Look, I get it. Y’all are skeptics, whatever the fuck that means. You think that when someone like rebecca watson starts talking stupid on the internet, there’s some logical, respectful way to rebut them. The problem is, you’re playing the wrong game. You’re playing by rules they don’t give a fuck about, and you’re going to lose over and over.
That would be John Welch, slimepitter, explaining the appropriate strategy for dealing with “new media douchebags”. Like Rebecca. Like me.
If you’re going to take them down, and I think you should, don’t get sucked into endless gish gallops that you are going to lose. You’re going to lose because you think the horse will eventually stop, except it’s a goat, you’re on mars, and martian goats can run for years.
Don’t get sucked into what you think their point is. Assume they’re always trolling you, and go from there. Hold them up for ridicule by ridiculing them. Don’t yell at them on their twitter accounts, that just gives them OMG BULLIES ammo. Don’t even @-message them. Trust me, all them fuckers have a wide array of Google ego searches running. ANY mention of them by name will get their attention. Just mock the fuck out of what they say.
But…but…criticism of positions?
I just blocked most, if not all, of these people because as one follower noted, if you have to debate this fact with your followers, it’s time to get better followers.
“But if I actually had better followers, I’d have no followers. Luckily, the really stupid ones are my fans…but perhaps I’ve said too much.”
And I’m also guessing that like me, if you meet a sexy stranger who is drunk (and I’m going by thecommon definition here, of someone whose faculties are impaired, e.g., slurred speech, stumbling, etc.), you will not have sex with them, even if they say they’d like to. This isn’t because it’s the law (even though it is, as @simonknowz aptly points out: “Whoever . . . knowingly . . . engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is . . . (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct . . .”), but because it is the right thing to do. Because you are not so hard up for sex that you need to have sex with someone who may feel regret or revulsion or worse in the morning. Because you don’t assume your partner (yes, even one you’re married to) is in a constant state of consent. Because you don’t get off on the power you can have over someone who doesn’t have full control of their own faculties (or if you do get off on that, you have long, sober conversations with your partner before exploring that as a fantasy).
“See how I redefined a term that covers everything from a single drink (legally drunk in many states) to comatose to mean only what I want it to? I bet all you fuckers who yelled at me before I did this are feeling pretty fucking assraped right now. But when I do it, it’s called “fighting for social justice”. Ohhhhh, i’m the biggest serpent in the sea, sea, sea…”
Can we even try for following the plot?
And still elsewhere, people are slamming Franchesca Ramsey for being brave enough to speak out about the rape of drunk people and others who are blamed for their rape. In particular, she discusses how she was shamed when she was raped:
“EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH ME IS A RAPIST! See how easy you make it for me? I don’t even have to try anymore. Now where’s that fucking sterno? Goddamned Sunday liquor store closings…”
I guess not. Well, what does that leave us?
That is how you respond to manipulative fucksticks like Watson. You don’t take them seriously, you don’t try to debate them in a serious manner, because they are never, ever, going to even try to not demonize and manipulate their opponents into giving them quote fodder. Just show, with as much sarcasm as you can muster, how astoundingly cynical, manipulative, and well, stupid, the shit she and the FTBwats says is. Trust me, a continued response of mockery is the only response non-serious nincompoops like this understand. Don’t hassle them directly, again, that plays into their hands. Just mock the fuck out of them on your own sites, and make sure you let folks know when you do. Over time, it works, and well.
Yeah, because that’s what that rational disagreement is all about. Semi-private wankery among friends, or people with common targets, or whatever this group is.
The fun part about all of this? All the slimepitters who showed up in the comments to say, “Yeah, this is how we do it!” All the #atheismplus campers who endorsed both the original and the helpful linky post.
Because, you see, it’s really just reasoned dissent that we think we should be exempt from. That’s totally what it is. Yeah.