This time she went after @Gurdur who I know from Twitter as well. He is a nice guy and his only crime is not liking idiots like Zvan and her fellow FTB/A+ feminist crazies. Oh shit! I said crazies. I meant Kirksies, even though it means the same fucking thing... But that's another discussion entirely.
So, back to Zvan and @Gurdur. Zvan insists that @Gurdur is a horrible person because he has never done a fucking thing to her, as she fully admits in her blog post, and because he has posted over on the Slyme Pit a couple of times. For those of you who don't know, the Pit is a forum that was created by Abbie Smith of ERV. It's a place for those who don't cry at t-shirts or get their feminist undies in a bunch all the fucking time over stupid shit. It's considered to be like the 5th circle of hell for any of the uber sensitive feminist folks from FTB and A+.
Zvan decided it was her duty as a social justice warrior to warn people about @Gurdur since he is so evil and vile, and because tweeting with him may infect them with his misogyny cooties. And in true A+ social justice style, she sent out a tweet of warning to all her followers. Congrats! You can now check off the 'social justice' box on your daily to-do list Stephy.
Of course after directly tweeting @Gurdur and accusing him of evil deeds, he was quick to reply:
One of the things you'll see linked on her blog post is an archived page (provided by the Venn Master Jason T) from the pit in 2011 where @Gurdur posted the following comment:
As Stephy goes on to say in her post:
This post is an answer to Gurdur’s request for specifics. It is not a response quoting particular comments, because I’m talking about behavior that isn’t limited to an objectionable word or phrase.
This is also a response for people who saw the tweet, wanted more, but weren’t going to delve in 5,000 comments to find it. To those people, I hope you at least click the link and read some comments. It you’re not familiar with the slimepit and you’re feeling reasonably non-fragile today, start somewhere in the middle of the page and just read for a couple hundred comments. It’s really the only way to get a good sense of what the people who commented there were gathered to do. It can’t be summed up in a single comment or even two or three.So Stephy, did YOU personally take the hours needed to read all 5007 comments? And if so, you must have screenshots of what @Gurdur said specifically right? I mean, that is what he asked you to do. You are always so interested in evidence and truth right? So why didn't you post them like you did with @Gurdur's tweet? Oh wait... I see... You are telling people to just go randomly jump into that thread from the Pit, at any point in the 5007 comments, and read a couple hundred of the comments, regardless of who wrote them, and then vilify anyone who commented there, like you are doing to @Gurdur.
This really isn't about what @Gurdur specifically said is it Stephy? I mean, you even admitted that your response 'is not a response quoting particular comments'. He is just guilty by association in your world right, because everyone who dares post a comment at the Pit is completely the same, never makes valid points, and are all vicious, rabid women haters. And god forbid anyone has a little fun mocking the openly visible stupidity of people like you, Stephy, and the other dimwits at FTB and A+. You guys NEVER mock, ridicule, or bash anyone do you? Nope. You are all above that kind of thing aren't you? No hypocrites here right Stephy?
So let's look at the list of 'objections' that Stephy has written in response to @Gurdur. Keep in mind that she has offered no direct quotes or proof of him ever having said/done any of these things she objects to, because you can be sure that had he said/done anything that she actually objects to here, she would have quoted, cited, and screen-captured it for all to see.
Now, my objections to Gurdur:
I would address all these 'objections', but I think @Integralmathyt (AKA: Justicar) summed it up much better here:
- I object to the fact that you found a thread dedicated to an obsessive hatred and tearing down of Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and others including me a congenial place to hang out for a couple of months.
- I object to your not saying word one to suggest that month’s of hate is anything other than a productive way to spend one’s time.
- I object to you allowing your own hate for PZ to make you treat the behavior in that thread as normal.
- I object to you talking about slurs, lies, and harassment as just bad PR for your common cause with the other slimepitters.
- I object to your creating a list of female atheist speakers specifically to exclude outspokenly feminist atheists from that list.
- I object to your assertion that Abbie Smith and Scented Nectar, who apparently must resort to slurs and commentary on their opponents looks, and Bluharmony, who lies even when the contradictory evidence is staring her in the face, are among the best representatives of female atheism.
- I object to your treating these “equity feminists”, adherents to an ideology that is self-described as “non-empirical”, and holding them up as pillars of rational thought.
- I object to your congratulating Franc Hoggle on the creation of Phawrongula as though it were a good thing to create yet another site solely dedicated to his obsessive hatred.
- Most of all, in this particular circumstance, I object to you taking one of my “home” conventions, a place that is unabashedly feminist as part of its larger mission of inclusion, and pretending that you are sympathetic to its goals, even as you work to undermine feminism in another sphere.
- And I certainly object to you trying to blow these objections off as a “witch-hunt” and “guilt by association”.
You know what I object to Stephy? Lying little sacks of shit like you who think that they're better than everyone else only because they refuse to look in the fucking mirror and see themselves as the disgusting pieces of crap they truly are.
Kirksies.. LOL.. you learn something new everyday on the internet.
ReplyDeleteI object to your not saying word one to suggest that month’s of hate is anything other than a productive way to spend one’s time.
This is very bizarre.. why would I go and tell people on some forum that they are not being productive with their time? They would kick my ass, and I would deserve it for poking my nose in their business.
This is getting more and more surreal.
I had not seen "kirksy" before. I feel like they should come out with their own newspeak dictionary soon.
ReplyDeleteThe Slimepit Archive page is my own doing. I'm not sure who "the Venn Master Jason T" is, Lousy Canuck? I saved the copies myself and mirrored them at my domain. That's the archive that both you and Zvan have linked to, but Lousy Canuck had nothing to do with it. He didn't provide anything in regards to it.
ReplyDeleteFeminism seems to me to be more and more analagous to homeopathy, and any worthwhile grain of truth is being diluted by ever-increasing volumes of bullshit. So how does an atheist usually feel about homeopathy? Yeah, me too.
ReplyDeleteGurdur? He can't even define atheism properly, let alone anti-theism or Gnu atheism. He's also quite divisive, asking for a second conference running alongside Women in Secularism that only features women he approves of. I'm surprised you're not attacking him for the latter suggestion, Bumblebee. Aren't you against divisiveness?
ReplyDeletehttp://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=474
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1307
HH,
DeleteGurdur has made an argument for why he believes the second conference is necessary.. as a counterbalance to the first one. i.e he has accepted the fact that some level of division is inevitable and wants to counter the damage being done. Are you suggesting he value cohesion over significant damage.. that has even proven over time to be cancerous? The FfTB folks have decided to part ways, and the rest couldnt be happier.
First off, more on the why - because it leads into the how. What's at least potentially wrong with the CFI Women In Secularism (WIS) gig, and how can a good complement then be made?
It's a top-down organizing effort of only a small group of speakers, yet as we all know, some of them are going to be claiming to speak for women in general, and especially for atheist women in general. And some, as already done, will denounce any woman disagreeing with them as a "gender traitor"...
So one answer is, make a complement conference a piece of bottom-up organizing. Ask people what they want to hear talks about, what they themselves want to say.
"a counterbalance to the first one. i.e he has accepted the fact that some level of division is inevitable and wants to counter the damage being done."
DeleteDamage? What damage? As you quoted above, his problem is that Women in Secularism doesn't speak "for women in general, and especially for atheist women in general." He provides no data to back that up, though, and suggests no way to find out what atheist women really want. Instead, he just starts rattling off names, as if he had his fingers on their pulse. I randomly clicked around the list, and found it tough to find someone who'd managed a mere blog post in the last two months, let alone seemed to be an active female atheist.
Gurdur doesn't even stick to his own guidelines; he decries "champagne Atheism" which racks up expenses via big-name speakers, and asks that we focus on women within the USA, but then suggests flying in Jo from New Zealand, a number of people from the British Humanist Society, and Sana Saleem from Pakistan, amongst others.
I don't claim to speak for all atheist women, but at least I can provide some weak evidence. Phil Zuckerman's "Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being" (2009) surveyed the views of atheists, and finds that they are very progressive compared to the general population. We are more likely to be concerned about diversity and feminism than the general public. What did Women in Secularism cover? Feminism and diversity. That’s no slam dunk, but it suggests WiS is on or near the right track, and not “damaging” as Gurdur claims.
"Are you suggesting he value cohesion over significant damage.. that has even proven over time to be cancerous?"
No. I am suggesting he deal with problems that actually exist, though, and not those he's imagined or invented. I can’t help but note most of the speakers at WiS were from the US of A, and I didn’t see any “expensive” speakers on the list like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Gurdur seems to be attacking a problem that doesn’t exist.
"The FfTB folks have decided to part ways, and the rest couldnt be happier."
How is "we want to create a safe place to discuss certain issues" the same as "we want to create our own space for ourselves?"
"I just want a space where atheists with a shared interest in social justice can actually discuss it and get stuff done. You are free to form your own groups or continue taking part in whatever atheist community will have you. You can even come and civilly take part in our discussions! But we don’t need to tolerate the intolerant within our own space." - Jen McCreight, http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/responding-to-common-misconceptions-about-atheism/
You also make the mistake of thinking it was FtB that called for a "division." Not so:
"Face it. This community is already divided. And it is divided in a way that is making many, many women feel cut out. For a solid year, far too many women in this community — and especially feminist women — have been relentlessly subjected to a torrent of hatred, harassment, and abuse… and to a torrent of people ignoring this behavior, rationalizing it, trivializing it, or getting angry at us for even talking about it.
So why is it that forming a subset of atheism that prioritizes the inclusion of women, over the inclusion of hateful, misogynist assholes, is what’s being seen as “divisive”?" - Greta Christina, http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/30/atheism-plus-and-some-thoughts-on-divisiveness/
1) I argued that he proposed the second conf as a counterbalance to what he perceives as damage. We are convinced of it as damage, and you will never be convinced of it. So lets leave it there. Like I said.. at this stage, we dont value cohesion over significant damage.
DeleteWe value cohesion as long as we are fighting for the same goals.. i.e separation of church and state, and prevention of any discrimination against atheists in social norms simply by raising the profile of atheism and a rise in numbers.. which is pretty much what FFRF and AA.org do. You want new goals (described below).. so no more cohesion.
2) You also make the mistake of thinking it was FtB that called for a "division." Not so: Nope I didnt say that. I agree with Greta that the division had already happened.
So why is it that forming a subset of atheism that prioritizes the inclusion of women, over the inclusion of hateful, misogynist assholes, is what’s being seen as “divisive”?"
Thats your narrative. We just dont see it that way. You see misogyny, I see misandry. We have argued back and forth, over and over. Now what?
The fact that your folks want to include feminism, "social justice" etc as part of the atheist agenda is what I dont like and want to distance from. Uberbaboon PZ myers is going around giving talks about how the atheist community should address these new issues as well. He did that earlier with the skeptic community and they backlashed. Now the atheist community is doing the same.
Its good that they came up with A+. We are happy with anything that you use to distinguish yourselves from us.. and I understand it goes both ways.
You personally appear quite sincere in your arguments, and I wish you good luck.
"You want new goals"
DeleteNot so:
"There are roughly fifteen nationwide secular organizations in the U. S. [...] a number of significant regional secular groups, [...] there are also some national and regional skeptical organizations that have crossover appeal [...] The movement comprises these organizations, their members, and supporters.
Now that we are clear about what I mean by the movement, I can say with confidence that at the national level none of the movement organizations condones hatred and threats toward women. I believe the same can be said for the regional groups, although I am less confident simply because I do not have first-hand knowledge for all these groups." - Ron Lindsay, http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/divisiveness_within_the_secular_movement/
That's extremely similar to what A+ wants, the key difference is one of focus. Those groups primarily push secularism and scepticism, while A+ considers feminism, racism, and so on as equally primary.
"The fact that your folks want to include feminism, "social justice" etc as part of the atheist agenda is what I dont like and want to distance from."
Hmm, that depends on what you mean by "atheist agenda." If you meant "A+ wants social justice as a core part of atheism," you're very wrong; as I've quoted elsewhere, Christina and McCreight are not interested in changing the meaning of "atheist," and the very fact that it's called "atheism plus" and not "atheism" reinforces that.
If you meant "A+ wants social justice as a greater focus within a subset of atheism," then I've got no complaint. If you don't want to promote social justice issues, that's cool. That doesn't make you any less of an atheist than I am.
"He did that earlier with the skeptic community and they backlashed."
The existence of Skepchick would suggest the backlash was pretty minor, if there was any.
"You personally appear quite sincere in your arguments, and I wish you good luck."
Thanks! You have some misunderstandings about A+, but otherwise seem quite reasonable. Hopefully I'll high-five you at a sceptic conference someday.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what "female atheism" is. Stephy is yet another Special Snowflake who doesn't think her shit stinks.
ReplyDelete"Atheism is not a movement. Therefore, there cannot be a movement atheist."
Delete"Atheism is not female. Therefore, there cannot be female atheists."
http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.ca/2012/09/movement-atheists-for-chronically.html
I can draw you a Venn diagram, if it helps.
That tweet used the #scio13 twitter hashtag, which is for http://scienceonline.com/scienceonline2013/, a convention happening in January.
ReplyDeleteThis is reminiscent of Surly Amy's tweets about a fellow female speaker at TAM 2012 a month before that convention, and calling her out to all of Amy's followers because she followed a BAD twitter account.
This seems very passive-aggressive behavior. But beyond anything else, it seems silly to "call out" people for minor things most people don't give 2 shits about.
I guess attempts at public shaming trump adult behavior. Amy was like a precursor to A+'s MO.
I notice that when Stephanie's bizarre tweet was criticized (Really, you're condemning a guy for "hanging out" on a thread you don't like?), she immediately changed the subject to all her other objections to Gurdur.
DeleteAnd, of course, an entire post on Freethought Blogs devoted to defending irrationality and making a personal attack is clearly a productive and valuable contribution....
@HJ Hornbeck
ReplyDeleteI went to your links as I had not heard those statements before.
A. I am more the "atheism = lack of belief in god or gods" type of person. But I am aware that others do not like this dictionary definition (hint hint) People having different definitions does not affect me that much anymore. I do find that at some websites, posting a dogmatic/somewhat off definition of atheism is a way trolls will call out atheists who will then spend the rest of thread arguing about it. It is embarrassing to witness. The discussion may have validity, but it was so a troll could be entertained by derailing a thread in a predictable manner.
B. He only mentioned his desire for an opposing conference, he is not creating one. So this also does not seem like much of reason to be mad at him. I can see from your perspective it may be a negative. And others as well. But I can also see people wanting another option. I personally would not go to a conference with a high-percentage of FtB or Skepchick speakers, even if some of them I like. I would rather have speakers from science fields in general, not people known more for blogging. Even though I am female, I don't really have a desire to go to a women-centric skeptic or atheist conference. It just isn't my thing. The speakers I like I will see at other conferences.
A. Notice how Gurdur is adding value judgements to the definitions? Atheists "vocally" reject all gods, anti-theists must make a "huge constant practice," and so on. What qualifies as "vocally?" When do I transition from a "small constant practice" into a "huge" one? This goes beyond skipping over the shades of gray (like lack of belief vs. active rejection), and make all the definitions subjective. This would make sense if most people agreed "atheism" and the rest really were subjective definitions, but that's not the case.
DeleteI suspect Gurdur added the value judgements because it allows him to exclude people. Do you spend too much time on social justice issues? You must not be vocal enough to qualify as an atheist. I could be wrong, but then why else would he add subjective language to definitions commonly held to be objective?
B. "I personally would not go to a conference with a high-percentage of FtB or Skepchick speakers, even if some of them I like."
I find that attitude bizarre. I strongly reject Abby Smith's views on "Twatson," but I once forced myself to listen to an interview of Smith. Her passion and knowledge about biology were impressive, and I wouldn't mind hearing a talk she gave on those subjects. In contrast, what you said above sounds a lot like:
"I personally would not go to a conference with a high-percentage of female speakers, even if some of them I like."
Which is exclusion for exclusion's sake, and not exclusion due to the opinions of said FtB/Skepchick bloggers. I don't think you intended that, as you also said:
"Even though I am female, I don't really have a desire to go to a women-centric skeptic or atheist conference. It just isn't my thing."
and that's perfectly fine. No-one is forcing you to attend a conference, or stay in the room while someone is discussing something you don't want to hear. Just don't silence other people because you don't like what they say, or who they are. And don't skip out on a lecture for the sole reason that person X is delivering it.
Obviously, it is also perfectly fine to make a personal decision to skip out on a lecture for the sole reason that person X is delivering it. Or that it happens at venue X and you don't like it there, or that you would rather stay home and watch X television program, or that person X is ATTENDING it and you don't want to be near them, or for any value of X that nobody else has the power or the right to dictate. The wisdom of those choices is up for discussion, if you like and have nothing better to do, but the criteria for making the choice has nothing whatsoever to do with you.
DeleteStephanie Zvan - what is the point of that person? Does she have a job? All she does is create drama.
ReplyDelete