg Laden fired. But, I don’t think you can judo-flip it into a “both sides” situation.

          Again, Abbie Smith was doing demonstrable harm and encouraging an atmosphere from which a lot of harassment was springing up. This is not a mere difference of opinion. She was also blatantly violating the terms of service of her platform. It is perfectly right and fair to make an issue of when a person in a position of some respect is using it to do harm, to the people giving that person a position of respect. No one is entitled to a job regardless of the harm they do in that job, or how dishonestly they do that job.

          Sorry, I’ve dealt with way to many slymepitters to believe your simplistic assertion that they don’t hate women. Sorry, but calling people “cunts” is not criticizing their ideas. Lying about someone and then using your lie to claim hypocrisy is not noble. Creating false equivalence and then whining about a fake double-standard is not actual criticism. And if you’re “critical” of some of the women involved in the movement whenever they speak up and say they don’t deserve to be harassed, then yeah, you hate women. If a woman makes the reasonable statement that being hit on in an elevator is uncomfortable, and you lie and try to pretend she “cried rape,” then yes, you hate the idea that women have the right to be uncomfortable and say so, and thus you hate women. If someone says she’s being threatened, and you purposefully read only the least threatening parts, then you hate the fact that women are speaking up against gendered threats, and thus you hate women.

          Moreover, “several blogs” is not a criticism. People have the right to say what they think about something on their blog, even if their friend said something similar. And, sorry, but you’re going to have to provide some examples about how you’re so convinced that the facts are inaccurate, or that there’s context and information missing (as in with this case about Justin Vacula, what you seem to think is exculpatory context is in fact worthless rationalizing bullshit), because I see that used as an excuse way too often.

          And I’ve seen how you Slymepitters try to “address the misinformation” on FTB–yeah, totally honest and open debate! *snark* You people get plenty of chances to be honest and non-bigoted before you get banned, but you just drag the level of discourse down too damn much, and you don’t argue in good faith.

          Mockery is perfectly fair when your ideas are shit, and mockery DOES NOT mean slurs, as you slymepitters seem to need to learn. Moreover, people criticizing you and holding you accountable for your odious views is not “bullying” and it’s disgraceful that you try to pull on a victim mantle when you are trying to keep others down.

        • CommanderTuvok

          “Again, Abbie Smith was doing demonstrable harm and encouraging an atmosphere from which a lot of harassment was springing up.”

          You can make the same claims about Rebecca Watson, Greg Laden, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson and many others.

          “Sorry, I’ve dealt with way to many slymepitters to believe your
          simplistic assertion that they don’t hate women. Sorry, but calling
          people “cunts” is not criticizing their ideas.”

          Is is not hating them, either. We have documented people using that term on FTB in the past, so by your logic, PZ et al all “hate women” too. Don’t think that by suddently outlawing and changing their language, their behaviour and attitude is different! The idea that simply using that epithet makes you “hate women” is false, and FTB has NEVER made the case otherwise.

          “And if you’re “critical” of some of the women involved in the movement
          whenever they speak up and say they don’t deserve to be harassed, then
          yeah, you hate women.”

          A non-sequiter. The criticism is not a reaction to just their claims of harassment. This means that since you dismiss and criticise claims that FTB have harassed and bullied women (which they have, and we have evidence to back that up), then you MUST “hate women” too. Right?

          “If a woman makes the reasonable statement that being hit on in an
          elevator is uncomfortable, and you lie and try to pretend she “cried
          rape,” then yes, you hate the idea that women have the right to be
          uncomfortable and say so, and thus you hate women”

          More fallacious guff. Also, what “lie”? Plus, whoever said women don’t have the right to feel uncomfortable? Quote me.

          “And, sorry, but you’re going to have to provide some examples about how you’re so convinced that the facts are inaccurate”

          The example of the case against Justin is just one piece of evidence.

          “or that there’s context and information missing (as in with this case
          about Justin Vacula, what you seem to think is exculpatory context is in
          fact worthless rationalizing bullshit), because I see that used as an
          excuse way too often.”

          Erm, you don’t get to decide that. The fact is Zvan and Surly Amy present a narritive which is incomplete. You don’t get to decide if it is “worthless rationalizing bullshit” because you don’t get to delete and edit history. Surly Amy was caught out lying – that context is important.

          “And I’ve seen how you Slymepitters try to “address the misinformation”
          on FTB–yeah, totally honest and open debate! *snark* You people get
          plenty of chances to be honest and non-bigoted before you get banned,”

          Bullshit. I’ve seen plenty of examples where people get banned simply by challenging the narrative. We have documented evidence to back this up. Nice try, though.

          “Mockery is perfectly fair when your ideas are shit, and mockery DOES NOT mean slurs, as you slymepitters seem to need to learn.”

          You don’t understand the meaning of the term “slur”, so I don’t need to listen to your “advice” on what constitutes mockery. Thanks!

          “Moreover, people criticizing you and holding you accountable for your
          odious views is not “bullying” and it’s disgraceful that you try to pull
          on a victim mantle when you are trying to keep others down.”

          Except when it is someone from FTB who needs to be held accountable. It is a completely different standard, then.

        • LeftSidePositive

          You can make the same claims about Rebecca Watson, Greg Laden, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson and many others.

          Sure you can make those claims, but can you back them up with evidence? Because you haven’t done that.

          Is is not hating them, either.

          Yes, actually it is. “Cunt” is a term that exists solely to communicate the idea that women are disgusting and inferior.

          We have documented people using that term on FTB in the past, so by your logic, PZ et al all “hate women” too.

          Well, then, why don’t you link to it?!

          Don’t think that by suddently outlawing and changing their language, their behaviour and attitude is different!

          Of course not, and I never said it did! Use of sexist slurs is SUFFICIENT to show sexist attitudes, but it is by no means NECESSARY!

          Very simply, “if A then B” does not in any way imply “if not-A then not-B.” Basic logic.

          The idea that simply using that epithet makes you “hate women” is false,

          No, it means one is steeped in a misogynistic culture. If one uses such epithets repeatedly and especially at women standing up for their equality, yeah it’s a damn good indication that you do in fact hate women.

          This means that since you dismiss and criticise claims that FTB have harassed and bullied women (which they have, and we have evidence to back that up),
          Well, then, provide it! Although, frankly I’ve seen on other fora what your side tries to claim is harassing and bullying women, and I was totally not impressed (hint: criticizing someone for bad behavior is not the same as “bullying” or “harassing.” Moreover, in that case it’s clear that the behavior is the issue, not the state of being a woman. This is not difficult!).
          Also, what “lie”?

          Everyone who’s ever said Rebecca “cried rape” with regard to Elevatorgate. Easiest example at hand, Bill Baloney from the change.org Vacula petition who writes “I’m signing this because asking people over for coffee is clearly rape” and “He asked me over for coffee and I said no. We then went out separate ways. I still feel violated and raped after that experience.”

          Plus, whoever said women don’t have the right to feel uncomfortable?

          I didn’t say “don’t have the right to” I said “hate the idea that women have the right to.” There’s a difference, in that the latter refers to the defensiveness and obsessiveness regarding women who say that they are uncomfortable. I refer you to Richard Dawkins and “Dear Muslima” and “zero bad,” and everyone on the slimepit who has defended his absurd rationalizations.

          The example of the case against Justin is just one piece of evidence.

          But you’ve failed to show how we’re wrong–you’ve just made flimsy excuses for his doxing of Surly Amy, and just played “LALALALALACAN’T HEAR YOU” about AVfM’s designated hate-group status.

          Erm, you don’t get to decide that. The fact is Zvan and Surly Amy present a narritive which is incomplete.

          Then provide the rest of it, with substantiating links. And, no, “but her address was publicly available!” is in no way relevant to the context in which he posted it, nor the morality of his action.

          Surly Amy was caught out lying – that context is important.

          Provide links.

          Bullshit. I’ve seen plenty of examples where people get banned simply by challenging the narrative. We have documented evidence to back this up.

          How interesting that you don’t link to any of it, then!
          You don’t understand the meaning of the term “slur”,

          I already defined for Steersman what “slur” means–I suggest you read it.

          Except when it is someone from FTB who needs to be held accountable. It is a completely different standard, then.
          They kicked off Greg Laden, thereby holding him accountable. If you have other distinct instances of where FTBers have needed to be held accountable, provide links.

        • CommanderTuvok

          I have provided a link further upscreen, with evidence of doc-droping.

          You have been proved wrong with your definition of “slur”. YOU do not get to decide what it means.

          They only kicked off Greg Laden AFTER it emerged Justin Griffith was about to blog about it. Before that, it was relegated to the backchannel. Laden then did “victim blame” Justin.

          As for evidence about people getting banned for challenging the narritive, why don’t you (horror of horrors) visit the Slyme Pit. Lots of pretty screenshots for your delictation.

          Evidence that Surly Amy was caught out lying was provided by Justin, who revealed he DID NOT need to file a counter DMCA to get her address. Until Surly Amy can back up her accusation with evidence, it will be regarded as a lie. The burden of proof is on Amy.

          Your contention that I have failed to show that the narrative against Justin’s doc-dropping is wrong, is simply untrue. I (and others) have explained the context and why Amy’s contention that the DMCA counternotice was a method of getting her address was a lie.

          “Cunt” is not a term that “exists solely to communicate the idea that women are disgusting and inferior”. That is just your own rather dodgy opinion. Back your assertion up with evidence.

          We have documented the fact that PZ and other FtBers referred to people as cunts. Google is your friend. Use the site: “cunt” feature.

          As for evidence about how FtB has bulied women, one incident involved Greg Laden (surprise, surprise) revealing (doc-dropping) the personal information of a poster called bluharmony. Some months later, he had to take down a post (by order of Ed Brayton) that ridiculed bluharmony when her linkedin account automatically requested a link with Laden’s account. Laden also had various comments removed that bullied blueharmony.

        • PG

          @LeftSidePositive:disqus Come off it. Greg Laden threatened Justin Griffith, doc dropped bluharmony and attempted to get Abbie Smith fired from her job. After he was removed from FTB for this offense, he was invited to speak at a panel endorsed by FTB and Skepchick. If you have any integrity, if you condemn Justin Vacula for his alleged offenses and willing to make him a pariah, then Greg Laden should suffer the same treatment, wouldn’t you agree?

        • Steersman

          @LeftSidePositive:
          [repost of one above]

          Furthermore, “gender traitors”, … “sister punishers” and “chill girls” are not slurs. They are descriptions of misguided and/or harmful behavior by which women diminish the status/security/respect of other women to get ahead themselves.

          You say po-ta-toe and I say po-tat-oh. Since your dictionary seems to be broken:

          Slur:A disparaging remark; an aspersion (an unfavorable or damaging remark; slander)

          Seems to me that, by that token, “gender traitor: one who exhibits misguided behaviour” would qualify as a “slur”, as a “disparaging or damaging remark”. Seems on par with either “Uncle Tom” [Informal derogatory; a Black whose behaviour towards Whites is regarded as obsequious and servile] or “Uncle Mary”, both of which seem to be jake with Josh, Official SpokesGay. But why else use the term, any of them, if not to put someone down?

          Moreover, did Greg Laden actually say anything to Justin Griffith other than “kick your ass”? Because I’m pretty sure that’s a colloquialism.

          So then, by that token, I expect that you’ll concede that “If I were a woman then I’d kick you in the c**t” is only a “colloquialism” and not any type of a threat?

        • LeftSidePositive

          OOooooohhh! A “Dictionary Defense”! Because clearly dictionaries have the most nuanced and comprehensive explanations of sociological terms, right?!

          No, a slur is a term that enforces social hierarchies, by demeaning people on the basis of who they are or irrational hatreds against certain characteristics that have no actual detriment.

          You are using “disparaging” and “put someone down” to blatantly fail to distinguish between criticizing someone for actually harmful behavior (in which case they SHOULD be disparaged), versus unjustly treating someone unequally just because of who they are. This conflates necessary social accountability with prejudice, and as such your definition is shit.

          Well, kicking someone in the c**t is a reference to sexual violence, and as such is exploiting existing power hierarchies and some people’s cultural vulnerability, and as such it is much more hateful and discriminatory against a class of people (women), than an all-purpose “kick your ass.” Also, “c**t” expresses hatred and disgust for women simply for the fact of being women, and dehumanizes us with a hateful term for our genitalia, so it is also steeped in misogyny. Frankly, I’d be more concerned with the misogyny contained in the phrase than an actual threat of violence in most contexts.

          And anyway, I still think that what Laden did was wrong. I just think it’s dishonest to pretend that it’s equivalent to what others are doing, or to pretend that it came out of a source of bigotry and hatred rather than frustration. (For the umpteenth time, I don’t think frustration is an EXCUSE, so I am in favor of him being held accountable, but it’s not the same as the kind of hatred others have to deal with.)

        • real horrorshow

          “OOooooohhh! A “Dictionary Defense”! Because clearly dictionaries have
          the most nuanced and comprehensive explanations of sociological terms,
          right?!”

          Again, as a service to the casual reader, I shall explain a baboonism: The Pharyngula commentariat scorn the use of dictionaries to define words. Instead they follow the Humpty Dumpty principle:

          “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

        • LeftSidePositive

          No, fool, we’re just telling you that your definition is woefully simplistic. I have given you a much more comprehensive definition, and you will notice that it much better describes what is meant by “slur.” There’s a reason people say “X used a racial slur” when X says “nigger” but doesn’t say “X used a scatological slur” when X says “shithead.” You sound as stupid as someone claiming “but evolution is just a THEORY!!!”

        • real horrorshow

          ‘You sound as stupid as someone claiming “but evolution is just a THEORY!!!”‘
          And, by implication, you are the intellectual equal of Charles Darwin? Pardon my mirth!

        • Steersman

          @LeftSidePositive:

          Furthermore, “gender traitors”, … “sister punishers” and “chill girls” are not slurs. They are descriptions of misguided and/or harmful behavior by which women diminish the status/security/respect of other women to get ahead themselves.

          You say po-ta-toe and I say po-tat-oh. Since your dictionary seems to be broken:

          Slur:A disparaging remark; an aspersion (an unfavorable or damaging remark; slander)

          Seems to me that, by that token, “gender traitor: one who exhibits misguided behaviour” would qualify as a “slur”, as a “disparaging or damaging remark”. Seems on par with either “Uncle Tom” [Informal derogatory; a Black whose behaviour towards Whites is regarded as obsequious and servile] or “Uncle Mary”, both of which seem to be jake with Josh, Official SpokesGay. But why else use the term, any of them, if not to put someone down?

          Moreover, did Greg Laden actually say anything to Justin Griffith other than “kick your ass”? Because I’m pretty sure that’s a colloquialism.

          So then, by that token, I expect that you’ll concede that “If I were a woman then I’d kick you in the c**t” is only a “colloquialism” and not any type of a threat?

        • http://twitter.com/OpheliaBenson Ophelia Benson

          That’s a falsehood. I didn’t say anything about Abbie Smith at any conference. It’s also a falsehood that I call people “gender traitors” or “sister punishers” or “chill girls.” You recycle that falsehood a lot, C Tuvok. Please note that it’s not true.

        • PG

          Ophelia, he said you allow *commenters* to label women “gender traitors”, “sister punishers” and “chill girls.” Which you do. Skeptifem ring a bell? The person that is a regular commenter at your blog that made the post “inside the mind of a gender traitor.”

          http://skeptifem.blogspot.se/2011/07/inside-mind-of-gender-traitor.html

        • PZ Myers

          Liar.

          I made no effort to shut Abbie Smith down, made no mention of her closure of that odious thread, nor did I take any joy in it. I actually moved the bulk of my blogging off Sb when NatGeo made it clear that there would be future policing of content…I was not happy about that decision at all.

          As for boasting about “it” at a conference — no. I don’t know what “it” is that I should boast about, even.

  • http://twitter.com/Crommunist Crommunist

    there must be more productive things to do than bash Vacula publicly

    The “more important things to do” canard is a terrible argument. It’s not as though a group of people collectively dropped everything else they were doing and went after Justin to the exclusion of all other activities. There are “more productive things to do” than blog about this issue at all, either in opposition or defence – that response has nothing to do with this (or any) issue.

    shouldn’t they have been handled swiftly and privately with SCA leadership

    Not everyone involved here has the personal ear of the SCA leadership. Indeed, considering how clueless and obstructionist they proved when it came to the hiring of Edwina Rogers, it would be foolish to expect that they would listen unless it was put out in the open. Openly airing these problems is what we DO as a community. Suggesting that we should change this because you happen to like the person involved is not a fair expectation or reasonable advice.

    the Secular Coalition for America is still good in my book as great organization, fighting endlessly to uphold church-state separation.

    How many bad decisions on their part would it take for you personally to change your mind about them?

    We spoke about this “second chances” meme, and it seems that you still haven’t accepted the argument that second chances ought to be reserved for those who have shown a willingness to change their behaviour. Justin has not done this. He still thinks that he has done nothing wrong, and that the people who are disturbed by both his actions and his appointment are simply cultivating an unreasonable personal grievance. There is no reason to expect that he will stop his belligerence and harassment, especially now that a national organization (with absolutely no vetting) has elevated him to a position of authority. I do not share your assessment that second chances should be given to everyone regardless of their behaviour or their future plans, nor do I expect “growth” to happen spontaneously out of the goodness of their hearts.

  • JBM

    Being a busy person and coming in late to all of these issues, I have found it difficult to try and understand where the beef is with Vacula. I wouldn’t mind seeing these complaints somewhere, dispassionately stated and sourced. Until then, it just looks like a catfight to me, and I really want to stay out of it, especially not knowing the context.

    • Quirk

      Take some time in your busy life to learn about “male rights activists” and feminism, then. You’ll find plenty of good “dispassionate” arguments explaining how MRAs twist legitimate problems of gender inequality into blaming them all on feminists. Without that background knowledge you probably *should* “stay out of it”, and indeed there wasn’t much point in commenting to say so.

    • http://twitter.com/Crommunist Crommunist

      It sure was nice of you to take time out of your super-busy schedule to post the “pics or it didn’t happen” argument rather than, y’know, going to Google instead (or CLICKING ON THE LINKS IN THE POST YOU’RE COMMENTING ON). Double super-bonus points for the phrase “catfight”.

    • http://www.facebook.com/laden.greg Greg Laden

      JBM, I would also like to see a summary. If you look at the petition to ask SCA to remove him, there is an abstract there of what’s happened. I’ve been asking around and so far no one seems to want to do the work to put together all of this stuff.

      But, having said that, when you call this a “cat fight” … well, suddenly I don’t personally care to much about your winging that you are too ignorant of the situation to make an informed comment, but are willing to insult everybody who has a stake in this.

  • PZ Myers

    I have no problem giving someone a second chance — but they have to ask for it first. I have seen no sign of repentance or even awareness of what a betrayal it is for Vacula to collaborate with the egregious MRAs of AVoiceForMen.

    My problem with the SCA is that I’m losing all confidence in their ability to appoint good people. First Edwina Rogers, now Vacula…I appreciate what the SCA does, I’m just having doubts about their competence now.

    • Steersman

      I wonder how low you expect him to grovel before you’ll deign to give him that “second chance”? As low as a dog’s belly? Or maybe substantially lower?

      But while you didn’t explicitly characterize all of A Voice for Men as “egregious MRAs”, I wonder whether you know that the SPLC issued a retraction of sorts about MRAs in general:

      It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.

      Seems to me that you’re engaging in some rather egregious behaviour of your own – i.e., “tarring everyone with a very wide brush”. Which, not to put too fine a point on it, is further amplified by the fact that Sally Strange– “Elite Femi-Fascist Genius” and denizen of the FTB mosh pit – concedes that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good points”. Mote meet log ….

      “www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/”

      • http://twitter.com/Luna_the_cat Luna

        Funny, I think you should quote the whole section on that post.

        “A Voice for Men’s Paul Elam tried on a collegial tone at first. “The goals of SPLC and AVfM are quite similar,” he averred in open letter to the SPLC’s president, Richard Cohen. “We both work to identify groups who seek to oppress others, and inform the public of the inequities they would perpetuate.” But just days later, in a post headlined “Southern Poverty Law Center Linked to Hate Activity,” he changed his tune.
        It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence.
        Thomas James Ball, for example, who was hailed as a martyr on so many men’s rights forums, called for arson attacks on courthouses and police stations. The Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik wrote extensively about the evils of feminism. We included as much as we did about Register-Her.com because it is so intimidating to its targets, not all of whom are criminals. When Elam accused Vliet Tiptree, a pseudonymous contributor to RadFem Hub, of “calling for extermination of half the human race; the male half, that is,” he offered a cash reward for her real identity. The names and locations of several candidates were publically aired.”

        • Steersman

          @twitter-6664022:disqus

          Funny, I think
          you should quote the whole section on that post.

          I didn’t think it was
          necessary since my point wasn’t that there aren’t any crazies at all who might self-describe
          as “Men’s Rights Activists” – particularly where very few others subscribe to
          their particular “philosophies”. It was that even the SPLC acknowledged that
          not all of the claims of all MRAs were without merit. Which contradicts and
          refutes the largely categorical assertions by individuals such as PZ Myers and
          Greg Laden that, in the words of Myers, “… MRAs … are narcissistic clueless
          psychopaths”.

          But since both Myers and
          Laden seem to be so vocal about demanding an apology from Vacula, maybe they
          might want to start the “truth and reconciliation process” with apologies of
          their own for defaming at least some MRAs ….

          http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/09/27/why-do-i-despise-mras/

  • Audra Lifka

    I am for second chances when a person acknowledges what they did wrong, apologizes and states how they will change. If I am missing that apology, can someone please link to it? Otherwise, I don’t have the personal knowledge of his kindness and can only see his very public actions as threatening to secular women. In particular, posting the home address of a woman he disagrees with on a forum where she is targeted can not be seen as acceptable or condoned in any way. The endorsement of SW does not undo his previous actions. I do not feel sorry for him that his reputation is impacted by his actual behavior.

  • Rebecca Watson

    First of all, for something to be “defamatory” it must be untrue. You said yourself that you found the claims to be true. Second of all, why should a public announcement not be met with public disapproval? Third of all, how do you know private conversations didn’t happen? Here’s a hint: they did, and they failed to generate any concern on the part of SCA.

    Finally, what good is a second chance when the person in question hasn’t apologized for screwing up the first chance? Why must the secular women of Pennsylvania trust their private information with someone who has yet to apologize for publishing the private information of a secular woman he clearly detests on a forum of people who hate her?

    • Simon

      Thanks for the additional information. I had the identical reaction.

    • CommanderTuvok

      “Finally, what good is a second chance when the person in question hasn’t apologized for screwing up the first chance?”

      There are many things YOU have not apologised for, Rebecca. YOU don’t get to decide when somebody has to apologise.

      “Why must the secular women of Pennsylvania trust their private
      information with someone who has yet to apologize for publishing the
      private information of a secular woman he clearly detests on a forum of
      people who hate her?”

      In this case, why should anyone trust YOU because you have “doc-dropped” personal information yourself – and there is evidence of that. Oh, and you have lied yet again. The information was not “private” because it was already available.

      Further, don’t pretend to claim to speak on behalf of the secular women of Pennsylvania, because you don’t. Many women have had upsetting experiences at the hands of you, PZ Myers, Greg Laden and Ophelia Benson (home of the “gender traitor” label).

      PS – It is ironic that one of the ploys to attack Justin is his “doc-dropping” of Surly Amy. Not long after that, a Twitter user put forward a DMCA counternotice to Surly Amy with his “private” details. Moments later, and abracadabra, his “private” information was leaked just after Surly Amy got hold of it. Does anybody from FTB want to elaborate on this?

    • corvelay

      “First of all, for something to be “defamatory” it must be untrue.”

      What? God you’re an idiot.

    • PG

      @ad7b7696a5e21b08911c2b74db1746d8:disqus Do you get off on spreading misinformation? Justin Vacula has said he regrets posting the address on the Slymepit. What more do you want? A personal apology to Amy Roth? Sorry, but if Amy Roth makes the claim that Justin only wants to file a counter-claim to get address when it’s public information to anyone who would Google “Surlyramics CA”, that’s lying in the face of facts. He did it to prove he didn’t do it to get her address, but then regretted he did. Moreover Surly Amy herself exposed it on Twitter of all places, thus making it known to more people who allegedly “hate her” and wish her harm.

      As for your claim that they “hate her” or that Justin Vacula “detests” Surly Amy, that too is misinformation. They dislike her. Dislike doesn’t turn into hate because you deem it such. Because they dislike her her and some other feminists does not make the Slymepit, as said by (among others) Sally Strange, a place devoted to hating feminists. That you wish to prescribe “hate” generously (and as often as you humanly can when it comes to women and feminists) doesn’t mean everyone else should share your opinion.

      Something is “defamatory” if it’s injurious to the person or their reputation. You have spuriously attempted to poison the well more than a few times. That is defamatory. Moreover are the statements you make about Justin Vacula beyond the shadow of a doubt true, not lost in caveats? Your alleged accusation that Justin Vacula doc dropped Surly Amy’s address is false and has been proven to be false, yet you insist on perusing this narrative. That’s defamatory. Ironic, perhaps, but at least we men (using this loosely) know that we don’t rush into situations half-cocked. (Wink wink.)

  • Simon

    Emily, may I ask if you have discussed this with SCA? It is quite likely that private concerns were raised. Please clarify how you are so certain that they were not.

  • Joe Smith

    Second chances? Two things about second chances:

    1) The person has to understand that they did something wrong and actually want a second chance

    2) It is for the people who they’ve done wrong to grant them a second chance or not, other people can’t wave away the feelings of their victims.

  • http://karlaporter.com/ Karla Porter

    As a secular woman in Pennsylvania who works with Justin – my opinion is that he is quite egalitarian in his treatment of individuals and quite clearly supports equal opportunity and treatment of all people. I know him to be intelligent, hardworking, reliable, trustworthy and compassionate in his work with individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. He recently was a panelist along with two others at a conference I co-organized and his session was well conducted and received. I am also aware that he supported women’s rights at the Stand for Religious Freedom Rally in Scranton, PA by holding a sign that said, “Put women’s rights over Bishops’ wrongs”. Additionally, in July of this year, I appeared with Justin on NEPA Freethought Society Podcast Episode 15, Women in the Secular Community(
    http://nepafreethought.org/podcast/episode?p=15). What Justin has is a penchant for aggressive criticism of what he perceives to be bad ideas. I personally wouldn’t spend such a large amount of time chasing unicorns – but we each choose our battles.

    • http://twitter.com/Crommunist Crommunist

      I know quite a few people who say they support “equality” while having wildly divergent ideas of what that word means. It is the same for those who say they support “women’s rights” without any definition of what they mean by that phrase.

      When someone’s “penchant for aggressive criticism” turns into personal harassment, it ceases to be about people’s ideas. I personally wouldn’t spend such a large amount of time introducing obvious red herrings into a discussion – but we each choose our battles.

    • IRoll

      @karlaporter:disqus Can you please distinguish for us “aggressive criticism” vs. threatening behavior? For me, picking apart an argument qualifies as the former. Posting my home address and a picture of my dwelling on a website dedicated to harassing women? I, and I think most women, are going to see that as an invitation to threaten my personal safety.

      • http://www.facebook.com/laden.greg Greg Laden

        Wow, he did that? And we’re having this discussion? Holy crap. I’m sorry that happened to you, Karla. Does this guy have a 4chan link as well?

      • CommanderTuvok

        “Posting my home address and a picture of my dwelling on a website dedicated to harassing women?”

        The site you are referring to is not “dedicated to harassing women”. That is simply a lie put forward in the FTB narrative. Many on that site have actually called out harassment and bullying of women by various members of FTB and their supporters.

        PS – The fact that Greg Laden replied to this message about personal safety and threats, is simply delicious irony. In fact, it’s offensive.

    • BruceMcGlory

      Oh so that’s why he deliberately endangered the life of someone else by posting her address with a photo of the place on a forum of people who hate her and frequently harrass her. because he’s such a nice guy!
      If that’s “chasing unicorns” to you, get some goddamn psychological help.

      • http://karlaporter.com/ Karla Porter

        @BruceMcGlory:disqus & @f168977bb6e1f67cf9be4239d84a02e1:disqus Please note that I am not unknowledgeable about the controversy that swirls over Justin’s head and that he holds the keys to it. I posted my experience in our community and at work, which has been very positive. I do not need psychological help as a result. This is really less about him than it is about the sensationalist goings on of late. I don’t have anything at all against Amy Davis Roth, the individual you are up in arms about. What I will say is that I just tested my search skills and in less than one minute found her address on the Internet buy typing ‘surly-ramics hollywood ca’ (I learned her city from her bio on her website) and clicking on trademarkia.com. This is not rocket science or brain surgery – the address is PUBLIC. It wasn’t made public by Justin or anyone else except Amy via the trademark she carries on her products. It’s possible if I would have searched another :30 seconds I would have come up with another disclosure site but I am not really interested enough to do that. Justin could have avoided all the hullabaloo by using better judgement about content and I have seen that he publicly recognized that. However – He did not put her life in danger. Anyone who wants at her just needs Google. Just for the record, my address is 111 Brown St. Ashley, PA 18706. I don’t have a problem posting it because it’s already posted on the Internet via domain name purchases and other business related things. You want to send me mail? Whatever. I just caution anyone that does to be careful the content doesn’t break any Federal laws.

        Enough of that situation. I wouldn’t have mentioned it at all if you hadn’t brought it up.

        The amount of ridiculous, dramatic, petty, snitty, name calling, immature, pit bull like aggressive content I see posted from people in the virtual atheist community – and it’s so dysfunctional I hesitate to say it is any kind of community at all – is a very sad symptom of new media giving anyone who wants a soap box a free platform.

        • LeftSidePositive

          The fact that you had a positive experience with someone says absolutely nothing about all the people he did harm. Fuck, by your logic, we should pay more attention to the glowing praises from all the people Charles Manson **didn’t** murder!

          And if you think holding people accountable for harming others is “ridiculous, dramatic, petty, snitty, name[-]calling, immature, pit bull[-]like aggressive content,” you are seriously broken as a human being. Guess what: people have the right–indeed, the moral obligation!–to speak up when someone is harming others. It is not “petty” to expect to be treated with basic human dignity. They certainly do not need to be silenced by smug, self-centered asshats like you who seem to think that keeping up nice appearances is the be-all and end-all of social interaction.

          And you’re UNBELIEVABLY willfully ignorant if you think you can ignore the context of Vacula’s doc-dropping. He did it on a forum of people frothing with rage at Surly Amy! Yeah, you feel perfectly safe posting your address BUT YOUR SITUATION IS NOT EVERYONE’S SITUATION. Seriously–anyone over the age of three-and-a-half should be able to figure that out, so I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with your brain that you think “well I don’t have a problem with it, ergo no one should have a problem with it!” even approaches a worthwhile argument.

        • http://karlaporter.com/ Karla Porter

          It truly is unhealthy to react in the fashion you just did. Please take better care of yourself and note that I won’t be allowing your ills to become my own. I also won’t be sucked in by the next comment I see you have made. If you knew me you would know better. Have a pleasant evening.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Oh, yes, heaven forbid I criticize your incredibly shitty argument! How DARE I react in such an “unhealthy” fashion! How absurd of me to treat your poor reasoning with the contempt it plainly deserves! You may think that concern trolling and tone trolling gets you out of addressing the substance of my criticism of your attitudes and behavior, but I assure you it’s not fooling anyone.

        • real horrorshow

          And thus we see the FTB debating style in all it’s glory. Hysterical, foul-mouthed, ranting and hugely self-righteous. I’m a regular on The Slymepit. The “forum of people frothing with rage at Surly Amy” (“rocking with mirth at Surly Amy” would be more accurate). It’s very rare to see a tirade like this there. You’ll certainly not find one posted by Justin Vacula. If this is the alternative to Justin, one can see the sense of SCA’s decision.

        • LeftSidePositive

          real horroshow, “hysterical” is a term loaded with sexist baggage. I suggest you reconsider it. And it’s cute how you’re just **shocked** by a little bit of swearing. If you think my points have problems, address them on substance, not on tone.

        • real horrorshow

          For those not familiar with FTB Newspeak, what LSP is referring to here is the ‘sexism’ of the word hysterical used to mean ‘a disturbance of the uterus’. This meaning comes from Hippocrates who has been dead for over two thousand years. FTB baboons pretend this is current usage so that they can label opponents as ‘misogynists’

          The reference to ‘tone’ is another popular baboonism, as in ‘tone troll’. It is the term used for anyone who protests at being showered with insults and coarse language in place of rational arguement.

          I’m not “shocked”, I can swear with the best of ‘em LSP, but I’m a guest here. So are you, try to remember it. Oh, and the substance of your arguement? Out of the volley of abuse directed at Karla I detected only one: You said Justin ‘doc-dropped’ Surly Amy. This is a lie, as others here have explained.

        • LeftSidePositive

          And “hysterical” is still used disproportionately at women. And, for the record, I did not call you a “misogynist.” I said you were using loaded language with a sexist history and you should be more thoughtful about that.

          More tone trolling… By the way, you’re being insulted IN ADDITION to rational argument. Since you can’t seem to understand what I said to Karla, I will summarize here:

          1) Saying someone’s been nice to you means absolutely nothing with regard to those he hasn’t been nice to.

          2) Shaming people for speaking up about mistreatment by calling them “petty” and “dramatic” is unethical and perpetuates bullies’ privilege.

          3) Different actions are different in different contexts, and doc-dropping someone in the company of those who are very angry at or very demeaning to that person is not the same as in some other context.

          3a) By the way, it’s not a “lie” that Justin doc-dropped Surly Amy–he posted her personal details AND A PHOTOGRAPH OF HER HOME…that is doc-dropping. The fact that you have expressed a pathetic rationalization for it does not make the statement “a lie.”

          4) Just because something is okay for Person A does not mean that Person A can insist that thing should be okay for Person B.

          I’m sorry your detector is so broken, maybe if you’d learn to read and stop obsessing about tone so much you could get it fixed.

        • real horrorshow

          And “hysterical” is still used disproportionately at women.
          Nonsense. An unproven and unprovable claim since there is no precise definition of ‘disproportionately’. Anyway, in modern usage hysterical does not mean ‘disturbance of the uterus’. Pretending it does is silly.
          More tone trolling… By the way, you’re being insulted IN ADDITION to rational argument.
          Why don’t you try providing just the rational argument, ever?
          Since you can’t seem to understand what I said to Karla, I will summarize here:
          1) Saying someone’s been nice to you means absolutely nothing with regard to those he hasn’t been nice to.
          And vice versa.
          2) Shaming people for speaking up about mistreatment by calling them “petty” and “dramatic” is unethical and perpetuates bullies’ privilege.
          Disagreeing with someone, even vehemently, is not bullying. How would your own insult-and-abuse-ridden rhetoric measure up if that were the standard? It is quite legitimate to refer to things as “petty” and “dramatic” when that’s what they are.
          3)Different actions are different in different contexts, and doc-dropping someone in the company of those who are very angry at or very demeaning to that person is not the same as in some other context.
          Why? Because the Slimepitters promptly went around there and chopped Amy’s head off? It’s kind of flattering to be thought of as so dangerous. It isn’t true though.
          3a) By the way, it’s not a “lie” that Justin doc-dropped Surly Amy–he posted her personal details AND A PHOTOGRAPH OF HER HOME…that is doc-dropping. The fact that you have expressed a pathetic rationalization for it does not make the statement “a lie.”
          “Doc-dropping” is a slang term but it’s generally taken to mean: ‘revealing private information’ about someone. Amy’s address and the picture are public information. You know this, so does everyone else. Stating the opposite is a lie.
          4) Just because something is okay for Person A does not mean that Person A can insist that thing should be okay for Person B.
          Yet here you are loudly insisting that the SCA should do what you want!
          I’m sorry your detector is so broken, maybe if you’d learn to read and stop obsessing about tone so much you could get it fixed.
          You’re the one who keeps banging on about tone, and simultaneously lowering it.

        • CommanderTuvok

          “real horroshow, “hysterical” is a term loaded with sexist baggage.”

          That is a genetic fallacy. Nobody uses the term “hysterical” in its historical sense. Next, you’ll be lecturing people that “wicked” actually means “evil” or “bad”!!!

        • CommanderTuvok

          “And you’re UNBELIEVABLY willfully ignorant if you think you can ignore the context of Vacula’s doc-dropping.”

          Do you take the “doc-dropping” by Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers just as seriously?

          Do you take the “doc-dropping” by Surly Amy seriously?

          “He did it on a forum of people frothing with rage at Surly Amy!”

          It was after Surly Amy had lied about him on a forum frothing with rage about Vacula.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Provide evidence for your claims, with links.

        • CommanderTuvok

          http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/rebecca-watson-doc-drops.html

          As for Surly Amy, she has to explain why a Twitter user had their private information leaked as soon as she received a counternotice to her DMCA. As I said, it would be highly ironic…..

        • LeftSidePositive

          Rebecca has already stated in her comment policy: “Further, if you are particularly awful, we reserve the right to warn all of our blogger friends about you and make your email and IP public.”

          As for Surly Amy, that is entirely circumstantial and rather conspiracy-minded. Do you think such wild speculations are supposed to count for anything?!

        • CommanderTuvok

          Oh, so Rebecca Watson can doc-drop if she feels like it.

          One rule for you, one rule for everybody else.

          Further, Justin did not reveal any information which was not publically available anyway. Rebecca did reveal information that was private.

          Nice try, but no cigar.

          As for Surly Amy, she was asked to answer whether she had leaked private information, but she went very quiet. I think she has a case to answer…don’t you? I mean, since she has made a lot of drama about Justin “doc-dropping” her already publically available information, it would be rather hypocritical if she used a DMCA counternotice to doc-drop herself.

          Agree?

        • LeftSidePositive

          She gave advance notice of her comment policy. By commenting you agree to the terms of her comment policy–why is this so hard to understand?!

          I think we’ve made clear that it was the CONTEXT into which Justin released that information that’s the problem. If someone posts Dr. Pepper’s marketing division’s contact info on a blog post after they’ve released a sexist ad, I understand that this is a call to contact Dr. Pepper–EVEN THOUGH that information is already publicly available. Stop playing dumb.

          Still just random circumstantial ravings about Surly Amy. Nice try.

        • CommanderTuvok

          Simply having a comments policy does not give you an automatic right to doc-drop.

          However, responding to a lie gives you the right to point out that because information is publically available, then the use of a DMCA counternotice was not based on the notion of getting that information.

          Your Dr. Pepper analogy fails because Justin did not post in order to get people to contact her. He posted it because Amy lied about him using a DMCA counternotice to get her information. Please quote where Justin even suggests he wants people to contact Amy!!!

          As for “circumstantial ravings about Surly Amy” I will simply use the FtB level of non-hyperskepticism and evidence. Two can play that game, old boy. The FtB crowd value anecdotes as evidence. I am relying on very strong circumstantial evidence as evidence. I win. Surly Amy has a case to answer for. I can understand why you would want it brushed under the carpet – tis would be embarassing.

        • ConcernedAtheist

          I just don’t understand why your arguments continue to include personal insults and name calling. Eg: …”you are seriously broken as a human being…”, “…smug, self-centered asshats…” For me, it devalues any point you’re attempting to make.

        • LeftSidePositive

          That’s because you are apparently a superficial, simple-minded tone troll.

  • Pingback: Teach the conflict | Butterflies and Wheels

  • CommanderTuvok

    I find it staggering that PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson and Greg Laden have the audacity to lecture anyone on who is suitable in the position that Justin holds. These three individuals have a history of bullying and harassing people.

    What we have is a rank level of hypocrisy and lies from the FreeThoughtBlogs brigade.

    There is only one of their gripes that has any merit. He did post a link to Surly Amy’s address, but the context is always missing here. Surly Amy launched a DMCA (usually the reserve of Creationists) against Justin, and Justin put forward a counternotice on the basis that his use of an image was “fair criticism”. Surly Amy made the false accusation (because she is a drama queen) that Justin did this to simply get her address. However, Justin pointed out that her address was publically available anyway, exposing her as a liar. This is why supporters of Surly Amy have been so keen to present the story as Justin “doc-dropping” Amy so he can “find out where she lives”. That is not true, and is a lie. The only person who has indulged in that type of behaviour is a certain Greg Laden, who actually DID meddle in someone’s personal life by contacting their employer. He was also sacked from FreeThoughtBlogs because he sent violent threats to another blogger, somthing that PZ and Ed Brayton originally wanted to keep quiet. They only came out with the truth when the victim stated he was going to blog about it. [the FTB "backchannel" is now infamous for this type of chicanery]

    So, as we see, folk like PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson and Greg Laden are NOT arbiters of who is suitable for the types of position Justin holds. They have proven themselves to be vindictive, nasty, and calculating troublemakers.

  • jd

    re: Amy Roth’s address — Vacula admitted he shouldn’t have posted the actual address, instead of merely noting that it was publicly available. Which is splitting hairs (noting that the address is public is nearly as good as just posting it), but still… What was he supposed to do? He was being falsely accused of filing a DMCA counterclaim against Roth to get her address. That clearly wasn’t the case, which he proved in the easiest way he knew how. Yeah, I agree he screwed up. I also think a lot of people might have made a similar mistake under the stress of the FTB inquisition. I won’t sign a petition* to blacklist somebody based on that kind of mistake (even somebody who, like Vacula, kind of annoys me).

    re: Posting on AVfM (actually, mirroring the post from Vacula’s site that Roth DMCA’d**). What are we doing here? Are we really going to start asking people, “are you now, or have you ever been, an MRA?” There is nothing inherently sexist about men’s rights activism. The SPLC report that keeps getting referenced is more nuanced than PZ, et al. are letting on. Why they should feel their readers are incapable of parsing that nuance for themselves and making a decision, I cannot say. I can say that have yet to see an actual example of Vacula saying something sexist, much less something misogynistic. That would be helpful before I decide to put a big, black mark on the guy’s employment record.

    Sorry for getting all ranty. I’m just really sick of the FTBers fighting fire with gasoline and then acting all shocked when the fire spreads.

    *Hey, is there a petition I can sign to blacklist Myers for calling random, young nobodies “Vacuous ****bag trolls?” That’s ok to do? He just can’t fight back? WTF is wrong with us (atheists)? Maybe next time PZ should try mentoring instead of reflexively berating. Vacula might have considered a change of heart. PZ has basically created an MRA fad among atheists by pushing so hard to exclude the middle. That’s leadership.

    ** Please let’s stop this DMCA nonsense. What harms Roth’s brand more: obscure blog posts criticizing her with copyrighted pictures of her work? Or trying to shut those blog posts down? If this is confusing, please google “Streisand Effect.”

    • LeftSidePositive

      1) That rationalization of Vacula’s doc-dropping is just pathetic. All he’d have to say is “I didn’t counter-DMCA her for that reason because I don’t need to” and that would be all.

      2) No one is concerned with “have you ever been” an MRA–the question is, are you ACTIVELY an MRA? If someone has changed zir mind, FINE. But holding someone accountable for their present positions and the flaws in them is perfectly acceptable, and indeed necessary in the marketplace of ideas.

      3) Yes, “Men’s Rights” activism is inherently sexist, because its central claim is that feminism is stripping men’s rights away. The few decent people who erroneously use the label to actually address gender inequality (perpetuated by patriarchal thinking, I might add) don’t change the fact that sites like AVfM are explicitly anti-woman.

      4) The fact that YOU haven’t seen Vacula say or do something sexist is argument from ignorance. Why don’t you listen to what Stephanie, Ophelia, et al are saying about him (I’m not going to repeat it all here) and respond to explain how that totally isn’t sexist?! Good luck with that. Guess what: sexism and misogyny both refer to more than someone twirling his mustache and saying “I consciously and explicitly hate women and discriminate against them intentionally!! Mwahahahaha!!!”

      5) “Vacuous shitbag troll” is not a slur. There is no marginalized group of trolls that are pining for their rights in the face of oppression. It is used to describe unintelligent, self-centered, harmful behavior, which is in fact legitimate to criticize.

      6) Artists retain the copyright to their work. If you don’t like that basic legal fact, tough beans. They shouldn’t be pressured to give up their legal rights because people like you would resent them for it. People do not enjoy their rights only to the extent you approve of them, and if you disapprove of someone simply because they exercise their rights when their intellectual property was used illegally, you really have a screwed up moral compass.

      • Steersman

        Seems to me that Amy is selling jewelry and not pictures of them so I fail to see how a posting a photograph really “unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of the right holder.”
        But I wonder whether Zvan has actually had an actual lawyer versed in the question give her a solid judgement – maybe one she could share as part of her campaign – on the topic before she set out to crucify Vacula over that.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_test

      • jd

        ok.

        1) Pathetic or not, it’s the reason he “doc-dropped” her publicly available info. Whether or not he had malicious intent matters to me. His explanation best fits the facts of the situation.

        2)Yeah, I think I covered that in “are you now.” Sorry, I meant McCarthy covered that, in case anyone missed the reference.

        3) MRA is inherently sexist because it claims feminism is stripping away men’s rights. I just wanted to type that out for myself to try to understand what you mean. I think I got it. I think you mean that by opposing “feminism” MRAs by default oppose women’s rights, because feminism is the only ideology that can protect/promote women’s rights. But what if feminism would actually result in a regression to a Victorian mean of putting women in crystal bubbles that have to be constantly tended by the patriarchy (for womens’ own protection, of course)? Feminism, in fact, might be terribly harmful to women. Or it might not. Debating this question does not make one a sexist. Saying that feminism is the one, true path to equality for women is uncomfortably close to dogma.

        I don’t frequent AVfM, so I don’t know if they’re the den of misogyny they’re made out to be. I have spent a few afternoons listening to contributor GirlWritesWhat, and if she’s typical of that site, I think it must be innocuous at worst. At best, a worthwhile re-examination of cherished beliefs.

        4) It’s not an argument from ignorance if I’ve followed the controversy very closely (pathetically, I have) and still haven’t seen him say something sexist/misogynistic. How about you just pull up the worst quote he’s ever said and convince me.

        5) Well, it’s not a very nice thing to say, is it? My bigger problem is the differential in power between PZ and Vacula (at least, at the time it was said. things seem to be shifting). It’s simply not appropriate for a leader in our community to talk to the next generation of activists that way. Plus, he’s PZ’s clearly just being a dick for the sake of being a dick, which is sadly profitable on the internet. Ugh. I can understand our other disagreements, but that you would defend this behavior just really makes me sad and worried for the future of the atheist community.

        6) I think I was careful to imply that she had the legal right to do what she did. Not everything that is legal is ethical or a good idea, though. Weirdly enough, some of our laws kind of suck ( I mean U.S. laws, not to presume anything about your citizenship).

        • LeftSidePositive

          1) No, what I mean by pathetic is that reasoning is so flimsy that it is highly unlikely that’s what his actual reasoning is. Reckless spite seems much more plausible.

          2) If someone is currently bigoted, it is perfectly appropriate to hold them accountable. It would be unfair to ostracize someone who was bigoted in the past but has made amends, but someone who is actively holding bigoted attitudes DESERVES to be shunned, and that’s not “McCarthyism”–it’s an entirely rational and fair stance not to have to deal with assholes.

          3) I suggest you actually look up the definition of “feminism,” because your ignorance is making your argument look REALLY stupid. Feminism means: “The position that women deserve legal, political, and social equality to men.” That’s it. I have no idea what else you think it means, but you are SERIOUSLY bonkers if you think a movement dedicated to women’s social equality is going to restrict them to Victorian roles–especially when 1st wave feminism was a reaction against Victorian roles! This is as absurdly illogical as saying “But what if Human Rights leads people to be tortured and locked up in cages?! Then wouldn’t it be a good idea to be opposed to human rights?” Yeah, and maybe eating apples will give you a heart attack. If this is the type of hypothetical you have to stretch to, you might as well just concede the argument. Moreover, disagreeing with feminism is disagreeing with the POSITION that women deserve equality–that does in fact make one a sexist (by definition!). Someone might have a coherent point about any given policy or custom being helpful or not helpful (feminists discuss this with themselves all the time), but being opposed to the whole position that women deserve equality is, tautologically, being opposed to women’s equality.

          3a) Are you aware that GirlWritesWhat is a disgusting apologist for domestic violence? If this is your idea of “tame,” you have some serious ethical shortcomings.

          4) Read Stephanie’s petition. Just for one: “So, Jen’s allegedly finished blogging…and this time it’s not her boyfriend who kicked her off the internet.” So–glee at a woman being torn down by harassment? Infantilizing women and seeing them as subservient to their male partners?! But frankly, I think sexism is so normalized for you a lot of it just goes over your head.

          5) Being nice is not the same as being good. And yes, it is entirely fair to be very harsh with “the next generation of atheist activists” if they’re being sexist asshats. You aren’t entitled to people being nice to you, especially when you’re minimizing their mistreatment. Deal with it.

          6) So, then, WHY is it wrong for an artist to care about how zir work is used? All you’ve provided is that fact that some might retaliate, which is a Just World Fallacy.

        • jd

          I disagree with all 6 of your points. I also don’t want this to become tedious. I’ll try to focus our debate so that we’re not running laps around each other. The real issue is whether JV’s association with the MRM is bigoted. If it is — just like if he was a member of the KKK — I would wholeheartedly join you in demanding his removal. So 3) is really where it matters.

          My argument is that feminism — not the ideal of women’s equality, but the academic theory taught in women’s studies programs — should be subject to scrutiny, like any other discipline. I gave an example of how men’s rights activists *might* criticize women’s studies programs (there are many more). Is this, in itself, sexist? Which other ideas should be placed beyond criticism?

          I believe in judging people by the content of their character, not the content of their underpants. I also believe that if you scientifically examine gender roles, it’s a little more complicated than “women are always disadvantaged, men are always advantaged.” I believe that most of the time men are advantaged, but sometimes men are disadvantaged. Does this make me a sexist? Does this make me a misogynist? To say that women generally have it better than men makes me a sexist? That can’t be what you believe.

          More to the point, it is not in the slightest bit illogical to say that, despite the best of intentions, a movement might not result in the best outcome. Feminism, despite being comprised of mostly women (although not *most* women), might lead to bad consequences.

          As for GWW defending domestic assault, you are either misreading her position of misrepresenting it. I’d like to believe the first.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Yes, Vacula’s association with AVfM is bigoted. It’s a SPLC hate site, after all, and his behavior is entirely consistent with agreeing with its values, and his treatment of feminist women has been spiteful, dishonest, and demeaning. He has no business being a leader of a lemonade stand, let alone a state chapter of a lobbying organization!

          Your argument is deeply confused. “Feminism” simply does not refer only to academic theory taught in women’s studies programs. It refers to the ideal of women’s equality. If you actually have a case to make against a specific theory, name the theory, name its proponents, and discuss it on its merits. If you just want wiggle room to confuse the issue to make room for those who are actually opposed to women’s equality, then by all means keep acting like you can criticize “feminism,” a movement that has been around for about 200 years and has vastly different schools and proponents, as a monolith.

          And, no, men’s rights activists are not going off with cogent criticisms of Judith Butler or Betty Friedan. They oppose things like the Violence Against Women Act, and support men’s “rights” to harass women, and try to force rape victims to be publicly identified. Sorry, but this shit is sexist, and hideous. People who want to engage in abstract criticisms would do well to go to a feminist forum, where feminists do that sort of actual analysis all the time. Posting on a site that says violence is sometimes justified is not a critique of academic nuances of feminism; its complicity in the hatred of women.

          You have an absurdly simplistic understanding of privilege if you think it means “women are always disadvantaged, men are always advantaged.” That is a ridiculous strawman, and I strongly suggest you read up on the subject before you act like such complete ignorant bullshit is in any way representative of what your interlocutors have to say.

          Yes, to say that women generally have it better than men makes one a sexist, because it is a willful distortion of reality, and it ignores that women have a lifetime incidence of rape of 16+%, that politicians try to legislate against women’s bodies and legally police our sex lives, that women make less money than men, that when women break into a field its payscale stagnates, that women are barred from certain roles in the military solely on the basis of their gender, that women are passed over for hiring decisions, that women are less represented at all levels of government, that women speaking up get vicious coordinated campaigns of harassment, and on and on. Pretending that a disadvantaged class is more powerful is a great way to keep justifying ignoring their needs, and to scapegoat them, and it’s not acceptable.

          If something “might” lead to bad consequences, then make a solid argument for what you think that might be, and provide evidence that the groups you’re defending actually are making that argument. “X might hypothetically not be as bad as it seems because maybe Y could hypothetically be pretty bad and maybe it could be right to oppose it if all these contingencies I never define come about” is not exactly a convincing argument, and it totally fails to address why X people are actually opposed to Y.

          I’m just dying for you to defend how what GWW said could POSSIBLY be okay. Go ahead. TRY. Make some actual claim how we’re misrepresenting her. Try to act like “this couple fights but they seem okay when they’re out in public” is even remotely valid reasoning that doesn’t ignore tons of social pressures, guilt, and decades of social science research into abuse. Try to act like arguing that the fact that men who abuse their partners enjoy sex afterwards justifies their violence to their partners. Really. I’ll wait.

        • jd

          Ok, you lost me at hello. AVfM is not an SPLC hate site. Email them and ask them, “Is AVfM a hate site?” See what they say. If they say yes, I’ll email you a dollar. The rest of your post is just avoiding the real issue: why is feminism privileged against criticism? Good night.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Yes, AVfM is an official SPLC-designated hate site. Deal with it.

          No, I said that if you had a criticism to make against feminism, SAY SOMETHING COHERENT, but you haven’t done that. You’ve spouted masturbatory hypotheticals. You’ve confused criticizing a political value of equality with criticizing nuanced theory. You have failed to provide any cogent example of a theory worth criticizing. You have failed to show anyone on AVfM actually criticizing a theory instead of the goal of women’s equality in toto. You have strawmanned the entire concept of privilege. AND you have utterly failed to demonstrate how I “misrepresented” GWW’s disgusting defense of domestic violence.

          Yeah, but just go and tell yourself that I’m insisting that my view be “privileged against criticism,” instead of dealing with the unfortunate fact that you have failed to provide any criticism that makes sense or has any empiric or philosophical validity.

      • Steersman

        @LeftSidePositive,

        3) Yes,
        “Men’s Rights” activism is inherently sexist, because its central
        claim is that feminism is stripping men’s rights away.

        Really? You must be
        reading from your hymn book at a different page from where I’m at as Wikipedia
        at least suggests something quite different:

        If feminism is
        understood–by masculists themselves, or by masculists as read by their
        feminist critics–as an assault on men’s rights, then the campaign to protect
        men’s rights tends to be understood as antifeminist. This sort of antifeminist
        masculism is typically called masculinism. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
        defines a “masculinist” as “an advocate of male superiority and
        dominance”.

        If on the other hand
        feminism is understood as a campaign for equal rights and the mutual liberation
        of men and women, then the campaign to protect men’s rights is part of the
        feminist project, and masculists and feminists are perceived as working
        together to achieve those goals. In this latter light, the assault on men’s
        rights and dignity that some men (and even some women) associate with feminism
        is not feminism at all but a survival of the war between the sexes that
        masquerades as feminism, and rejecting and resisting those tendencies is not
        antifeminist but part of the struggle for gender liberation.

        You might want to recalibrate
        your gun sights ….

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

        • LeftSidePositive

          So, care to clarify what the fuck “the assault on men’s rights and dignity that some men (and even some women) associate with feminism” means, and how that is not a blatant accusation of women seeking equality with dragging down men?!

        • Steersman

          @LeftSidePositive,

          Try reading all of my post for a change instead of going off half-cocked – you’re less likely to shoot yourself in the foot for one thing.

          Even the section that I quoted gave a balanced view – on the one hand and then on the other – of what the different types of masculine rights, objectives and perspectives were without asserting that the merits of either were better than the other. Although it shouldn’t take much reading between the lines to figure out where the ethical and moral high ground is. But the other half – which you apparently didn’t bother reading – talks of a “kinder, gentler” type of masculine perspective, to wit:

          If on the other hand feminism is understood as a campaign for equal rights and the mutual liberation of men and women, then the
          campaign to protect men’s rights is part of the feminist project, and
          masculists and feminists are perceived as working together to achieve those goals.

          But since you probably didn’t bother to read the article either, I’ll close with a bit of a caveat in the “Controversial semantics” section:

          However, this morphological argument is very far from being established; the definition of masculism remains contested.

          But it seems to me that if you aren’t just blowing smoke you might want to consider the possibility that there’s some merit in that second alternative ….

        • LeftSidePositive

          But it is in “the latter light” (i.e., the one you’re saying is the nicer version), that contends that feminism is stripping men of their rights and dignity, and this is unfounded and adversarial to women’s legitimate concerns for equality.

        • Steersman

          @LeftSidePositive:disqus

          Did you actually read any of that article? Because it sure the hell doesn’t look like it when you say shit like this:

          But it is in “the latter light” (i.e., the one you’re saying is the nicer version), that contends that feminism is stripping men of their rights and dignity, and this is unfounded and adversarial to women’s legitimate concerns for equality.

          Which is more or less explicitly contradicted by this from that article:

          Mascul-ism, then, would be seen as the morphological equivalent of femin-ism, and masculists and feminists would be seen as allies in the project of transforming the social psychology that sustains patriarchy, and liberating both men and women.

          To put it a little more plainly for you since it sure looks like your dogma is clouding your thinking processes: there is supposedly – hypothetically, apparently, as per the thesis advanced in the article [RTFM!] – some segment of the “men’s rights movement” – aka “mascul-ism” – that sees “masculists and feminists … as allies [in the liberation] of both men and women”. How the fuck can you construe that as “adversarial to women’s legitimate concerns for equality”????

          But you might also want to reflect on the aphorism, “Good fences make good neighbors”; support doesn’t mean being a doormat … for either party ….

  • http://twitter.com/JlnFrancisco julian francisco

    I have nothing constructive to say. Dietle has her friends and won’t think less of them whatever they do so there’s no point.

    But I wanted to point out she’s lying when she accuses people of making defamatory posts. There’s been no defamation. Posts critical of Vacula haven’t lied or misrepresented the truth. He is proud of his work with A Voice for Men. He does not think posting SurlyAmy’s home address on a site filled with people delighting in her harassment was wrong.

    These are among the things he is being called out on. They are not misrepresentation nor are they defamation. Dietle is lying and trying to bias readers against those critical of her friend.

    It’s an old and very weak trick.

    • CommanderTuvok

      “He does not think posting SurlyAmy’s home address on a site filled with people delighting in her harassment was wrong.”

      When you call out Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers and Surly Amy for revealing private information – you get back to us with your “concerns”.

  • CommanderTuvok

    Amanda Marcotte is now insinuating that Justin sees women as “sex objects”.

    I’m sure the FTB brigade can rationalise that one away!

  • Pingback: Forgiveness and Abuse | Almost Diamonds

  • John D

    The people that are running the smear campaign against Vacula are trash talking media grabbers. PZ, Laden, Watson, Jen, Ophelia… they have decided to run their own little coffee clutch of chatty playground bullies called A+. Of course, they will do whatever they can to destroy other people’s reputation so they can get more hits on their crappy blogs. Shame on you all!

  • http://twitter.com/Luna_the_cat Luna

    There were private communications to the SCA, first. Their response was ::shrug::.

    Second, Vacula has actively participated in bullying and harassment of individuals within the skeptic and secular community – and I completely second what Joe Smith said.

  • Stephanie Zvan

    Emily, Rebecca has already pointed out to you that the definition of “defamation”, at least in the U.S., requires that statements be untrue. When are you going to correct the post to reflect this?

    Additionally, it’s just fine, even admirable, to want to correct someone gently. However, that doesn’t happen just by wishing for it, and it isn’t the job of those who have been abused by the person needing correction. When will you be stepping up to do that now that you are aware of what Vacula has been doing?

    • CommanderTuvok

      Steffie, when are you going to call out Surly Amy for leaking the private information of a Twitter user via a DMCA counternotice?

  • CommanderTuvok

    To LeftSidePositive, you might want to ask Matt Dillahunty about fair comments getting memory holed. You had the temerity to ask for evidence, and BOOM, we get a good example the next day!!!

    As A+ is brought to you from the same type of people behind FtB, it is no surprise to see the same silencing tactics.

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.elam Paul Elam

    I don’t suppose there is any chance you will cite HOW those claims are “somewhat” substantiated?

  • CommanderTuvok

    Well, it looks likes Zvan, Ophelia, PZ, Rebecca and all the other bullies have succeeded in intimidating another “witch” out of their position.

    We need to expose these bullies for what they really are. They are vindictive, nasty, spiteful bullies who will resort to any number of underhand tactics to get what they want.

    It is time for secular and atheist organisations to burn their bridges with these thugs.

  • http://www.huz6.com/ huz

    Fabulous article ,The things which are added here this is truely useful for most of the people. All the information is good explained ,This post help me to sortout my some problem.This is great,Thanks for sharing.

Tags: , , , ,

Category: Atheism & Religion