Such a Busy Week

Need more examples of why you don’t include the handle of people who have blocked you when you tweet about them? Here’s the crap I’ve been alerted to over the last few days by responses and Storify collections, plus some random nastiness that was waiting when I searched on Storify. If the embed doesn’t work for you, the Storify is here.

Such a Busy Week
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

10 thoughts on “Such a Busy Week

  1. 2

    These people are pathological. it’s like a gang mentality where an individual’s conscience is absorbed by the basest member(s) and the gang take on that (those) member(s) attributes. The research paper about trolls having sociopathical tendencies certainly rings true at times. It’s like they are caricatures from a creationist’s wet dream that an atheist is merely a person who is angry at the world.

    And our so called leaders want a bigger tent in order to make are numbers stronger? Fuck that! I understand that the atheist movement is growing as young-and-newer generation come up into the ranks. And, with that, there will be a wild divergence of views between older members and newer members, but there are viewpoints expressed by some that has established the fact that I want zero interaction with those individuals in meat space. Which is probably the reason why most hide behind a pseudonym.

  2. 4

    Gilliel wrote:

    Let me guess, they’re ALL falling over their feed apologizing now that Radford has publicly admitted to posting a “retraction” Karen never agreed on or signed?

    I doubt that between the entire pitfull of them they could manage enough integrity or intellectual honesty to allow even one of them to do that.

  3. 5

    Good thing I was informed via blog post that I had been blocked, otherwise, how would I know! It’s very important to publicly cry about why you block people.

    Also, she picked one quote to show here as why I was blocked. Interesting. It was also highly dishonest. I was being a bit snarky in the post she picked to show off, but my other posts (which she did not display) were fairly neutral on the subject of Stollznow. I was pressing Stollznow for a statement because I wanted to establish or refute Radford’s apology claims. I hardly use Twatter because it’s stupid, but I was using it at this time because Stollznow uses it, and I wanted to hear her side. I was, in fact, listening to the supposed victim.

    For this, and being a bit snarky in response to a post (not shown) which claimed that all white men are automatically believed at all times, I apparently am pathological.

    And since the subject has been brought up, no, obviously I do not think Radford is totes innocent. I have no opinion (both sides have their own claims and state they have evidence-which I have not seen-to support their claims) and I hope the courts get to the truth of the matter.

    It’s cool to block me and other people, I just wanted to explain some shit.

    And yes, a couple of those people are kind of weird, like EllenBeth and Sanderson.

  4. 6

    I’m going to assume, for the sake of simplicity, that you’re one of the people I blocked recently. Not being one of those people is about the only thing that would make your comment make less sense.

    The purpose of the post is not to say why I blocked people. It’s to point out why tweeting abusively while including the Twitter handle of people who have you blocked is still abusive. ETA: To be very clear: It’s because when people respond, I have the choice of blocking them too, objecting, or being told every time this shit is going on.

    All of the tweets of people I’ve blocked that were directed at me over the last week or so are included here. If I blocked you, I have no interest in reading any more of your tweets, much less including them in a Storify that isn’t about your feelings or thoughts about Karen Stollznow. It’s not being “dishonest” to leave them out any more than it’s “dishonest” that I didn’t include the text of the last State of the Union address.

    Additionally, unless you’re a judge in the case Radford brought against her, you’ve got no business asking Karen for a statement, particularly in response to something Radford slapped up on his Facebook wall. He made this a court case. The fact that he now wants to try it in public doesn’t require that she act as recklessly as he does. Besides, who are you? What the fuck does she owe you and for what? Your curiosity? Bullshit.

    Stop acting like the world revolves around you. It will also probably get you blocked less on Twitter.

  5. 8

    Of course Stollznow doesn’t “owe” anyone anything. I and many other people asked (some of whom were already firmly in her camp), and she answered. What she eventually posted about Radford on her indiegogo was far more incendiary/indicting than her twitter statement, so it’s not as if her legal position was made worse. Not compared to what’s on the indiegogo page. Asking doesn’t imply I think I’m entitled, it’s just asking. Duh. If she wanted to respond, she would. If not, she wouldn’t.

    I don’t understand what you mean about “tweeting while including the handle of someone who blocked you is abusive.” I never block anyone myself, and as I said, I hardly use twitter. I’m pretty certain you didn’t block me until the post which is on this storify. So my post doesn’t even count as an example of what you claim to be talking about. I don’t follow you around or post obsessively at you. I only noticed your tweet or retweet or whatever it was because I was curious about the Stollznow/Radford issue.

    Your standard for “abusive” also seems a bit odd. You were posting quite a few tweets in support of Karen, some of which were retweeted by her. You inserted yourself into this whole drama, which was nothing to do with you, and so a few people you decided you don’t like posted on the drama with an @ that included you. Probably because twitter is shit, and includes those @s automatically. That is not abuse. Those @s may even have been accidents in some cases. You jumped feet first into a twitter storm, when it had no more to do with you than any of the “pathological” twitter “abusers” you are now listing and calling abusive.

    If you believe that I (for example) have abused you personally and caused some emotional or financial damage to you, perhaps you should develop a court case against me. Because “abuse,” such as “she abused me” is a criminal accusation of wrongdoing. I’d love to hear the legal argument why a one-off eye-rolling tweet amounts to “abuse.”

    That said, EllenBeth and Sanderson are still weirdos who seem unhealthily obsessed with twitter-stalking people.

Comments are closed.