Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

equivariant

Zombrex wrote: »

http://skepchick.org/2012/08/speaking-out-against-hate-directed-at-women-michael-nugent/

Jesus what a freaking train wreck.

You say the sky is blue they tell you that what you must have meant was that the sky is red and that because of that you are a rape culture apologist.

I hope to god that is not representative of the entire Skepchick community (though it is worrying how many prominent members jumped on the band wagon). It makes discussing Old Testament genocide with PDN and Jimitime seem like having tea in Harrods.

I mean a skeptical forum complaining that you are asking for evidence and data to support a position. I would love for some of them to come over here arguing that nonsense, we would show them what a skeptical community really is

There is a lot of anger over there and not much consistency. Not much in the way of moderation either. Makes one realise the value of good moderators - something that we perhaps take for granted here

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

There is a lot of anger over there and not much consistency. Not much in the way of moderation either. Makes one realise the value of good moderators - something that we perhaps take for granted here

It certainly does. It was my original point, that heavily moderated online spaces like Boards.ie with blanket rules such as no personal attacks (ie the mods don't try and assess if you calling someone a "vile little prick" is or isn't justified), produce a place where debate and discussion is far easier and the space is far more welcoming.

One surprising theme that I didn't expect from my brief adventure in Skepchick land was that a lot of the posters actually wanted the freedom to hurl abuse at those who disagreed with them. This was seen as righteous on their part, fighting the good fight. Heck some even suggested that this is how you deal with online harassment, sexism and threats, which I found incredibly bizarre. You create safe online spaces by adding abusive bullying harassment to them, brilliant. When has shouting abuse at someone on the Internet ever got anyone to change their opinion, let alone change the opinion of a troll who is just winding you up.

I guess I'm spoilt a bit by Boards.ie, and as you say it makes you appreciate the attitude here. Even with posters who I strongly disagree with, maybe going so far as strongly dislike, there is an air of mutually recognition of the mantra Attack the post Not the Poster.

I naively assumed things would be similar on other sites that claim to hold rational discussion as a core tenant. That seemed not only an alien concept to a lot of the posters on that thread on Skepchick (which I hope does not represent a lot of posters on Skepchick), but one they found offensive and off putting. The attitude seemed to be I want to attack the poster, the poster is an a-hole and I should have the freedom to call him that, it is the only way he will learn I'm right.

The point that this does nothing but create a hostile aggressive online space, because the other person thinks you are an a-hole as well and just wants to tell you that also, was again lost.

As you say moderation was also terrible. I looked into Skepchick's supposed conditions for posting comments and they seem to have a token "no abuse" policy. That seems largely window dressing when you can be facing both personal abuse from regular posters that is ignored by the moderators and even person abuse from the moderators themselves. I was again surprised to find that one of the posters who had been hurling abuse at me seemed to turned out to be a mod who complained that if they removed abusive posts they would be accused of censorship, something that seemed to extend to his own abusive posts.

One thing such frustrating exchanges do is test your principles and resolve. Many times I felt like insulting the individuals attacking me (and I can come up with some much better ones that "**** OFF TROLL), but talked myself down off the ledge. Perhaps the most ironic thing about the whole exchange is the posters complaining I was being too polite, that I was faking it. Technically I was "faking it", as I wanted to call some of them rather bad names. But the point is you don't because you don't want to drag the discussion down even further. This is apparently a bad thing, "polite trolling" or I think they called it "tone trolling". It seems far better to just shout abuse at people, that isn't trolling apparently.

Man it was a bizarre experience. It makes me want to go start a proper skeptics forum that simply bans this kind of nonsense. Thought that is probably too misogynistic :P

Turtwig

Wow, that's one serious clusterf*ck. No easy resolution here now either. LOL! This is. Just...actually I can't think of a description, sad doesn't really seem to cut it. Pathetic, seems too harsh but . . .I think we could invent a new word - we already have a new meme. Anyone got any suggestions?

King Mob

Jernal wrote: »

Wow, that's one serious clusterf*ck. No easy resolution here now either. LOL! This is. Just...actually I can't think of a description, sad doesn't really seem to cut it. Pathetic, seems too harsh but . . .I think we could invent a new word - we already have a new meme. Anyone got any suggestions?

As I said, "disappointing". Stings more than "sad" but is less mean than "pathetic". And it has an air of exasperation.

Michael Nugent

The discussion took place under an article I wrote.

I agree with Zombrex that we should address the issues and not attack people. I also agree that we should support our arguments with evidence. I have written about the need for us to both of these things in my earlier post about how to create inclusive, caring and supportive communities.

When Amy asked me to write a piece about speaking out against hate directed at women, I deliberately chose an issue that I felt strongly was important, which is the the impact of online threats of violence and rape on the victims of those threats. I wrote it by focusing on the issues not attacking people, and I cited research to support what I was saying.

I deliberately did not focus on other areas where there was less evidence for claims that I might have made. I had hoped that this would mean that the discussion could focus on the issues that I had raised and supported with evidence.

Unfortunately, and I know you meant well, Zombrex, your contribution derailed the discussion into other areas, ironically by saying that you wanted to see a discussion that did not focus on those other areas. We already had the beginnings of such a discussion until you changed the focus away from the content of the article.

As I said, I know you meant well, and I agree with the points you were making, but that was the wrong time and place to make those points. Staying on topic is another important part of the moderation here on boards.

One of the reasons that there is a lot of anger about those topics on Skepchick is that there are a lot of hurt people discussing those topics there. When you are discussing threats of violence and rape on a forum that has a women's focus as well as a skeptical focus, you have to be sensitive to the fact that many of the contributors are victims of not only such threats but actual violence and rape.

I'm sorry that you had to put up with the abuse that you did there. You shouldn't have had to experience that. You may notice that, when I addressed the issue later in the thread, one of the main protagonists apologised for having lost his temper. It will take time and patience and sensitivity for us to move beyond the current hostility in these communities. I remain optimistic that we will be able to do it.

MagicMarker

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The discussion took place under an article I wrote.

I agree with Zombrex that we should address the issues and not attack people. I also agree that we should support our arguments with evidence. I have written about the need for us to both of these things in my earlier post about how to create inclusive, caring and supportive communities.

When Amy asked me to write a piece about speaking out against hate directed at women, I deliberately chose an issue that I felt strongly was important, which is the the impact of online threats of violence and rape on the victims of those threats. I wrote it by focusing on the issues not attacking people, and I cited research to support what I was saying.

I deliberately did not focus on other areas where there was less evidence for claims that I might have made. I had hoped that this would mean that the discussion could focus on the issues that I had raised and supported with evidence.

Unfortunately, and I know you meant well, Zombrex, your contribution derailed the discussion into other areas, ironically by saying that you wanted to see a discussion that did not focus on those other areas. We already had the beginnings of such a discussion until you changed the focus away from the content of the article.

As I said, I know you meant well, and I agree with the points you were making, but that was the wrong time and place to make those points. Staying on topic is another important part of the moderation here on boards.

One of the reasons that there is a lot of anger about those topics on Skepchick is that there are a lot of hurt people discussing those topics there. When you are discussing threats of violence and rape on a forum that has a women's focus as well as a skeptical focus, you have to be sensitive to the fact that many of the contributors are victims of not only such threats but actual violence and rape.

I'm sorry that you had to put up with the abuse that you did there. You shouldn't have had to experience that. You may notice that, when I addressed the issue later in the thread, one of the main protagonists apologised for having lost his temper. It will take time and patience and sensitivity for us to move beyond the current hostility in these communities. I remain optimistic that we will be able to do it.

Were you not on the radio just minutes ago?

Are you Superman? :pac:

Michael Nugent

MagicMarker wrote: »

Were you not on the radio just minutes ago?

Are you Superman? :pac:

Not only that, but I am also on a train. The wonders of modern technology!

Generally Fading

I've just written the below, and I've now seen Michael's response. Michael, with a great deal of respect, I feel that you might be wrong. I too am an abused woman, and there was nothing in Zombrex's comments which caused me distress. To be honest, I would like a...tester...if you like, to ensure that I am not having an hysterical reaction to a situation. Now, yes, this does not apply to all women, yes, I was not actually physical raped (there are many forms of abuse) and yes, I don't want to be seen to be speaking for all women. I just don't get where Zombrex was in anyway disprespectful of abused women? Perhaps you could show me a quote? If I'm wrong, I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong.

I also feel that places such as "Skepchick" and "Butterflies and wheels" claim to be refuges for abused women but allow such abuse of people there that this claim falls down. I'm fine with it if this is NOT what they want to claim, but no such statement has been forthcoming - in fact, I believe I have read the opposite. If we are to concentrate on abuse on the internet, then surely revealing abuse from the very people asking for the abuse to stop is surely highly relevant?

Hello to you all

First up, I am a Slimepitter, I'm just one of the quiet ones. I post under this name as well. I am not here to troll for them (you may have heard bad things about that board). I followed the discussion there to Skepchick's board, and read the discussion between Wicknight (I presume, Zombrex? ) and others.

Can I say how thoughtful and clear your discussion was? You were not reduced to insults, your points were clear and well made. You constantly repeated yourself only because you were asked to constantly repeat yourself. You are not an MRA, a misogynist nor did you make any comments which would have warrented the response "F off" (even if I supported the belief that we should treat anyone in such a fashion).

Your position was : with regards to the treatment of women in seccular debates/the movement in general, there appears to be an issue. How bad is that issue? I think that sums up your original query. You then had to resort to re-iterrating that you did not dismiss the problem, nor were you suggesting that one insult is not as bad as another insult. You then went on to suggest that where a statement was being made, it should be backed up by evidence. Of which there was very little.

I think I have stated your case clearly, and unfortunately your experience is not a new one. I was very upset to read your exchanges because you pretty much argued your case in the way that I thought would get through to the more vocal supporters of RW and I find that despite using the most sensible, coherent arguments, you could not. I find that depressing and saddening.

So to sum up, I would just like to say that yes, there were and are elements of the internet who agree with you. I think you didn't get many comments chiming in with you because firstly, some of us arrived after you'd left (and you might want to pop back, just to mop up the final comment) and secondly because the vitriol and wilful mis-understanding that occurs there is....pretty much entrenched. To be honest, there are probably better wars to fight. But you were very impressive!

Michael Nugent

Generally Fading,

I agree with your comments about personal attacks and evidence for claims.

Here are my overall views on this issue

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/07/26/why-atheist-and-skeptic-groups-should-be-inclusive-caring-and-supportive/

My point about Zombrex's intervention is that he was commenting on an article that did not personally attack anyone and that did cite and link to evidence for the claims made.

Instead of commenting on that article, which was written in such away as to allow for the kind of dialogue that you and he and I want, he started a new discussion about things not raised in the article, thus derailing the potential for the type of discussion that we are seeking.

Generally Fading

Hello Michael

Thank you for that, I will go away and do some more reading! I have briefly skimmed through the article and already I feel that there may be areas for discussion, but not in a hurried, "I have to log off soon" way.

However, I am.....still in two minds.....it still seems relevant to suggest that even a derail should be treated as an opportunity to simply bring the conversation back to the original topic, and not an opportunity to enflame the situation. I take on board that you agree with the unnecessary insults, but such conversations create an atmosphere in which reasonable discourse seems almost a waste of time. Yes, there were only a couple of posters who really laid into Wicknight, but I honestly believe that these people helped persuade others to not post. So I would say that the derailing was on both sides - more, in fact on the side of people who simply did not seem to want a conversation - and that with a simple answer, Wicknight could have been on his merry way - or offering more to the conversation that you wanted.

Right, let's leave it there before IT start telling me off! I'll rejoin the action when I've had time to catch up.

Zombrex

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The discussion took place under an article I wrote.

Ah so it is all your fault ... :P

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Unfortunately, and I know you meant well, Zombrex, your contribution derailed the discussion into other areas, ironically by saying that you wanted to see a discussion that did not focus on those other areas. We already had the beginnings of such a discussion until you changed the focus away from the content of the article.

As I said, I know you meant well, and I agree with the points you were making, but that was the wrong time and place to make those points. Staying on topic is another important part of the moderation here on boards.

My initial knee jerk response to the charge that I was derailing (which came long before this post of yours) was along the lines of I was not derailing, I had 10 people insulting me and demanding I support my position and constantly misrepresenting me I was only defending what I wrote in the first post and trying to correct their lies and if the thread went hay wire it was their fault blah blah blah

After a bit of self reflection, and reading some interesting blog posts by Sam Harris on how he deals with his online reputation (posts I don't entirely agree with but that got me thinking), I'm happy to say no actually you are spot on, it was totally derailing and it was totally unfair to your article and the other posters who wished to discuss your post who were probably driven away from the thread by the back and forth between me and the abusive posters determined to eviscerate me.

The irony you point out is something I only really copped a few hours ago while thinking about this. I was making a point about abusive exchanges derailing threads but missing the wood from the trees. Any behaviour that extends a thread without adding new information is bad, it is derailing, and that includes me being over run by my ego trying to correct every and all misrepresentations or insults directed at me. I thought I was righteous, defending my points from attack, and therefore I thought I was excused. This is the same charge I made against those who use abusive insults, that just because you think it is justified doesn't magic your abusive post into something of substance and new information (again oh the irony :P)

Constantly correcting misrepresentations needless to say doesn't achieve very much other than to leave a long boring off topic stream of petty back and forth conversation that are off putting for everyone else. Crucially it shows a worrying lack of faith in the other reads of the exchange. If Ophelia Benson purposefully or accidentally misrepresents my point (I appreciate she has had a hard time of it lately, see below) do I really need to spend 10 posts attempting to correct this? She is already so mad at me for what she thinks I've said she is calling me names, so I'm probably not going to convince her its all a misunderstanding. And my original comments are there for all to read if they are interested. So why am I repeating them over and over. Who am I trying to convince?

This is the thought I had while reading Harris' post. With some justification he complained about his reputation be smeared. He used the some what manipulative argument that his kids might one day read about him in a paper as being described as someone who was denounced as a bigot.

I was thinking well Harris writes what he writes, and he is normally pretty clear in his views, even if he writes about some complicated stuff. And his detractors will and do misrepresent him. If someone only reads what his detractors write about him, accepting that blindly and don't bother to read what he actually wrote and try to understand what he meant, then frankly should Harris care what they think. More specifically should he put time and effort into trying to convince them that it isn't what he meant when in fact he has already done that if they could be bothered to read his original points.

This got me thinking about the exchange on Skepchick (I'm in hospital doing a lot of thinking at the moment because I can't play Battlefield 3 :P). What the hell was I doing. I was disrupting discussion for everyone else and for what? To convince people what my point was when all they have to do is go read what I originally wrote and they would see what my point was. It is already there in black and white at the top of the tread. Go read it if you think I've said something stupid or misogynistic or mean or sexist and make up your own mind.

Anyone with a level of rationality and skepticism that I would actually respect would double check with my original post when they read someone like
mrmisconception stating I've said something terrible. If they don't do that they they probably aren't worth my time anyway, and they probably aren't going to be convinced the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th ... time I repeat my position.

If Ophelia Benson says I'm equating her insult with the year long abuse she received anyone can go double check my original post to see if I am, and anyone I would respect would do this. Taking up space over and over repeating that I'm not only adds a red flag to an already volatile discussion and is really just telling anyone I would care about what they already should know at that stage. Genuine requests for clarity are fine, but I don't need to add to the discussion by simply repeating myself. (on a side note, thank you for pointing out the horrible situation Benson has endured over the last year, I'm not sure how well it will go down but I'm going to post an apology to her on that thread for picking her comment without first checking if it was simply a throw away insult or whether it was coming from someone who has endured a lot)

Of course all this is easier said than done in the heat of the moment. It is a human instinct to feel the need to reply straight away when one feels that they are being misrepresented or lied about. But then here I am sitting on my high horse telling people to not give into basic human instinct to hurl insults at each because it derails discussion while I'm giving in to another basic human instinct in order to justify derailing a discussion.

So, er, I'm getting back up on my high horse :P

If anyone is stupid enough to blindly accept misrepresentations about my post without first checking with what I actually wrote, then they are probably too far gone in their pre-conceived view point to be convinced otherwise by further clarifications. And most importantly I don't have the right to take up an entire discussion thread to ease my insecurities and ego when I feel others are misrepresenting, any more than someone has the right to flood a discussion with insults at those who have abused or insulted them.

So, if you haven't got totally bored and given up reading that little rant (#TL;DR ) I would like to apologize again and thank you again. You are a sea of calm in an ocean of internet madness, and some times you calmness rubs off on others and they go into enlightening moments of self reflection. Your points made about perception were equally good and rest assured they haven't been ignored even though I didn't address them here.

I would also like to thank Sam Harris and his children ... :pac:

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You may notice that, when I addressed the issue later in the thread, one of the main protagonists apologised for having lost his temper. It will take time and patience and sensitivity for us to move beyond the current hostility in these communities. I remain optimistic that we will be able to do it.

Yeah I saw that. It would be nicer I suppose if he had apologized to me for the abuse, but as you say it is a start and hopefully your optimism will be shown to be justified and civil debate can return to the skeptical community.

Zombrex

Generally Fading wrote: »

I've just written the below, and I've now seen Michael's response. Michael, with a great deal of respect, I feel that you might be wrong. I too am an abused woman, and there was nothing in Zombrex's comments which caused me distress. To be honest, I would like a...tester...if you like, to ensure that I am not having an hysterical reaction to a situation. Now, yes, this does not apply to all women, yes, I was not actually physical raped (there are many forms of abuse) and yes, I don't want to be seen to be speaking for all women. I just don't get where Zombrex was in anyway disprespectful of abused women? Perhaps you could show me a quote? If I'm wrong, I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong.

I also feel that places such as "Skepchick" and "Butterflies and wheels" claim to be refuges for abused women but allow such abuse of people there that this claim falls down. I'm fine with it if this is NOT what they want to claim, but no such statement has been forthcoming - in fact, I believe I have read the opposite. If we are to concentrate on abuse on the internet, then surely revealing abuse from the very people asking for the abuse to stop is surely highly relevant?

Hello to you all

First up, I am a Slimepitter, I'm just one of the quiet ones. I post under this name as well. I am not here to troll for them (you may have heard bad things about that board). I followed the discussion there to Skepchick's board, and read the discussion between Wicknight (I presume, Zombrex? ) and others.

Can I say how thoughtful and clear your discussion was? You were not reduced to insults, your points were clear and well made. You constantly repeated yourself only because you were asked to constantly repeat yourself. You are not an MRA, a misogynist nor did you make any comments which would have warrented the response "F off" (even if I supported the belief that we should treat anyone in such a fashion).

Your position was : with regards to the treatment of women in seccular debates/the movement in general, there appears to be an issue. How bad is that issue? I think that sums up your original query. You then had to resort to re-iterrating that you did not dismiss the problem, nor were you suggesting that one insult is not as bad as another insult. You then went on to suggest that where a statement was being made, it should be backed up by evidence. Of which there was very little.

I think I have stated your case clearly, and unfortunately your experience is not a new one. I was very upset to read your exchanges because you pretty much argued your case in the way that I thought would get through to the more vocal supporters of RW and I find that despite using the most sensible, coherent arguments, you could not. I find that depressing and saddening.

So to sum up, I would just like to say that yes, there were and are elements of the internet who agree with you. I think you didn't get many comments chiming in with you because firstly, some of us arrived after you'd left (and you might want to pop back, just to mop up the final comment) and secondly because the vitriol and wilful mis-understanding that occurs there is....pretty much entrenched. To be honest, there are probably better wars to fight. But you were very impressive!

Hi Generally Fading welcome to Boards.ie, I hope you find it a nice place to discuss atheism, skepticism, religion, politics and a host of other topics.

And thanks for the support. It is nice to know it wasn't just people who hated my guts reading those posts and that my points where appreciated. When all you have is what appears like an entire community calling for your blood you can start to question even the most sensible points after you have made them

Galvasean

Zombrex wrote: »

One surprising theme that I didn't expect from my brief adventure in Skepchick land was that a lot of the posters actually wanted the freedom to hurl abuse at those who disagreed with them. This was seen as righteous on their part, fighting the good fight.

They are simply conflating righteous fury with bloodlust. That whole thread is filled with zealots as bad as any religious fundie. It's like some weird 'cult of personality'. It saddens me that such people should consider themselves skeptics at all.
I truly felt bad for you while reading said thread Zombrex(/Wicknit), but admire your patience nonetheless.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

They are simply conflating righteous fury with bloodlust. That whole thread is filled with zealots as bad as any religious fundie. It's like some weird 'cult of personality'. It saddens me that such people should consider themselves skeptics at all.
I truly felt bad for you while reading said thread Zombrex(/Wicknit), but admire your patience nonetheless.

Wicknit? :P

robindch

Rheo wrote: »

Also "tone trolling". What the hell was that all about?

New one on me, but perhaps:

Galvasean

Zombrex wrote: »

Wicknit? :P

Remember, an old joke from the Creationism thread...
'Less information'.

Gbear

Jesus absolute Christ Zombrex, I had a look through that. I think you're being a bit hard on yourself.

You'd need to be secular Jesus to be able to debate "properly" with people acting like that.

Galv is right in that it totally smacks of debating with fundamentalists. You just can't win. It always seems that way with subjects that are fraught with emotion.

Given how adept Michael seems to be at this sort of thing (even seasoned debaters like Dawkins have a breaking point) - how do you actually debate when people are being that obtuse and consistently misrepresenting you?



I can't remember where I heard it but something that might resonate: You're not debating in order to convince the person you're debating with. No matter how wrong they are, it's unlikely that, if they've gotten to a stage where they're comfortable debating on an issue, they're ever going to have their minds changed.
The purpose of the debate is for those watching on who're starting from somewhat more neutral position.

Perhaps we should have a stickied post about how to debate with people in entrenched positions who have gone beyond the bounds of rationality?
Or are you better off just saving your breath?

Edit: In fact, Oldrnwser (vowels? ) has had some crackers lately to do with logical fallacies as well. A generic stickied and locked thread about how to debate and think critically - that would be nice.

OpheliaBenson

Hello.

Oddly enough, I've been a member of this board for awhile, because my friend Robin (robindch) recommended it. I haven't participated much, I have to admit - only because I'm kept busy elsewhere.

Anyway - I see you're all pretty convinced that Skepchicks and co are completely in the wrong, so I won't hang around, but I wanted to point out that Zombrex apologized to me and that I thanked him.

Nodin

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Hello.

Oddly enough, I've been a member of this board for awhile, because my friend Robin (robindch) recommended it. I haven't participated much, I have to admit - only because I'm kept busy elsewhere.

Anyway - I see you're all pretty convinced that Skepchicks and co are completely in the wrong, so I won't hang around, but I wanted to point out that Zombrex apologized to me and that I thanked him.

I'm glad to see you're so convinced of the strength of your argument you've decided to avoid presenting it all together.

OpheliaBenson

Thanks, that's nice.

I did that post simply to give Zombrex the credit for apologizing. I'm sorry I bothered.

Zombrex

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Anyway - I see you're all pretty convinced that Skepchicks and co are completely in the wrong, so I won't hang around,

Nodin wrote: »

I'm glad to see you're so convinced of the strength of your argument you've decided to avoid presenting it all together.

Oh dear

What Nodin meant to say was .... :eek:

This forum is populated mostly by reasonable(ish) interested(ish) posters who enjoy discussing difficult subjects where they may not agree with the other person but wish to both express their opinion and hear the opinion of others in an effort to learn and educate.

It is not a kindergarden, debates can get heated, there can be goading (as Nodin demonstrates), rolling of eyes, frustration etc. But you won't find any of the vile nonsense and abuse that populates other sites, anyone joking about how funny it would be rape another poster will find themselves on the short end of the mod's stick.

We certainly do not agree on everything on this forum, a very good example of this is the thread on the French burka ban that has completely divided opinion and lead to some heated discussion (I don't know your feelings but I oppose the ban as I feel you don't increase women's liberty by banning something they should legally allow choose to do).

But we keep at it, the community sticks together not because we all agree but precisely because we won't always agree that is what generates discussion and debate. If you want some real fun pop over the Christian forum.

While a lot of us don't agree with posts made sites such as Skepchick and Freethoughtblogs, and the behaviour of some of the posters is particularly off putting, the primary objection most of us have I think to the whole affair is the division into this "civil war" (as PZ Myers puts it) with in the skeptical community, where camp lines are being drawn and you are either with us or against us. And if you aren't with us we aren't going to listen to anything you say because everything you say is worthless, you are a extreme feminist or a woman hating misogynist, and what is the point in discussing anything with you.

I appreciate that you don't have the time to join in on every Internet forum you visit, and that perhaps your you don't feel it is your job or responsibility to educate or inform every skeptic group as to what your position is.

But I genuinely hope you do stick around and join in the debate.

Nodin

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Thanks, that's nice.

I did that post simply to give Zombrex the credit for apologizing. I'm sorry I bothered.

A simple apology classically consists of a simple apology. Throwing in the aside as regards the "skepchick" fiasco smacks of hit and run posting. This is a discussion board afterall.

Rev Hellfire

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Anyway - I see you're all pretty convinced that Skepchicks and co are completely in the wrong, so I won't hang around

I'm not sure why a small number of posters (out of the total number who post in this forum) disagreeing with you on a single position necessitates you removing yourself all further discussion.

Rheo

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Anyway - I see you're all pretty convinced that Skepchicks and co are completely in the wrong, so I won't hang around...

Not exactly. I appreciate what you are trying to do with regards to the abuse you and others have had to face, and I am sorry you had to go through that. It couldn't have been pleasant.

But with regards to the treatment of Wicknight (Zombrex) I am a little disappointed. I can understand that it was an emotionally loaded topic and I'm sure you've had your fair share of trolls pop in and derail everything so no wonder many of you had your back up. But I do hope now that you (and the others in the discussion) can appreciate that Wicknight was in fact not a troll and had good intentions.

I can certainly see where yous were coming from, but you also must understand where Zombrex was coming from. It isn't very pleasing to say the least when people are constantly calling you a "troll", constantly misrepresenting your postion, and telling you to "**** off troll" when you are anything but. I'm sure you would agree and have possibly been in similar circumstances.

And just to make a last point, sometimes some things aren't as obvious to others, particularly those who aren't at the front lines experiencing the abuse, and we do need a little more information. I can understand how frustrating that can be, but attacking people personally and telling them (as one poster put it) "something’s seriously wrong with your perspective" is counterproductive.

Oh and people need to be wary of throwing around this term (a new one to me) "tone trolling". I get that some people are on the lookout for trolls but if people accuse everyone of 'tone trolling' you will end up closing the door to genuine posters.

Lastly welcome to boards. Stick around and join in on the discussions. I guarantee you won't be disappointed .

Galvasean

Gbear wrote: »

I can't remember where I heard it but something that might resonate: You're not debating in order to convince the person you're debating with. No matter how wrong they are, it's unlikely that, if they've gotten to a stage where they're comfortable debating on an issue, they're ever going to have their minds changed.
The purpose of the debate is for those watching on who're starting from somewhat more neutral position.

A scene from Thank You for Smoking perhaps?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY

Zombrex

Jesus tap dancing christ ...

I just popped back onto Skepchick to see if the thread had moved on at all since I apologized to Ophelia and left the discussion.

Who the fudge are "marilove" and "mrmisconception" and what the heck is their major malfunction?

They seem to be falling over themselves to win the award for who can use the most abusive spiteful language in one post directed at one poster. They are still talking about points that had been clarified ages ago and still banging on about how I was too polite I must be a troll.

I really wanted to post a short reply to Amy and Ophelia about the request for data and the nature of skepticism (the point being no one, or at least not me, is calling them liars simply for not accepting individual accounts as anecdotal evidence there is a wide spread problem in the general skeptics community, that is not how skepticism works, true honest to God skepticism)

But I don't dare with those two still hanging around and still pissing themselves to come up with new and exciting ways to call me a female hating troll.

Where the heck is the moderation on these threads? I'm pretty sure Skepchick.org is not supposed to be a complete cluster f**k of abuse, they are supposed to have some freaking posting standards. How is a string of posts that do nothing but call me a misogynistic asshole not break their posting guidelines?

And message to "marilove" and "mrmisconception" if they ever wander over here following Ophelia or Michael -

Feel free to join up and engage in the discussion guys. In a moderated forum like this where you can't simply rely on name calling and stupid abusive insults, where you have to make rational arguments in support of your claims instead, I'm pretty confident I would mop the freaking floor with you.

I hope that wasn't too polite :cool:

Galvasean

Zombrex wrote: »

And message to "marilove" and "mrmisconception" if they ever wander over here following Ophelia or Michael -

Feel free to join up and engage in the discussion guys. In a moderated forum like this where you can't simply rely on name calling and stupid abusive insults, where you have to make rational arguments in support of your claims instead, I'm pretty confident I would mop the freaking floor with you.

I hope that wasn't too polite :cool:

Uh, I think you'll find they were talking to Wicknit. It's not all about you Zombrex! :rolleyes:

Nodin

Zombrex wrote: »

Jesus tap dancing christ ...

I just popped back onto Skepchick to see if the thread had moved on at all since I apologized to Ophelia and left the discussion.

You're a glass half full person, I take it.

Gbear

Galvasean wrote: »

A scene from Thank You for Smoking perhaps?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY

I haven't seen that film but it pretty much encapsulates it.

No doubt I stole it off someone who stole it off that film (who probably in turn stole it off some philosopher).

Or maybe nobody stole anything and it's just a fairly standard way to look at debate.

UDP

It is really amazing that they think people attacking other posters in such a manner is acceptable. It looks like a fair few members on the site might be actually mentally unstable - especially that marilove poster.

They really don't get that the comments makes the site look like a cesspool of hate - how is that going to encourage anyone to help then with their cause?

Makes me appreciate the civil nature of boards all the more.

Nodin

The rather savage nature of it isn't really the greatest problem though. If asking for evidence of specific allegations=troll then rational (if betimes abusive) discussion is over.

DapperGent

My favorite bit is where Wicknight is being castigated as a "fúcking MRA troll clone" and over here he has no idea what MRA even stands for.

Zombrex

Nodin wrote: »

You're a glass half full person, I take it.

Not any freaking more. Amy's, (a Skepchick), ridiculously offensive and utterly hypocritical defense of those posting on her site tipped the scales well well over the edge. She is not some random poster, she is one of the founders of the freaking site. She was not excusing them in some sort of free speech everyone has a right to their opinion blah blah blah fashion, she was saying it was correct and justified and just bad words.

Michael WTF are you doing associating with these people? I swear to God I'm so angry right now.

Nodin

Zombrex wrote: »

Not any freaking more. Amy's, (a Skepchick), ridiculously offensive and utterly hypocritical defense of those posting on her site tipped the scales well well over the edge. She is not some random poster, she is one of the founders of the freaking site. She was not excusing them in some sort of free speech everyone has a right to their opinion blah blah blah fashion, she was saying it was correct and justified and just bad words.

Michael WTF are you doing associating with these people? I swear to God I'm so angry right now.

You're seeing what I mean then
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80088754&postcount=869

Gbear

I think it's fair enough to get upset about certain types of issues that hit close to home but that's only an explanation as to why you might act like a dick; it's not an excuse.

In the kind of environment we have here on boards I think that if we really thought another poster had lost their objectivity it'd be easily spotted and the offending party could explain why they were so furious and although it doesn't justify ****ty logic, in a less hostile environment it gives us the chance to crank things down a bit and bring rationality back into the debate.

That's not going to happen when there's an arms race of assholery with no input from mods to stop it.

Zombrex

Nodin wrote: »

You're seeing what I mean then
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80088754&postcount=869

I certainly do.

After a poster explained to me how I was my fault I was "mistaken" for a troll by the rest of them Rebecca Watson just banned me.

Well that was fun. What a bunch of hate filled assholes.

Mark Hamill

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Hello.

Oddly enough, I've been a member of this board for awhile, because my friend Robin (robindch) recommended it. I haven't participated much, I have to admit - only because I'm kept busy elsewhere.

Anyway - I see you're all pretty convinced that Skepchicks and co are completely in the wrong, so I won't hang around, but I wanted to point out that Zombrex apologized to me and that I thanked him.

Hello.
pH, a few days ago, posted a synopsis of the events from the elevator incident up to reaching pharyngula site. Would you say that is accurate?

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

I'm sorry I bothered.

Why are you sorry you bothered?

Corkfeen

Just read through a few of the responses, holy crap! Seemed like a rather overblown reaction to a normal display of skepticism. It reminded me of a forum that I used to frequent in my younger days, it basically consisted of people swearing at each other. Such atmospheres don't allow for any discussion as posters constantly feel under threat of attack and it seems to negate the idea of a skeptics site when opposing views aren't tolerated.

King Mob

Zombrex wrote: »

Not any freaking more. Amy's, (a Skepchick), ridiculously offensive and utterly hypocritical defense of those posting on her site tipped the scales well well over the edge. She is not some random poster, she is one of the founders of the freaking site. She was not excusing them in some sort of free speech everyone has a right to their opinion blah blah blah fashion, she was saying it was correct and justified and just bad words.

Michael WTF are you doing associating with these people? I swear to God I'm so angry right now.

I like how when you claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse and they immediately assumed you were lying and using that to troll and get attention.

That, among the other disgraceful behaviour of founding members, has seriously discredited them in my eyes.

Rheo

Well, at least now we can see it all for what it truly is. It's disappointing that it had to end this way. Let's not try to dramatize it too much though. That's pretty much how all this shit snowballed in the first place.

The Skepchick users have a lot of growing up to do.

Zombrex

King Mob wrote: »

I like how when you claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse and they immediately assumed you were lying and using that to troll and get attention.

I really regret saying that now, it is not something I've talk about online before nor is it something I have any desire to discuss, particular with those morons. Nodin is right, they fecking push you and push you with the mods sitting back waving everyone on.

In another example of anti-skeptical insanity "Will", one of the commenters insulting me throughout the thread is actually a blogger on Skepchick and has just blogged about how empirical data is over rated and anecdotal evidence is often good enough, and that those who seek empirical data are often trolls. Oddly the focus seemed to be on evidence for wide spread misogyny in the skeptical community.

I keep checking I haven't fallen down a rabbit hole....

sponsoredwalk

Zombrex wrote: »

and has just blogged about how empirical data is over rated and anecdotal evidence is often good enough, and that those who seek empirical data are often trolls.

Oh man... Link?

King Mob

Zombrex wrote: »

Nodin is right, they fecking push you and push you with the mods sitting back waving everyone on.

Were you informed what the precise reason you were banned for was or was it just a general ban for "trolling"?

As the only real tonal shift I saw between your last post and the rest of them was that you 1) swore and 2) was a bit more confrontational. Both of which other people did long before you and much more so.

Gbear

King Mob wrote: »

Were you informed what the precise reason you were banned for was or was it just a general ban for "trolling"?

For that forum that would seem to entail "not acting like a c*nt".

What about the "other side". Are they as much of a shower?

Hotblack Desiato

Proves that cults aren't confined to religion if half (or more) of them were really fundie Christian trolls trying to discredit atheism/skepticism, would we be able to tell the difference?

Rheo

ninja900 wrote: »

Proves that cults aren't confined to religion if half (or more) of them were really fundie Christian trolls trying to discredit atheism/skepticism, would we be able to tell the difference?

I smell a conspiracy theory brewing :P.

Zombrex

King Mob wrote: »

Were you informed what the precise reason you were banned for was or was it just a general ban for "trolling"?

I wasn't informed of anything, Watson informed the others that I was banned ("obviously"), much to their amusement. I just found my account no longer was logged in.

I suppose the one productive thing (if you could call it that) is that the continuing posts declaring that I'm not a victim of hate or abuse just a whining man with a brused ego is giving these posters enough rope to hang themselves.

What easy quantifiable evidence these Skepchick posters are hypocritical morons? Read these ...

Zombrex

"Hate has no place in our midst and we should strive to protect those among us who dare to speak out, even if they are shedding light on our community’s shortcomings."

SurlyAmy just tweeted that (she is quoting Carlos Alfredo Diaz). About oh I don't know 2 hours after she told all the hate filled posters on that thread that what they were doing was ok, it was justifiable and sure it was just harmless bad words, not real hate, not real abuse.

I'm off to bed. Hopefully when I wake up in the morning this will all have been a bad dream.

Shall we stop talking about these people now? I feel like I'm reading a recap of the movie Mean Girls. Well, if I'd ever seen it I assume that's how I'd feel.

Galvasean

Personal abuse is not only tolerated, but indeed encouraged.
Empirical evidence is shunned in favor of anecdotes.
Good (lack of) God, it's like the A&A forums retarded sister or something.

Did somebody say... SCHISM????