Silentbob posted an excellent comment on one of the last threads that I think really cuts through a lot of the pushback with regard to cleaning up our own houses. It’s not about who’s “good enough” to be part of our “exclusive club”, it’s about acknowledging problems when there’s overwhelming evidence that those problems exist, and fixing them. Given that we’ve attacked the Catholic church so often for their issues with child molestation, even though MOST PRIESTS AREN’T CHILD MOLESTERS, one would think that we would recognize the need to acknowledge the problem of antifeminism and outright misogyny even though MOST ATHEISTS AREN’T MISOGYNISTS.
The comparison my be odious, but I suggest an analogy with the paedophilia problem in the catholic church.
Atheists, of course, strongly condemn this behaviour, but are we not almost as appalled by the church’s response, which is typically to trivialise, dismiss or conceal the problem? How do we react when the church says, “Oh, but this is just a few isolated incidents! You shouldn’t condemn the whole church. Most priests aren’t paedophiles. Why make such a fuss? Focus on the good, not on the bad!”. Aren’t we especially disgusted when they resort to blaming the victim? When someone within speaks out and acknowledges the problem, don’t we praise them?
There is a misogyny problem within the atheist movement. It is well documented. Let us not trivialise, or dismiss, or sweep the problem under the carpet. Nor complain that is it isn’t representative of the atheist movement as a whole. And most of all, let us not blame the victim. We must do just what we would expect of the church – focus on the problem, highlight the problem, condemn the problem in the strongest possible terms, and set about fixing it. The people who have been doing this should not be attacked for exaggerating the problem, or for calling the movement into disrepute. They should be thanked for the courage to take a stand.
We must hold ourselves to a higher standard than we would hold those we oppose.
I’ve also elsewhere likened it to people being told they have cancer, but instead of treating it, they demand that doctors stop talking about your body being “full of cancer” when it’s really just one tumor, and really the tumor is teeny-tiny, no bigger than 0.01% of your body mass!
Can we just deal with the tumor please? Is that so hard?
The problem with the issue of child molestation by church officials is that these officials are, according to church dogma, ordained by god. This structural dynamic is the root of the churches inability to correct the problem. So the problem was not merely one of opportunity, or of individual misconduct, it was a problem with the hierarchical nature of the church itself.
In my opinion this makes the issue a pretty weak analogy to the skeptical/atheist community and the fact that some atheists are full blown racist sexist bigots.
True, but it’s kind of telling that the reason the church is so recalcitrant to deal with the issue is they think they’re ordained by God and that their internal sins are the Devil trying to destroy the church. If we don’t believe in the supernatural, you’d think we wouldn’t wagon-circle to protect misogyny at the expense of minority voices.
You’re wrong, brokenmech. The Catholic Church has a problem which it refuses to deal with efficiently and effectively. It doesn’t matter what the reason is, the fact remains they have a serious problem which they are not solving.
Likewise, atheism has a problem with misogyny which we have to fix. Many atheists (a) refuse to acknowledge the problem and/or (b) refuse to discuss how to deal with it.
Besides, who gives a rat’s ass about whether or not Catholic pedophilia is a good analogy to atheism’s misogyny and other social justice problems?
Response to #1
It is a rare analagy that is a 1:1 map. I think the point being made is a good one in that the fact there aren’t many misogynists in the atheist movement doesn’t mean we should be OK that they are there.
That the analagy is not perfect is, I think, beside the point. I think we can all agree that priests raping children is worse than bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community.
We need to work on dealing with misogyny in the atheist community. Not on finding a better analagy for it.
As a general detractor of FTB and the atheist+ cause, I don’t think anyone sees themselves as protecting misogyny. I think it is natural that the “free thinking” community would consist of a wide range of apolitically divergent opinions and ideologies. I think people, myself included, see themselves as protective of that fundamentally anarchic quality that the Skeptical/atheist community has always embodied.
Well said. Though there is a part of it that when these things are described, they don’t seem to talk about the fact that it is a minority of atheists. The descriptions of various Conf. being unsafe for women, it stirs up images of a systematic or widespread sexual harrasment, where a woman should never be alone. Rather than what is likely, there are a few jerks who behave in a completely unacceptable manner. Some men might feel as though they are being blamed or that now women should view them as a potential harrasser just by virtue of being a man.
What I think is meant(and I think Rebecca Watson has said at some point or another), is that: I expected not to have to deal with this sort of stuff in the atheist community. I thought it would be safer than most other places. Yet this isn’t always what comes across.
Likewise, saying that “Misogyny is a BIG problem in the atheist community.”, could be read as “Important problem” or “Widespread problem”, or both.
I’ve never attended an atheist conf., but, my guess would be that it is not widespread, but that it is important.
I suspect there is some communication breakdown here, and that some people feel like the entire community is being painted as Hostile to women and that the movement as a whole is less safe then most other groups. They respond by saying you(generic) are over-reacting and are dismissive of the claims because they view them as ridiculous. Some get more hostile than that, presumably because there is less consequences for the harrasser on the internet.
All opinions are not equal. The opinion that briefs are better than boxers hurts no one. The opinion that bitches ain’t shit and they should all be raped until they shut up is hurtful to half the world’s population. So where do you draw the line about which opinions are acceptable and which aren’t? I strongly suspect I’m more restrictive about acceptable opinions than you.
The problem with the issue of misogyny by some atheists is that these male atheists of course are, according to their culture and socialization, feeling superior to these women and their allies because “ratio” was and is considered the male domain, “emotional” was and is considered the female domain (which is of course stupid and not true. Men aren’t more rational than women, male responses are usually considered more rational because they come from men). That’s why the reactions from women standing up to sexism and marginalization are often quickly labeled “overemotional”, “hysterical” and thus dismissed. Not because they are any of that, but because they are unwelcome and come from women.
This structural dynamic is the root of society’s inability to correct the problem of leftovers from centuries and millenia of religious influence, as Christianity (and other religions) never had any problem with considering women inferior to men, or other human groups inferior to the wealthy, heterosexual, white male.
So the problem is not merely one of opportunity, or of individual misconduct, it is a problem with the hierarchical nature of our society itself.
Fixed it for ya.
@’Tis Himself
I think you and others on this side of the great divide have put far too much emphasis on the existence of troll comments. This entire focus on trolling has substantially undermined your ability to put forward a rational position.
@br0kenmech, how do you tell a comment is from a troll? Even if it from a troll and it is a violent rape threat how is that ok?
The analogy isn’t perfect since the Catholic Church is much more highly organized with a clear chain of command and lots of rules on the books; they could reign in bad behavior if they wanted to.
On the other hand, dealing with misogyny in the atheist community is a bit different since there isn’t the same organization, but just because it’s harder to deal with doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be dealt with.
For people who feel that this is coming too close to drawing some clear lines on where the “atheist community” stands, it kind of is that, but I don’t see it as a negative thing. The atheism+ is largely a response to the fact that without some clear commitment to certain ideas that go beyond just disbelieving in religion, the community is unwelcoming and has little value to some people who don’t feel like they can belong and feel safe. If this leads to some kind of a split, it’s just bound to happen.
Of course some of them don’t see themselves that way. After all, being a bigot is bad. How they see themselves means fuck-all, because the end result of their choices/posts/behavior/etc is the protection, encouragement of and/or complicity bigotry.
How can you look at the endless campaign of derranged hatred lobbed at someone like Jen McCreight and still say this with a straigh face? They mocked her for having depression for fuck’s sake.
I agree. They love protecting straight white cisgendered dude supremeacy. That’s kinda the problem.
See? it’s an endless parade of Clueless Privileged Dudeness. nevermind how many examples are put forth, they’ll just keep pretending it’s an isolated incident, or that one bitch’s fault.
Brokenmech @5:
So if the RCC said “every diocese is really self-regulating when it comes to the behavior of its priests. This independence is so important, we can’t go against it by making a blanket policy condemning harassment by priests,” you’d be okay with that response?
I don’t think so. I think you would see it for what it is: a cowardly attempt to avoid a problem.
We might be anarchic freethinkers, but that provides no good justification for not condemning and working against harassment in the community. You would not accept the “but we’re merely a meta-group of many independent groups and individuals – we can’t institute some general policy!” excuse from any other group. So why accept it from your own?
br0kenmech said:
Question: What is the difference between trolling and abuse?
Some will say “Don’t feed the trolls,” but none of us want to sit by passively while actual abuse of another human being’s physical, mental or social well-being is going on, right? What level of background threat should be considered acceptable?
And on a related note… Why isn’t it reasonable for people to want to surround themselves with people who don’t make them feel like shit?
@ smrnda
If all that was being promoted was a friendly and safe environment for everyone to freely discuss and debate their ideas, then I doubt there would be any significant objection. The problem is that FTB and the atheism+ community are not merely saying chill on the negativity and trolling… they are endorsing very particular ideological constructs that many people see as dogmatic and authoritarian. Any casual observer can read through the threads at at the atheism+ forum and see just how unwelcoming and ideologically driven the entire dialogue is. Endless discussions about the most inane minutia of gender and identity issues. It is an intellectual black hole. Even those who are almost entirely supportive of the project are attacked mercilessly for the slightest transgression. This is why people are so opposed to the agenda being promoted by FTB and atheism+.
Silly me, I thought the problem was that they molested children and then didn’t do anything about that. Your point is what I would call an additional problem for the church, but it doesn’t detract from the similarities pointed out in the OP.
br0kenmech is protective of that fundamentally anarchic quality that the Skeptical/atheist community has always embodied.
What fundamental anarchic quality is this? I’ve been part of the skeptical community since 1986 and I don’t recall any fundamentally anarchic qualities that in whose cause harassment, rape and death threats would be acceptable behavior.
Perhaps you meant the fundamental anarchic quality of under-matured, unsocialized asshats? I can see that.
Those “very particular ideological constructs” – ARE they dogmatic and authoritarian? Many people see the Christian church as the highest expression of human freedom, but they’re wrong. If you think weeding out misogyny is dangerously, inherently dogmatic, you’re wrong too.
We’re not here to cheer ourselves for being awesome, we’re here to discover REALITY. If what we discover mandates us as ethical beings to change, then we work for change.
@br0kenmech
This is why people are so opposed to the agenda being promoted by FTB and atheism+
By “people,” what do you mean exactly? Do you mean lots of people? Some people? ALL People?
Your lack of specificity suggests that your point of view has broad support – or at least you feel it does. It suggests you feel you represent the majority opinion though no statistical evidence exists to suggest you are right (or wrong).
You talk of how the atheism+ forums look to a “casual observer” and yet your own statements would suggest you are no casual observer. How then, do you know how a “casual observer” would respond?
Everything I’ve seen about atheism+ is that it is an opt in community. If you don’t want in, don’t casually observe the forums.
If you dislike FTB and atheim+ so much, why are you here? I don’t get it. What is your goal?
The problem is that by most peoples standards, sexism and misogyny are not tolerated in the skeptical/atheist community at large. The vast majority of people would not stand idly by while a woman was sexually harassed or assault. The problem is that the standards of what qualifies as harassment and abuse within the atheism+ community are not even close to the standards of the majority of people. So when someone like surly Amy says in a pod cast that she was subjected to viscous harassment, or when people use elevator gate as an example of sexual harassment (which they do) then most people are just going to role their eyes. It is at this point that the FTB/atheism+ community then accuses everyone else of supporting misogyny and rape threats. It’s the problem of crying wolf. After a while people just role their eyes.
Yep, because the whole last year would just magically go away as people opposed to examining sexism (and other issues) in the larger atheism movement would suddenly realize that “Oh! They’re just creating a Safe Space!”
Head, meet Desk.
That many people see it as such does not mean it is actually so.
So…. don’t read the threads in atheism+ forums. It’s specifically billed as a place for people to talk about particular things, under a particular set of assumptions. If you don’t want to talk about those things, or don’t agree with those assumptions…. don’t go there?
And you know, you might find the discussions minutiae-driven, but clearly they don’t. That’s sort of the point of the forum, is to debate fine points without constantly getting derailed.
Oh, well now I understand how justified their despicable tactics really are? Clearly, since the agenda is so unworthy of engagement, the only solution is character attacks and vicious campaigns of slurs and abuse. In the face of the existential threat posed by A+, slash and burn really is the only appropriate response, right?
Really, why is it so hard for people opposed to A+ to just …. let it go? If we’re so divisive and mean and ugly and such, why not just believe the rhetoric that A+ is doomed to failure, will burn out on its own, and all will return to normal?
Not to be petty, but…
This makes me recall The Blob. Viscous attacks!
@Petsnakereggie
Why am I here? Just having a conversation. Now I’m going to wash the dishes.
Bye all.
br0kenmech says: It is at this point that the FTB/atheism+ community then accuses everyone else of supporting misogyny and rape threats.
How much of the *actual* rape and death threats against the FtB bloggers do you support? It seems you MUST be supportive of people who send those rape threats because it is so irresistibly anarchic and freewheeling to do so and that’s what you’re all about.
You MUST have at least one or two female relatives or acquaintances. Have you NO empathy at al?
I quote from Jen McCreight’s Goodbye For Now:
So which of these insults don’t meet the standards of cis-hetero white males (which is what I assume you mean by “majority of people”)? You’re the one pretending that sexual harassment and abuse are a miniscule problem, so it’s up to you to explain away what the Atheism+ people (which includes me) see as harassment and abuse.
Are rape threats acceptable? How about groping? How about gnawing on women’s legs without their permission? How about hitting on women who are obviously uninterested on being hit on? Come on, big guy, justify how sexism isn’t sexism for “the majority of people”.
Gwynnyd
None. I find that conduct reprehensible.
What is it that you think could be realistically done to prevent trolls from trolling on the internet? Most people who have dealt with trolls do understand that they are to be ignored. Putting the spotlight on trolling is a terrible strategy, if your aim is to minimize their impact… but I realize that you all have come to the backwards conclusion that trolling must be confronted head on. Good luck with that plan.
Now I really must go wash some dishes.
Bye.
Just having a conversation about how we’re all paying too much heed to trolls making the community inhospitable to women, and how attacking people who say what you say as supporting rape threats and misogyny is terrible and off-putting to people like you. All in defense of your anarchic ideals of the community. I see.
So you’d attack people trying to fix the problem, rather than the problem itself. Good to know where you stand.
Your ideas are exactly the ideas that the atheism plus folks want to expurgate from the community because they demonstrably harm movement cohesion and adoption, and they enforce a status quo of privileged folks over the underclasses. No wonder you’re upset and hanging around places you don’t like.
@Patrick
I’ve had that exact argument over and over, mainly they are fighting because…
* FtBs must be stopped or they will destroy the atheist movement
* I’m worried FtBs will be seen to represent the atheist movement and they are a bunch of assholes
* FtBs are infantalising women. Or less pretentious – they tote the wrong kind of feminism
* Or some theme on these
And why can they not let it go?
* See above they will destroy us all if not stopped!
* We tried ignoring the religious and see how that went.
There are definitely two ideas on their side at cross purposes
– FtBs are insignificant whiners
– FtBs are all powerful and suppress our free speech and will bring about the end of atheism!
br0kenmech saying FtBs side are not rational… Irony burns bright!
brokenmensch, if you have limited interest on gender and identity issues, then don’t read posts about them. I’m not that interested in golf.
On ‘crying wolf’ I just hate that expression, not just because it’s an unoriginal cliche but because it’s commonly used by all sorts of dude-bros to argue that whenever a woman feels like her person or space has been violated, that it’s up to the dude-bro to be the arbiter of what’s misogyny and what’s not. It seems like a lot of people want to simply dismiss any discussion of sexism out of hand, and anything that draws attention to it is going to be shot down as being ‘authoritarian and dogmatic’ or else ‘exaggerating.’ The same deal with ‘this is crying wolf over sexual harassment’ reminds me a lot of the whole ‘legitimate rape’ nonsense. “Role” your eyes all you want.
Perhaps it’s an identity politics issue. I don’t know your demographics, so it might just be that the issues don’t affect you so you don’t see them as important?
smrnda #29
QFT.
At my company, as well as just about every other company in the First World, sexual harassment is determined by the victim. If someone thinks they’ve been sexually harassed, then they have been. It’s not up to some dude-bro executive director to decide if that person has been sexually harassed, if the victim says it’s sexual harassment then the company’s response is to discipline the harasser and take steps that the situation doesn’t reoccur.
So real life doesn’t meet brokenmech’s opinions and prejudices.
“At my company, as well as just about every other company in the First World, sexual harassment is determined by the victim. If someone thinks they’ve been sexually harassed, then they have been. It’s not up to some dude-bro executive director to decide if that person has been sexually harassed, if the victim says it’s sexual harassment then the company’s response is to discipline the harasser and take steps that the situation doesn’t reoccur.
That sounds ghastly. Where an accusation is as good as a conviction, justice is going to be misused. Due process is something that should be afforded to all, ESPECIALLY those accused of an offense.
Glad to know that – most companies I’ve worked for took sexual harassment pretty seriously.
I was mostly thinking about how misogyny and trivializing the issue of sexual harassment has an impact on what happens in public, less formal settings where official actions aren’t as likely to be as effective. I mean, lots of public sexual harassment happens, and all the guys out there going on about how women are ‘crying wolf’ lead to a climate where it’s considered normal. It’s like you have to argue with some guy that someone screaming “Bitch I want to fuck you!” while you cross the road ought to be considered sexual harassment, or else there’s just disbelief that events like that happen and how frequently they do because there’s already too much of a perception that women are making a big deal out of nothing.
I think that plenty of men, if not a majority probably recognize these problems, but only because it’s been made acceptable for women to speak about them.
“The problem is that by most peoples standards, sexism and misogyny are not tolerated in the skeptical/atheist community at large”
This is a PROBLEM? For whom? Misogynistic arseholes? MR asshats?
You, kaputter mensch? If you belief that non tolerance of mysogynism and sexism is a problem, you really deserve your name.
Maybe non tolerance is a problem in the GOP, the problem with the atheist movement is that a substantial number including the x-FTB contributor thunderarse seem to think that this sexist and misogynistic behaviour is completely appropriate and beyond questioning, and that any condemnation of such bullshit is akin to denying free speech.
@kraut
I worded that badly. I meant to say –
“While, by most peoples standards, sexism and misogyny are not tolerated in the skeptical/atheist community at large, the problem is that these common standards are not shared by those in the atheism+ community.”
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
brokenmech –
Anarchic? Did I miss a memo? Since when has the atheist community embodied anarchy? I know a lot of people in meatspace who, if pushed, would identify as atheist, or at least ‘non-believers’. Not one of them would give time of day to anyone espousing anarchy, not even the libertarians amongst them. In fact, I live in one of the most secular societies on earth and it’s far far from anarchic in any sense.
In the last while I have lost count of the number of commentators calling out A+, saying it is wrong because the definition of Atheism is “…”. I’ve never seen a definition of atheism that says it involves anarchy. That is simply an ideological/political construct that you have overlaid onto atheism, just as many here have chosen the ‘+’ overlay.
To criticise others choice because of your choice is different is deeply hypocritical.
Also, I note that in this discussion, as in many others, you and people like you claim to be appalled by misogyny only when pushed. If you and others like you feel so strongly where are your voices openly condemning the totally uncalled for and out of proportion vileness heaped on people like Jen, Amy, Greta, Ophelia and so many others?
I don’t care if you don’t support A+. I don’t care if you disagree with the Skepchicks on many/most of their views. I don’t even care if you actively dislike Rebecca or Jen as people for some reason. If you find the behaviour of the true arseholes so terrible why are you not condemning it loud and long?
“While, by most peoples standards, sexism and misogyny are not tolerated in the skeptical/atheist community at large, the problem is that these common standards are not shared by those in the atheism+ community.”
Sorry. It seems to get more confusing. Do you mean to say that the standards of A+ are more or less stringent than the undefined “common” standards adhered to by other atheists and skeptics.
If they are less stringent – can you provide any evidence? If they are more stringent – why would that be a bad thing?
I rather adopt standards that separate me from those whose “common” standards apparently permit misogynistic, personal and hurtful attacks void of anything substantial.
I prefer standards contributing to a non sexist and non-mysogynistic society or movement, where everybody can contribute and not being attacked for pointing out inappropriate behaviour, or at least where those behaviours can be discussed without the person calling them being insulted with vile language, and threatened with physical or psychological damage.
@Rob
I meant only that the Skeptical/atheist “community” was anarchic in its composition, not that it was comprised of anarchists.
The reason most people don’t feel compelled to bring up the fact that they are opposed to misogyny, rape threats, and sexual harassment, is that most people feel that such opposition is a widely held normative stance that doesn’t need constant reaffirming.
brokenmech – your entire argument falls apart if there are varietes of troll that don’t go away when you ignore them. I submit to you that this is not the case.
I assert that there is such a thing as an “issue troll” – someone who is a monomaniac about a particular position, and frequents the online hangouts of those who take a contrary position and persistently issue hostile posts against them. Such people will not go away when ignored, and frequently are immune to reasoned debate even if it is offered. The only thing that stops such people from posting abuse to the forum is (a) agree with them, (b) shut down the forum, or (c) find a means to effectively ban them.
bah, hit post too soon. Second sentence should read “I submit to you that this is the case.”
This video should explain why there is so much opposition to feminism.
Brokenmech-
I’ll take that at face value. I might quibble and say ‘historically disorganised’ might be better.
and –
Yeah? Nah. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that argument does not stack up. In fact it’s terrible. Anyone even casually following this discussion over the last year can see that in at least the virtual world the ‘widely held normative stance’ does in fact need constant reaffirmation. The misogynists and general arseholes thrive in the free air they are given because their ‘allies’ (i.e. the other people who do not like FTB/Skepchick/A+) do not also take them to task for their behaviour.
brokenmech doesn’t see misogyny as a problem, the dude-bros he hangs with don’t see it as a problem, therefore misogyny isn’t a problem. Watson, McCreight, Olivia Benson, Greta and all the other women bloggers are too sensitive to a few poorly worded tweets and FB posts. Besides, everyone hates feminists anyway so who cares about a few rape threats?
One cannot help but notice that br0kenmech seems to resort to the delightfully ambiguous ‘people’ (or similar constructs) who object to FTB/A+ (insofar as the latter has been inspired by the aggregation of bloggers on the former).
What is dogmatic and authoritarian? Sounds like typical conservative demonization to me.
I don’t want to derail here. But I see the issue with sexism as similar to issues that come up on FTB with racism.
Over on Ed Brayton’s blog I had to explain to someone why “Islam is a shitty religion” comes off as racist. I felt like I had to go through privilege 101 with this guy. (He pulled out “Islam is not a race” and I wanted to smack my head on the laptop).
I’ve noticed that there’s a class of people who call themselves atheists and usually accompany their posts with stuff like “nobody has a right to not be offended” and then spout something really dehumanizing and insulting. Like being a “rational” person gives you some kind of pass to be a dick.
I think it’s interesting that issues of privilege are coming up just at the time when women are becoming more prominent as well as minorities (like Crommunist and Black Skeptics). Hmm. Something tells me that it isn’t a coincidence.
see_the_galaxy –
Indeed. Apparently it is authoritarian to tell people that they can’t be racist, misogynistic, discriminatory arseholes. Apparently it is a bad thing to be dogmatic about that. In fact the behaviour of these ‘people’ is merely the equivalent of the religious arseholes complaining that stopping them from discriminating against others is itself discriminatory. Sheesh the blindspots.
“He pulled out “Islam is not a race” and I wanted to smack my head on the laptop”
since you are derailing anyway: for your information, Islam is a religion and not bound to any particular race.
You might as well call christianity a white mans religion if you want to play the race card. And you are clearly wrong.
And Islam is as shitty a religion – more so maybe – as judaism and christianity, mormonism etc..
So leave that poor laptop alone.
“I have the right to insist that you leave me the fuck alone. I have a problem, because sexist assholes won’t leave me the fuck alone.”
Demanding to be not left alone: then why the fuck do you even visit blogs where assholes abound?
Did anybody explicitly invite you to post? Or gave you special rights for posting? Do you expect special treatment and why?
You have only one right: either to fight those assholes or leave; since when do you have the right to be left alone when entering a public arena where unpleasant topics are discussed?
You have the right not to post or reply, but that is as far as it goes. Otherwise – stay out.
This is just “you’re not the boss of ME!” dressed up in philosophical language.
Well, it’s true. I’m not the boss of you.
However, I am the boss of me. I have the right to insist that you leave me the fuck alone. I have a problem, because sexist assholes won’t leave me the fuck alone. What’s your anarchic fix for this? Going somewhere else, right? Well, we’re doing that–creating our forums but they still follow us and spread lies and whatnot.
So, now we have to aggressively remove them from our space if we want it to ourselves.
Seriously what the FUCK do you expect me or anyone to do?!?
Yeah, I’m angry tonight.
Is Thunderf00t still considered a leader in the movement? Then yeah, the movement has a problem with misogyny. On Tf00t’s blog, an anonymous commenter told me that he would “track you down and rape the shit out of you.” I told Thunderf00t he ought to decry this and ban the poster, but it turned out to be a Tf00t impersonator. Now, I am regularly confronted with people accusing me of fabricating that threat. In other words, I created another account and logged in just to type rape threats at myself. Because that’s so much fun, I guess? I don’t get it. Anyway, Tf00t could put this to rest but he won’t and he hasn’t responded to my email about it.
Fuck him and fuck his fans. Amazing, looking back at his and his fans’ passionate opposition anti-harassment policies. Motivated reasoning, anyone?