Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I also find it a bit suspect that Thunderfoot and others are calling it "PTSD from Twitter" as opposed to "PTSD from cyberstalking". I can't stand Melody, but I don't like spin and exaggeration when it comes from her critics either.

I believe she's the one who claims it's from Twitter.

 

[squealpiggy]

Possible interpretations are:

-Trying to get someone fired
-Trying to get someone reprimanded
-Trying to get someone's superiors to make them stop engaging in a behavior you don't like

I don't claim to know which of these best describes her motivations in contacting people's COs.

They all amount to the same thing: Trying to silence somebody with whom you disagree by threatening their livelihood.

Too hyperbolic and sanctimonious for my taste. "Trying to get people fired" is not the only way to interpret "contacting people's commanding officers". But I agree she should not be doing it.

I suspect that she is attempting to get people fired. There is precedent in the Social Justice community for doing so, often for spurious reasons. I'm reading the Storify link right now and maybe one out of every ten tweets directed at Melody could be construed as being offensive if we really have a broad definition of what offends, the rest are critical and rightly so.

I read the comments too. They are correct in pointing out that military veterans are not the only people who suffer from PTSD but there were some slightly odd statements. One comment in particular was interesting, comment 19:

"A lot of Melody’s job revolves around public outreach. To lock herself out from Twitter would be detrimental to that capability.

The people claiming you can only get PTSD from war are the sickest. Fiancee has PTSD from being in a car accident that almost killed her – she gets really nervous and twitchy around sirens. I’ve had to hold her close and keep her comfortable quite a few times when she’s broken down."

Alright fair enough. Here's the problem: Melody Hensley is claiming that she is suffering from crippling post traumatic stress disorder. Yet she's keeping a job which requires her to remain in direct contact with the cause of her illness? Not only that the account in question is not the CFI account which she could adequately use anonymously, it's her own personal account.

This contrasts with the second part of the comment where he mentions his fiancee with PTSD from a traffic accident. Unless his fiancee works in a siren factory and on her days off goes to NASCAR races.

 

[d4m10n]

They all amount to the same thing: Trying to silence somebody with whom you disagree by threatening their livelihood.

Agreed. Having trouble coming up with a scenario in which that is arguably the right course of action. Perhaps if someone is clearly abusing their position of authority, then it would make sense to call up their chain of command. Otherwise, hard to say what could possibly make that okay.

 

[squealpiggy]

Agreed. Having trouble coming up with a scenario in which that is arguably the right course of action. Perhaps if someone is clearly abusing their position of authority, then it would make sense to call up their chain of command. Otherwise, hard to say what could possibly make that okay.

If somebody was making outright threats or genuinely harassing you then it would be an option, especially if they were doing so using an official channel or presenting themselves as an extension of the organisation.

There again if somebody is genuinely harassing or threatening you then the correct course of action is to make a police report. Threats are criminal if the recipient reasonably believes the initiator to be both capable and willing to carry out the threat, and harassment would require her to have first taken steps to block and report the person via the social media site's anti-harassment features.

 

[d4m10n]

I am very much at a loss to understand why the social justice wing of the movement thinks that it is no big deal to try to get someone in trouble with their superiors or even endanger their livelihood. To take a non-CFI-related example, consider that Sarah Jones tried to get Paul Loebe demoted from his position in an excellent secular organisation for the offence of being mildly rude on Twitter.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There again if somebody is genuinely harassing or threatening you then the correct course of action is to make a police report. Threats are criminal if the recipient reasonably believes the initiator to be both capable and willing to carry out the threat, and harassment would require her to have first taken steps to block and report the person via the social media site's anti-harassment features.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the police station when a SJW makes a complaint!

SJW: I'd like to make a police report
Cop: Yes ma'am, what's the problem?
SJW: I'm being harassed online.
Cop: Can you be more specific?
SJW: I got PTSD from Twitter!!!
Cop: OK, do you know the name of the.....wait...what?
SJW: I got PTSD from Twitter!!!
Cop: You mean PTSD like soldiers get?
SJW: Only worse!!!
Cop: You got this from Twitter?
SJW: I want to speak to your commanding officer!!!
Cop: He's out on a call right now.
SJW: He? HE!?!?!? Misogyny!!! <SJW curls up in the corner in a fetal position, sobbing quietly to herself>

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I also find it a bit suspect that Thunderfoot and others are calling it "PTSD from Twitter" as opposed to "PTSD from cyberstalking". I can't stand Melody, but I don't like spin and exaggeration when it comes from her critics either.

Agreed. It's what we see in these conflicts time and time again, from both "sides". My opinion on this remains the same as it always does in these cases - if the actual facts aren't sufficient in order to make the case you want to make, then the correct thing to do is to reconsider whether your opinion is actually correct, rather than to ignore or distort the facts in order to better suit your agenda.

In a similar vein, I find it a little amusing that both sides seem to be complaining about people trying to get people removed from their jobs. On the one side you've got Stephanie Zvan saying how horrible it is that people have contacted the CFI over Hensley's tweets because they thought they made her unsuitable for her position, and on the other you have people saying how out of order it was for Hensley to try to get people fired.

If people want to say that specific instances of contacting people's bosses over various matters is wrong, then that's fair enough. But you do have to laugh when both "sides" of an argument are criticising the other for behaviour that's being described in the same terms. "It's wrong to try to get people fired. Unless it's Hensley/servicemen. Then there's a good reason".

 

[pipelineaudio]

Cornsail, are you playing devil's advocate here or are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just unaware that these people actually brag about getting people fired?

 

[Kenteken]

"A lot of Melody’s job revolves around public outreach. To lock herself out from Twitter would be detrimental to that capability.

I was under the impression she was with sick leave.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Agreed. It's what we see in these conflicts time and time again, from both "sides". My opinion on this remains the same as it always does in these cases - if the actual facts aren't sufficient in order to make the case you want to make, then the correct thing to do is to reconsider whether your opinion is actually correct, rather than to ignore or distort the facts in order to better suit your agenda.

In a similar vein, I find it a little amusing that both sides seem to be complaining about people trying to get people removed from their jobs. On the one side you've got Stephanie Zvan saying how horrible it is that people have contacted the CFI over Hensley's tweets because they thought they made her unsuitable for her position, and on the other you have people saying how out of order it was for Hensley to try to get people fired.

If people want to say that specific instances of contacting people's bosses over various matters is wrong, then that's fair enough. But you do have to laugh when both "sides" of an argument are criticising the other for behaviour that's being described in the same terms. "It's wrong to try to get people fired. Unless it's Hensley/servicemen. Then there's a good reason".

So in essence, its just as wrong to shoot someone who is trying to shoot up a building full of kids as it is to shoot up a building full of kids?

Apples and Oranges

 

[d4m10n]

Cornsail, are you playing devil's advocate here or are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just unaware that these people actually brag about getting people fired?

Which people are “these people” and who exactly bragged about getting who fired? Perhaps I missed something momentous happening within the movement?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So in essence, its just as wrong to shoot someone who is trying to shoot up a building full of kids as it is to shoot up a building full of kids?

If you're going to quote a post of mine, then please make sure that what you're replying to is the contents of that post.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Possible interpretations are:

-Trying to get someone fired
-Trying to get someone reprimanded
-Trying to get someone's superiors to make them stop engaging in a behavior you don't like

I don't claim to know which of these best describes her motivations in contacting people's COs.

Fired or reprimanded for what? Having a disagreement or a difference of opinion? Maybe the analogy is unwarranted but this approach reminds me of of a child threatening another with " I'm gonna tell your parents about this, wait til they find out" , If the remarks are not illegal or criminal , are made as individuals on Twitter not representing any group , why can't she engage with them as an individual, or alternatively ignore them?

 

[WillyWonka]

There is a practitioner in Toronto who diagnose a lot of people with electromagnetic hyper sensibility (EHS). Have a headache; EHS, mood swing; EHS, etc. We use to see this, a few years ago, with environmental sensitivity. I would not be surprised that PTSD is now the diagnostic "du jour" by some practitioners. The sad part is that, as with EHS, this diagnosis masks the real issue of their symptoms, and delay a proper diagnosis.

 

[Meed]

Cornsail, are you playing devil's advocate here or are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just unaware that these people actually brag about getting people fired?

None of those things.

 

[squealpiggy]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the police station when a SJW makes a complaint!

SJW: I'd like to make a police report
Cop: Yes ma'am, what's the problem?
SJW: I'm being harassed online.
Cop: Can you be more specific?
SJW: I got PTSD from Twitter!!!
Cop: OK, do you know the name of the.....wait...what?
SJW: I got PTSD from Twitter!!!
Cop: You mean PTSD like soldiers get?
SJW: Only worse!!!
Cop: You got this from Twitter?
SJW: I want to speak to your commanding officer!!!
Cop: He's out on a call right now.
SJW: He? HE!?!?!? Misogyny!!! <SJW curls up in the corner in a fetal position, sobbing quietly to herself>

Guaranteed it wouldn't be the stupidest complaint that day.

Agreed. It's what we see in these conflicts time and time again, from both "sides". My opinion on this remains the same as it always does in these cases - if the actual facts aren't sufficient in order to make the case you want to make, then the correct thing to do is to reconsider whether your opinion is actually correct, rather than to ignore or distort the facts in order to better suit your agenda.

In a similar vein, I find it a little amusing that both sides seem to be complaining about people trying to get people removed from their jobs. On the one side you've got Stephanie Zvan saying how horrible it is that people have contacted the CFI over Hensley's tweets because they thought they made her unsuitable for her position, and on the other you have people saying how out of order it was for Hensley to try to get people fired.

If people want to say that specific instances of contacting people's bosses over various matters is wrong, then that's fair enough. But you do have to laugh when both "sides" of an argument are criticising the other for behaviour that's being described in the same terms. "It's wrong to try to get people fired. Unless it's Hensley/servicemen. Then there's a good reason".

I think that attempting to get someone fired over an online disagreement is a dickish move, whatever the motivation. I think that trying to get someone fired over actual criminal harassment is also inappropriate. Criminal harassment is a serious issue and is the preserve of the courts, not extrajudicial firings. There are exceptions to be made of course, for example if somebody in their work capacity is displaying an attitude that clearly compromises their employer then it may be appropriate for the employer to be notified. Say a police officer who made a series of clearly racist Facebook posts or a fast food worker who videoed himself spitting in the food, that sort of thing.

Differences of opinion don't count though.

I will add the caveat that if I were a member of CFI then I may be inclined to resign my membership based on the antics of the spokesperson.

 

[SimplyAghast]

I also find it a bit suspect that Thunderfoot and others are calling it "PTSD from Twitter" as opposed to "PTSD from cyberstalking". I can't stand Melody, but I don't like spin and exaggeration when it comes from her critics either.

Umm...so you've redefined "cyberstalking" as "reading messages posted on an open and public communication medium and responding to said messages?"

I've just done the EXACT SAME THING to you. I saw your message and I'm responding. Have I just cyberstalked you?

 

[Meed]

Fired or reprimanded for what? Having a disagreement or a difference of opinion?

I don't know why you're directing this question at me. But Melody described it as something like "Harassing me about my PTSD". From what I've seen of the tweets directed at her, describing them as "differences of opinion" would be complete spin.

If the remarks are not illegal or criminal , are made as individuals on Twitter not representing any group , why can't she engage with them as an individual, or alternatively ignore them?

Agreed.

Umm...so you've redefined "cyberstalking" as <snip>

No. I haven't defined (or redefined) "cyberstalking".

 

[SimplyAghast]

No. I haven't defined (or redefined) "cyberstalking".

Do you feel that a person is "cyberstalking" when they read a publicly accessible message and respond to it via that same public communication medium?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Fired or reprimanded for what? Having a disagreement or a difference of opinion? Maybe the analogy is unwarranted but this approach reminds me of of a child threatening another with " I'm gonna tell your parents about this, wait til they find out" , If the remarks are not illegal or criminal , are made as individuals on Twitter not representing any group , why can't she engage with them as an individual, or alternatively ignore them?

Because she can't be a victim that way.