Friday, August 23, 2013

A Social Media Expert

Everyone on Twitter is a "social media expert".

Maybe it's a bit of an exaggeration, but it isn't too far off the mark. Nearly everyone that has tweeted more than ten times thinks they've learned something profound.

Even Jen, founder of Atheism+, is a social media expert:

For those that are thinking "too long!" here are some funny bits:

5:32 - a strange pan to the audience reveals that attendance was absurdly low. Of course, for a student event this can be considered good attendance but it's still a funny frame anyhow.

11:44 - says she is "iffy about" Twitter.

Slide contains a plugs for the Twitter accounts for the following people:
15:14 - Discussion of YouTube and another plug - "always very happy when they have a midterm and there's a great speech from Greta Christina they're glad that they can go and watch it later."

15:58 - Google Plus. Says "no one uses it" but that it's great for "hangouts". Includes plug for FTBCon, which primarily used Google Plus.

17:29 - Reddit! She does a good job describing how to use reddit effectively and avoids accusing the entire site of being racist or misogynist.

24:43 - "Moderate yourselves". This is when self-awareness is perhaps lacking.

"You also have to moderate yourselves a little. Like I said, this is your public image and often the first impression people get about your group is when they're looking at social media stuff.
A lot of our groups deal with controversy as atheism is controversial in the United States. And it's all too easy to get online really quickly and go feed that troll, get involved in a flame war, respond to criticism without really thinking about it all, and as Jesse [?] told us earlier, it is good to wait some time between hearing responding to it. You'll usually give a better response when there is a little gap between that.
You don't have to respond to every controversy within thirty seconds. I know that's how the internet feels, but you don't have to do it."
This is good advice.

But when it comes to actually dealing with social media, the FreeThoughtBlogs types are more of a "do as I say, not as I do" group.

Here are some example specimens of troll bait:

And more inflammatory musings:
A bit more "screw everyone":
Interspersed is a bit of "woe is me":

To fully appreciate how bizarre this behavior is, some history is required.

Jen is the person that coined the term "Atheism+" in August 2012.

Here we are, only a year later, and McCreight is on stage speaking to the largest (if not the only) secular student group in the United States in a recorded talk that appears on their YouTube channel.

McCreight comes to speak about social media, but entirely leaves out her claims of being "bullied out of the movement" by interactions on social media.

The story goes that a bunch of misogynists sent her a lot of nasty messages about her involvement in Atheism+. McCreight was blamed for creating the most ridiculous aspects of Atheism+.

Rather than log into Twitter and her blog every day and deal with these messages, McCreight did something else for a few months.

Then McCreight returned, armed with a story about her exile, without having to relinquish even her most trivial roles (for example, her moderator privileges in the Atheism+ subreddit).

Apparently this is being "bullied out of the movement".

It's rather interesting to think that McCreight would tell this story about being "bullied out" and have this lecture of letting cooler heads prevail online when all appearances would suggest she wishes to bully a former friend out of the movement.

Not only did McCreight label her former friend a suicidal sexual predator, she now seems to imply that her friend's sexual partners may not have been able to give consent:

And was actually afraid of him:

No backing down. But does McCreight think she may have acted hastily?

Actually, yes - McCreight thinks she shouldn't have drown out persons of color:

Why do McCreight's posts get more attention?

It's not because McCreight went thermonuclear on a close friend's reputation by adding misogyny and rape to the already rampant accusations of racism.


McCreight's posts get more attention because she is a white woman and everyone is ever so racist.

What is McCreight?

A "social media expert".

What do "social media experts" do?

Troll, troll, troll and troll some more. 

They're professionals.


  1. "The cons this were at has specific policies against speakers sleeping with attendees. Power differential muddles consent".

    To say I am livid at this statement is an understatement.

    There is no "muddling" in the law of consent. I am sick of people making up law they think sounds sophisticated.

    This is the law of consent: You either give consent or not. That is it. One may ask whether you *could* give consent, in which case you did not give consent. Being able to consent is an issue of fact. But it is all or nothing. Either you can consent and the question is irrelevant, or you cannot give consent and it is rape. There is no middle ground.

    It's not about how "good" your consent is. It's whether you can consent. The courts will not undertake an investigation into how "good" your consent is. Such a position is offensive to basic notions of forseeability and criminal law. There is no precedent in which a court draws up a list of factors like "power imbalance" and decide "yes, here the consent is true." Put simply, a court will not go "this is rape because you are a speaker." It's Nonsense. Absolute ignorance masquerading as social activism.

    This is what makes me so irate hearing keyboard smashing SJWs talking about alchohol = rape. No No No No No No No. It does not matter if you are drunk, only if can you consent. It does not matter if you ONLY did it because you were drunk (ie, you would never have done it sober). It is irrelevant. If you are able to consent, ie. Make a conclusion on the facts without deceit and communicate it, then you can consent and that is the fact of the matter. And yet I see so many proclaim "but drunken consent is not real consent", that is not the law. Yes, alcohol *can* vitiate consent but do they understand just HOW drunk you have to be to be incapable of consent? Precedents refer to women being passed out. Anyone who wants to claim that Leonard raped Penny in BBT clearly has no formal legal education, and is little more than a naive loudmouth. (Unless rape law in USA is REALLY different from UK law. I am unconvinced.)

    Furthermore "power differentials" do nothing in law. Unless JT has the power to make your will overborne and vitiate your consent, then there was consent. That is the end of the matter. Nice rape allegation being thrown around. Gotta hit the buzzwords.

    I am tired of SJWs and their ignorance. I am tired of people with no grasp of legal principles throwing around the most serious of statements. I am sick of their shaming tactics and attempts to ruin people's careers. I am sick of their claims of rampant misogyny for daring to demand proof to back up rape allegations. And finally, I'm sick of people with 0 training declaring that they are "skeptics". It's an incredibly difficult talent, yet so many claim that they have it.

    TL'DR: Atheism+ don't understand what the law is and make up stuff as they go along. One wonders if they have poured over the legal precedents like I did, or whether they made stuff up in their own minds. I know which conclusion I lean towards. Once more I say; If you're going to talk about the law, cite the law.

    PS: Love your blog :)

    1. That's why the boozing to excess ties in. Plusers can use it as the reason to blame everybody else for responsibility for sexual consent, and more. Especially retrospectively.

      The irresponsible kiddie pool of Gnu Atheism.

    2. They need to ban alcohol from these events. This is the obvious elephant in the room the SJW. Don't they care about how alcohol is a key ingredient of rape culture? The rational step would be the out-right prohibition of alcoholic beverages. I'm sure there are plenty of groups that rent out places for alcohol -free events. Why should Atheism be any different from the LDS groups they are accommodating? Where is that bold SJW from the good old days of the Temperance Movement? Heck it was part and parcel of the same political movement as Women's Suffrage. See those women were harmed by the drunkenness of their husbands. They'd be appalled by what repealing prohibition has lead to for women. Now that the women are on the sauce too, look at the depravity that ensues.
      It will never happen. They won't want to give up partying despite the detrimental effect of contributing to rape culture.

  2. "Blah blah privilege consent blah".

    No. She's talking shit about her friend in public because she's pissed off at him, and generally is not a person who is in control of her emotions to begin with. This behavior serves one purpose: embarrass him in public for revenge.

  3. Oh good heavens. Perez Hilton McCreight spying on people's sex lives at conventions.

    So she was so 'blinded by [her] friendship' with JT that she sat on this particular item, saved it in her ammo box until he disagreed with her.

    "Friends" of McCreight take note. What dirt of yours is she saving, ready to post on the internet if you ever disagree with her? Something to think about.

  4. I have taken a day long to read the whole article and comments given by the users. This article needs a great amount of appreciation and I think it's a great attempt from their side. Social media Agency Dubai can add these blogs to promote their contents.