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

[SimplyAghast]

Anyone who has read this thread knows I'm no admirer of the FTB community, or A+, but as you say this Ogvorbis character (if anything they say is true, which I'm skeptical about) was twelve at the time.

That's far below the age of legal responsibility, so calling for Ogvorbis to go turn themselves in to the authorities seems kind of pointless. They couldn't be charged with anything even if they did try to turn themselves in. It's also below the age at which people are generally held to be morally responsible for their actions in the same was that adults are held responsible.

Frankly Ogvorbis' whole story, complete with miraculous recovered memories of how they beat up a larger bully, seems far more consistent with them being a narcissistic attention-seeker or deluded than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if they really were a paedophile, but I also wouldn't be surprised if nothing else about their stories were factual.

I don't think anything about the incident shows the FTB community in a positive light, but I think the criticism aimed at them over it is somewhat excessive. I wouldn't let anyone who claimed to have a history of child sex offences anywhere near a child, even if they did seem nice now on the internet, but I also wouldn't break out the torches and pitchforks to hunt them down if they claimed to realise it was wrong and hadn't offended since they were twelve.

Like I said, I agree that there's some complication in the guilt. At the very least, I'm sure you'll agree with me that (if he's real) Ogvorbis needs to talk to a mental health professional, not FTB regulars. He has a "monster" that he keeps saying wants to come out, right?

Here's a thread from February in which he gets more unqualified support.

It's important to bear in mind that these are the same folks who insist that rape and sexual harassment are legion in the skeptic community...after repeatedly insisting on stage that a young woman he doesn't know has "won" sex with him. They (in part) poured 60 grand into the coffers to allow a woman to keep accusing a man of sexual assault without offering evidence for her claim. They insist upon telling people how they must conduct themselves at conventions (while holding bordello parties). They claim to be victims when they're asked not to engage in commercial activity at their free activism booth at a con. They blame evil people on Twitter for giving them PTSD. They've set up The Block Bot, a coordinated attempt at getting people kicked off of Twitter with false reports of spam.

But when you quote Ogvorbis in their presence and provide links back to Ogvorbis's original statements, they claim you're lying and want you silenced. Another fun/honest Ogvorbis discussion...these kinds of discussions can only happen in places other than FTB.

As a wise man once said, "Always name names."

 

[Kenteken]

I think they crave for attention, be it negative be it positive. Giving them any attention at all is rewarding them, reinforcing their self image of importance.

Ignore them, starve them, don't generate page views. With lack of a common enemy they'll soon start eating each other.

 

[Joe Random]

<...>

Ignore them, starve them, don't generate page views. With lack of a common enemy they'll soon start eating each other.

e.g. : Becky and Stupidgate recently.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Like I said, I agree that there's some complication in the guilt. At the very least, I'm sure you'll agree with me that (if he's real) Ogvorbis needs to talk to a mental health professional, not FTB regulars. He has a "monster" that he keeps saying wants to come out, right?

Here's a thread from February in which he gets more unqualified support.

It's important to bear in mind that these are the same folks who insist that rape and sexual harassment are legion in the skeptic community...after repeatedly insisting on stage that a young woman he doesn't know has "won" sex with him. They (in part) poured 60 grand into the coffers to allow a woman to keep accusing a man of sexual assault without offering evidence for her claim. They insist upon telling people how they must conduct themselves at conventions (while holding bordello parties). They claim to be victims when they're asked not to engage in commercial activity at their free activism booth at a con. They blame evil people on Twitter for giving them PTSD. They've set up The Block Bot, a coordinated attempt at getting people kicked off of Twitter with false reports of spam.

But when you quote Ogvorbis in their presence and provide links back to Ogvorbis's original statements, they claim you're lying and want you silenced. Another fun/honest Ogvorbis discussion...these kinds of discussions can only happen in places other than FTB.

As a wise man once said, "Always name names."

Wow, that really makes one wonder if PZ is going overboard embracing radical feminism as a way of taming (or hiding) his inner perv. As previous in this thread, not unlike the anti-gay crusaders who play around privately with rent boys or make passes at strangers in airport lavatories. Or, drug enforcement police who are addicts themselves. What a world.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Wow, that really makes one wonder if PZ is going overboard embracing radical feminism as a way of taming (or hiding) his inner perv. As previous in this thread, not unlike the anti-gay crusaders who play around privately with rent boys or make passes at strangers in airport lavatories. Or, drug enforcement police who are addicts themselves. What a world.

I believe the party line is that that was The Old Peezer. The New Improved Peezer With Femi-Plus^TM has come to Jesus changed and would no longer do such a thing.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I believe the party line is that that was The Old Peezer. The New Improved Peezer With Femi-Plus^TM has come to Jesus changed and would no longer do such a thing.

Makes me wonder if the weird ferocity of other rad-fem men suggests similar struggles with their inner misogynist.

 

[Stout]

That tablegate thing was pretty funny.

Here's what most likely really went down.

The cheapest merchandise table at Dragoncon was $550.

Surly Amy sets up in the free non profit section with an obvious merchandise table with Skeptchicks being a distant second tier focus.

The vendors who had paid $500+ for their tables saw what was going on and complained to management. Management was forced to agree with those complaints and forced into taking action against what the paying vendors were no doubt identifying as a scam

Surly Amy gets kicked out and turns her "victimhood" into a marketing opportunity by claiming she was out "hundreds of dollars" when in fact she was instantly up hundreds of dollars by not having to pay market rates for a table to sell her wares. Sympathy sales ensue.

PTSD from reading Twitter? Let me guess. An activist who's out there kicking ass and freaking out when those kicked asses kick back.

 

[Stout]

Makes me wonder if the weird ferocity of other rad-fem men suggests similar struggles with their inner misogynist.

That's something I've always wondered myself

Excuse me, I'm just going to turn off adblock and head over to FtB and perv on bikini chick trying to sell me a cruise.

ooooo she's wearing white today.

OK enough of that, back on with adblock.

Maybe PZ's in it for the advertising revenue.

 

[d4m10n]

PTSD from reading Twitter? Let me guess. An activist who's out there kicking ass and freaking out when those kicked asses kick back.

Twitter PTSD is serious business you guys: http://storify.com/wisCFI/ptsd-awareness-on-twitter

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Regarding PZ Myers and his change of heart, I see no reason to disparage him for that. People do change, and the fact that Myers has a daughter (or two?) may well have some bearing on how he acts. Thinking "hang on, how would I feel if someone said that to my daughter?" can certainly make people re-assess their attitudes towards women. I don't think speaking out about something that you once thought was fine but have since changed your opinion on is something to be berated for.

How you go about that, of course, is a different matter.

As far as tablegate goes, I didn't think there was any question about how it went down, and Stout's narrative is the only one I've seen put forwards by anyone other than Watson and Amy. IIRC, in a post about it Watson expected to receive praise for going to atheist/sceptical conferences because she had to pay her own air fare and hotel room on a "blogger's salary". Unlike everybody else who has to pay their own air fare, hotel room and pay for a ticket on whatever they make.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Regarding PZ Myers and his change of heart, I see no reason to disparage him for that. People do change, and the fact that Myers has a daughter (or two?) may well have some bearing on how he acts. Thinking "hang on, how would I feel if someone said that to my daughter?" can certainly make people re-assess their attitudes towards women. I don't think speaking out about something that you once thought was fine but have since changed your opinion on is something to be berated for.

How you go about that, of course, is a different matter.

As far as tablegate goes, I didn't think there was any question about how it went down, and Stout's narrative is the only one I've seen put forwards by anyone other than Watson and Amy. IIRC, in a post about it Watson expected to receive praise for going to atheist/sceptical conferences because she had to pay her own air fare and hotel room on a "blogger's salary". Unlike everybody else who has to pay their own air fare, hotel room and pay for a ticket on whatever they make.

...not to mention that roughly 1/3 of her costs were covered by the USA government in the form of business expense tax deductions, unlike ordinary attendees.

 

[SimplyAghast]

Regarding PZ Myers and his change of heart, I see no reason to disparage him for that. People do change, and the fact that Myers has a daughter (or two?) may well have some bearing on how he acts. Thinking "hang on, how would I feel if someone said that to my daughter?" can certainly make people re-assess their attitudes towards women. I don't think speaking out about something that you once thought was fine but have since changed your opinion on is something to be berated for.

How you go about that, of course, is a different matter.

As far as tablegate goes, I didn't think there was any question about how it went down, and Stout's narrative is the only one I've seen put forwards by anyone other than Watson and Amy. IIRC, in a post about it Watson expected to receive praise for going to atheist/sceptical conferences because she had to pay her own air fare and hotel room on a "blogger's salary". Unlike everybody else who has to pay their own air fare, hotel room and pay for a ticket on whatever they make.

Well, PZ's "change of heart" was very quick and he's certainly acted with the fervor of a convert. He is taking it upon himself to police the people he doesn't like and to do so selectively.

Contemporary analysis of Tablegate:

Skepchick wasn’t “booted” from Dragon*Con. They were asked to remove products not related to Skepchick. They chose to pack up and leave, likely because most of their products are Surlyramics and Skepticial Robot. They then chose concoct a story that they were unfairly kicked out of the convention because of a rule they weren’t aware of.

The thing that really bothered me about Tablegate is that they were in CLEAR violation of the rules and were offered an easy way out. They decided not to take it. Then they accused Dragon*Con personnel of all kinds of unpleasantess...all because they enforced their rules.

Still more Tablegate analysis.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, PZ's "change of heart" was very quick and he's certainly acted with the fervor of a convert.

And without knowing what it was that caused him to change his mind, it's impossible to know whether or not his reaction has been proportional. It isn't uncommon, however, for people who are now against something they previously were in favour of to be particularly vehement in voicing that opinion.

He is taking it upon himself to police the people he doesn't like and to do so selectively.

As I said, the "how" is a different issue to the "whether".

The question isn't whether he should be criticised for his current attitude or way of addressing people, it's whether saying "oh, he said something sexist once" is actually a fair criticism. In my opinion it isn't really, and reflects more badly on the person using it as an argument. There's plenty that Myers can be criticised for. Cheap "gotchas" are not required and simply make it look like the person bringing it up feels they can't make a valid case without it.

 

[Meed]

Like I said, I agree that there's some complication in the guilt. At the very least, I'm sure you'll agree with me that (if he's real) Ogvorbis needs to talk to a mental health professional, not FTB regulars. He has a "monster" that he keeps saying wants to come out, right?

How do you know he doesn't talk to a mental health professional? And why shouldn't he talk to FTB regulars?

Here's a thread from February in which he gets more unqualified support.

*shrug* If someone I knew told me they'd done something awful when they were 12 and were carrying a lot of guilt around I would probably give support too.

It's important to bear in mind that these are the same folks who insist that rape and sexual harassment are legion in the skeptic community...after repeatedly insisting on stage that a young woman he doesn't know has "won" sex with him.

I don't know if I'd call that sexual harassment. It was intended to be a joke. It wasn't a funny joke and it came off a little creepy and uncomfortable, but harassment? Meh.

They (in part) poured 60 grand into the coffers to allow a woman to keep accusing a man of sexual assault without offering evidence for her claim.

More accurately, they poured in 60 grand to allow the woman to defend her self from a lawsuit. But yes it is strange that they seem to give her unqualified belief without evidence. It appears to be yet another manifestation of a sort of bloodlust that's been going on for a long time now.

They insist upon telling people how they must conduct themselves at conventions (while holding bordello parties).

Actually I think the bordello party was before Skepchick began its SJW ways. Anyway I don't see how this is hypocritical unless they've been insisting that people not have bordello parties.

They claim to be victims when they're asked not to engage in commercial activity at their free activism booth at a con. They blame evil people on Twitter for giving them PTSD. They've set up The Block Bot, a coordinated attempt at getting people kicked off of Twitter with false reports of spam.

But when you quote Ogvorbis in their presence and provide links back to Ogvorbis's original statements, they claim you're lying and want you silenced. Another fun/honest Ogvorbis discussion...these kinds of discussions can only happen in places other than FTB.

As a wise man once said, "Always name names."

But PZ is the opposite of a wise man. And the tactics often used against people by FTB and Skepchick are cruel, petty and insipid. So why use them? Isn't it hypocritical to use tactics and arguments while simultaneously denouncing them?

 

[oody]

They (in part) poured 60 grand into the coffers to allow a woman to keep accusing a man of sexual assault without offering evidence for her claim.

More accurately, they poured in 60 grand to allow the woman to defend her self from a lawsuit. But yes it is strange that they seem to give her unqualified belief without evidence. It appears to be yet another manifestation of a sort of bloodlust that's been going on for a long time now.

Even more accurately, donors reacted to a draft retraction which was suspiciously non-neutral for a settlement statement of this type, and coyly unaccompanied by any clear statement that it was not signed. It came off, validly or not, as someone exercising an advantage in ability to pay legal fees. This, followed by the ill-advised posting of that selfie photograph, created a visceral reaction which resulted in the rapid raising of funds.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't know if I'd call that sexual harassment. It was intended to be a joke. It wasn't a funny joke and it came off a little creepy and uncomfortable, but harassment? Meh.

Meh, indeed. Kate didn't think she was being harassed and neither did anyone else at the time. Painting this event as harassment is a perfect example of secular mythmaking after the fact.

 

[McHell]

Even more accurately, donors reacted to a draft retraction which was suspiciously non-neutral for a settlement statement of this type, and coyly unaccompanied by any clear statement that it was not signed. It came off, validly or not, as someone exercising an advantage in ability to pay legal fees. This, followed by the ill-advised posting of that selfie photograph, created a visceral reaction which resulted in the rapid raising of funds.

Stollznow's Indiegogo fund was established on March 27, whereas Radford did not publish his rebuttal website with the bedroom selfie until April 2. Roughly 87% of the funds collected to date were donated prior to Radford's publishing of this website and selfie.

Whatever motivated people to donate, it's safe to say that it was not a visceral reaction to the selfie or to anything else Radford published on April 2.

 

[Dissolution]

Meh, indeed. Kate didn't think she was being harassed and neither did anyone else at the time. Painting this event as harassment is a perfect example of secular mythmaking after the fact.

I think that the point is that it would definitely be classed as sexual harassment by both PZ Myers himself and the A+ crowd if it were done by someone outside of that group.
Imagine if it were Shermer up there, for example.

I'm struggling to understand why you don't see this as hypocritical behaviour, given that you appear to accept that it is in the comments section of your link, assuming that you're using consistent usernames and avatars.
Care to explain?

 

[d4m10n]

I'm struggling to understand why you don't see this as hypocritical behaviour…


Care to explain?

Assuming the hypocrisy is a mismatch between stated beliefs and personal actions, you'd be hard pressed to find 2010 version of PZ stating his belief that it is unacceptable to treat sex talk as humorous fodder for a presentation.

Maybe you can find examples of PZ promulgating much more stringent standards in more recent times, but I doubt you'll find him saying it is bad form to joke around about sex onstage.

As to your counterfactual hypothetical example, you cannot demonstrate hypocrisy in that way. You need a real example where someone fails to live up to their stated beliefs.

 

[Stout]

And without knowing what it was that caused him to change his mind, it's impossible to know whether or not his reaction has been proportional. It isn't uncommon, however, for people who are now against something they previously were in favour of to be particularly vehement in voicing that opinion.



As I said, the "how" is a different issue to the "whether".

The question isn't whether he should be criticised for his current attitude or way of addressing people, it's whether saying "oh, he said something sexist once" is actually a fair criticism. In my opinion it isn't really, and reflects more badly on the person using it as an argument. There's plenty that Myers can be criticised for. Cheap "gotchas" are not required and simply make it look like the person bringing it up feels they can't make a valid case without it.

I agree with this

It's pointless bring up pre-conversion PZ as we're now concerned with the antics of the *new* PZ and...we have so much fresh material to work with.


like

PZ trying to incite what pretty much amounts to a book burning with regard to a student newspaper at his campus. Copies of the newspaper disappear and the publishers of the paper respond with a threatened lawsuit (as well as calling the cops on PZ )

PZ, the most silencing, comment deleting moderator on the planet, responds with complaints that they're trying to silence him.