Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Oct 5, 2012 in Uncategorized Posts | 47 comments

On Justin Vacula’s Value to Atheism

Justin Vacula resigned from being the co-chair of Pennsylvania’s chapter of the Secular Coalition for America. This is unfortunate but understandable. Still, I think Justin has a lot to contribute toward the cause of atheism and I am very happy he’s writing for Skeptic Ink Network (SIN). Let me explain.

As a former minister there is a recognized difference between leaders and the people in the pew. Leaders are held to a higher standard. I know of a Youth Minister who allowed a teenager to have some wine. She was eventually ousted despite her apologies. If a minister smoked or possessed pornography he or she might be subject to censor. If a conservative minister suggested homosexuality or feminism might not be a damnable offense after all, he might be ousted. It all depends on the church, the leader, and the type of “sin.” Justin crossed the line as can be read in a link Damion Reinhardt provided, which is a supportive post. And Justin sincerely apologized.

Sorry, but people who are in leadership roles in organizations are rightly held to higher standards. And they cannot change things with apologies, not very often anyway. Depending on the “sin” they probably won’t last long.

But if anyone thinks Justin no longer brings much of value to the table then that person is very ignorant. He does, and I am very happy he’s here at SIN. The parallel with ministry is obvious. In the case of that aforementioned Youth Minister, she found another ministry. You see, she learned from her mistake. Does her “sin” mean churches should throw her in the trash, that all of her training and knowledge means nothing any more? No. And neither is it the case with Justin. He will rise again in the future. I judge that he has learned from his mistakes. And I for one am very happy to support him. I predict good things from him. Sometimes the person who makes mistakes and subsequently learns from them can bring even more to the table.

  • Edward Clint

    I want to echo John’s sentiment here re: Justin Vacula. In light of the irrational, vicious attacks against Justin, I feel unkind to say that I believe he has made mistakes (though I know he agrees on these points).

    Those mistakes are largely political ones, however, that have had precisely zero measurable ill effects. I’m very pleased to have him writing at Skeptic Ink, as much today as any before.

    To the cruel and petty, I say that today Justin is better than he was yesterday, and he’ll be better tomorrow. But you’ll still be hollow and malignant.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/justinvacula justin Vacula

    Thank you.

  • David

    And the plusser’s transformation into scientology is complete.

  • Jean Kazez

    Edward Clint: “Those mistakes are largely political ones, however, that have had precisely zero measurable ill effects.”

    That’s a bizarre assessment, considering that the mistakes caused a great deal of anxiety to a real human being–Surly Amy. Is that a “precisely zero measurable ill effect”?!

    But the post seems about right. You can make mistakes and still have lots of potential to make a future contribution.

  • Ryan Grant Long

    With all due respect Jean Kazez, anxiety is personal and not exactly measurable for these purposes, and while Justin made mistakes, many of them were also retaliations after he was targeted by off-base accusations and DMCA actions. Nobody involved in the drama is innocent, and Justin’s detractors have done plenty to cause anxiety to others.

    I wish people would put personal feelings and disputes aside, step back, and see that these Internet wars aren’t helping to further the goals of any social movement. Neither secularism nor feminism are benefited by petty personal disputes made public on blogs.

  • http://csdphumor.com Steven Olsen

    He will be a great asset when he learns compassion and humility. I look forward to working with him when that happens and not a day before.

  • http://www.skepticink.com/incongruentelements/ bethannerickson

    Compassionate, kind words, John. If this is the prevailing attitude on Skeptic Ink, I’m even more honored to be a part of this network.

  • M

    Justin Vacula may be a committed secularist. He has also publicly engaged in sexist behavior. He admits he made “mistakes,” although he hasn’t asked forgiveness from those people he wronged. He certainly not someone I want to represent me as an SCA official (albeit I don’t live in Pennsylvania) because it would be easy for a non-secularist to find out about Vacula’s sexism and say “see, this is the kind of person secularists are.”

  • bluharmony

    Jean Kazez: From someone who calls another woman who had her address posted in a hate thread a “mad dog” for complaining about it, and includes an apology to dogs, your “compassion” means absolutely zero. If Roth didn’t want her address known, she didn’t need to make it public. P.O. Boxes are available, and for public persons such as Roth, advisable. Period.

    So yes, Justin’s mistakes were political. He was trying to defend himself against the baseless assertion that he was trying to discover Roth’s address via counterclaim. He wasn’t. But he apologized for the disclosure of PUBLIC information anyway, because disclosing such information is, at the very least, bad manners.

    Justin’s parents’ address was disclosed by the “feminists,” however, for no apparent reason at all. His parents aren’t even participants in this “discussion.”

  • Chas

    @M
    Please, I mean this as an honest question because I didn’t appreciate the way Vacula was acting for a while whenever he felt like he was being attacked but what did Vacula do that was sexist?

  • Jean Kazez

    Maria, Of course I never called you anything for complaining about your address issue. I called you something (not using your name) because you were bringing up your address issue in comments to a post of mine where your address issue had no relevance whatever. Just none at all, yet you insisted on making it an issue. My comment policy says “be reasonable, relevant, and respectful” and you were violating it. I had told you that several times, but you continued to bring up your address issue even after being asked to stop. You then brought it up on Twitter, sending insults about me to people I know there. And then you got “Justicar” involved, and he made a nasty, deceptive video about me. At that point I wrote a little post about being chased by mad dogs–which I still think was an apt metaphor.

    As for everything else, go read Surly Amy’s latest post. It corrects some misperceptions you seem to have. Justin dug Amy’s address out of a copyright website, hardly a highly visible place. He not only increased its visibility, but put it at a website full of abusive people. If the point had just been to prove the address was online, he could have done so at his own blog. He clearly had other objectives. He wanted to rally the troops against her, and when he didn’t get enough support at the Slyme Pit, he turned to A Voice for Men (2-3 days later). All of that was clearly a mistake, and part of the reason it was a mistake is because of the impact on Amy.

    It doesn’t change things if you can come up with examples of other people doing other malicious things. Nobody ever said Justin Vacula was the only person who every did anything malicious, least of all me. In fact, I’ve written posts about other malicious campaigns, so really, I have no idea why you’ve been so persistent in bringing such things to my attention.

  • Chill Chick

    Justin, good luck to you. I was going to comment on your own blog but there was a full-fledged comment war going on between FT bullies and slimepitters so I got out of Dodge. I just wanted to say that your resignation statement was very classy and I wish you the best of luck in the future!

  • bluharmony

    Kazez: You asked why there was a backlash against feminism using Roth as an example. I tried to explain — because the feminists are doing the same thing they’re accusing others of doing. And they’re doing it to women. I used the posting of my home address and subsequent attacks on me as an example to support the claim I was making. It was obviously relevant, as most people aware of the situation agree. You then proceeded to ban me from your blog, make fun of my abilities as an attorney (which you know nothing about), and call me vile names, without even giving me an opportunity to respond.

    To find Amy’s address all you have to do is google, which takes about five seconds. It’s a lot harder to find mine, which was never a business address in the first place, and besides, I’ve since had it changed. It was used as my bar mailing address while I was too ill to work, and it was posted in what you’d call a “hate thread” about a year ago. However, I survived, without making much of a fuss. I only brought it up again because it amazed me that you could not recognize similar situations when they were specifically pointed out to you. The posting of publicly available home/business addresses is either fine or wrong — take your pick — but the identity of the “perpetrator” or whether that “perpetrator” is a feminist is irrelevant.

    So do you understand why there’s a backlash yet? It’s not feminism that’s the issue, it’s hypocrisy. Most of us posting here fully support basic feminist principles and then some.

  • HJ Hornbeck

    bluharmony:

    He was trying to defend himself against the baseless assertion that he was trying to discover Roth’s address via counterclaim.

    Which he did by posting her address to a forum filled with people who do little but hate on Skepchick and FtB. He wasn’t even responding to a comment on that forum, he was responding to one on an entirely different site; in other words, it’s highly unlikely the person making the claim would have even known it had been responded to. He didn’t need to go into detail, but he did anyway. Even if there was no malicious intent, it speaks volumes that he thought it was no big deal to reveal personal information on someone on a forum that was hostile to them.

    But he apologized for the disclosure of PUBLIC information anyway, because disclosing such information is, at the very least, bad manners.

    I went looking for this apology you mentioned, and couldn’t find it. Do you have a link?
    Chas:

    what did Vacula do that was sexist?

    I can’t find anything specifically. The fact that he has a post on “A Voice For Men,” who’s owner has stated they would always vote to acquit if they were a juror on a rape case, no matter what the evidence says; which has called Rebecca Watson a “stupid, lying, whining whore;” and which describes dating as “negotiation with a hooker”… suggests he may have some sympathy to sexist views.

  • Astrokid.NJ

    At that point I wrote a little post about being chased by mad dogs–which I still think was an apt metaphor.

    Its just a metaphor (with an added apology for some reason).. Yeah..mad dogs.. talking dogs.. metaphor.

    What fun …
    … I’ve not been having, since I posted my blog about the backlash against feminism in the “atheosphere”. Not to be unoriginal, but we really aren’t in Kansas anymore. Moral of the story: watch who you talk to, because there are people out there who basically act like mad dogs (with apologies to mad dogs). They bark, scratch, bite, beg to be petted, whine, and them bark some more. When you finally lose patience and try to rein them in, they get even madder. Worse, they’re talking dogs, so they can go away and tell lies about you. My mantra now: no mad dogs, no mad dogs! I will be more careful about who I allow to comment in the future, and will moderate more strictly when the topic requires it.

  • Randy

    You imply that dismissing a person who has apologized is OK because they’ll just find somewhere equivalent to pop up again. That’s a little too Catholic church for me.

    Either an apology means something, or it doesn’t. If it means something, people should be able to stay where they are. If it doesn’t, we shouldn’t waste our time with apologies.

  • an atheist jew

    wtf. the forces behind atheism plus have made notable mistakes and notably lied time after time after time. they have sewed dissension, the encourage dissension, and they silence speech and dehumanize people they consider their opponents.

    atheist or former preacher, I couldn’t give a fuck. but by the same token Justin is not qualified for leadership, neither are any of the atheism plus founders or backers or bloggers.

    And any statement of you that discusses this in relationship to Justin is a lie and participating in a smear if you don’t also condemn the smears and tactics of atheism plus.

    the more I read about atheism plus the less I want to associate with it. what a bullshit disgraceful movement.

  • bluharmony

    Justin couldn’t respond in the forum where the accusation was made because he was banned. So he responded elsewhere. He’s apologized multiple times in multiple places for making mistakes, including in his resignation.

    As for Kazez, she thinks that when a member of party A does something cruel to a member of party B it’s fine because she’s a member of party A, but when a member of party B does the exact same thing (though for a valid reason and not nearly as viciously) to a member of party A, it’s a travesty. That’s exactly the kind of hypocrisy we’ve been seeing all along, and that’s why there’s a “backlash against feminism.”

    Also, Kazez, I had nothing to do with getting Justicar involved. I didn’t contact him or ask him for help. He acted completely of his own volition in everything he said or did. We don’t gang up on people. We speak for ourselves. If he thought that you’re a hypocrite, then that’s what he thought because of your actions, not because of mine.

    And I didn’t violate your comment policy for the reasons explained above. If you don’t understand basic logic, then I really can’t help you.

    Finally, you specifically stated that bluharmony is Maria Maltseva in the post where you blocked me, as if it were some sort of big secret. That was before your post where you decided to call me a mad dog & accuse Justicar of lying because he misquoted you as saying “shut up” instead of “stop ranting and raving” (which he showed in a screencap). As for threatening to ban, that wasn’t a lie either, because you went ahead and did it. And, BTW, I had absolutely nothing to do with the making of that video. I didn’t even know it existed until someone told me about it and your sickening “mad dog” posts about a week later.

  • HJ Hornbeck

    bluharmony:

    Justin couldn’t respond in the forum where the accusation was made because he was banned. So he responded elsewhere. He’s apologized multiple times in multiple places for making mistakes, including in his resignation.

    I asked for links. You provided none, save his resignation.
    To make a proper apology, you have to acknowledge your mistakes, say what you learned from the experience, and offer a chance at reconciliation. Vacula did acknowledge making mistakes, but only in a vague sense:

    I have indeed made some mistakes and handled some situations poorly in past months.

    He mentions nothing about what he’s learned from those mistakes, and by misrepresenting those opposed to his appointment he is not offering reconciliation. Here’s what he thinks of that open, specific petition:

    personal vendettas and whispering campaigns
    a campaign of lies, character attacks, and distortions

    Vacula has not effectively apologized, at least in his resignation. I ask again: where are these apologies you allude to?

  • Clare45

    Hornbeck, how hard is it for your to find Justin Vacula’s blog which is on this website! You are being pathetic or deliberately evasive. Here is the exact quote from his blog- (you can damn well find the rest of the blog yourself!)
    This is his apology: “I have indeed made some mistakes and handled some situations poorly in past months. These mistakes were errors of judgment and were not, by any means, coupled with malicious intent. My detractors have blown these mistakes out of proportion.”
    I am going to add-again- that he did not post on AVFM- they picked up his article elsewhere and posted it themselves, and Amy’s address was public. You really cannot copyright a website if anyone can copy and paste something from it.I doubt anyway if an address is considered a copyright infringement.

  • HJ Hornbeck

    Whoops, that was only half a reply!

    bluharmony:

    Justin couldn’t respond in the forum where the accusation was made because he was banned. So he responded elsewhere.

    And how did he respond? If he was on the forum he was banned from, we could easily see things escalating.

    “You did it to find out Amy’s address!”
    “No I didn’t.”
    “Yes you did!”
    “Look, her home address is listed as her business address.”
    “No it’s not!”
    “Sure it is. Go google it.”
    “No way. You made the claim, you need to provide the evidence.”

    Vacula, however, was on a forum friendly to his views. If he were to leave it at “No, I didn’t,” no-one would question him. If he left it at “her home address is her business address,” no-one would have challenged him. But in a forum where no-one was likely to doubt Vacula, he acted as if he had been seriously doubted. And yet it was Vacula who first brought up that charge, in the very same post where he revealed Amy’s address. No-one else on the Slyme Pit had noticed it, or cared enough to mention it.
    So why did Vacula go so far out of his way to defend himself? Does he think revealing personal information about someone is no big deal, in every circumstance? Given his constant assertions he wasn’t acting with “malicious intent,” it sounds that way to me.

  • Jean Kazez

    Maria,

    Justin could have responded at his own blog instead of at the Slyme Pit. What, are you saying he was blocked from his own blog?!

    Your theories about “Kazez” are absurd. You think I didn’t want you to air your complaint about Greg Laden because I’m a member of “party A”–the Freethought Blogs/Skepchick Party. But go back and look at the posts you were commenting on. They were critical of party A.

    I stopped you from telling your story in July because I had said in the post I wanted a general discussion–I explicitly said that. So you were breaking the rules. I stopped you from telling your story in August because first of all, it had no relevance to my post. And besides, you brought it up in a snarky, insulting way–accusing me of thinking it was OK for Greg Laden to reveal your address, just because I had disallowed the topic in July. You were sniping at me, instead of joining the discussion in a “relevant, reasonable, respectful” way (as my comment policy requires).

    No, I didn’t state you were Maria Maltseva, as in “Bluharmony is Maria Maltseva”. I simply referred to you as Maria Maltseva. No big deal, surely, as you’d commented at my blog under that name many times.

    This is not a profitable interchange, but if you keep distorting the facts I will keep correcting the record. Hopefully we’re done now.

  • prussian

    Word of solidarity. I’ve been working on a piece about this whole circus, and I’ll try to build this into it.

    Notice that the FtB’ers still get all huffy if you say that they enforce a blacklist?

  • bluharmony

    John: Please delete my last post/don’t let it get past moderation. It’s irrelevant (and improperly formatted). Let her have the last word.

    The only thing I want to clarify is that it wasn’t Laden who posted my address in one of several attack posts about me but one of his commenters, or Zvan will write yet another nasty post about me.

  • HJ Hornbeck

    prussian:

    Notice that the FtB’ers still get all huffy if you say that they enforce a blacklist?

    Blacklist? Never heard of one. Or are you mistaking atheismplus.com for atheism plus?

  • bluharmony

    I’m just going to point out another one of Kazez’s funnier misrepresentations just for the heck of it. Here’s a quote directly from her blog: “That’s the last time Bluharmony (Maria Maltseva) comments here.”

    Now she claims, in her post above: “No, I didn’t state you were Maria Maltseva, as in ‘Bluharmony is Maria Maltseva.’”

    So I guess the use of parentheses instead of the word “is” makes all the difference? Amazing.

    Yes, a blacklist exists. Take a look at the Pharyngula Wikia. I’m the first person on it. My crime? Posting in Abbie’s blog over a year ago, mostly in favor of women’s rights, but criticizing Watson’s actions in respect to Dawkins and McGraw.

  • HJ Hornbeck

    bluharmony:

    Yes, a blacklist exists. Take a look at the Pharyngula Wikia.

    No, that’s the Pharyngula “blacklist.” Any sufficiently large blog will have a list of banned members. I myself was banned from “Is God a Squirrel” for posting inconvenient statistics. These lists are normal for a blog, and no big deal.

    prussian was alleging something different, that atheism plus has a blacklist. So where is it? Do you know? Or is this another mythical beast, like the unicorn or those apologies from Vacula?

  • HJ Hornbeck

    Oh, and one quick sidenote:

    Yes, a blacklist exists. Take a look at the Pharyngula Wikia. I’m the first person on it.

    You’re the first on that list because it’s ordered alphabetically, and Myers has yet to ban anyone with a handle starting with “A.”

  • http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion

    Whether or not anyone writes down an actual list, there is a set of people who will sustain coordinated attacks whenever they are promoted to leadership or speaker’s gigs.

  • Prepagan

    @HJ Hornbeck

    I’ve been enjoying following the discussion here but I’m concerned that I’ve missed a step:

    When prussian mentions Ftbers getting huffy regarding a blacklist you appear to have decided that this is a reference to an Atheism plus blacklist. Did I miss something or was this just a bit of a leap on your part?

    BTW I understand that the Atheism plus forums have a list of those they have banned (Matt Dillahunty being one of the more recent additions) and imagine that, in common parlance, this could be referred to as a ‘blacklist’.

    Why are you disputing the existence of blacklists anyway if you believe they are a comparatively normal feature of large blogs?

    Is there some suspicion that ‘huffy Ftbers’ use their lists for more extensive activities?

    While I’m writing, I might also observe that in a previous comment you quoted the owner of AVfM as describing Rebecca Watson as a “stupid, lying, whining whore” as an example of sexism. Whilst certainly impolite I think it is unwise to conflate a specific insult to an individual with an intention to discriminate against that individual’s entire gender.

    While I have no desire to defend Paul Elam I have a suspicion that your quote mining, were it to be investigated further, will be found to come from articles that were more grounded in rationality than your selective quoting would have us believe.

    Bluharmony has an excellent piece on this blog network regarding the concept of ‘guilt by association’ with which you might like to familiarise yourself if you wish to further argue that Justin Vacula holds sexist sympathies.

  • HJ Hornbeck

    This is getting ridiculous.

    Most of the commenters and readers here identify as skeptics, I presume? You agree that critical thinking and evidence are the core tools needed to get at the truth. If I were to present you with a wristband that I claimed “improved athletic performance,” your alarm bells would go off. “What do you mean by athletic performance, specifically? Where are your studies that demonstrate that?”

    And yet look at Clare45′s comment above:

    I am going to add-again- that he did not post on AVFM- they picked up his article elsewhere and posted it themselves, and Amy’s address was public.

    As for the first part, that’s blatantly false:

    Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

    by justinvacula » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:32 pm

    Sorry for the lack of activity. My laptop is broken and I have now ordered a new one. I am using a really, really, really shitty computer now. My mobile phone also limits me. I hope to catch up on things soon. I see Stephanie’s post and may respond. Now, though, I am working on a guest post for AVoiceForMen on this shit computer.

    As for the second part, that’s a red herring as I detailed earlier.

    Clare45 has either ignored the evidence, or simply accepted what someone else said without question. He/she is not thinking critically, otherwise they would have realized they were making a non-sequiter. Now consider Damion:

    Whether or not anyone writes down an actual list, there is a set of people who will sustain coordinated attacks whenever they are promoted to leadership or speaker’s gigs.

    For one thing, he contradicts bluharmony and prussian’s claim that there is a list by suggesting there may not be; combined with the inability of anyone to produce an actual list, this suggests there’s no such beast. We could have guessed that earlier, though; you can’t stop people from being atheists by writing their name down, so how could you stop people from identifying as A+?

    The second assertion is too vague to count as evidence. Damian must know of some examples in order to make his claim, yet he shares none. Who is launching these attacks, if you can tell us? If you can’t, how do you know they’re happening, let alone co-ordinated? There’s no need to provide every example you can think of; just provide the best one, and we’ll examine the evidence together.

    This one subject is causing a lot of skeptics to drop their skepticism. If you identify as a skeptic, please take a step back and try to figure out if you’re being selective about your skepticism, as well as why.

    It’ll lead to much more interesting conversations.

  • Smilodon’s Retreat

    I’m not involved in this and I honestly have no idea what ‘s going on. I just wanted to say that using comments from people about they did or what they saw other people do or anything like that is the second worst form of evidence on the planet. The worst, of course, is just making stuff up.

    How does one person define “working on a post”. It could mean writing, fact checking, style guide, etc. Or it could mean copying and pasting.

    The only time that you can really use what other people say is when you can compare that to what they said at another time in order to discredit the person as a source of authenticity. That’s about it.

    Just thought I’d throw that out there.

  • HJ Hornbeck

    Smilodon’s Retreat:

    I’m not involved in this and I honestly have no idea what‘s going on.

    So why are you setting aside things you are involved in to comment? Why should we take your opinion seriously, if it isn’t informed? I smell a hidden motive.

    How does one person define “working on a post”. It could mean writing, fact checking, style guide, etc. Or it could mean copying and pasting.

    The claim was that Vacula’s post wound up on A Voice For Men without his consent or knowledge. Vacula’s comment demonstrates he gave consent and had knowledge. Your attempt to redefine a word doesn’t change that.

    Besides, Vacula has full copyright control over his blog posts. If he was offended by AVfM using his work, he could have forced them to take it down. If he wanted to add text that clarifies he doesn’t support their views, he could have forced them to do so.

    He hasn’t. In fact, he would rather resign his volunteer position and let people continue to use that post against him than do either of the above. He must support them quite strongly, to put up with all that.

  • bluharmony

    HJ — No, I’m not banned from Pharyngula. I’m free to comment, since I’ve broken no rules. The Wikia blacklist is for people who post elsewhere that they don’t like. I’m on it because I used to post at Abbie’s blog and because at one point I thought that both sides could make peace with each other. Silly me.

    The Wikia blacklist is an actual blacklist. Butterflies and Wheels used to have a simpler one: If you post at Abbie’s, you can’t post here.

  • bluharmony

    What you’re referring is PZ’s Dungeon, which I’m not in. That’s the ban list. There’s only one woman in the Dungeon, and I have no idea what crime she’s committed because she’s the only female PZ has ever banned.

    And yes, I realize the blacklist is in alphabetical order. But it was created by someone who apparently hates me (though doesn’t know me), so I have the most “quotes” going to dead links on Abbie’s old site. I used to have my own Pharyngula Wikia page with all sorts of defamatory content on it, written by the woman who created the blacklist — not PZ Myers. He was fine with that behavior, though some other Pharyngulites (and possibly Wikia) took action and had it removed.

  • HJ Hornbeck

    You’re not making sense, bluharmony. In one part of your post, you imply blacklists have nothing to do with banning:

    No, I’m not banned from Pharyngula. I’m free to comment, since I’ve broken no rules. The Wikia blacklist is for people who post elsewhere that they don’t like.

    But in another, you imply blacklists have everything to do with banning:

    The Wikia blacklist is an actual blacklist. Butterflies and Wheels used to have a simpler one: If you post at Abbie’s, you can’t post here.

    So which is it? And how does any of this relate to atheism plus, let alone any alleged blacklists of A+?

  • Prepagan

    @HJ Hornbeck

    “So which is it? And how does any of this relate to atheism plus, let alone any alleged blacklists of A+?”

    Further to my earlier post in response to your comments, I’m afraid I’m still confused as to why you are insisting on bringing Atheism Plus into this discussion.

    Surely there is more than enough discussion on the merits of that idea (and the behaviour of those promoting it) elsewhere?

    Isn’t the discussion here based on the issue as to whether Justin Vacula still has value in promoting Atheism?

    As it stands your view appears to be that the nature of his apology was not sufficient to assure you of an adequate level of remorse for his mistakes. Does this mean that you do not agree that he still has a role to play in promoting Atheism?

    You appear to continue to see the publication of one of his posts on AVfM as telling in some manner. Should we also conclude that you believe that Richard Dawkins no longer has a role to play in the promotion of Atheism because he has been published in Playboy?

  • HJ Hornbeck

    Prepagan:

    Further to my earlier post in response to your comments, I’m afraid I’m still confused as to why you are insisting on bringing Atheism Plus into this discussion.

    I only bring it up because others are making claims against it. Beyond that, I have no interest in discussing it here.

    Isn’t the discussion here based on the issue as to whether Justin Vacula still has value in promoting Atheism?

    It is, and for the most part I agree with everyone. I’ve praised Vacula’s activism before (the “Atheist” bus ads were his idea), the only qualification I’m adding is that I don’t think he’s fit to represent Pennsylvania’s secular community. His endorsement of AVfM suggests his views are quite far from the norm, and his casual posting of Amy’s home address suggests he’s prone to act without thinking; neither make him good leadership material.

    Otherwise, we probably agree about Vacula.

    Should we also conclude that you believe that Richard Dawkins no longer has a role to play in the promotion of Atheism because he has been published in Playboy?

    False analogy. Playboy does not have a website devoted to naming and shaming those who are opposed to having nude women on their pages, sometimes on the flimsiest of pretexts. Playboy is not petitioning the Canadian government to rename Vancouver to “Mancouver.” Playboy does not say things like ‘Feminists saying “MRAs are just misogynists,” is done with the same, precise intent, and with the same mentality, of white bigots when calling African Americans niggers.’

    I don’t like Playboy’s objectification of women, but that’s far less objectionable to what a hate site has done.

  • Prepagan

    @HJ Hornbeck

    I’m sorry you didn’t like my Playboy analogy although it was certainly not a false analogy.

    I must admit to not understanding your reference to (presumably) AVfM as a hate site. Even the much discredited SPLC has shied away from making that assertion and the examples you gave – a silly publicity stunt to rename Vancouver, a thought provoking article by a woman regarding the ease with which the term ‘misogynist’ is being used dismiss and denigrate a whole group of people – are far less objectionable than Playboy’s objectification of women.

    Still, this is probably a discussion to be carried on elsewhere

  • Copyleft

    “what did Vacula do that was sexist?”

    Hornbeck: “I can’t find anything specifically. The fact that he has a post on “A Voice For Men”… suggests he may have some sympathy to sexist views.”

    Thanks for admitting that this is an irrational witch-hunt based on nothing. Remember, accusations are proof! (Seriously, do the plussers really hope to sell this stuff in a community of SKEPTICS?)

  • HJ Hornbeck

    Prepagan:

    I’m sorry you didn’t like my Playboy analogy although it was certainly not a false analogy.

    Actually, I did like the analogy. It kicked me out of autopilot, and forced me to consider the pros and cons. That doesn’t make it any less false, mind you; it requires that I argue Vacula should be kicked out of the atheist movement, for starters.

    I must admit to not understanding your reference to (presumably) AVfM as a hate site. Even the much discredited SPLC has shied away from making that assertion

    I’ve put some thought into just what “hate speech” means. To me, it’s synonymous with “unjustified insult.” I have no problem with insults and foul language, so long as they are attached to evidence; that way, if the evidence is found thin, the insult goes away. Compare “The Pope is a filthy motherfucker for protecting child rapists” to “The Pope is a filthy motherfucker.”
    On the surface, AVfM seems firmly in the “justified insult” camp. A common argument is that men are more likely to be victims of sexual assault than women. To justify this, they point to statistics of prison rape.
    Notice what they do not do, though. They do not point out that this reinforces the assertion that men are far more likely to rape then women. They do not point out that the lack of attention paid to these victims is a sign of rape culture. They do not consider that what happens in prison may be atypical of the experience of the average male, or that it could be a sign of a system badly in need of reform.
    They do not do this because feminists do this, and feminists are “bad.” They do not do this, because to do so would puncture their stereotypes of how men and women should be. They are entering the debate with an agenda, and are unwilling to rationally consider the evidence; instead, they cherry-pick to provide false justification to the agenda.
    That swings the needle from “justified” to “unjustified.”

    You too decry Playboy’s objectification of women. AVfM can be just as bad:

    [...] just buy a whore. Dating, in the traditional model with the man paying and risking sexual rejection, can be best described as a negotiation with a hooker that might not deliver services after being paid.

    I’d argue they’re far worse. Playboy views women as objects; AVfM views women as objects with “an invisible, loaded pistol” aimed at whichever man they’re attached to. “register-her.com” is only the most blatant expression of this.

    Still, this is probably a discussion to be carried on elsewhere

    Agreed, this thread was supposed to be about Vacula. I’ll leave it at this: Pretend to be an alien from Pluto, encountering humans for the first time. Pick one AVfM article, and tally up the assertions and evidence. Then go weigh the evidence, by gathering as much additional supporting and contradicting evidence as you can and proportioning it by reliability. I suspect the exercise will conclude with you agreeing with me, though I’d love to be proven wrong.

  • Prepagan

    Oh HJ, I was happy to leave you with the last word until I read what those last words were!

    Yet another unsupported assertion of false analogy;

    Suggesting that ‘Hate speech’ is synonymous with ‘unjustified insult’ (really?);

    Claiming that because (in your view) AVfM do not sufficiently cite evidence supporting arguments contrary to their positions they are therefore guilty of being ‘unjustified’ thus meeting your criteria for hate speech (did I follow that correctly?) – have you thought about the implications for extending this line of thinking at all?;

    Strawmanning my position regarding Playboy (not that I’m too bothered by this but as I’m writing a list, what the hell);

    Failing to recognise that AVfM’s ‘loaded pistol’ analogy is evidence of an assertion of women’s *agency* rather than their objectification. AVfM’s position here pays more respect to a woman’s agency than does the feminist’s Shrodinger’s Rapist scenario which views women as passive objects;

    All culminating in your suggestion that I am not sufficiently well educated in the issues being discussed – wow.. thanks for the condescension! (Or should that, as an unjustified insult, be taken as hate speech?)

    I’m happy to continue this discussion at a more suitable location of your choosing but this will be my last post on this thread and I really will let you have the last word this time – but please, don’t make it quite as ridiculous this time.

  • bluharmony

    Paryngula has a ban list based on comments there, and a blacklist based on comments largely elsewhere. Blacklisted people can still post, but they will be piled-on immediately. B&W has an undisclosed ban list and also used to have a blacklist that simply included everyone who ever posted in Abbie’s thread (except for people who were either famous or friendlies, though that wasn’t stated explicitly). The blacklisted people weren’t banned, just openly unwelcome. Clear enough?

  • bluharmony

    Pharyngula, I mean.

  • HJ Hornbeck

    Copyleft:

    Thanks for admitting that this is an irrational witch-hunt based on nothing.

    Huh? So far as I know, no-one’s claimed Vacula’s done anything explicitly sexist. Here’s what that petition claims:

    We believe that Vacula is unfit for this leadership position for the following reasons.

    1. He has engaged in extreme behavior, including harassment, in opposing feminists within the secular movement which does not befit a leader and does not promote broad participation in the movement.

    2. He has, at the same time, minimized harassment as a problem within the movement and broader community.

    3. He has spoken publicly and incorrectly on legal matters in a way that would be counterproductive in a lobbyist.

    4. He has used his current leadership position as a tool for his personal causes, including personal grievances.

    In order to qualify as a witch-hunt, at least one of those four must be false. All four seem quite strongly supported by the evidence, to me, but I may not have all the facts. Which ones are false, then, and why?

  • HJ Hornbeck

    Prepagan:

    I’m happy to continue this discussion at a more suitable location of your choosing

    I’m searching for one now. I’ll post a link once I have it!

  • HJ Hornbeck

    bluharmony:

    [Pharyngula] has a ban list based on comments there, and a blacklist based on comments largely elsewhere. Blacklisted people can still post, but they will be piled-on immediately. B&W has an undisclosed ban list. [...] Clear enough?

    It’s becoming clearer, sure. You want people to be nice to you, no matter what history you have, in every place you post a comment. You don’t really have a gripe against A+, you just hate the commenters at Pharyngula and B&W and are using the topic of A+ as an excuse to repeat old grievances.
    Am I close? Or are you actually going to explain, after being asked several times, what Pharyngula, Butterflies and Wheels, and any of this blacklisting nonsense has to do with A+?