The bloggers at FTB are quick to attack and dismiss anyone who may hold a different opinion or view from theirs. They are reminiscent of a high-school clique where the cheerleaders and jocks gang up on anyone different from them. If you are not part of the clique you are fair game for bullying.
What is bullying?
Bullying is persistent unwelcome behavior, mostly using unwarranted or invalid criticism, nit-picking, fault-finding, also exclusion, shunning, being singled out and treated differently, being shouted at, humiliated, excessive monitoring, having verbal and written warnings imposed, and much more.
Why do people bully?
The main purpose of bullying was once thought to be a method of hiding one's own inadequacy. Recent research shows that some bullies may fit this description, but many bullies have high self-esteem. The bully leads via intimidation. People follow to avoid being victimized. Bully leaders are often admired because of a superior trait. Some bullies are very attractive, some are very athletic, and some are very social. Bullies gain power by the amount of followers they have. The more that follow the more power they have to wield.
When given the chance to assert power over someone else, many people become sadistic. There are a few who have a strong sense of empathy, and an internal compass to guide them towards altruistic and normal behavior. However, the Stanford Prison Experiment examines how quickly groups can deteriorate into bullying behavior.
The Stanford Prison Experiment blindly divided a matched group into prisoners and guards. Students became bullies within a few hours; once they were given power and authority. Others became victims as they were stripped of their rights and dignity. This demonstrates one aspect of bullying. That anyone may become a bully or a victim.
One common road to bullying is being a victim. It is part of human nature to mimic behavior. People who have themselves been victims are likely, given the chance, to become bullies. Given the opportunity to bully another, people often repeat what was done to them. Victims who eventually bully may feel powerful and whole.
Bullying is present behind all forms of harassment, discrimination, prejudice, abuse, persecution, conflict and violence. When the bullying has a focus (e.g. race or gender) it is expressed as racial prejudice or harassment, or sexual discrimination and harassment, and so on.
When the bullying lacks a particular focus, it comes out as pure bullying; this is an opportunity to understand the behaviors which underlie almost all reprehensible behavior. It is obsessive and compulsive; the serial bully has to have someone to bully and appears to be unable to survive without a current target.
Types of bullying
There are many types/categories of bullying behavior. There are however a few distinct types of bullying that I want to discuss in regards to the bloggers at FTB, as well as Rebecca Watson of Skepchick because it was her experience in 2011 that was the main catalyst for the issue of harassment which has since snowballed.
Serial Bullying
Serial bullying is where the source of all dysfunction can be traced down to one individual.In this case we can trace it to Elevatorgate 2011 which was brought into the public eye by Rebecca Watson claiming that she was sexualized by a man, asking her for coffee late at night, in an elevator.
The serial bully displays behaviour congruent with many of the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Characterised by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity and self-importance, need for admiration, and lack of empathy, people with narcissistic personality disorder overestimate their abilities and inflate their accomplishments, often appearing boastful and pretentious, while correspondingly underestimating and devaluing the achievements and accomplishments of others.
Often the narcissist will fraudulently claim to have qualifications or experience or affiliations or associations which they don't have or aren't entitled to. Belief in their own superiority, inflating their self-esteem to match that of senior or important people with whom they associate or identify, insisting on having the "top" professionals or being affiliated with the "best" institutions, but criticising the same people who disappoint them are also common features of narcissistic personality disorder.
Narcissists react angrily to criticism, and when rejected, the narcissist will often denounce the profession which has rejected them (usually for lack of competence or misdeed) but simultaneously and paradoxically represent themselves as belonging to the profession they are vilifying.
Fragile self-esteem, a need for constant attention and admiration, fishing for compliments (often with great charm), an expectation of entitlement, expecting others to defer to them, and a lack of sensitivity especially when others do not react in the expected manner, are also hallmarks of the disorder. Greed, expecting to receive before and above the needs of others, overworking those around them, and forming romantic (sic) or sexual relationships for the purpose of advancing their purpose or career, abusing special privileges and squandering extra resources also feature.
People with narcissistic personality disorder also have difficulty recognizing the needs and feelings of others, and are dismissive, contemptuous and impatient when others share or discuss their concerns or problems. They are also oblivious to the hurtfulness of their behaviour or remarks, show an emotional coldness and a lack of reciprocal interest, exhibit envy (especially when others are accorded recognition), have an arrogant, disdainful and patronizing attitude, and are quick to blame and criticise others when their needs and expectations are not met.
It seems pretty clear, no matter what you may think of psychology or psychoanalysis, given Watson’s public persona, any objective lay-person or arm-chair psychologist (such as myself) would probably use many of the same words to describe the on-line world’s “Skepchick”.
Pair Bullying
As the name implies, pair bullying is serial bullying, but with a partner. Often one of the two does most of the talking while the other watches and listens. Usually they are of opposite gender and frequently they are sexually involved if they are male and female.
One such example would be the duo comprised by PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson. Watson, the more powerful of the two, might be considered a serial bully, while PZ would be the talkative partner. He is the more vocal end of the duo who blogs and vlogs quite regularly (almost daily at this point) about harassment and misogyny.
Gang Bullying
Gang bullying is a serial bully with multiple partners. Gangs can occur anywhere, but flourish mostly in corporate, educational, and on-line arenas. If the bully is an extrovert, they are likely to be leading from the front; they may also be a shouter and screamer, and thus easily identifiable. If the bully is an introvert, that person will be in the background initiating the mayhem but probably not taking an active part, and may thus be harder to identify.
Half the people in the gang are happy for the opportunity to behave badly; they gain gratification from the feeling of power and control, and enjoy the patronage, protection and reward from the serial bully. The other half of the gang is coerced into joining in, usually through fear of being the next target if they don't. If anything backfires, one of them will be the scapegoat on whom enraged targets will be encouraged to vent their anger. (Sound familiar, FTB?)
The serial bully watches from a safe distance. Serial bullies gain a great deal of gratification from encouraging and watching others engage in conflict, especially those who might otherwise pool negative information about them. Gang bullying or group bullying is often called mobbing and usually involves scapegoating and victimization.
The Freethought Blogs is the perfect place to see examples of gang bullying. Most of it happens on PZ Myers blog, Pharyngula, as well as on Ophelia Benson’s blog Butterflies and Wheels, Greta Christina’s blog, and on Jason Thibeault’s blog, Lousy Canuck.
These blogs/bloggers all have these notable things in common:
- They all love to keep posting blog articles about harassment in the skeptic/atheist community, misogyny, and about anyone who disagrees with their opinions on these subjects.
- They all have the ‘you are either with us, or against us’ mentality
- They are all loud and consider themselves leaders for this ‘social injustice’
- They all use their followers as sources of power and encourage bad behavior from them
- They enjoy stirring the pot, whether it is on their blogs, or on Twitter
- They enjoy ridiculing others that do not share the same views they do
Regulation Bullying
Regulation bullying is where a serial bully forces their target(s) to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness, applicability or necessity. (Someone please tell DJ Grothe to read this part):
This type of bullying can be seen clearly by the ongoing demands these bloggers, and their followers have issued to any, and all, atheist/skeptic organizations that they must have a specific harassment policy put in place to ensure the safety of all attendees at convention venues.
However, they are not satisfied with just any policy. They demand that the policies be written in ways that please them, regardless of what others may have to say on the subject. They insist these policies are necessary for the safety of women in particular, but offer little to no proof that there is even a need for this, or that any women have ever been so harassed as to justify all the time and money spent on these harassment policies.
The demands from these bloggers and their followers do not take into consideration what the majority of participants of these events, or the co-ordinators, may think is necessary. And should an organization refuse to amend any policies they already have in place, they are attacked publicly on blogs, via Twitter, and even YouTube. Never mind if someone (like Thunderf00t) has the temerity to openly challenge them, which necessitates they be silenced even if, as in Thunderf00t’s case, only a flimsy excuse can be offered.
Cyber Bullying
Cyber bullying is the misuse of email systems or Internet forums, Social media, blogs, etc for sending/writing aggressive, abusive, or belittling messages, statements, e-mails, or articles.
There is quite a good example of this happening recently on Greta Christina’s Blog, and on the Lousy Canuck where they thought it would be funny to take over the Twitter hashtag #FTBullies and use it to mock Paula Kirby who had written an open letter titled Sisterhood of the Oppressed, as well as any, and all those on Twitter who are speaking out against FTB and exposing their bullying for what it is.
*Edited to add: There is also a blog entry by Ophelia Benson that really highlights this type of bullying more than the other blogs mentioned above.
In environments where bullying is the norm, most people will eventually either become bullies or become targets. There are few bystanders, as most people will eventually be sucked in. It's about survival: you either adopt bullying tactics yourself and thus survive by not becoming a target, or you stand up against bullying and refuse to join in, in which case you are bullied, harassed, victimized and scapegoated.
Now, before any of the bullies at FTB begin to equate harassment with bullying, let me define the difference between the two so that no confusion occurs…
What's the difference between bullying and harassment?
Acts of harassment usually center on unwanted, offensive and intrusive behavior with a sexual, racial or physical component.
Of course there is overlap between bullying and harassment, however harassment is covered and protected against by various laws and human rights charters. Bullying is not covered by such laws, acts, or charters at the present time (though there are a few exceptions in certain areas of the world who have recently adopted such legal recourses to combat the rising epidemic of bullying, mostly on-line).
Harassment has a strong physical component, eg contact and touch in all its forms, intrusion into personal space and possessions, damage to possessions including a person's work, etc... Most people recognize harassment.
Bullying, when done by adults, is almost exclusively psychological. It may become physical later, especially with male bullies, but not usually with female bullies. The goal of an adult bully is to gain power over another person, and make himself or herself the dominant adult. They try to humiliate victims, and show them who is boss.
Few people recognize bullying… but I do.
EDIT: This is for all the idiots over on FTB and Atheism+.
1- If you can show me where I claim to be an EXPERT on bullying in this post, please let me know.
2- Just because I wrote about bullying does not make me a fucking saint. I am an admitted bitch!
3- If you want to call me a bully for being honest and snarky, go ahead. I welcome it.
4- If you want to keep regurgitating this article as some sort of proof of something then I feel sorry for you that this is the best 'insult' towards me that you can come up with.
5- Special thanks to Anonymous Feminist Troll for assistance in citing to sources.
About the author: Kristina Mendez co-authored a bullying workshop for Marymount High School in 2005-2006 in the English Montreal School Board District. Sources for this article were obtained from 2004-2005 College Handouts from http://www.bullyonline.org
Editor: Joel Mendez
"There is quite a good example of this happening recently on Greta Christina’s Blog, and on the Lousy Canuck where they thought it would be funny to take over the Twitter hashtag #FTBullies and use it to mock Paula Kirby who had written an open letter titled Sisterhood of the Oppressed, as well as any, and all those on Twitter who are speaking out against FTB and exposing their bullying for what it is."
ReplyDeleteWhat is that bullying, exactly? For all the thousands of pixels spilled on decrying this phenomenon, precious few have been devoted to substantiating the claim with evidence.
As I said earlier on Twitter, the crashing of the #FTBullies tag essentially mocks those who imitate the forms and language of social justice activists without understanding the content of their activism.
your question is...sad, really. more so because mockery, devoid of substance, like yours so clearly is (consider the source), is bullying. i can tell you so unequivocally, since i've spent a lifetime putting ignorant posers such as yourself, in their place. there is no content--and btw, the term you're looking for is 'substance', not 'content', mcgenius-- in the misandrous commentary from FTB. to pretend otherwise is to be a deluded kool-aid drinker--which supporters of watson, myers, and FTB,without a doubt, are.
DeleteMisandrous commentary from FTB? Like, the whole network?
DeleteDo you really have a straight face when you type these things? I mean, I'm fan, but I regularly check, oh, maybe 1/5 of the blogs on FTB.
Yes, personal testimony is generally considered evidence of bullying, but then also the person offering the testimony generally has at least one concrete example: "I said, X, and in response, other people said Y, which made me feel A and B." Haven't seen any of that yet, just a sort of inchoate generalized resentment over the fact that other people's lack of interest in feminism has somehow failed to translate into fewer posts on feminism on FTB.
But please, point me to one if you know of someone with a specific grievance.
I read that post. Still unclear on who exactly is being bullied there. Have you considered the possibility that your your blog post is unfounded and illogical? To put it in vulgar terms, "full of shit"?
ReplyDeleteHave I bullied you by suggesting the possibility?
If twenty more people come and remark that your post seems remarkably incoherent, does that mean there's a gang that's bullying you or that you're just wrong?
How can you tell the difference?
How can one tell the difference? Good question.
DeleteIf those twenty people have no connection with each other, and independently say that she's wrong, then she's probably wrong.
If on the other hand those twenty people all belong to a single tight-knit group with similar views, and they all show up after one of them says "Hey, come look at this stupid blog post I found", well then, that's probably bullying. Good answer?
No, not really. The answer doesn't address the content. If our hypothetical group of strangers has the exact same response as our hypothetical members of a tight-knit group, then presumably it's bullying, or not bullying, either way, regardless of whether the people responding know each other or not.
DeleteIt's like I said above: you base your assessment on the form alone, and ignore the actual content.
Sally, the problem is that regardless of the content, the "form" is unquestionably bullying. As far as evidence, you don't have to look very hard to find gratuitous character slanders in place of argumentation on any of the listed blog's comment pages. If you aren't seeing it, well, I have some bad news for you...
Delete"If twenty more people come and remark that your post seems remarkably incoherent..."
The whole notion that truth is somehow amenable to popular vote is part of what the OP is referring to. That method is simply fallacious, but the flavor of FTB makes this even worse. Many of the bloggers there take an active(even gleeful) role in silencing dissent, wherein the bare fact that X disagrees is a separable, salient variable in the decision to ban X. These aren't spammers, or trolls, or potty-mouths who just make a mess, they are sincere, well-intentioned people who simply disagree. I'm one of them. So even supposing we were to concede the validity of popular voting, the scales have been deliberately skewed in favor of one point of view; namely, that of the individuals who already agree, and thus it isn't actually a popular vote at all.
Here, we get to the heart of what all of us find so destructive in the FTB echo-chamber. The very ideal of the Enlightenment is open dialogue and a free exchange of ideas-but that which unites us inevitably divides us. The absolute wrong course of action if you wish to keep to these ideals is to behave as though individuals who disagree aren't entitled to express their opinions. FTB is alienating philosophers, scientists, journalists, and skeptics of all walks of life, both men and women, but they aren't doing it through argumentation and reasoned dialogue. They are insulting, demeaning, sidelining, and silencing; in essence, they are bullying.
When creationists want to get their nonsense taught in schools, they don't compete with evolution scientifically, as they should, they just attempt to legislate themselves into the schools. Instead of winning the argument, they attempt to take the power to do as they wish. The parallel to the present situation seems precise: the weight of an argument is inversely proportional to the force required to carry out it's conclusions. Put bluntly, if you can't win an argument with people who largely share your values and beliefs, maybe your argument just sucks(I view this as potentially a problem for both sides on these issues).
I wasn't suggesting that truth amenable to a popular vote. You misinterpreted me. I was suggesting that, when one person shows up to tell you that you don't make sense, you can shrug it off. However, if many people say the exact same thing then that may be a sign that you are wrong, or that your communication skills are lacking.
DeleteOriginally the thesis was that it's bullying if a tightly knit group of people do it. I pointed out that strangers can bully too, so what are the real criteria? I am, in fact, attempting to participate in an exchange of ideas here, but since I am a regular reader, commenter, and fan of FTB, I'm on the defensive since apparently it's partially my fault that philosophers, scientists, journalists, and skeptics of all walks are being alienated. I'm trying to pin down precisely what it is that's so bad, and so unusual about FTB, but so far it's all pretty vague. I dunno.
Fine. Go to one of the listed blogs and find a comment by someone who disagrees with the blogger(you may have to go back in time to find pre-ban material). Watch as the conversation quickly degenerates to name-calling and baseless pontification about sexual proclivities. Watch how arguments, regardless of whether you agree with them, are by and large ignored in favor of invective. Look at how TF, who basically just disagreed with the institution of harassment policies, is branded as "an idiot", "sexist", or (best one yet) "just wants to harass women at will". This is the same crap employed by faith-heads; atheists just want to be immoral, that's why they deny god.
DeleteArgumentation by expletive, cue applause.
"I'm trying to pin down precisely what it is that's so bad, and so unusual about FTB, but so far it's all pretty vague. I dunno."
Here, again, you ask "what it is that's...so unusual about FTB". That's the wrong question, frankly. Ms. Squirrel has gone to great lengths, as have many others, to point out why the style of discourse on FTB is undermining the ideals of a movement they purport to represent. It is intensely frustrating to read one of the FTB's excellent posts maligning religious people for behaving like bullies, and then watch them turn around and emulate that behavior when the topic turns to sexism.
No one is saying "lets harass women" or "lets keep women in their place". They're simply pointing out that the rhetoric coming out of FTB on this issue is hysterical and, in most cases, doing more harm than good. Is it conceivable that RW going on USA Today and claiming that skeptic conferences are "not safe" environments for women, might have caused a downturn in the number of women showing up to these conferences? Yes. Does she have any evidence to support this claim? No. See the problem?
Seems pretty logical and well founded to me. Your request for evidence that anyone has been bullied by your behavior is reminiscent of creationist requests for evidence of evolution...done merely as a rhetorical tactic rather than sincere desire to understand. You want evidence that people have been bullied? How about the many people who said they were? Oh but you remain blissfully ignorant of those people, real men and women, who say they no longer feel comfortable in the skeptical movement. I am one. I have spoken with many others in the last 24 hours. How many more there may be I couldn't say, but I notice Paula's followers have doubled since then.
ReplyDeleteBut those people are just a joke to you. "Haha, we shut them up good, the slime. Paula's such an asshole".
The last thing you really want is to talk about social justice. Anyone who tries is hounded out. You want monologue, not discussion. You've forgotten what skepticism means.
Not sure I agree with diagnosing people over the internet, but I can see what you mean in terms of the behaviour that's been displayed.
ReplyDeleteI've often thought the way they behave is similar to the way I've seen cults (isolated religious groups) behave, in an outgroup/ingroup way. No backsliding, no use of certain words, and a rigid dogma...
The American Girlyban tolerate free thought just like the Taliban tolerate homosexuality. Enjoy.
ReplyDeleteThe American Girlyban just called, and they wanted me to let you guys know that some big underground lab in Europe just found their particle. Enjoy.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant. Really encapsulates why the FTB crew behave the way they do, and why they don't see themselves as bullies.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
It's really quite interesting how the word "bully" has shifted. A few decades ago, bullies generally used fists and weapons rather than words, and word-users were called teases.
ReplyDeleteIf by 'a few decades ago' you mean the 80s, those were my teen years and that's not how I remember it. Spit on, jabbed repeatedly in the back, whispered about, things thrown at, hot wax spilled on, completely socially isolated...but never punched.
DeleteCan we have a quick diagnosis of someone who would threaten to kick another woman in the genitals, or people who publicly insult women as being "too ugly to rape" and people who attack others for complaining about being the targets of sexist speech, and people who compare people wanting a sexual harassment policy to the Stasi?
ReplyDeleteKthxbye.
Quick diagnosis? Pharyngulard. You're complaining about people who argue just like you, except they don't draw the line at gender abuse.
Delete"But...but...but...other people behave badly, ergo we are entitled to behave badly!" The individuals taking criticism too far don't set the standard for fair behavior, they set the standard for going too far. Further, you don't get to take a few choice examples of misfits and map that onto everyone who doesn't agree with everything else you say. That covers the first two.
DeleteAs far as "people who attack others for complaining...", it's one thing to raise the issue, it's rather another to bang on about it like a 9yo with pots and pans in the middle of discussions about far more important issues (sorry, innocuous invites for coffee and some nasty emails somehow fails to get my blood roaring).
The open letter, which you apparently didn't read, wasn't comparing people who want a sexual harassment policy to the Stasi, it was comparing the behavior of the people who want overbearing and legally problematic policies on an as-yet evidenced epidemic of sexual harassment, and cajoling or bullying dissent on some of the finer points in the context of rampant censorship on FTB, to the Stasi.
"Other people behave bad, therefore until you make them stop, you can't tell us we're wrong"
DeleteDo we really need to explain why an argument normally only used, unsuccessfully by small children is really silly when used by adults?
So, the argument that you're making is that it is bullying if a bunch of people don't agree that Ophelia Benson is, for example, "too ugly to rape" and vocally oppose the person who said it and the people who supported them? Or that it's bullying to crash the hashtag of a person who doesn't know the difference between FTB and the Stasi?
ReplyDeleteYou're extracting parts of the examples you give to make it appear as if this is pure maliciousness. Several of the bloggers over at FTB wanted to discuss sexual harassment policies and were inundated with people calling them all sorts of names and trolling their comments sections, derailing conversations to discuss whether it was even necessary to discuss (an irrelevant point since it was contained on FTB) and making Strawman arguments. Thunderf00t was purposefully constructing strawmen, suggesting that sexual harassment policies would make flirting impossible at cons (if sexual harassment policies don't stop flirting at BDSM cons, I'm sure atheist cons will figure it out, too) and continued to double down on his paranoid fantasies every time somebody pointed out that they were paranoid fantasies.
It's only bullying if it's unprovoked. That the FTB bloggers won't simply be quiet about what they want to blog about doesn't make them bullies.
False analogy.
DeletePaula made a logical arguments defending the use of the stasi/nazi suffixes and for her entire case, hardly the same as someone calling someone ugly.
So far noone from FTB has made any attempt to address her arguments. Instead they have used bullying tactics. They orchestrated the crashing of the hashtag, resorted to name calling and ridicule. Where arguments are presented they're always fallacious, like the one you just presented.
It's easy to identify who the bully is in any given situation by looking at who has the power.
actually, they are bullies. you may not like the term, but that's not relevant. fact is, Thunderf00t is right, he said so, and the thought police at FTB banned him for it--because hey, that's what an atheist does, right? silence voices of dissent from dogma. sorry to be the one to tell you, but banning someone for disagreeing, making shit up, creating straw man arguments (which actually Thunderf00t didn't, but PZ Meyers, Ophelia Benson, and more than a few of the other cretins at FTB actually did) is not to "vocally oppose", it's what happens in cults to dissenters, and FTB is a cult.
DeleteYou're right. How dare we provoke them by expressing opinions contrary to theirs. We're right bastards!
DeleteI love that people at FTB are BULLIES if they say a word you find mean and CULTISTS if they ask other people not to say blatantly offensive things. Pick a complaint and stick to it.
DeleteOh please, there aren't any logical arguments for calling feminists Nazis or the Stasi. It's as ridiculous as those Republicans who said that kids singing about Obama in school were "like the KHMER ROUGE!!!!!" It's hyperbolic nonsense that insults the actual victims of the Nazis and the Stasi.
Delete@anonymous--kudos for having the courage of your convictions. i didn't say anyone at FTB said something i personally found mean. stupid? yes. uninformed? yes. devoid of factual heft? yes. Mean? please. no one there is worth my ire, nor even my time. i respond here only b/c i actually have a point, a well thought out position, and a couple days off. now, the fact is, the creatures at FTB are bullies--like it or not. they are also cultists--like it or not. you don't like it, take it up with dictionary writers. btw: the two states aren't mutually exclusive. in fact, they're more symbiotic than anything else.
Deleteas far as argument by analogy, mcgenius, that's all those arguments are, analogies--which by definition, aren't exact. now, unless you dumb asses respond to what i actually said, instead of the stupid shit you would prefer i had said, put your weenies back in your pants--if you wanna hang with the big dogs, bring some bite, or stay the fuck on the porch. the ball, as they say, is in your court, rinky-dink.
Wow, that's a lot of words decrying the FTB folks as bullies, and an impressive lack of actual evidence.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the author should re-check the examples used here. Watson mildly pointed out that a man propositioning a woman that doesn't know him in an elevator late at night can be quite creepy. Greta Christina and friends made fun of a group of folks who were calling them #FTBullies for talking about sexism and harassment at conferences, and arguing strenuously for strong anti-harassment policies at said conferences.
I don't know about the Thunderf00t situation (aside from him being a pretty sexist ass), but all these supposed examples of FTB bullying that we're shown here are ... pretty feeble, to say the least.
For starters, here's all the #FTBullies posts on Twitter:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/#FTBullies
Now I haven't gone through every single one since the beginning, but of the couple hundred I did see, all of them are making fun of the concept by putting up patently absurd jokes like "#FTBullies make very crappy totalitarians" and "#FTBullies always make you smell their stinky feet after they take off their shoes". At the same time, none are deriding the few people who are using it seriously (AFAICT, only Jeremy Stangroom and Paula Kirby).
Second, you start out by defining Rebecca Watson as a "serial bully" based on the Elevatorguy video - a complete non sequitur, since there was nothing there that could be remotely considered bullying even by your strange definition in the video itself. The backlash to it was intense, insane, and bizarre, so one can hardly blame her and her defenders for being defensive. You then attach an armchair diagnosis of NPD to her as if this automatically makes her a bully even if it were valid, another non sequitur.
Third, and most importantly, you're leaving out a huge part of what makes bullying bullying - nobody is being "harassed" in a place they didn't go, by people they didn't choose to associate with. Even if you regard personal insults on comment boards as bullying (I don't), you still have to go there and engage to be part of it. It's not like everyone has a burning need to comment on a sexual harassment thread at FTB, and therefore it's unavoidable that they get attacked. Likewise, Thunderf00t and Paula Kirby chose to call the people they were arguing with totalitarians and fools. To say that they should be able to do that, and not expect a similar reaction in response, is the height of absurdity.
@Midnight Rambler: You have clearly misread the article. But thank you for your input.
DeleteWhat a stunningly useless reply. Care to explain what exactly was wrong or how I misread it?
DeleteFYI: that site you link to about Narcissistic Personality Disorder also links to online IQ tests and books that credulously buy into recovered memories and Satanic Ritual Abuse. Sooo, not a great source for your armchair psych e-valuation.
ReplyDeleteIt is the same info you will find on allpsych.com --> http://allpsych.com/disorders/personality/narcissism.html But thanks for nit-picking.
Delete"They all love to keep posting blog articles about harassment in the skeptic/atheist community, misogyny, and about anyone who disagrees with their opinions on these subjects. "
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't they want to do this? It *matters*. When someone disagrees with you (as is the case now) then I guess the onus is on the person being disagreed with to just sit down and shut up? That's something a bully expects.
No, the onus, such as it is for skeptics/freethinkers, is to respond to the arguments. NOT to start kicking people off the island, attack the person making the argument, or make up a new argument to respond to (as in the case of re:Kirby and her use of Stasi/Nazi).
DeleteI was permanently banned from commenting on FTB for disagreeing with Greta. Best part? I even offered, on a couple occasions in the course of the discussion, to stop commenting. I offered to leave if they were sick of arguing with me. Did she accept this olive branch? No. Told me to f--- off and handed me a perma-ban (which I didn't even realize until months later when TF came to FTB and I found I couldn't comment there or on Richard Carrier's).
I'm not alone, and worse, there are a lot of potential skeptics who steer clear to avoid the inevitable shit-storm that ensues when you speak up on the wrong side of the wrong topic. Nobody envies the guy that gets strung up, that's why it stands as an effective deterrent.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI only just completed a third-year Psychology unit on abnormal psych, so I'm not speaking from real authority here, but I see your interpretation re: "fragile self-esteem" with bullies as incorrect? It also has implications regarding the narcissism element you're bringing in - because why would a bully have low self-esteem and yet also possibly be a narcissist who has the opposite?
You might like to read some research from a skeptical colleague, at ICBS Everywhere: http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2010/06/ignorance-of-incompetenc/
and possibly even
http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2011/08/take-back-skepticism-part-i-the-elephant-in-the-room/
Yes, I'm from Freethought Blogs as well (and also a former high school teacher) - and I guess my question overall in response to this is: what are you going to _do_ about these problems you've identified in your post?
Actually. new research has shown the opposite in regards to what you have learnt about narcissism and self-esteem: http://www.livescience.com/16650-narcissists-esteem.html
DeleteAs I said, not speaking from real authority, but I do again recommend the links which lead to a qualified skeptic in the field (who has presented on research late last year).
DeleteAnd it also doesn't answer my question... what are you going to do about the problems identified in your post?
I stumbled upon this blog post somewhat accidentally, but found it very interesting. An enjoyable read, even though I'm not too familiar with the blogs you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you are familiar with the concept of "tribalization". I think that actually explains some of the behavior people tend to exhibit online. People tend to form tribes within which it often becomes the norm not to challenge many predominant opinions/stances. When someone does, they often become fair game for the whole tribe. It's very easy to spot this pattern everywhere - workplaces, school classes, political parties etc...
Just throwing this into the air because I think a lot of gang bullying is people with good intentions barking with the pack, blind to their own biases. Regulation bullying is also related to group pressure.
Very good point.
DeleteThank you for writing this up. I often think about the psychological and sociological issues that arise in online communication -- particularly blogs -- such as bullying, tribalism, and the wrath of the anonymous commenter. The Internet is still a new thing for mankind, and it's clear that we generally lack awareness of what it is doing to us. The Internet seems to magnify our tribal nature in some circumstances, among other things.
ReplyDeleteI became more aware of the situation after I stumbled upon the recent Ask An Atheist podcast about the issue of feminism in the atheist community. Everything said on the podcast seemed reasonable and uncontroversial to me, and although I could imagine nitpicking here and there, the general point was sound.
ReplyDeleteTo my surprise, Ophelia Benson responded to the podcast with pure bullying. Just no substance at all -- merely putting the target's name in the title (and nothing else!) and going on about how "these are not good people" (yes, she really said that).
I wish FTB would engage in some introspection, but that becomes less unlikely the more entrenched they become. The best we can do is understand what is happening from a psychological perspective, as your post begins to do. And then make an effort to not let it happen to us.
Presumably you're referring to this post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/06/not-the-right-atheist-to-ask/
Deletewhere OB expresses irritation at AaA having posted a personal email message without permission (something that contravenes one of the oldest rules of netiquette, predating the world wide web). If that falls under your definition of "bullying" then frankly, I don't know if there's any hope for you.
Presumably it refers to the post with "the target's name in the title (and nothing else!)", http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/06/mike-gillis/ That is bullying indeed.
DeleteThe "outrage" over showing the email sent to askanatheist was indeed baffling, and indeed a "pedantic distraction". The email was sent to the show's public email address, not privately to a cast member. The show receives emails all the time through the same channel, and publishes them. That's the mechanics of the show. Their explanation is perfectly valid
http://askanatheist.tv/2012/06/14/dogmatic-feminism-pt-2-and-some-other-things/
It's simply implausible that there would be zero room for interpretation. It was simply a misunderstanding. Nothing at all warrants "These are not good people." That's the culture of bullying at FTB, and the more they do it, the more respect they lose.
The one I pointed to was the one that said "these are not good people"; it seems Angela Harris was combining the two. In any case, my point is the same - even if you think Benson is completely off-base with her objection, to claim that her experessing disdain towards people she feels wronged her is "bullying" is absurd on its face.
Deletewhat I found hilarious about Ophelia complaining about "publishing an email without permission" is that she herself has done exactly that on more than one occasions.
DeleteSo is it publishing emails sans permission is bad, or only when inconvenient to her and her pals?
Love the way you have approached this. I, like a couple of your other cementers, found myself wanting to add little bits to your post: “What about this type of bullying?” or “Did you see this FTB post?”. You are well-disciplined to craft it into the manageable size you ended up with. Being concise is often a more glorious virtue than being comprehensive. I was motivated by what you’ve written to write something about these “atheistgates” myself, but it has grown to three installments already (and I’ve not finished the third so it could go longer).
ReplyDeleteThis divide has been noticed by non-atheist organizations who use the atheist-on-atheist vitriol to score points against the atheist movement. This is becoming every “out” atheist’s problem.
Even if one does not completely agree with the bullying description the fact that it can be described well in terms of a syndrome which will not stop unless addressed should spur concerned atheists into action. I am beginning to think that this divisive activity will only get worse unless more people address it.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have an organized skeptic blog group similar to ftb (in the nuts’n’bolts way) devoted to aggregating bloggers who don’t write all that often, but think before they post stuff. I’m sure one could aggregate several hundred, and the result would be a worth-while daily read. Would Joel be available to edit for everyone? I have a feeling that a good editor is one reason why your posts read so well, and good editors are hard to find.
@SallyStrange,
ReplyDeleteAfter doing a site search :
SallyStrange site:freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
I am afraid I have find your arguments here disingenuous to say the least. I fail to see how you can have participated at Pharyngula for that apparent length of time and fail to see what any of the issues are.