Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

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.

Zombrex

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?

Zombrex

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????

Hotblack Desiato

I'm reminded of this and seeing a long queue of willing button pushers there.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

A good reminder of the dangers of groupthink whether among so-called atheists (swapping one cult for another isn't atheism) or religionists or nationalists.

Rheo

Zombrex wrote: »

"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.

Here's the thing. If they call you a troll then it's easy to abuse/misrepresent you and not feel bad about it afterward. It's a good way to erode empathy.

"We don't have to be reasonable to trolls, we don't have to use logic or reason when talking to trolls. We don't have to back up our claims when talking to trolls. We can do and say anything to him because he's a troll, he deserves it. **** off troll! derp. Straw mans and fallcies are a-okay because he's a troll. Oh wait... he's not a troll? Oh crap!...uh... quick blame him for our mistake, or we'll look like hypocrites! hurr it's your fault we thought you were a troll! harp darp empirical data is overrated hurr durr! quick ban him, lol we sure showed him, he butthurt lol hurr durr"

They've just acted like savages, and don't have to feel guilty for it because all they have to do is label you a troll. All they have to do is label you an MRA troll, a misogynist, whatever, irrespective of whether it's true or not and all the rules fly out the window. Just let the group think kick in and you can treat anyone like dirt.

But there were some users it seems ('generally fading' and 'davew' I think) who weren't quick off the mark to shoot you down and actually read what you wrote, and I suspect there were others too. But if the owners of the site behave like that, not too many people will speak up I imagine.

"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... but only when it suits us."

UDP

Looks like I have been banned also (getting "invalid username" error message) for questioning that maybe encouraging hate filled blog comments isn't a way to encourage people not to show hate to others (obviously including women) considering ironically Michael in his article quotes this:

“What you fail to understand is that the use of hate speech, threats and bullying to terrify and intimidate people into silence or away from certain topics is a far bigger threat to free speech than any legal sanction. Imagine this is not the internet but a public square. One woman stands on a soapbox and expresses an idea. She is instantly surrounded by an army of 5,000 angry people yelling the worst kind of abuse at her in an attempt to shut her up. Yes, there’s a free speech issue there. But not the one you think.”

It seems either you agree with them 100% in everything they say no matter how nasty or you are an enemy and are deserving of any verbal abuse sent your way.

@Michael, I assume you don't condone this behaviour?
I know I would not like to be associated with such abusive hate-filled behaviour etc that Zombrex, I and others experienced on that site while trying to have a reasoned discussion.

pH

The really hilarious, ironic and hypocritical thing is that this was in the comments section of a sycophantic article written for them by Michael Nugent about the horrors of online abuse.

Now I know that Wicknight was obviously not a woman - and as Michael's OP quite succinctly pointed out in some detail that if you're not female then online abuse isn't that big a deal (well no where near as big a deal as for a woman) - but you'd imagine they might have toned it down for one article.

As for "tone troll" - I'm still not exactly sure what one is, however I've figured out how they detect them - using a page straight out of the witchfinder general's manual:

1) Create a hostile and mocking environment that heaps abuse on the "suspect".
2) If the suspect responds in kind - BAN THEM
3) If the suspect doesn't respond in kind - then the logical conclusion is the only reason they would be refraining from abuse is that they're a "tone troll" - BAN THEM

More seriously "Tone Troll" is used as a slur on those who (as Wick did) want the debate itself cleaned up - it's originates at community level as an entitled "F**k off we're proud of our sweary insulting way of doing things" - which is fair enough - it's the opposite of say boards.ie

Or, possibly, they're a pompous blowhard who, lacking such frivolous accoutrements as an actual argument, attempts to distract attention from said deficit by complaining that their opposition uses dirty words and ought, really, to have some strict nanny figure—possibly Mary Poppins—to wash out their mouths with soap.
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_troll

It just seems strange that you can be so proud of your "adult" way on discourse on one had - then get enormously offended by other forms of abuse when it's incoming.

So you can't criticize all abuse on the net - you must do as Michael Nugent did - just condemn abuse effectively against them, abuse against other women.

You can be rude and nasty as part of the debate - and anyone who focuses on particular words you use (and not the the debated itself) is a "tone troll" - however when other people use other words like say "feminazi" then it's perfectly acceptable to stop reading right there, ignore an 11 page document and discount the author for the use of one word.

That is absolutely unbelievable. Completely unbelievable.

They should all be seriously ashamed of themselves for that offensive sh!te.
The irony and hypocrisy of yelling about bad debate tactics and derailing when all they did was fling abuse at wick was mindblowing.

Probably ill advised, but I ended up registering and posting, I'm so angry.
I suppose it will be deleted and banned or whatever, but something has to be said

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

as Michael's OP quite succinctly pointed out in some detail that if you're not female then online abuse isn't that big a deal (well no where near as big a deal as for a woman)

Seriously! You actually believe that.

I mean it must be a great comfort to the likes of Tyler Clementi family to know that the on-line abuse they suffered wasn't so bad since they had the good fortune to be born male.

Zombrex

DapperGent wrote: »

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.

This is probably the most ironic bit of the whole thing, considering that on the Humanities forum on Boards.ie I've actually spent a great deal of time arguing with some supporters of the father's rights movement that I want to see data that there is a strong inherent bias against fathers and favoring mothers in the Irish court system, a common charge but one that doesn't seem to have a lot of empirical evidence to back it up. Not saying it doesn't happen, but not going to simply accept it is wide spread until seeing the data. And consistently instead of this data what was presented is a catalog of anecdotal evidence.

Irony thy name is Skepchick.

Northclare

I'm just wondering what discussion are some of ye getting banned from ?

Northclare

Northclare wrote: »

I'm just wondering what discussion are some of ye getting banned from ?

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

Sarky

Jesus, it actually got worse. And it's perfectly accepted by the folks in charge. Oh, it couldn't be a real apology because he's a troll, right?

The responses to his final post are nothing short of despicable. Those kids should (but probably won't) be ashamed of themselves. Half the people on that thread look like part of the problem.