This Just In: Scientists Discover True Nature Of Bullying!

But....but...it is totally different! Totally!

Does anyone else always get the feeling that they have lost the ability to read the English language when they peruse that guys' blog? The author AND the comments. It is like bizarro-writing land all the damn time...

Hey you know what is totally not bullying? this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/open_thread_again_well_be_he…

(also- how the fuck does that dude get to keep his science blog after that????)

Then that means Mike Adams is going to take down this blog!

Usually I don't read what I call "blogosphere drama", but I found this post interesting since you reminded me that it's apparently bullying when one female blogger points out some really bad stuff that no-one should do on their blog (not blogosphere drama, but someone calling it bullying is), but it's apparently not bullying when several male bloggers make fun of someone for a little harmless sockpuppeting (blogosphere drama all round).

Thanks Zuska.

Name-calling and cultural insults again? I am going to stop reading this blog.

Riiiight, let me get this straight, you have no problem with a 20 something male pretending he's a woman while blogging and taking on other personas, (in order to gain credibility from other women no doubt) and verbally attacking and humiliating Ophelia Benson? This wasn't harmless sockpuppeting this was character assassination (how's that for drama?) A handful of males and females figured out this blog was full of sockpuppet comments, and somehow this translates to male privilege? Sometimes I think you just like the sound of your own voice.

Riiiight, let me get this straight, you have no problem with a 20 something male pretending he's a woman while blogging and taking on other personas... Sometimes I think you just like the sound of your own voice.

KarenB, as I see the situation here, no one here has a problem with the fact that this puppetmaster was exposed.

What is being pointed out here is the hypocrisy of some of the VERY SAME people who are involved in this particular kerfuffle and who NOW suddenly have no problem being AND accepting others' being extremely rude and hurtful towards this guy (which I personally think is fine, this are the internets, afterall) calling Zuska and Isis and Feminst Science Bloggers in general bullies just 10 days ago, for much less and for a situation which actually had real ramifications in real life, i.e. meatspace. Perhaps you should read the posts and comments provided in those links, followed by this post, which is clearly the precursor of the current one and which was clearly linked in the post, in order to fully understand the situation and avoid looking like someone who only read the middle few pages of a book before announcing to the whole class how character X is mean to character Y for no reason.

Harmless sock puppetry? I think it's worthwhile reading into a topic before passing judgment.

I happen to defend Ophelia Benson from being smeared as a liar (when she provably wasn't) when the person smearing her by accident revealed himself as not only having done that but having tried to paint me as a troll when I defended her using multiple sock puppets. It turned out he also edited commentator's posts to make them appear in a worse light and his site was not exclusively but in good parts obsessed with finding fault with people and mischaracterize their views.

It is noble to call out bullies and a bully culture,, but sometimes the one who claims to be bullied is the actual bully. This is the case here.

Outright lies and deceptive tactics exactly to get people into trouble is not harmless behavior and to call the person out on his tactics is not bullying. Many commentators said he can stay open as long as he doesn't lie about people, instead he played the victim card and killed it all.

And for the record I never bullied YNH and you are very welcome to check on the archives that people created.

I resent the implication that as one of the people who disagreed with the kind of arguments and attacks YNH was using, I was bullying. Like Hitch, I was pretty measured. I used a snarky tone a couple of times with other commenters, who turned out to be the blog-owner's sock puppets anyway.

And I hardly think my blog is more popular: I may have been around longer, but YNH got way more hits than I do in a week.

I was accused of being Greg's sockpuppet, Glendon pointed out that I am a flesh-and-blood person and not Greg.

YNH hid behind a bush spitting cherry pits at known people, he then revealed his first name and confessed that he was using sockpuppets but that he was justified because atheists are really not helping after all, We still don't know (nor really care) who the kiddie is, and he is being "bullied?" C'mon, Zuska, he has suffered no harm other than he can't use his platform to be a jerk anymore because his game was revealed.

I, for one, am highly concerned about the rights of sockpuppetAmericans and how such a marginalized group is demonized like they are some kind of terrorists. I'm all for people objecting to *particular* behaviors of an individual who happens to be a sockpuppet, but let us not paint all sockpuppets with a broadbrush. All sockpuppets are not responsible for blogfail just as all muslims are not responsible for 911.

"No, no, it isn't bullying because our cause was just!!!"

Don't you get it, Zuska? This guy was "attacking" and "smearing" and, for God's sake, spitting cherry pits! He had to be taken down!

Cliffs Notes
Central theme: it sucks that's there's a clear double standard with regard to gender roles and rhetorical etiquette on the blogiverse

- OBeraint it funny how otherwise normal professionals turn into crazed tiger sharks in a chum spill on occasions like this

Chum spill? DSKS, this is serious business! A felonious sockpuppeting has been committed! Doncha read PeeZee and G-Lad? This is a mortal sin that must be exorcised. With extreme prejudice! Extreme!

Defamation and libel are unlawful. Sock puppetry itself is not.

But to use sock puppetry to defame and libel is.

As for the gender implications. There is some really good stuff on this out there. The gender war of sock puppets has been fought and won... by sock puppets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKOwCjqwamo

(and Belletrix is the better beatboxer too)

The folks who are offended that their behavior on YNH might be interpreted as bullying- jesus christ you guys, there is some context here. The problem is that this big public thing isn't called bullying while comparatively mild action from lady sciencebloggers was.

Not only that, but even if anyone really considered you guys bullies it would be because of GL and PZ, and you were following a mysterious monkey influence from them, dontchaknow??

http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/06/the_blogosphere_is_ali…

Sometimes I think you just like the sound of your own voice.

I do! I do! I do! And it is this characteristic, unique unto me, that makes me the Snowflaque of Teh Blog-de-spair!

Yeah, it's "bullying" to expose the fact that an apparent crowd of misogynists defaming Ophelia Benson is actually just one obsessed crank talking to himself. All good people should have stood back and let the abuse continue. She was asking for it.

Likewise, women who divorce their abusive husbands are homewreckers.

Where the fuck is Communication Is My Field!?!?!?!? WE NEED ANSWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I see. To completely separate issues get conflated. There is some beef about sock puppets and stuff between Jason Goldman and Zuska.

And there is a completely unrelated thing with YNH and a another group.

And the two cases are compared without any real content or context and people are told to not feel offended being called bullies without people having even evaluated the context.

Right... Well, I have all the sympathy for everybodies concerns. But I have no sympathy for people passing judgment without knowing what the heck they are talking about.

If you think you can take case X as an example of how horrible Y is because case Z related to Y, well perhaps take a look at the details of X first?

To stand up against lies and smears (against a woman incidentally but it doesn't matter) is not bullying. To lie and smear is. And to not make the distinction is blaming the victim.

I in now way take responsibility for anything anyone else does. I don't know GL or PZ and just as you don't deserve to be branded based of actions of third parties I sure don't deserve that either. So perhaps you get some perspective first before you claim that I have to accept being called a bully for something unrelated to what people do. It's not acceptable and it should not be acceptable to you either.

Do I need to explain how toxic group stereotyping is around here? Probably not. You guys know exactly how that works. So don't do it. Thanks.

Again I urge anyone to evaluate "my behavior" on YNH. I'm happy to defend any single statement I made. In fact there is nothing to defend because I was perfectly fair to YNH and all participants.

It was not bullying to construct lies about a person and plaster that all over the internet?

No we have to oppose all false labels of bulling. If lady sciencebloggers was falsely accused of bulling that is not right either. But to cause the same wrong doesn't make it right.

Here's the final two posts on the "bullying".

"victim"
http://thebuddhaisnotserious.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/the-curious-case-…
"bully"
http://thebuddhaisnotserious.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/the-curious-case-…

I'm happy to say that victimization has ended at least as far as I am concerned. That is in this story. Not the story this was conflated with, whoever is involved in that story will have to find their way out towards a better resolution.

Let's not mix hurt feelings. It never makes it better.

Right, completely unrelated dumbass....did you miss the participation in each tale by Greg Laden and Stephanie Zvan? The point, for the slow types, is their hilariously self-serving hypocrisy. Such arbitrary standards of conduct make it clear they don't believe a damn bit of their structural and linguistic critique. It is being deployed disingenuously and need never be taken seriously as an argument.

Look, I think people are very confused here. YNH? Who the fuck knows what that is. Ophelia Whatzername? Who the hell knows who she is. There are two main points that matter.

One: Greg Laden and PZ Myers have the absolute right to say whatever the hell they want to, using whatever rhetorical tactics they deem appropriate for a given purpose, and it warms the cockles of my heart to see the crowds come out in force to defend them and cheer them on whenever they do so, at whatever time, for whatever purpose, large or small. These guys are popular, and we all admire them, and benefit from their wisdom.

Two: Zuska and Isis are wacko if they think their natterings are seen in the same light, or will garner a similar response, amirite?

Yes, unsurprisingly I did miss whatever you stipulate. I'm not following named bloggers with a microscope to know all of their personal blogging history. So it is indeed completely unrelated from my perspective. I am not affiliated with Greg Laden, Stehpanie Zvan, PZ Myers,... If there is a relation between the two situations I am not privy to it, nor should I be required to be privy to it if I haven't participated and I haven't.

And yes I have criticized PZ and I see lots of people criticising PZ. If the case that I don't know about did receive sufficient criticism, I don't know. I guess I'm supposed to know everybody's history before claiming that something I was involved in was unrelated just because some people participated who happened to have been involved with somewhere else.

I have never called anyone here whacko. But I'm kind of getting used to people projecting like flashlights.

In any case. I really don't have a stake in whatever is going on here. The situation I was in was resolved sensibly. As I said if there is another situation go ahead and look for a resolution. I hope you get it as nicely as we had it in the YNH case.

*facpalm*

If you guys really want to think that you are being called bullies and get angry about it, be my guest. If you read the posts that this was in reference to you would have a difficult time drawing that conclusion.
Jeez.

And yes I have criticized PZ and I see lots of people criticising PZ. If the case that I don't know about did receive sufficient criticism, I don't know. I guess I'm supposed to know everybody's history before claiming that something I was involved in was unrelated just because some people participated who happened to have been involved with somewhere else.

Hitch, Communication Is Not Your Field.

If you guys really want to think that you are being called bullies and get angry about it, be my guest.

These fucking dipwads have apparently never heard of the rhetorical device of reductio ad absurdum. They need a lesson from Communication Is My Field.

.iS fIELD mY wHAT mE tELL tO aGENCY hAVE dON'T yOU, zUSKA

Absurdity Can Be Reality In Reverse. How Do You Know What You See Is Real? Step One In Listening Is To Hear.

Kirk: "Spock, what's you're interpretation?"

Spock: "Well, Captain, I think we may have misunderstood these creatures who call themselves women. We have perhaps erroneously concluded that their communications skills are primitive and without nuance, and it's quite possible that we have been taking their verbal gesticulations too literally. If my logical calculations are correct captain, there is a 98.34% chance that these animals are in fact quite capable of satire"

Bones: "Goddamnit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not George Bernard Shaw!"

Movie review: The latest Star Treck movie has one central flaw. It depicts aliens called women and shows the crew as incapable of understanding their humor based on the crews bias that only they know humor. Yet except for a few in the crowd nobody was laughing? It is so easy to acknowledge that someone is humorous, that the construction that the crew is blinded to it is so trite and artificial.

But the main flaw was how the women joked about the situation. They had fundamentally misunderstood an aspect of the crew and joked about things out of context. The bewilderment that ensued served only to produce more confusion, but the movie's story line insisted that the women were completely right in their perceptions and the crew, and so it seems the audience, just did not see the humor. In reality the audience is perfectly fine with accepting the humor of the aliens, but questions why they would be insisting on their own perspective, even if what happened before the joke does not make it fly.

The movie director noted in response to the audience reaction: "I am glad we got some cheers, at least a few get it. As for the rest, well obviously they failed to understand the satire." Another movie goer chimed in: "It's typical. White men, Communication Is Not Their Field."

In short this movie is only for viewers who understand this sub-culture. For the uninitiated, be prepared to be baffled, and perhaps just a little stereotyped. But don't worry about it, it's satire.

but it's apparently not bullying when several male bloggers make fun of someone for a little harmless sockpuppeting (blogosphere drama all round).

Thanks Zuska.

Having been the chief object of it, I want to say that the sockpuppeting was not harmless. The sockpuppeting was not harmless. The sockpuppeter himself has now admitted as much, and apologized. I'm not a male blogger, I'm a female blogger. I was not bullied by Myers and Laden; I was bullied by the sockpuppeter (who has now apologized).

Okay, message received. Gotcha. A parody or satire. Despite having already read everything as Skeptifem suggests, I missed that.

I will now go an sew some buttons onto socks.

Once again, I just want to put in a word for all of us Good, Decent, Hardworking, FSM-fearing, Real-American Sockpuppets. Whilst Bullying Sockpuppets are a disgrace, and I wish I could stamp them all out so that they would stop giving us a bad name, not ALL sockpuppets are bad.

Ophelia, on behalf of sockpuppets everywhere, I want to let you know how disgusted I am by how you were treated. I am glad the evil bully has confessed and apologized, and I sincerely hope you will not join the hatemongers who imply sockpupetry is synonymous with cheating (yes, people still say this, even in this day and age! When *corporations* can be people, but if you try to have multiple online identities, oh WOE BE TO YOU!!!!! *sigh* Sorry. I'm a little bitter, I guess).

becca, now that Will has apologized and explained, I no longer even think he's an evil bully. I think he was acting like one, fer sher, but I don't think he is one - he feels too crappy about it for that.

On the other hand, there are some respectable people who linked to that blog in its last dying days, when it was in full bully mode, calling me a liar six times in one post (and lots more times in the comments). They don't seem to feel crappy about that, or even faintly embarrassed. Much to think about there.

Oh fer the luv of Pete! How much do I have to spell this out? How tiny do the words have to be?

This post is NOT about YNH or Ophelia Benson or whether she was evilly attacked by a pseudonymous sockpuppet with nefarious intent. That douchey Dick @23 gets close to the deal.

Bullies are those that don't know when to stop and say sorry, but rather continue even if it's the wrong path.

Sock puppets have nothing to do with it. See video above.

William is a good guy deep down, he's done hard things that many of us never did.

But he wasn't bullied either. Most of the criticism leveled against him before he changed was fair and quote level. In fact the criticism helped him do that hard work.

I don't think we should make one situation the satire of another. That just doesn't work. That's why people came to critique this post.

Sure you guys may have a beef and some hurt feelings about sock puppet and bully accusations elsewhere. How about just treating it as that topic, or perhaps as multiply suggested, trying to find a path towards reconciliation. And that little insight that we all are not always right, but perhaps at times a little wrong.

William gets my respect exactly for his self-reflection in that difficult arena. But His Field Is Not Communication and he's probably a white male. It matters not. Zombies eat all our brainz in the end anywayz.

Zuska, you link extensively to posts by GL and PZ discussing the situation and mock how it's somehow a vendetta on sock puppets making it sound like the sock puppetry in question was innocent. You may not have meant it that way, but reasonable observers coming here understand it that way.

Perhaps find a better example to get back at the evol? I'm all for S.C.U.M. but the incision point better be right.

Keep trying, Hitch. Ha ha and all with the S.C.U.M reference - d00ds always think everything is about them. Even the SCUM Manifesto.

when it was in full bully mode, calling me a liar six times in one post (and lots more times in the comments).

Ahh, but is this really bullying? Does it fit all the necessary components as described by G-Lad, Stephanie Z and their henchvolk ?

p.s., whether you know 'em or not, you are by definition in their kleeque Hitch, just ask G-Lad about how to sniff out kleeques and membership therein.

I still may be wrong but it really seems that this one zombie has no ears. Some zombies are not to be satired, not all angels are equal. It's OK I'll leave you alone. The true characteristic of The Man is that he tells everybody how everything is. He insists to know. He is infallible. He is beyond corrections. Obey or be branded! I am of the S.C.U.Douches. Check who you become? A d00d! Farewell to zanity. Let's play with them fun zombies, the ones with ears.

(Fine, I'm gone. You have any clue how I think of SCUM, which is a shame. I like your style of humor actually. But keep projecting if you must. I'll be happy to ignore this blog and find some fun feminists to hang with, those that really SCUM with a gusto. Sense of humor on your side perhaps? Just a little bit? Well nevermind, I already gave it more than a fair shot.)

Zuska - given the links, that's bullshit. You link to stuff that is about YNH and me, so saying the post isn't about YNH and me (and others) is absurd.

Ophelia, no. Try again. If you apply this literal interpretation to every text you read you are missing out on a large array of *meaning* in the world...

You link to stuff that is about YNH and me, so saying the post isn't about YNH and me (and others) is absurd.

Communication Is Not Ophelia's Field!!!!!!!FTW!111!!!!!1!!11!!!

Hitch is not gonna read me anymore! sob.
It's okay. Nobody reads this blog anyway.

Ophelia and Hitch: try this.

Preach on, becca's sockpuppet, preach on.

http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2008/08/put_down_the_haterade_quailb…

In the Bell Merino we trust,

SM

"On the other hand, there are some respectable people who linked to that blog in its last dying days, when it was in full bully mode, calling me a liar six times in one post (and lots more times in the comments)."
Well, I'd argue that these aren't really respectable people anymore, after such behavior.
Ripples of evil downstream of bullying type sockpupetry got (quite probably properly!) called out. What's going on *here* is that some people are interested in *why* some behavior gets called out by some people.
In my opinion, it is always possible that prejudice against sockpupets could have played a role. To point out that you might have people who are bigoted against sockpupets defending you does not imply you do not deserve to be defended, but it is hard to get both messages across simultaneously.

@SockMonkey- exactly.
P.S. You are my hero. Although I am aggrieved that I may be guilty of breaking commandment #4. Crazytalk is highly underrated. Those 4th commandments will get you every time.

ZOMG, WHY is it so hard for people to understand that this was not about people taking down a douche (for a douche he was indeed) and being all meeen and stuff. I don't think ANYONE here has a problem with people being mean and taking douchenozzles to task, with or without extreme rudeness.

What it is ABOUT is that THESE SAME PEOPLE (Greg and Stephanie Z. particularly, but there are others too) who are now reveling and celebrating their meanness in this episode were, just barely a week before this hit the tubes, finger-wagging and attacking Zuska and Isis for being ZOMG SO MEEN to GMP, and calling them "internet bullies" and suggesting that feminist bloggers should be nice or STFU.

THAT's what it's about. What sockmaster did was douchy and reprehensible, and no one is objecting him taken down or being taken to task. However, when some of THESE SAME PEOPLE judge and attack Zuska and Isis for being less than sweet to someone whose thoughtless casual racism had actual effects IN REAL LIFE, it is what's called "hypocrisy".

Zuska, I wrote a comment to this effect two or so days ago... I suspect it's stuck in moderation, coz I linked to all the applicable SciBlog posts. Any chance of a rescue?

Hahahahaha! Now 'Hitch' is pulling the old "they didn't get my elaborate trick, I was just funnin" shit over at Douche Moran or G-ladsBlag or some place. Are you*sure* you aren't dancing to Stephanie's string pulling, 'Hitch'?

Zuska, on being vein, evidentally this whole thing is "not" about _you_ making Ophelia being rightly defended against YNH by _your_ former critics into a false case about hypocrisy of _your_ former critics.

"No" you, you, you in there at all, correct? Sorry you read a situation to be about you that wasn't. That is exactly vein. You are in fact so vein that suddenly a woman getting attacked with explicative sexism means nothing to your case to paint your critics as hypocrites. Male domination is only important when _you_ criticize it.

And you are incapable to read people's suggestion for correction in their context. No, only your world view counts.

On communication I would suggest the following excellent book:

The Verbally Abusive Relationship: How to Recognize it and How to Respond. by Patricia Evans.

One of the main characteristics of the abuser is to persistently deny another person's reality. Usually men are perpetrators. But men don't have monopoly on it unfortunately.

A cause are lingering and unresolved hurt feelings (such as having been called bully or sock puppet and then hearing it in another context and perceiving it as offensive/hypocritical).

Communication Is Our Field.

(If you actually care to communicate. If you don't care, well you don't.)

Escalation never works. And I won't escalate this one. It's already way out of whack. Take my feedback for what you can manage to take it for. Good luck.

Are you being serious 'Hitch'? or is this just more of your elaborate ploy to prove your point? Because this would be the traditional G-Lad's Kleeque time to explain elliptically, densely and incomprehensibly what your little "demonstration" is supposed to prove.

Is it still zombie day? Veins...veiiiiiiiinnnnnnz!

DeviantOne, rescued your comment - sorry to take so long.

SKM - hahahahaha! FTW!

Thank you for the links DeviantOne, however I was aware of the back story before I posted. Letâs see, some bloggers called Zuska a bully. Then, if you can believe this, those very bloggers than went one to bully another blogger! Not only that, but no one called them on it! However, the bully caller bullies cried âour situation is differentâ. So, predictably, as Zuska does when her big girl panties are in a twist, wrote a post about all the McMeanies and McDouchersons, and Mansplainers, and d00ds blah blah blah, that are allowed to bully, no questions asked, but the gurlz, not so much. Soooo, before you could say Bobâs Your Uncle, the usual thread defending sycophants and minions chimed in that the rest of the people commenting donât know shit from Shinola. Is that about right?

@54 You forgot the cheese sauce for your veins. Other than that, sounds about right.

And why do I keep thinking of the line from Eddie Izzard's Circle: ""Eat this cheese, it is my central nervous system."

Peace out!

Here, let me explain. No, it is too much. I graph for you:
http://cheezburger.com/View/3709374464

Huh. Somebody mentioned my name, apparently. Soque Pupet, as I mentioned in another thread where you dropped in to tack my name and "hypocrisy" into the same sentence, it's easy to sneer vaguely. Did you have anything of substance to point to? Any particular double standard you can actually name?

Ditto for DeviantOne. What have I said that I haven't done?

Yes, social interaction is really a sporting competition, that kid who dared to go up to the jock table at lunch had it coming, people should really have something better to do than think about people's feelings, nobody down the totem pole a bit ever has any power over those further down, and the popular kids have a responsibility to show everyone else how they don't measure up to local, temporary standards. Did I miss anything?

No, I really don't miss junior high school.

http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/06/the_blogosphere_is_ali…

Oedipus, thanks for the zip file. I really wanted those comments from the puppets to hang around. There's a certain argument to be made that we are the people we act like when we think no one's looking, and I think people ought to know who they're offering support to when they tell YNH to keep blogging.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/06/every_time_a_skeptic_tells_a_…

And that's not even going into the post and comment thread skeptifem linked to.

Posted a reply to Stephanie, Zuska, that's once again stuck in moderation... sorry to be such a pain, and thanks for rescuing the previous comment.

sockpuppet of the becca:

"On the other hand, there are some respectable people who linked to that blog in its last dying days, when it was in full bully mode, calling me a liar six times in one post (and lots more times in the comments)."
Well, I'd argue that these aren't really respectable people anymore, after such behavior.

That's if you accept Benson's take on it. Trouble is, Benson screwed up her characterization of a phone and internet prayer-a-thon by Chopra and fellow woo-meisters where they pray to the Great Quantum Wavefunction Consciousness Sciency Buzzwordy Quasi-Deity Or Something about the oil spill and collect donations. In other words, their prayer-a-thon is also a telethon. Yet we get this from Benson:

"Want to make all the horrid oil in the gulf turn into nice healthy salt water and plankton and plastic water bottles?"

"So at about 6:30 p.m. my time on Tuesday July 6th (frankly I donât care what time it is where you are) all the oil in and around the Gulf will suddenly crinkle up like tissue paper and then kind of dry out like an old orange peel and then it will just evaporate, in a non-toxic way, and that will be the end of that. All everybody has to do is re-stock the fish and other fauna, and everything is made whole. Just by all praying together at the same time. Way easier than trying to engineer a way to seal off the oil, and trying to mop up millions of barrels of the fucking stuff. Also prettier, nicer, more spirichal [sic], and with fluffier hair."

Now Chopra and pals never get as specific as Benson does, and since they are going to the trouble of collecting donations, it hardly follows that they really expect the sort of magic that Benson describes to really happen, let alone for it to happen just by people praying together as Benson describes. So Benson's mocking characterization is a mischaracterization, and YNH called her on it. Now was calling her a "liar" called for? Maybe not, but it's understandable, and it's not bullying, sockpuppetry notwithstanding.

But, but, but...DeviantOne, their Cause is Just! YNH had it coming to him!!!!

It was a case of to-MAY-toes, not to-MAH-toes, which are completely different and subject to different logic systems.

I'm not sure I even get the point of DeviantOne's next-to-last post. Also, Zuska, I wouldn't be too sympathetic to YNH. While I'm not buying Benson's claims of gross misogyny at YNH (as opposed subtle sexism that can unfortunately be found nearly everywhere), especially since one of her supporters felt the need to quote mine in order to support them, the author of the YNH blog did engage in sockpuppetry and messed-up logic.

DeviantOne, where is the hypocrisy? You're going to have to tell me where you see the contradiction between thinking we can do better than superficial dismissals of the idea that we should think about how we relate to each other, which is *not* the same thing as saying we should always be "nice," and saying the record of a controversy that will be referred to in a community for some time to come shouldn't disappear. Or do you mean something else?

Ramsey is quite the d00d, in fact an Uber-d00d. He doesn't even get that the quotes don't matter. Because we don't have to all live by his rule. What matters is his imposing his attitude on women.

Anyone here for a guy (Ramsey) telling a woman (Ophelia) how she ought to feel/respond when she is called a "useless, putrid tw*t" and people repeat sexual terms and euphemisms in the subsequent comments? Anyone here think that a guy (Ramsey) should be the judge what constitutes "subtle sexism" and be right to go out on a commenting spree opposing Ophelia's feelings on the matter?

I think this is exactly what we feminists call male domination, but Ramsey doesn't get it. Apparently he wants to be the d00d who tells women what "sexual bullying" really is, and that she shouldn't feel so strongly because it "really wasn't that bad as she makes it out to be", because he's the best judge to define it for all of us. Uber-male of the worse brain eating.

Oh and I am supporter of nobody but the Cyborg Manifesto.

Now shoo Mr. "I tell women what subtle sexism/sexual bullying is" Ramsey.

Hey stephanie, the hypocrisy is that you defended greg's schoolyard comparison (the point of the comparison being that this kind of behavior was not bullying), only to be quoted making a schoolyard comparison of the same variety sarcastically in order to assert that said behavior IS bullying. I mean, christ, that is really really blatant.

I know it won't get through to you though. Defending greg calling a woman a "bitch" IN THE SAME THREAD that you complain about the sexism of another poster calling you a side kick wasn't enough to get you to admit fault in the hypocrisy department (it is in "A private letter to Salty Current, post #173- I will link in an additional reply to avoid spam filter trappage). Here is a clue you should have found ages ago: everyone is a hypocrite sometimes. It happens. It is human. When you find out you have been one, it is a good time to figure out what you *really* believe and get things in order, or decide that the conflict isn't relevant enough to be bothered about inconsistency (PROTIP: questions like "what is sexism" and "what is bullying" are kinda major ones you should work out before forming an opinion on the subject). What you sure as shit shouldn't do is continually defend the opposing positions, it makes for an extremely immature response to a problem that everyone faces at one time or another. No one gives a shit that you are wrong sometimes, they are annoyed at your continual feats of double-think. You do this so you never have to say you are wrong and admit someone else was right. And why wouldn't you? You get to always feel right and never have to actually learn anything or deal with being in the wrong.

So in short, grow the fuck up. It is embarrassing to see anyone react this way to being wrong or inconsistent.

heres the link

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/a_private_letter_to_salty_cur…

Hitch: "Anyone here for a guy (Ramsey) telling a woman (Ophelia) how she ought to feel/respond when she is called a 'useless, putrid tw*t'"

Benson is perfectly free to feel insulted by being called "twat." That's obviously understandable. However, she is not entitled to her own facts. The facts are as follows:

1) She was called a "twat" in one comment only.

2) That comment was immediately called out as being out of line, your attempt at quote-mining to imply otherwise not withstanding. Even if both comments are sock puppets (and Will has already admitted that the latter comment, where he called out the "twat" insult as inappropriate, is from one of his sock puppets), the effect of that exchange is to indicate to its audience that "twat" isn't an acceptable insult.

3) The "twat" comment was largely ignored, except by that other commenter/sock puppet, so Benson's bit about a "chorus that cheered and jeered" makes no sense. There were no cheers, and the one comment in response is hardly a chorus.

4) The only other mentions of the insult came after Benson had written of YNH that "it lapses into scatology and abuse-by-female-genitalia," and someone asking what the justification of her claim was. The mentions of the insult were quotes pointing out one of the sources of Benson's claim.

Now as you pointed out, there wasn't just the "twat" comment. However, the only other support for her claim was one other comment -- I repeat, one other comment -- where Jerry Coyne was called a "pussy." So Benson's implication that YNH had fallen into the habit of "abuse-by-female-genitalia" is supported by only two comments, and the two comments are on one thread. That's pretty thin.

Hitch: "Anyone here think that a guy (Ramsey) should be the judge what constitutes 'subtle sexism' and be right to go out on a commenting spree opposing Ophelia's feelings on the matter?"

One could call you sexist for writing as if Benson was a fragile flower whose feelings need coddling, regardless of how grounded they are in facts.

As for the sexism being subtle, one can easily look at the source of Benson's original "sexist jerk" remark that YNH later mocked:

We canât help but draw attention to the fact that Greg is advocating shutting up about âstuff you know absolutely nothing about,â while at the same time he flew all over us for mentioning that he was trying rather hard to read motivations into a snipped quote from the pope with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Like Ophelia Benson getting flustered over using boobs to deliver truth and mock religion while ridiculing anyone who dares ponder the consequences of how one tries to deliver a message about religion, here Greg is advocating a rule he so willingly breaks. If âshutting upâ about things you know absolutely nothing about is a rule, why apply it only to racists? There are plenty of cases within the skeptic world where, if this was Gregâs rule, heâs missed applying it to a good many arguments.

Buried in that above quote from a blog post discussing Greg Laden is an offhanded mention of Benson being "flustered" about Boobquake. Bad choice of words? Sure. Thoughtlessly sexist? Possibly, even probably. Enough to justify the "sexist jerk" remark? Well, when you think of sexist jerks, don't you tend to think of someone who is persistently sexist, rather than someone who lapses on occasion because of society's persistent gender smog? Maybe Benson has a less lenient standard for what constitutes a "sexist jerk," but "jerk" has certain connotations, so she can't let "sexist jerk" mean any old thing.

Words mean things. "Chorus" has a meaning. "Jerk" has a meaning. Benson can't play Humpty Dumpty and let those words mean whatever she pleases.

Oh yes, the word "jerk" means something I think we have one right here.

Shoo, Mr. "tw*t was just mentioned once" and "women get flustered over men using b00bs to deliver truth" Ramsey.

skeptifem, you don't actually read, do you? Nowhere in that thread or any other did I defend Greg calling SC a "bitch." I did say that the kind of rationalizations people were using in that thread to dismiss SC calling me a "sidekick" wouldn't be acceptable if someone tried to use them to dismiss someone calling SC a "bitch." And I supported someone calling out the use of "bitch."

I understand that you'd really like me to be hypocritical in my value judgments about behavior. I understand that you have an interest in thinking that where we clash on questions of feminism, it's because I haven't thought about the subject. I get that being able to dismiss me instead of dealing with my arguments would be very convenient.

Wishing isn't going to make it so. You're going to have to do the work.

Hitch: "Shoo, Mr. 'tw*t was just mentioned once' and 'women get flustered over men using b00bs to deliver truth' Ramsey."

Hitch, you've used facts in your arguments on other matters, and I'd appreciate if you did so here.

1) "Tw*t" was used as an insult in only one comment on YNH. That is a fact. Everything else was either a quote (and a quote of Benson herself quoting YNH) or a reference. That is easy enough to verify. If you don't like it, tough.

2) No one ever said that "women get flustered over men using b00bs to deliver truth." Not only was it clear that it was Benson who was supposedly flustered, it was equally clear that I didn't agree with the term "flustered."

If you feel the need to use straw men to hammer home your claim, maybe you need to take a good look at what you are claiming.

Ramsey, you don't get it. I told you multiple times that you should stop telling other people who to perceive things and micro-mincing their words to find nuanced fault.

You cannot stop. You still have to try to get right arguing about what "subtle sexism" and "sexual bullying" is when you are not at the receiving end of it, when you are not female and when you clearly exhibit complete inability to see things from the others perspective.

This arguing about the whole topic is and was distasteful to say the least. I told you from the beginning. I have countered your claim. A whole thread of 9 comments not opposing but reinforcing the tw*t post, a second thread that _you_ resurrected for your petty hurt feelings because people called _you_ out as letting offensive sexism slide.

And now you are still arguing after everybody else has found a way to reconcile.

Let me repeat what you are doing: You tell Ophelia how she was supposed to read and feel about a thread in which she was first called sexist euphemisms clearly to denigrate her, then a sock puppet created a false smoke screen. Then the rest of the tread either reinforced the position of the poster using the word or attacked someone else with other sexist language. Yet she can not say that the thread "cheered and jeered" because you don't like that interpretation.

You really want that argument? And you really don't get that her view has a justification? You really want to split the difference, tell someone else how they ought to feel and how they ought to respond when they had been targeted for sexualized mockery?

You are the arbiter to decide what interpretations people have to take when they read "Ophelia must love the taste of herring" when earlier she had been called a "tw*at". You know it all! Of course the guy is innocent! And she is overreacting!

Forget that the male poster dropped this as a conclusion: âNow, we (excuse us, I) must go to denigrate and demean womenâ¦.â

You seriously want to defend this? Complete douche-bagery of the worst kind.

Let me repeat one last time: Stop it or reinforce even more what a complete male sexist douche you are. Because you simply need to tell others, specifically women that you are right to define how they ought to feel, about sexism and verbal sexualized arguments.

That's all I have to say. If you don't get it you don't get it.

Bye, Mr. "I am no jerk but I tell a women how she should feel and speak" Ramsey.

Hitch: "Ramsey, you don't get it. I told you multiple times that you should stop telling other people who [sic] to perceive things ..."

So if someone's perceptions are a gross exaggeration of the facts, I shouldn't say so? If theists perceive things as supporting their belief in God when they don't, no one should point this out?

Hitch: "Let me repeat what you are doing: You tell Ophelia how she was supposed to read and feel about a thread in which she was first called sexist euphemisms clearly to denigrate her, then a sock puppet created a false smoke screen. Then the rest of the tread either reinforced the position of the poster using the word or attacked someone else with other sexist language."

Let me repeat what you are doing: Misrepresenting the facts. The thread in question is quite visible, and it's clear enough from it that "the rest of the t[h]read" did not do what you said it did. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Hitch: "You are the arbiter to decide what interpretations people have to take when they read "Ophelia must love the taste of herring" when earlier she had been called a 'tw*at'."

When Benson's views on anonymity were called a "red herring" before "twat" was even mentioned, the right interpretation is pretty obvious, especially since the quote about the "taste of herring" was said in regard to those views.

I'll say it again: you are not entitled to your own facts. You are not entitled to exaggerate or embroider or fabricate claims about other people -- even if they are guilty of other things. And neither is Ophelia Benson.

Oh people can and should read the originals. Your interpretations ("herring") and spin ("subtle sexism") and outright sexism apologies (*) ? Not so much, Mr. "I side with people who joke about how they "must go to denigrate and demean women"" Ramsey.

(*) J.J. Ramsey: "One comment on one thread where Benson is called a âtwatâ and another comment on the same thread where Coyne is called a pussy do not add up to âsexual bullying.â"

I encourage everybody to compare that to the content of the threads. Yep, Ramsey be our arbiter what adds up to what. And what counts. He has ruled that there wasn't enough... and what was there was just "subtle sexism" even. Hmm, yes. Let The Man tell us.

I understand that you'd really like me to be hypocritical in my value judgments about behavior.

I would prefer that you were not hypocritical in your value judgments about behavior. FWIW.

I understand that you have an interest in thinking that where we clash on questions of feminism, it's because I haven't thought about the subject.

My criticism of you has nothing whatsoever to do with "feminism" and has only to do with your consistency or lack thereof.

I get that being able to dismiss me instead of dealing with my arguments would be very convenient.

Your "arguments" about Isis and Zuska bullying were dealt with very effectively at the time. Most hilariously here at TSZ, but also elsewhere including on the Thoughtful Animal thread. Your participation, and defense of others' participation, in the YNH matter is what "dismisses" your arguments in that prior case. The inconsistency is the thing. It makes it very hard to take your prior points at all seriously. You do not in fact have any difficulty with multiple high profile bloggers taking a small fish to task for online statements and behaviors. The charitable interpretation is that all that matters to you is the perceived justice of the cause. That's all fine but don't try to pretend your position is any higher minded than that. The uncharitable interpretation is that your attitude is determined solely by the participants...surely that would never be the case.

Wishing isn't going to make it so. You're going to have to do the work.

You already did all the work necessary.

Soque Pupet, once again, you're being vague. That's both less educational and less impressive than it could be, particularly considering the examples of "hypocrisy" given. Once again, what have I said that I haven't done?

I, for one, do my best not to hold Stephanie Z accountable for Greg Laden's bullying.
Ditto for not holding Dr. Isis or Drugmonkey accountable for CPP's bullying.

Which is, of course, to say nothing about how I treat Stephanie Z based on her own behavior that I might perceive as bullying. Or just horribly bigoted against sock puppets. *glares significantly at Stephanie Z*

:-P

I, for one, do my best not to hold Stephanie Z accountable for Greg Laden's bullying.
Ditto for not holding Dr. Isis or Drugmonkey accountable for CPP's bullying.

Maybe that is because neither one blunders around accusing other people of pottymouthery in a high moral dudgeon and then turns right around and defends CPP for his choice of language?

Well, Dr. Isis stereotypically blunders around accusing people of misogyny in a high moral dudgeon (and bless her heart for it!), and even she had to be nudged with my pointiest elbows when CPP unleashed his misogynistic assholry at Zuska. I don't know if it's even *possible* to nudge Dr. Isis into saying something about him if he's attacking some random person. But I recognize that she has far better things to do with her time than smackdown CPP.

Also, your specific example isn't the best analogy for other reasons. I see no natural moral imperative to call out foul language on par with that for calling out bullying.
Language can play a role in bullying, but foul language alone does not bullying make:
As feminsit hulk say:
HULK SAY FUCK PATRIARCHY. HULK NOT HAVE PROBLEM WITH "FUCK." ONLY BAD WORDS ARE ONES USED TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL SMALL.

B's s p,

The notion of CPP directing misogynistic comments at Zuska is delish! WHERE?!?!!!!

Technically speaking he didn't *direct* it at her, I suppose. He just ignored the fact that his misogynistic bullshit mindset re: "Real Scientists" selectively disenfranchises certain people in conversations about scientific careers, and that these people are 1) more likely to be women and 2) would logically include Zuska.

There are other examples, where I think both DM and Dr. I ought to really reflect on whether "women are totes supposed to be viewed as equal to men, so long as they are equally vigorous in rejecting that nambypamby pussified feeling type crap!!!" is really a sort of 'feminism' that represents enough progress to bother with.

Those guys sound like total dicks, I'll grant you b's sp, but I'm not sure that lets SZ and her puppeteer Laden off the hook.

Not total dicks, just not perfect paragons of consistency. But, Soque Pupet! I am shocked, shocked!!!
I would thought you, of all people, would not have used puppetry status as a derogatory term!

Sounds far too much like: "so puppet people, by dint of being puppet people, aren't as disciplined as non puppet people?!"

Say it ain't SO!

That's why I don't usually read blogosphere drama, there's too much required reading before you comment. Sorry Ophelia, but I didn't mean you, and didn't see anything you said or follow any of Zuska's links. I accidentally read one post about this drama on Greg Laden's blog, and decided that was all the backstory I need.

I was half-joking with my "sockpuppetry is harmless" comment, but the truth is I didn't read any of it so I have no idea. All I saw was people calling this person out as being a sockpuppet as though it was teh WURST thing EVA!!!1 and I wasn't particularly interested in reading the details. From what I read, it still seems like there is the huge double standard in that PZ and Greg are "not bullies" for ganging up on someone for their sockpuppetry, while Isis and Zuska "are bullies" for commenting on someone's racism. Someone who asked for feedback too, if I'm not mistaken.

Though maybe people who were more central to the drama are too embedded in it to see the double standard.

There are other examples, where I think both DM and Dr. I ought to really reflect on whether "women are totes supposed to be viewed as equal to men, so long as they are equally vigorous in rejecting that nambypamby pussified feeling type crap!!!" is really a sort of 'feminism' that represents enough progress to bother with.

Whoa!!! How did I miss this?

You're going to have to tell me where you see the contradiction between thinking we can do better than superficial dismissals of the idea that we should think about how we relate to each other, which is *not* the same thing as saying we should always be "nice," and saying the record of a controversy that will be referred to in a community for some time to come shouldn't disappear.

On what motherfucking planet do people have the motherfucking time and mental energy to even parse that fucking gibberish?

PP, that sentence is longer than my last abstract. What I find interesting about Stephanie Z's brand of rhetoric are her constant assertions that people need to think more, or read more closely, or do more work. Frankly, I think if people aren't following what you've written, it's someone else that needs to do more work.

And now on to the notion of PP...

Well, Dr. Isis stereotypically blunders around accusing people of misogyny in a high moral dudgeon (and bless her heart for it!), and even she had to be nudged with my pointiest elbows when CPP unleashed his misogynistic assholry at Zuska. I don't know if it's even *possible* to nudge Dr. Isis into saying something about him if he's attacking some random person. But I recognize that she has far better things to do with her time than smackdown CPP.

How was what PP said misogynistic?

Jesus motherfucking Christ (sorry, Isis) people! If I see the "bully" word one more time, i'm either going to scream from the searing pain, or wet myself laughing at the sheer inanity.

I'm not fooled that bullying cannot happen on line...many of us have rich online lives. I am sure that expressing an opinion forcefully is not bullying. I'm also certain that if someone is critiqued for consistently turning out dense, unreadable prose, this is not bullying, but teaching.

I'm also feeling safe in saying that some people in this little place have no fucking idea what others are saying and are stuffing words in their mouths. They have no idea what sorts of complex online relationships exist between various players here.

And there's the rub, my friends. These complex online relationships are irksome to some. They are a clique, and people get horrid little memories of high school blah blah blah, but unlike high school you can actually stop reading the blog that offends you.

Meh, i'm too fucking tired, and I think i just burned a batch of heavenly soft chocolate cookies, on which i was planning on spreading a layer of milk chocolate on which to attach a vanilla meringue.

I suspected "Set" was a sockpuppet, now I'm sure of it.

"They are a clique,"

cliques are for children. That is the problem! Isis/Set thinks this is something to brag about, to be proud of, eg to remind everyone of at every opportunity. It's an embarrassment that reflects on all of us on-line scientists.

And no one was a racist. As a woman of color, I did find GMP's comments unfortunate, and have posted to that effect in the past but she is hardly alone in her pragmatic reasoning. Isis and Zuska were simply rude. And they are the most inconsistent hypocrites of all (well Isis is, but Zuska is so far not impressing me with her class analysis which seems to consist of throwing random comments out for the purpose of paying lip service - her problem is clearly with White Dudes) so this is all fucking hysterical.

And I love how Becca is vying with Nails/skeptifem for the title of Little Miss Perfect!

What wild imaginations some people have!

Madre de Dios, somebody have a program or yearbook or something? Great points Isabel! But I take it you are in Laden's kliiike? Or is it ComradePhysioProf's gang you claim? I can't keep up.

Hahaha, I am more of a pariah around these parts, SP. Not that I mind; I am not some loser looking for friends on the internet. I am here to clear a few things up for these confused people. My role in this melodrama is more like that of the traditional court jester.

I speak the truth, in my uniquely hilarious way.

Also, Zuska was way out of line in demanding (this was the main theme of her "stepped in dogshit" post) that people IMMEDIATELY accept the judgment of strangers on the internet, who have appointed *themselves* internet cops.

This is NOT to defend Greg Laden, Stephanie Z,(both known liars) or PZ Myers.

Dr. Isis- my sock puppet was referring to the specific case of the thread over at your place on "A Response on Men, Women, Housework, and Science" (linked in comment 79); I think we're on the same page about that particular instance of dumbassity.

In addition, I think we have a longstanding difference of opinion as to just how much telling people to suck it up is appropriate. My views on that issue are colored by significant gendersmog.

SetOculus- If I'm not mistaken, having one's antenna tightly attuned to 'bullying' may relate to GSF #1 (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html)

"liars", Isabel? That seems a tad harsh. Flagrantly hypocritical conduct falls short of "lying" even if it is a type of intellectual dishonesty.

Soque Pupet, once again, you're being vague. That's both less educational and less impressive than it could be, particularly considering the examples of "hypocrisy" given. Once again, what have I said that I haven't done?

Any specifics are things you will manage to rationalize as consistent, no matter how blatant the conflict is. There isn't much point. SP was replying to your response to my specific criticisms, calling the accusations 'vague' when some have been specifically outlined is very dishonest. I see no point in trying to converse with you. I mean, really, it is unlikely that any real conclusion will be made. I am not sure how this could be healthy for ya anyway. I mean, I wasn't making the criticisms I did to hurt your feelings or to expect that you provide some explanation of your character. You don't owe anyone that. I said it because I would want someone to point it out to me if I was behaving towards others that way. You said you wanted to know the problem (with specifics), so I told ya. You didn't really want to know though, you want to win, as if anyone but you cares. Good luck with that.

I, for one, do my best not to hold Stephanie Z accountable for Greg Laden's bullying.
Ditto for not holding Dr. Isis or Drugmonkey accountable for CPP's bullying.

She asked what she did that was hypocritical, and people told her. It has pretty much nothing to do with GL, outside of the fact that they agree and support each other most of the time.

speaking of GL...GL is posting a clarification about this situation (without naming zuska, while insulting her). It doesn't really clarify much. He links to stephanie's take on everything, by itself, as the clarification. He reserves his naming-names shit talk for that thread at her blog. I don't know how a grown man can be so immature- surely he hasn't lived this long without conflict resolution skills?

surely he hasn't lived this long without conflict resolution skills?

?????

HAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Greg has conflict-enhancement skills, not "resolution" skills..

"I don't know how a grown man can be so immature- surely he hasn't lived this long without conflict resolution skills? "

His idea of conflict resolution is exactly what he's doing - insulting people while being to chickenshit to name them directly, so he can weasel and cower out of having to stand by what he says. See? Conflict resolution via the "It's just a joke!/That's not what I said!/It's not about you!" dodge.

"liars", Isabel?

I should have written 'known to me' (anyone else who bothered to follow the drama at the time)...I had a very disturbing run-in with the two of them a while back and was shocked at how easily both of them lied about what had transpired.

I also have a problem with Greg's technique of making outlandish, unsubstantiated EP-type statements in order to entrap "racists".

I also have a problem with Greg's technique of making outlandish, unsubstantiated EP-type statements in order to entrap "racists".

That is professional blogger conflict-enhancement stuff. I think he has a seminar on that.

I dunno if avoiding conflict and then stewing in the anger is enhancement. It just seems like GL doing that kind of stuff translates more into him fucking himself over than anything else. People who are not overly concerned with him won't really pay much attention, or won't dwell on it at least. Getting so mad about strangers' opinions and being unable to confront em sucks ass. I used to be like that long ago. Makes a person misanthropic, at least in my experience. Of course I assumed the strangers to be more correct than I was in assessing the situation, and GL may assume the opposite.

GL is hilarious! and one of my biggest fans!

Madre de Dios, somebody have a program or yearbook or something? Great points Isabel! But I take it you are in Laden's kliiike? Or is it ComradePhysioProf's gang you claim? I can't keep up.