Monday, May 27, 2013

The Definition of Harassment

Once upon a time, a one Justin Vacula went to the Women in Secularism 2 conference in Washington DC.

Despite many thinking that Vacula would be the troublemaker, it turned out that the "feminists" found much more wrong with the President of CFI, Ron Lindsay (more herehere, here and here)

That same Vacula is now raising money to go to the the next conference, this time the show is in Ireland.

The conference is titled "Empowering Women Through Secularism 2013" and rolls out the usual suspects. Ophelia Benson, PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson.

Presumably the event is happening with the speakers it has because Michael Nugent has something to do with the organization.

His tweets betray his interest in the opinions of the invited speakers:





PZ Myers especially seems to be the one CC'd the most on Michael Nugent's whereabouts.

But you can't fault Michael Nugent - one is led to believe that he actually wants to put the genie back into the bottle.

The trouble comes when the others open their mouths - in a post titled "Stalking", Ophelia Benson describes Justin Vacula's campaign to visit the event in Dublin:

He’s raised more than enough already.
So this is how it’s to be. I can’t go anywhere now without being followed by a dedicated harasser.

Note this is Ophelia's post in its entirety, as she apparently doesn't care to explain her libel to new readers.

It is not clear how exactly Vacula earned the label "harasser", however it might be related to how no thinking person can believe Benson's endless victim narrative and is generally tired of her poor interpersonal skills.

She continues the nonsense on Twitter:

Justin Vacula merely appearing at the conference is "stalking".

For some perspective, the reader is encouraged to how Jamie Kilstein talked down some heckers:
“Here’s the thing. You clearly had everything handed to you and you know what tells me that? The amount of time you put into how you look because that’s all that matters to people like you. There’s no reason to cultivate a personality because you have everything handed to you because guys like that just want to put it into anything with a hole. And that’s the problem.”
Jamie Kilstein then addresses a male in the crowd:
"Are you on my side or their side? I can't tell... You're working it out? Is it really a debate? They're not going to fuck you, sir."

Why aren't Twitter "feminists" angry at Jamie Kilstein?

Well, since Kilstein didn't actually say the c-word, they didn't identify his language as objectification and gendered slurs.

Meanwhile the hero of Pharyngula is voicing his opinion about other secularists.

First, his opinion of DJ Grothe, Michael Shermer, and Ron Lindsay:


Then apparently PZ's two cents about Russell Blackford:


To round things off, in the Skepchick universe, if you aren't aware, Richard Dawkins is a racist.

The ultimate question here is, what exactly is harassment?

According to the "social justice" warriors, Twitter/Tumblr "feminists", and "FreeThought" bloggers, this article itself is harassment.

This article:
  1. Documents the words of PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Rebecca Watson
  2. Dares to disagree with the threat narrative of the holy trinity
This article should go straight to the top of the Skepchick "Page 'o hate", Benson's "harassment" updates, or PZ's "I get email" blog posts.


However it is a safe bet that none of this criticism will surface on their online properties for two reasons:
  1. This article is not authored by one of a high profile, so they have no publicity to gain from slandering it.
  2. The article is just cogent enough to give them pause.

Returning to the real world, we have an opportunity to return to our question.

What exactly is harassment?

It needs a stricter definition than mere disagreement.

How's this: Harassment is a conscious effort to label your opponents as racist, sociopathic woman haters.

Richard Dawkins has been called a racist.

Thunderf00t has been called a sociopath.

And everyone is labelled a misogynist.

Harassment is coercing people into resigning for the crime of disagreeing with your political opinions.

Every few months, the "social justice" crowd picks a new victim as the target of boycotts, petitions for termination, calls for resignation  and outright demands for excommunication. The targets of these campaigns have been Richard Dawkins, Justin Vacula, Ron Lindsay and Thunderf00t.

Does this definition of harassment work?

Who exactly are the harassers?

8 comments:

  1. Rather wise observations from someone not 'high profile'. I shall help ensure it gets read.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I must admit, I came expecting something quite different. Thanks for being a voice of reason. Now if you'll excuse me, I must continue stalking PZ Myers by living on the same continent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks and you're welcome! Be sure to avoid the same timezone as PZ, that'll really set him off.

      Delete
  3. Lets Play Sally says . I think that gives great insight on the MO of the feminist incursion into the atheist and skeptic world attracted by it's growing popularity. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Arguably they have been with us for quite some time, I think. If you read old SI's (on CSI's site), they are there, asking to be able to ignore scientists whose opinions do not conform with feminist dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good stuff.
    I suspect that the manipulation of language to suit ones needs is very ancient. I wonder if Francis Bacons 1620 work Novum Organum (Science, A New Instrument) ran into this kind of manipulation as well.
    Idols of the Market (Idola fori)
    “There are also Idols, derived as if from the mutual agreement and association of the human race, which I call Idols of the Market on account of men's commerce and partnerships. For men associate through conversation, but words are applied according to the capacity of ordinary people. Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways.” (aph. 43)
    Bacon considered these “the greatest nuisances of them all” (aph. 59). Because humans reason through the use of words, they are particularly dangerous because the received definitions of words, which are often falsely derived, can cause confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was the subject of one of Myers' 'I Get Email' posts. I sent him an epic and demented screed, which he took seriously and documented in detail, and his flying monkeys went berserk in the comments section.

    ReplyDelete