Thunderf00t gets his own FtB blog...

[ImprobableJoe]

Edit: I do agree that it definitely does seem quite like a libertarian viewpoint. That it's the rules trying to stamp out the problem...that cause the problem. To me this really makes no sense. How could a rule aimed at a specific problem exist prior to the problem in order for the rule to cause the problem?

Because it causes people who have no problem (in this case, men) to have to deal with the problem and therefore in their minds the rules cause the problem. Without the rules, they can go back to the comfortable status quo where other people's problems don't affect them.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Why should they have to put up with some cunt coming on to them just because they happen to be sexually attractive? It doesn't matter whether you're straight or gay, the same applies. I've had to tell people (men and women) to fuck off before. Of course, I have a potty mouth, but the point is, one shouldn't have to; there are a number of signals that make it easy to determine whether someone is interested, a notable early one being that they have given you some attention in the first place (see Elysa and Rebecca's stories and an entire lack of prior signals).

Here it is in a nutshell: If it isn't apparent that your advances would be welcome, don't fucking make them.

Well okay, I can understand that concept, but out of curiosity how far do you want to go to actually enforce this idea? I mean do you simply recommend this for conferences and other similar events? Or is it more than that? Should it be illegal for example? Or is it more of an etiquette issue to you?

And also, how are the conference organizers supposed to know what goes on between person A and B? Should there be some kind of strike system like say if more than 1 person complains about the "harasser" they can reasonably assume it's not just someone crying wolf?

Have you ever read the comments on a video by a female YouTuber? Go and have a look at, say, a LivePrudeGirls video. Skim through the comments.
I'll wait.

Done? Good. That is what she's talking about when she means trolls, those who are unnecessarily sexually explicit simply because they're female. It's belittling because their work isn't being valued on its merits, but how fuckable they are. They're being treated as little more than fuck-holes. It is entirely disrespectful. I'd feel exactly the same in Elysa's shoes and I'd probably be a lot less gracious about it.

Yes, I know about those comments, there are a lot of trolls and teens there making stupid comments. I've seen it before on a lot of channels run by female users. Some will even boldly admit they simply turn off the audio and that they're only there to see the girl.

I don't see why you should assume everyone is like that. You know it's not entirely implausible you can have a fan that both values your work AND wants to seduce you AND has nothing to do with the troll posts. These are not mutually exclusive things.

So back to square one again. It's always the same with you, isn't it? Round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round... I know you don't actually read my posts properly, so I don't expect you to understand...

You know maybe I've been too dismissive of how the person being hit on actually feels, so here it goes:

My new modified stance:

1. I'll take into consideration that some people simply don't want to be hit on by strangers, it makes them feel uncomfortable, devalued, "sexualized" whatever.
2. Maybe certain events like these conferences shouldn't permit this behavior, in order to accommodate those certain people. Maybe there should be some kind of 3-strike system in place where if 3 or more people complain about your behavior you should be warned or asked to leave. (The naked card I guess can also hold as proof.)
3. I still uphold the idea that "no means no", I've never tolerated persistence on this matter.
4. It should never be a legal issue, it should never fall under any legal definition of "sexual harassment", it should remain an issue of etiquette that people resolve amongst themselves. I don't want some government authority policing this due to the amount of potential abuse.

Now, any further disagreements?

 

[borrofburi]

I apologize, I haven't finished catching up to all the new posts just yet, but I have to go to bed and I'm not going to finish for a long while (y'all have written a lot).

What all those things mean is that you have privilege, and that you're obviously blind to it. So when you say "we don't make a big deal" out of racism and sexism, what you really mean is YOU don't make a big deal out of it. You can't really speak for the victims of racism and sexism......

Precisely. For further reading on the subject for a basic understanding of the problem: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ I don't know that it's the best explanation, but "easy mode" is how I think of my life as a white heterosexual male (though I randomed hispanic and poor for starting stats, so not quite the *easiest* mode), so I think this is probably one of the easiest analogies to understand.

And on a personal note, stop being a condescending, dishonest ass by trying to make this about my feelings instead of about your negative attitudes.

I don't think he is. Honestly you're kind of... abrasive, sometimes, and it can be easy to miss your legitimately good points. Sometimes you're unnecessarily abrasive or misunderstand the person you're responding too, in which case it can seem like you have a personal vendetta or something like that. The reality of this problem is that people *don't* see it, some legitimately nice people who simply grew up white, male, heterosexual, middle class, etc. and they simply don't see it. If you've never seen it, it seems pretty natural to dismiss it as ridiculous.

 

[Gnug215]

I apologize, I haven't finished catching up to all the new posts just yet, but I have to go to bed and I'm not going to finish for a long while (y'all have written a lot).

What all those things mean is that you have privilege, and that you're obviously blind to it. So when you say "we don't make a big deal" out of racism and sexism, what you really mean is YOU don't make a big deal out of it. You can't really speak for the victims of racism and sexism......

Precisely. For further reading on the subject for a basic understanding of the problem: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ I don't know that it's the best explanation, but "easy mode" is how I think of my life as a white heterosexual male (though I randomed hispanic and poor for starting stats, so not quite the *easiest* mode), so I think this is probably one of the easiest analogies to understand.

I read some of that article (it's morning, have to get to work, I'll read more later), and it sounds really good.

However, I'd say "normal" mode, instead of easy. (From there on, challenging... then hard, hardest, nightmare, hell, inferno, insanity, impossible...)

Because if it's a straight, white, RICH guy, it would be easy mode.

 

[televator]

And now a point against the perceived irony of TF getting kicked out of FtB.

 

[Laurens]

And now a point against the perceived irony of TF getting kicked out of FtB.

Indeed the distinction is an important one. In fact most of the arguments I've seen in favour of thunderf00t seem to focus on supposed irony in the title of the blog and him being "silenced".

And as I said earlier TF is a massive hypocrite for assuming that because he was on 'Free Thought Blogs' he could post as much dissent and make as much of a scene as he wanted - this coming from someone who doesn't like in-fighting and disagreement among atheists...

I guess what he really wants is for all atheists to agree with him, and his patently absurd reasoning... Even so, he should stop proving to be such a divisive figure if he is to stand by his principles, and whilst he is at it he should have a fucking shave and a haircut, the man looks obscene.

 

[Prolescum]

Well okay, I can understand that concept, but out of curiosity how far do you want to go to actually enforce this idea? I mean do you simply recommend this for conferences and other similar events? Or is it more than that? Should it be illegal for example? Or is it more of an etiquette issue to you?

What are we discussing? Harassment policies at conferences, and Thunderf00tLodg3dF1rmlyInH1sM0uth's recent fuckwittery.

And also, how are the conference organizers supposed to know what goes on between person A and B?

The same way it happens at every other conference; someone speaks to a steward/marshall/whatever they're called in any given venue.

Should there be some kind of strike system like say if more than 1 person complains about the "harasser" they can reasonably assume it's not just someone crying wolf?

Why are you fishing for get out clauses? Remember the maxim.

Yes, I know about those comments, there are a lot of trolls and teens there making stupid comments. I've seen it before on a lot of channels run by female users. Some will even boldly admit they simply turn off the audio and that they're only there to see the girl.

I don't see why you should assume everyone is like that. You know it's not entirely implausible you can have a fan that both values your work AND wants to seduce you AND has nothing to do with the troll posts. These are not mutually exclusive things.

I didn't "assume everyone is like that", I said I think that is who Elysa was referring to when she referrenced "the trolls".

In all seriousness, Dogma, you really have to start responding to what people actually say, not what you think they are saying.
It has been my experience on this forum that, unless there's a reason, people say what they mean. Sure it can be harsh, sure we're emotional beings, but we (I think I can speak for a large number of members here) do take pride in taking apart arguments, openly and without fear, to expose its flaws for any and all to see. Even our own. Even if you can't see it.

Simply, we all believe in the processes of logic and reason to light our journey of understanding, and will take no prisoners along the way. There's no space in the caravan of courage for... okay, I might be going to far, but you get my meaning, I'm sure.

I believe it is important for you to consider this every time you post. Not the last bit, the other bit. Well, you can remember that too, I'm not above being the silly twat on ocassion.

My new modified stance:

1. I'll take into consideration that some people simply don't want to be hit on by strangers, it makes them feel uncomfortable, devalued, "sexualized" whatever.

Okay, that's sensible. As I often say, context is key.

2. Maybe certain events like these conferences shouldn't permit this behavior, in order to accommodate those certain people. Maybe there should be some kind of 3-strike system in place where if 3 or more people complain about your behavior you should be warned or asked to leave. (The naked card I guess can also hold as proof.)

It isn't to accomodate certain people, it is to make sure the environment is comfortable for everyone (i.e. everyone knows where they stand when they are attending). This may look like a semantic game to you, but nevertheless, it is an important distinction.

It might be worth you reading what iJoe says about privilege (sans superfluous bitchiness ), and see why it applies to this situation.

3. I still uphold the idea that "no means no", I've never tolerated persistence on this matter.

Well that's good. I doubt if anyone believes you're a supporter of rape. Certainly no one entertained that idea on this thread.

4. It should never be a legal issue, it should never fall under any legal definition of "sexual harassment", it should remain an issue of etiquette that people resolve amongst themselves. I don't want some government authority policing this due to the amount of potential abuse.

Well this discussion isn't about the finer points of sexual harassment legislation, and never was. This point is moot so there's no reason to comment on it.

Now, any further disagreements?

Probably, but they'll be addressed as and when they come up.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

My thoughts:

t's not okay to assume that any woman (or non-woman) is at a conference to be your plaything.

This is very sex-negative. Just because you want to have sex with someone doesn't mean that you're degrading them. Heck, it's a compliment - they liked her enough to want to include her.

Now, to take it another way, she might be saying that it's not ok to assume everyone would be interested. Yeah, that's fine, but what happened was clearly a passive invitation that left her free to decide how to respond.

It's not okay to assume a stranger welcomes your nakedness.

Yeah, severe lack of class here. I agree.

It's not okay to remove another person's ability to have a say in the situation you've put them in.

Buh? She had complete say over the situation - she was left alone and free to decide how she wanted to respond. The only way this makes sense is to say that she wanted to confront the people to their face - but we'll see later that she didn't.

It's not okay to proposition someone while they are at work.

Eh - half agree. Conferences are work, sure, but they're also social events. Maybe the couple felt it was their only opportunity to make an advance. Ships passing in the night, and all that.

Your speaker's looks are irrelevant to everything else she brings to your conference. And so is your boner.

Again, sex-negative. They weren't arguing against her in another panel, they were hitting on her. Wanting to have sex with someone is not degrading them - quite the opposite, really.

If there is a conference policy on not propositioning people at your conference, don't approach people for sex.

This rings the bell. Going against a policy you voluntarily accepted? Shame, sir and madam, shame.

I cannot think of a single situation where it's ever appropriate to hand someone an invitation to group sex if you haven't already had or discussed having sex.

Eh - I can't bring myself to dislike someone going for the long shot. Appropriate? Nope. Degrading? Nope.

Outnumbering a stranger while putting them in an uncomfortable situation is a dick thing to do.

I've noticed that sometimes females (OMG genderism!) try to have things both ways when they make complaints. First she complained that the people did this and walked away, robbing her of an opportunity to respond. Now she's complaining that she was outnumbered ... by the zero people who were there, because they left ... before she could confront them ... but she didn't want to confront them because she was outnumbered ... huh?


Overall, I think her complaint is well founded and is generally applicable. The couple's behavior was boorish and very clearly not a joke (assuming the contact information was real), and not appropriate to such a venue. However, I do take issue with her sex-negative attitude and her assumption that sexual desire is degrading and disrespectful to the object of that desire.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Tone trolling from my dear, dear friends aside, one of the main points is that many menhave a "better to ask forgiveness than permission" attitude, that they have an absolute right to impose themselves on women and the women then (maybe) have a right to say no. And then they can ask again, to make sure that "no" isn't "maybe later" and that "Maybe later" can't be converted into a "yes" after a few more drinks. Then a lot of men also have the attitude that if a woman who he imposes on says no in a way that doesn't leave him feeling good about himself, again after imposing himself on her without her consent, then that woman is a fucking bitch who deserves to be attacked verbally and potentially physically.

At every step, "picking up" or "hitting on" treats the woman as something other than a person with her own autonomous needs and desires. She's a goal, a potential conquest, a notch on your bedpost, a place to dump your seed. It is crafting a plan for another person without consulting with them first, and then presenting her the plan for her approval or dismissal, when she knows that there can be negative personal consequences if she says no.

That's why the harassment policies need to be in place. Not so that no one can talk to anyone else, not so that no sex happens, but so that people take a step back and slow down a little, and engage in two-way conversations that can lead to flirting instead of one-way hitting on. And so that women know that they can say "no" without being pressured to change their minds, and without being verbally attacked, and that the organizers of the event will have her back and take her word for it if there's an negative encounter, rather than going all hyper-skeptical and victim blaming.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

White male privilege.

When I was growing up, not knowing anything more then the basic facts of gender biology, I quite honestly said several times that I was glad to be born male. Being older and knowing more about gender politics - I'm gladder then ever to have been born male.

The system is stacked in my favor you say? Sweet. It's good to be me.

I should feel guilty about it, you imply but don't directly state? Why? I'm a Slav; my great-grandparents were serfs in Poland. When the "system" as it more-or-less is now was created, it was firmly stacked against my family. My family has never owned slaves - heck, I probably have more slaves for ancestors then the average African-American. We've never been powerful, politicians or policy makers. We're passive low-class people being trodden on by the footsteps of history. If things have turned around and are in my favor now, what am I supposed to do but enjoy it?

If I snipe at other groups, it's not because I'm biased against them or I don't understand - it's because I want them to be equal as much as they presumably do. Complaining about the system and asking for handouts is a terrible strategy that only reinforces divisions and creates dependency. It's harder for them and unfair - but that's tough. Hardening up, accepting inequality for now and working to end it by working harder then others have to is what's necessary, whether it's fair or not.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I didn't "assume everyone is like that", I said I think that is who Elysa was referring to when she referrenced "the trolls".

Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding.

It isn't to accomodate certain people, it is to make sure the environment is comfortable for everyone (i.e. everyone knows where they stand when they are attending). This may look like a semantic game to you, but nevertheless, it is an important distinction.

Fair enough, now that I think about it, I don't really believe our views differ so much anymore on this issue.

I mean I still believe Rebecca&co are kinda exaggerating some issues, but it was wrong of me to be dismissive of it. I think I also misunderstood the whole thing as an attack on liberty and free speech when it wasn't really the case. So I'll just stick to the conference part. Should there be policies about this? Well sure. There were some points made against it, but I no longer believe they're nearly enough to make a case against these policies.



Back to Thunderf00t's drama, remember how PZ named his title: "Misogynists can think women are tasty, while not recognizing that they are human beings"? Really? What that a subtle way of calling Thunderf00t a misogynist?

So by all means guys, make your point and counter-points, but I'd recommend not siding with either FtB/PZ or TF. Let them solve their dispute themselves, neither reacted appropriately.

 

[Prolescum]

I mean I still believe Rebecca&co are kinda exaggerating some issues, but it was wrong of me to be dismissive of it.

Remind me.

I think I also misunderstood the whole thing as an attack on liberty and free speech when it wasn't really the case.

As Gnug said, free speech isn't absolute (incitement to violence, for example), and even if it was the case that PZ et al were attempting to shut him up (which I'll restate - was not the case), they'd be well within their rights to do so, given that it's their site. It's the equivalent of any other privately owned property, same as this site. Publican's rules. His free speech isn't negatively affected in any way (see his post-FtB YouTube videos).

So I'll just stick to the conference part. Should there be policies about this? Well sure. There were some points made against it, but I no longer believe they're nearly enough to make a case against these policies.

I'm glad.

Back to Thunderf00t's drama, remember how PZ named his title: "Misogynists can think women are tasty, while not recognizing that they are human beings"? Really? What that a subtle way of calling Thunderf00t a misogynist?

I'm no fan of PZ (I don't read his blog regularly), don't really care about him. He seems an affable, jolly chap I suppose. If it had been me responding to Thunderf00t, I would've likely ripped him to shreds with a veritable cavalcade of vitriolic, vituperative, and sharply barbed commentary on every single word and every single sentence. He'd draw a graph or a venn diagram, because he's a sophist with no gonads, while crying into his porridge. And oh how we'd laugh.
But then, I don't claim to be a freethinker. Nor a sceptic or rationalist for that matter, so I would be about as suitable as Thunderf00t was. Those are descriptions applied by others if and when appropriate. It's just a label otherwise, and I don't like branding.

So by all means guys, make your point and counter-points, but I'd recommend not siding with either FtB/PZ or TF.

It's not a battle of personalities. One was being an ill-informed dick, and the other called him out on it. The former continued with flimsy reasoning and piss-poor writing in direct conflict with the reason he was given space and the spirit of the site, and got the boot.

Edit: Not really relevant, but I did make myself laugh this morning...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

As ironic as it sounds, I understand where thunderf00t was coming from when placed into the context of a video.

Which is why he should get back to making videos on subjects.

The man can't write worth shite.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

As Gnug said, free speech isn't absolute (incitement to violence, for example), and even if it was the case that PZ et al were attempting to shut him up (which I'll restate - was not the case), they'd be well within their rights to do so, given that it's their site. It's the equivalent of any other privately owned property, same as this site. Publican's rules. His free speech isn't negatively affected in any way (see his post-FtB YouTube videos).

Well that's not exactly what I was referring to, but yeah, I would agree with that, it's their site.

 

[borrofburi]

I think we're seeing.. uh.. epistemic miscommunication here or something.

I would agree with the assessment that there's an awful lot of miscommunication going on, though it seems prole and DD have resolved theirs.

But even so, we can never hope to understand this. We cannot put ourselves in the shoes of a woman and fell her... well... fear and apprehension of having a big, strong, masculine being wishing to invade you somehow.

It's more than this. I think I can do a reasonably ok job understanding the fear and apprehension. But that's not all it is.

Some in this thread are having a hard time understanding how someone showing sexual interest in a (usually female) person can feel devaluing and degrading. The answer is that there's multiple different ways that all have to do with years of socialization where women were taught different things than we males were; gnug pointed out one, I'll point out a couple more.

Women are taught from a young age to be "pure" (all that "sex negative" as people say); and while some may have intellectually chosen to reject that, it's much harder to change internalized emotions (e.g., I still don't like guys touching me due to growing up in a homophobic culture).

Women are also constantly taught that their worth, their value, is in their physical attraction. Some consciously reject this (though no one I've met has been able to shake it entirely (at least, of those who I've had the opportunity to talk about it with)); some choose to find their worth in intellectual pursuits (e.g., conference speaking). After spending so much time and energy improving her knowledge, becoming more intelligent, someone comes up to her in a professional context (just gave a speech, a report in a board meeting, closed a deal, etc.) and cold-calls her for sex, it is very natural to remember all those times she has been told her worth is in how attractive she is and it is very natural to feel (justifiably so) that this person, for all her intelligence and skill and effort, only sees her as an attractive fuck toy. After all, to see her as more than just physically attractive, the person would have to get to know her, which the person obviously isn't interested in (not asking to grab coffee or for a date, but for sex).

And this is only some of the things that I understand, the truth is that having not experienced the socialization and the way people treat you (daily, regularly, constantly) as a woman means that I only understand some of it and primarily in an intellectual way. You (whoever reading) might be able to find justification for why even what I've written here is insufficient to justify those feelings of degradation, but the truth is that there are more factors that I haven't laid out here, and some I don't (even can't) understand.

We have freedom of speech, but that term is pretty much a misunderstood illusion. We have certain rights that protects us from certain punishment when we say certain things, but as you know, it's not ALL things, so this freedom is not nearly universal.

And if we generalize for a bit and say that men are usually the active participant in sexual approaches, and women are the passive participant, I think we should listen to what they say, and not just claim the freedom to say or do whatever we like.
The woman's freedom from my unwanted approach, I think, is much more important than the man's freedom to approach the woman.

I don't like speaking of it as "her freedom is more important than his", because that suggests there should be law involved. Rather I think of it as this: sure, he (whatever guy) has the freedom to be a pretentious creepy entitled asshole, but we have the freedom to point out that those actions are creepy and make women feel uncomfortable and as such he shouldn't do them. He may have the freedom to whine that he has freedom of speech, and we're free to point out that's a fucking stupid defense for his entitled behavior.

 

[borrofburi]

My point is - and has been, throughout our disagreement - that political correctness is the wrong approach to addressing this - and other - social issues.

What do you mean by "political correctness"? The inclination of people to call out others on their racist/sexist/bigoted comments? I suppose that sounds hostile but it's not really meant to be. But I, like ImprobableJoe, have noticed that the people who complain about "political correctness" are usually whining that due to PC they can't say certain things. Now obviously there's no law enforcement agency waiting on standby to put them in jail if they say those things, so what they really mean is that they can't say certain things without a (sometimes severely) negative reaction.

On the one hand I agree that it's not helpful for people to be called racist/sexist/bigot when they make racist/sexist/bigoted comments. The words tend to make people shut down and stop listening; they hear "sexist" and they think "but I don't beat my wife when she disobeys me", failing to realize that there are varying degrees of sexism and sexism can be much more subtle (and still damaging, and still worth fighting) than outright attacking women.

On the other hand I am of the opinion that a negative response is the correct response to a racist, sexist, or bigoted comment. Not necessarily a hostile response, but a negative one pointing out that what they said was bad and they shouldn't do it again and here's why it was bad. And plenty of people who complain about PC restricting their speech would still complain about it with this type of negative reaction.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

On the other hand I am of the opinion that a negative response is the correct response to a racist, sexist, or bigoted comment. Not necessarily a hostile response, but a negative one pointing out that what they said was bad and they shouldn't do it again and here's why it was bad. And plenty of people who complain about PC restricting their speech would still complain about it with this type of negative reaction.

I think this is a point Worth pondering. Can we as a group also extend this to mean "Religious Correctness"? Or would that definition take on some different meaning? What happens when a group of extremely religious folks team up on an individual because they portray that what the speaker is saying is showing their 'religion' in a 'negative light". Could an atheist claim that it is "RC" that is blocking their message or main point. And do potential 'negative' consequences exist for those that 'speak out' against certain injustices? Are these 'negative consequences' justified by a group or community?


Like the restriction of Life, Liberty, and persuit of happiness, perhaps?

 

[televator]

I'd also like to add that I think "political correctness" is just another term that attempts to put reasonable concepts in a bad light. The term itself is devoid of meaning when you look at it more conservatively. In the US, the currently "politically correct" thing to do is often being the most bigoted and/or theocratic and/or war mongering corporate sellout of all. Those are the qualities that prolong political success in the US. However what is meant by so many people who use it to rail against certain social practices, is perfectly reasonable standards for human interaction, (I.E.: You don't treat other people like second class citizens, and don't harass them for benign things in their nature or the culture they couldn't help but grow up in.) and that's what it seems to me they are attempting to put a bad spin on.

 

[evilotakuneko]

As ironic as it sounds, I understand where thunderf00t was coming from when placed into the context of a video.

Which is why he should get back to making videos on subjects.

The man can't write worth shite.

It's easy to see his side in his video. On the other hand, the simplistic "don't be a jerk" rule may well be insufficient in a legal sense.

C0nc0rdance also weighed in on the issue recently.




I don't think he's aware of the level of hate being directed at Thunderf00t....

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

He's correct.

But, so is thunderf00t in this instance.

It shouldn't be up to the sponsoring party - it should be up to grown adults behaving like grown adults. I've met, in many situations, people who insist upon asking consent or hitting on to be considered sexual harassment.

I think that is wrong - mainly because protecting one's own arse should never be considered a violation of what they are guarding from.