Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted on May 30, 2013 in blogosphere, debate, gender | 73 comments

Amanda Marcotte refuses to honor her own debate challenge

Amanda Marcotte — blogger at the ‘Pandagon’ column at The Raw Story — has issued a debate challenge via Twitter “for anti-feminist atheists to argue with actual feminist claims.” I responded to her debate request multiple times and have, for whatever reason, been ignored. Amanda Marcotte claims there have been “no takers” although many people have tweeted her in response to the debate challenge and she has refused or ignored, at least to my knowledge, each response.

I have — in recent months — noticed a pattern amongst feminist bloggers who, like Amanda Marcotte, engage in a great deal of vitriolic language (particularly toward men) and greatly misrepresent arguments against their “actual feminist claims.” They talk a ‘big game’ attempting to dehumanize their ideological opponents and, when people respond, no matter how mild, feminists conflate the response with “harassment” and accuse their ideological opponents of being “misogynists,” “stalkers,” “rape apologists,” “harassers,” and the like.

Rather than having a conversation and defending ideas, these feminist bloggers block, malign, smear, and debase. All critics are thrown into a convenient box in which all who dare to dissent, ask questions, or pose counter-examples are one in the same; no legitimate disagreement can be voiced because it is all simply a part of a misogynistic campaign of hatred fueled by the patriarchy in an attempt to subordinate women.

This before-mentioned ‘strategy’ is quite apparent whether the person utilizing it is Rebecca Watson, Anita Sarkessian, Ophelia Benson, Amanda Marcotte, Jamie Kilstein, or PZ Myers. They are more than happy to snipe from afar, but when it comes time to defend their ideas in a candid discussion — particularly a live recorded discussion — all bets are off; they go from ‘onward proud strong empowered feminist soldiers’ to running away like frightened dogs with tails between their legs. When hypocrisy is identified and when legitimate criticism appears, excuses are the order of the day; “you only have x amount of Twitter followers,” “no one care about you,” and “I am not going to waste my time” are cries of people who lost the debate before it even happened.

Amanda Marcotte’s debate challenge is a farce. She wants to attack and smear rather than having discussion and defending her ideas; she has no legitimate interest whatsoever in defending her ideas in debates with her opponents. Failure to engage with detractors (especially after posing a debate challenge) is an intellectual vice — and even betrays a “sign of insufficient concern for truth” — as Roberts and Wood explain in their book Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology:

One sign of insufficient concern for truth is that when such people are given an opportunity to test their more cherished beliefs, they decline it, or apply it too casually, or offer defenses of the beliefs that are weaker than any that these people would accept in other contexts.

I am happy to debate Marcotte concerning her “actual feminist claims” – especially in regards to the ‘gender wage gap’ in which I have written a research paper on. I am also more than willing to debate her on the following topics ‘rampant misogyny exists in the atheist community,’ ‘the atheist community is a hostile and unsafe place for women,’ and ‘women/feminists are hated on the internet because they are women/feminists.’ I will host the debate on Brave Hero Radio, appear on Marcotte’s “RH Reality Check” podcast, or appear in another venue.

…but I know she will continue to either ignore or malign me. Let it be known, though, that her challenge is a farce and that she uses dishonest tactics to debase her ideological opponents. Her refusal to debate is most telling. This piece will likely be more ‘evidence’ of “harassment,” “misogyny,” “stalking,” and “rape apologetics” which Marcotte will deliver to the unthinking mass of people who follow her on Twitter or read her blog.

As always, feel free to comment below.

  • iamcuriousblue

    PZ Myers tried something similar a while back – basically, “state your objections to feminism”, but do so in Pharyngula’s hostile comments section under always-impending threat of the banhammer. The problems with that approach are self-evident.

    If these people really want to discuss or debate the issue, why avoid forums where you and a representative critic are evenly matched?

    • Well, that’s the thing…they don’t. It’s all propaganda.

      • ool0n

        You mean like the that you chickened out of?

        Moderated by people from both sides… Hmmm!

        • Again, I was not invited to join the dialogue and because of that did not participate. I still have not been included/it is at a standstill. Anyway, I have now been included…and nothing has happened as far as I know.

          • ool0n

            You started the “dialogue” FFS! It was your idea, Nugent if you like issued a challenge to the pit for people to join in and you didn’t put your name forward. Why leave “Skep tickle”, skepsheik, Jack, Renee etc to debate in the “dialogue” *you* started? Why is the pit master debater not firing off a few rounds on the dialogue site?

            I could easily say you ran “away like [a] frightened dog with [your] tail between [your] legs” rather than sliming bravely forward.

            Brave Sir Vac bravely runs away again!

            • “You started the “dialogue” FFS! It was your idea”

              That’s not accurate. Nugent started the website which was inspired by a back-and-forth of posts originally started by Nugent as a response concerning a YouTube video I released. I invited Nugent to come on Brave Hero Radio, he agreed to come on, and he never came on. I wasn’t even really active on the various threads Nugent started, but rather authored blog posts in response.

              • ool0n

                Yeah I remember that, he asked you for an instance of “nasty pushback” against feminists online that you didn’t agree with. Eerily similar to Dave Silvermans request which you also backed out on. I’m seeing a pattern here…

                • Kelly Jessop

                  Why do you deliberately distort the truth?

                  • ool0n

                    Rather a leading question? Because I can! I mean I don’t! What?!

                    I’m assuming you mean in that comment, if so then I don’t see a lot of distortion. It was pretty pathetic to see Justin talk about instances of nasty pushback he didn’t agree with to Nugent then fail to produce even one example. Dave Silverman asked him to condemn some actions from his perceived allies, he did no such thing in his post.

                    Where is the distortion? It seems Justin will go far enough to get people on “Brave Hero” radio and no further. I’m not surprised Nugent backed out as why should he go on his “show” when he failed to continue talking to him?

                    • Oolon lying his ass off again. Not only was he complicit in doxxing somebody (with the help of Ophelia Benson), he has the nerve to come over here and get all of his facts wrong.

                      Typical behaviour from Oolon.

                    • ool0n

                      Typical Rich behaviour, assertions without evidence. Yawn…

                    • The evidence is in your previous couple of comments, where your lies were actually revealed, right there.

                      Liar, troll.

                    • ool0n

                      Go for it Rich, most obvious lie from my last couple of comments….

                    • MosesZD

                      Please don’t feed this idiot troll. Trust me, it’s complete a waste of time and he doesn’t have even a passing acquaintance with facts, truth or rhetoric. You’ll get a more productive argument out of some tin-foil hat whacko pushing a shopping cart down town than ool0n.

      • bismarket 1

        If the fact that “You don’t have enough twitter followers” really is the excuse they’re using? I would be happy to mirror any debate to my own 222 & if others did likewise, we could have thousands following any dialogue.

  • ool0n

    OK I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t know her challenge was in regard to this post ->

    Commenters were challenged to actually argue against any feminist claims using substantive arguments not tone or other irrelevancies. As usual they all failed to come up with anything…

    Sorry but this rather takes the wind out of your debate sails. She is not backing down from anything and hopefully you’ll update the post to reflect this mistake on your part.

    • Varsis

      So she was challenged to a debate and is backing down as opposed to having issued the challenge? Still backing down….

      • ool0n

        Yeah cos debate proves everything like that time William Lane Craig whipped Hitchens… Oh wait!

        I can challenge anyone to a debate and then claim victory when they refuse. By your measure Dawkins has chickened out of many a debate including one with our friend William Lane Craig. I don’t blame him as debating with slimy disingenuous fuckers proves nothing.

        • “I can challenge anyone to a debate and then claim victory when they refuse. ”

          Well, this is what Marcotte is doing…except people are responding to her challenge. It is quite telling when one puts out a debate challenge and refuses to actually debate when people respond. She’s an intellectual; coward.

          • ool0n

            She put out a challenge for that thread… Your challenge is totally separate and her ignoring you makes her far from an intellectual coward.

            “Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist and critic of religion, may be losing his nerve. He has just refused four British invitations to publicly debate with eminent philosopher William Lane Craig when he visits the UK this October.”

            Dawkins is an intellectual coward? WLC is certainly better known than Justin Vacula and Dawkins has issued many debate challenges to theists! I said it before, refusing to debate with slimy disingenuous fuckers is not intellectual cowardice.

    • Brian Curtis

      “As usual they all failed to come up with anything…”

      …or so you prefer to blithely assume in the absence of all the comments she removed from view….

      Expecting honest and honorable behavior from Marcotte is a known fool’s errand, of course.

      • ool0n

        Yum, conspiracy theories to keep you warm at night. Its not that MRAs like the Vac have nothing, its because the feminists delete their comments. Apart from when collects their comments, then its the feminists pretending to be MRAs. Nice.

        • Its not conspiracy theory. She freely admits to deletingcomments and blocking.

          • ool0n

            Yup when they have provided no argument… I was following the conversation and it was nothing beyond issues with tone or outright trolling. Comments being deleted is no indicator of the content being at all relevant, you can see that from the replies that remain!

            • EllenBeth Wachs

              So if they provided no argument what would be the harm in letting the comment stay and allowing the viewers to see what nonsense was written?

              • ool0n

                I would have thought you’d be in favour of deleting trolling comments?

                Her strategy was clear, contribute nothing and you get banned and/or your comment removed. Seems fair given she was pretty clear what the terms were, u can see plenty of people get a lot of leeway before comments are deleted or ppl banned.

                I also find it immensely unlikely that anything a commenter has said is not in a blog post somewhere. Why are all these feminist destroying arguments only ever in comments that get deleted? Why don’t they write posts making it clear how “wrong” feminist claims are rather than whine about being “silenced” in comment sections? Much easier to rail against fake censorship than actually put out a cogent argument. Certainly none on MRA-central AVfM[e] …

                • EllenBeth Wachs

                  If they are, indeed, trolling comments let them stand and be shown for that and let others see them for what they are and make up their own minds.

                  Even if a commenter has said something in a blog post somewhere else, so what? She wrote a blog post and they are commenting on it. That generally how it works.

                  • ool0n

                    Meh, comes down to personal style now… For me I’d probably just add fake [deleted comment] to all my posts to stoke some MRA paranoia ;-)

            • I posted basically saying that the substantive issue can’t even be debated because if you voice any decent on a varity of issues you get labeled in the worse possible way. Language that should be reserved for the wbc or the taliban. Call it a tone argument all you want but if she cant stand to her decent from someone that agrees with her 90% of time she is not going reach anyone really opposed to her.

            • Sampson

              The original article was an open letter to the Center for Inquiry calling for the resignation of Ronald Lindsay, the CEO, because she felt that his speech was condescending towards women. His transgression, it seems, was that he was critical of some feminist rhetorical tactics.

              Then, in the comments for this article, she restricted (only critical) responses to arguments in opposition to only the most core points. Do you understand how this is intellectually dishonest? There were intelligent comments trying to respond to the actual article that she warned or deleted, but fem jeering, gloating, and name calling “contributes”?

              Having a core set of principles that are humanitarian and just does not implicitly prove every subsequent assertion, nor does it justify disingenuous debate.

        • SleeZee Lyers

          Manboobz cherry picks the worse comments and you celebrate them.

          You and Manboobz ignore the best posts and the best arguments.

          By that measure, it is perfect fine to attribute the Valerie Solanas, the Rad Fem 2013s, the transphobes, all of that shit to all feminists by picking out the real crazies and haters in the comments and saying, apparently that’s who oolon supports.

          • ool0n

            Haha just read a lovely story of how “skeptical” MRAs are about comments…
            … Beautiful how in the face of overwhelming evidence they cling to their belief of it being genuine. Perfect example of motivated reasoning that any fundamentalist would be proud of.

            Futrelle has tackled Farrell, Elam, GWW, JudgyBitch, etc etc … He needs to cherry pick exactly fuck all to get disgusting sentiment, badly written tripe and out and out paranoia and lies. The day there is an MRM that condemns those people is the day there is a glimmer of hope for it. I think you’ll find Marcotte and the feminists I agree with are not trans* exclusionary, sex-negative, psychotic man-haters (Can’t believe I had to clarify that!) or anything the MRM uses as its default feminist. So the analogy hardly applies … Unless you can show me where the MRM you agree with distances itself from them?

            • SleeZee Lyers

              Yeah, those redditors futrelle is laughing at sure are dopes, not understanding the sarcasm in that post or the history of that poster. And out of 70,000 subscribers to /r/mr 700 have upvoted it.

              That almost compares with Marcotte for months and months and months believing the clearly obviously bogus Duke Rape story, and on the day the students were declared innocent, still Marcotte insisted the rape occurred and still has not apologized for it.

              Yes, redditors sure are gullible and stupid and Futrelle and you are accurately targeting the real problems.

              And your aligning yourself with Marcotte aligns you with radical feminism along with racist comments, plagiarism, and sex negative comments. You really need to have read her over the years and google for this shit.

              And it’s disingenuous to say that the feminists you agree with are not trans-exclusionary, that’s a no true scottsman argument.

              I disagree with a great deal of what Elam does, and agree with a lot of it too. And disagree with a very small amount of Farrell, and suggest you reread Futrelle with Farrell side by side and realize that Futrelle is making unsubstantiated allegations about events that occurred almost 40 years ago that Farrell has denied and rebutted that occurred in a very different time. In the meantime, Futrelle doesn’t attack Farrell at all on any the majority of his writing since then. It’s basically a huge ad hominem.

              But the Marcottes and Futrelles, that’s your go to feminists.

              It really does say a lot about your reasoning abilities.

              • ool0n

                Who said Marcotte is my go-to feminist? I’m thinking I need to read her more given how much she seems to get the goat of numpties. I’ve read maybe two posts of hers… I totally agreed with her assessment of the CFI issue and cannot remember what the other post I read was about right now (oops!)

                Dave Futrelle is not someone I’d call a prominent feminist in that he is well known for his exposing/ridiculing MRAs not his thought leadership in feminism. I brought him up as most feminists I read waste very little time debunking the MRM given its mostly a laughing stock. Avicenna at FreeThoughtBlogs has probably done more than most recently due to his focus on India. For feminist thought leadership online I’d go with the atheist-sceptic movement feminists and Shakesville for a not quite atheist group.

                So hey wrong there, also your fallacy is a little off since I didn’t say they were not feminists. They actually align with the basic goals of feminism, they do it in a pretty shitty way and throw trans* people under the bus. So I cannot support them, not they are “no true feminist”…

                I would say the Slymepit “feminists” are not true feminists mainly because pitter metalogic took their poll that “proved” them mainly feminist and Dean Esmay/ Elam (Forget which) said 90%+ of AVfM would pass as feminist by their logic. He agreed with me that 90%+ of AVfM are *not* feminists! I’ll go with his authority there ;-)

                • SleeZee Lyers

                  “Who said Marcotte is my go-to feminist?”

                  You did. Before reading Marcotte more, you should read yourself more often.

                  So in this post you distance yourself from Marcotte, and you distance yourself from Futrelle, both understandable and necessary given how repellent they are, but then you align yourself with Shakesville!!??


                  • ool0n

                    Go on, what crimes against teh menz have been committed there?

                    • SleeZee Lyers

                      Enjoy Shakesville, it’s made for you. (Hint: it’s not just teh menz that can’t stand Shakesville, it has alienated many a social justice warrior as well. (google shakesville cult to start yourself off.)

      • girlwriteswhat

        I recall the A Voice for Reasonable People facebook page, which was erected to coordinate a “peaceful response” to the appearance of AVFM/MRM activity in Edmonton. Paul Elam went there, left a comment that said (trying to remember word for word), “I am glad your intended response is peaceful, as the MRM is a non-violent movement.” That’s it. One innocuous sentence.

        His comment was removed, and a new post appeared, crowing about how PE himself had showed up at their page, how his comment had been deleted and he himself blocked, because [paraphrasing] “this is a safe space, and we don’t feel we should have to tolerate abuse, threats or trolling.”

        My own experience in the r/feminisms subreddit has been that I leave a long comment arguing that, say, male circumcision should be a feminist issue. In that long comment, I write, for instance, something that looks like this: And yet any time someone brings up MGM in a conversation about genital mutilation, feminists think we’re saying, “FGM isn’t that bad! What are you ladies complaining about? MGM is a REAL problem, not a fake one.”

        A reply would go something like this: “FGM isn’t that bad!” OMG! You are such a disgusting misogynist!

        So then I would write another long comment about how the pathetic justifications for MGM and FGM are often the same, and it might include the sentence: Research also shows FGM reduces urinary tract infections and STDs.

        Reply would consist of: “FGM reduces urinary tract infections and STDs.” OMG, how can you justify FGM! Did you really just justify FGM! Misogynist!!!

        Unfortunately on reddit, if your comments are deleted by the mods, you can still see them when you’re logged in, and you’re not notified they’ve been deleted. So you think other people can see your comments, and will realize how grossly your arguments are being misrepresented by those replying. Then you log out and look, and all your comments have been deleted, and only the tiny, out-of-context quote-mines remain.

        I’ve learned you have to screenshot EVERYTHING when engaging in debate with feminists in forums they moderate. They won’t just strawman you–they’ll strawman you and then delete all evidence that they’re doing it.

        I have the feeling that a large number of the [deleted comment]s at Marcotte’s are rational criticism or people accepting her challenge. That won’t stop her from saying she had to delete them because they were misogynistic, threatening or abusive.

        • ool0n

          “I have the feeling that a large number of the [deleted comment]s at Marcotte’s are rational criticism or people accepting her challenge.”

          Skepticism. In the absence of evidence, make shit up!

          • ManWithPlan

            Ironic, considering many of the grievances of the modern feminist movement are woven from stuff and nonsense.

            • ool0n

              Weird its so hard to clearly demonstrate that… Anywhere… Must be performance anxiety or something.

          • girlwriteswhat

            If they were threats, misogyny or abuse, it would only benefit her to leave them up and then call attention to them. Duh. Why would she not leave them standing, so she could point to them and prove to everyone the misogyny and abuse she has to deal with?

            I’m only going by my own experience in heavily moderated feminist spaces, where my very polite and circumspect comments (with multiple sources cited) never made it through moderation, while “u fucking cunt, fu I’ll rape u!” somehow passed muster and were then used as “evidence” of MRA arguments.

            • ool0n

              Strange how your indistinct feelings suddenly turn into personal experience when challenged. Also no “heavily moderated” feminist space would allow such a triggering comment through unedited. I don’t believe you given my experience of Shakesville, for example, is even my relatively tame comments were edited to remove ableism. I call bullshit on that.

              Even if I believed you none of that stops you posting your “circumspect” and multiple cited thoughts elsewhere for feminists to critique. What difference does it make if they are on the blog hidden in a comment section! In fact I seem to remember you have a nice line in youtube commentary, not my thing but I also seem to remember seeing feminists critique it. For example –

              • girlwriteswhat

                My “indistinct feelings” turned into “personal experience” when challenged? How so? I gave you two separate personal experiences: Paul Elam’s with A Voice for Reasonable People, where his comment was censored and then portrayed as something it was not; and my own experience with r/feminisms, where my comments were deleted and portrayed as something they were not.

                If I have indistinct feelings, perhaps they are based on personal experience?

                And I find it kind of funny you cite [another blogger’s assessment of] my response to a DMCA attack to discredit me. Given that I had 3 false DMCA claims made by two “individuals” within 5 minutes of each other (which almost certainly means one person, or more than one acting together), against 3 videos that were NOT infringing on the non-existent works named in the complaints (which means fraudulent and/or malicious complaints). I responded NOT as ZOMG recommended–that is, as she said, “just file a counterclaim with false info, and it will go away until next time. We all get these complaints all the time, it’s just business as usual…”–and oddly enough, I DON’T get these complaints anymore. Ever. As in, never again. Hmmmm….

                So, let’s recap: 1) I knew the complaints were made by one person, or a group of people working together. 2) I knew the complaints were an attempt to mess with or intimidate me, or something else not legitimate, because there wasn’t even a shred of pretext in any of them. 3) I responded in a manner opposite to that which other YT people who are constantly subject to this kind of bullshit respond. And 4) problem all gone.

                Wow. I clearly did the wrong thing there. What I should have done was wailed and flailed and falsified a court document and tried to sweep it all under the rug until the next attack next week.

                You bringing my successful strategy to nip all kinds of abuse in the bud (which many people could take a lesson from, TYVM) gives me a serious “methinks thou dost protest too much” feeling. I wonder what your IP address is?

                • AmbivalentCynic

                  Also, I hope oolon isn’t saying that string of impotent rage that so comprises pretty much every pronouncement made by Lord PZ in his fiefdom qualifies as a critique of anything. I’d call it part of a growing pile of evidence for his narcissistic rage.

          • SleeZee Lyers

            Yeah, many of us have experienced the deleted comments, the forever moderation of feminist blogs.

            It’s silly of you to claim that that isn’t true.

            • ool0n

              I’m not saying it isn’t true, if you actually read what I say I clearly acknowledge there are comments marked as [deleted] … What I object to is this daft intimation that this is somehow censorship and feminists avoiding the amazing arguments of anti-feminists. Why are anti-feminists only ever able to reproduce these incredible arguments in comment form? They then have to whine to the heavens about how their amazing thoughts are not appreciated by feminists!

              I see feminist blogs tackle the arguments put forth in blog posts by antis all the while. From my pov they destroy them since they are often fallacy ridden piles of poorly thought out whining. The people that are actually critiquing feminists are writers like Ally Fogg and Feminist Whore, for two off the top of my head. Rape apologists and whiny loons at AVFMe do no one any good and they have no cogent arguments that I’ve seen yet. In fact they damage the valid criticism with all the toxic smoke from burning straw feminists.

              • SleeZee Lyers

                Once again, I have left dozens of comments that in my opinion are on topic and fully rebut their arguments. They never show. Why? Because they are on topic and fully rebut their arguments.

                You are trying to claim to know what you cannot know, that hundreds, thousands, of comments that are not showing up are somehow inferior.

                I see many many arguments put forward with logic and evidence and made by men, women, heterosexuals, gay, that utterly destroy feminism, and yet the feminists from Amanda to MyerZ (Trying to do an a-z thing) from Slate/Salon/Jezebel/FtB/Guardian/… just ignore the arguments entirely and make ad hominem argument (EVIL MRAS, RAPISTS, WIFE BEATERS! etc.)

                If you want to find quality arguments on both sides, you can.

                You don’t want to find quality arguments, it’s not surprising you don’t.

          • Since the comments were deleted there is no way to determine what they contained. We have to trust that moderation is not being abused and substantive arguments are not being removed. Given prior evidence that moderators of some feminist message boards will delete and then strawman the arguments of their opponents, it is not unreasonable to entertain the possibility that this is occurring with Ms Marcotte’s moderation.

            • ool0n

              Yes there is a way, look at the replies. I had a look, not sure why I bothered but GWW, James and SleeZee seemed so “credible” in their assertions of feminists hiding the TRUTH! So what did I find?

              Tiglath-Pileser III, many commenters replying to deleted comments complaining about this person posting links to porn.

              John R Ash, 2 comment roots in threads but not in the thread itself so a bit weird, from his own comments they appear to be about being “banned” even though he is still commenting. His “best” argument was against patriarchy as that is apparently defined by feminists as a conspiracy by men! Not convinced he has any substantive argument in those 2 comments, at all. Especially as he was able to reply in the threads he started and had nothing.

              So nice one MRAs, paranoia about deleted comments seems to be exactly that, paranoia.

            • MosesZD

              Sorry, but trusting Marcotte & Friends to not abuse moderation is like trusting a meth-head with a pharmacy… You know what’s going to happen… And it isn’t going to be pretty.

        • Feminism is treated like a joke because it has become that. I don’t know where you fems get off on calling all men rapists, for instance, then expect people to be all smiles when you ask for a seat at the political table. You’re a group of self-righteous psychopaths, too involved with pursuing any means to enhance the legislation to smash dicks than equality. Get off your soap box because nobody is listening to it.

          • ool0n

            Beaut of a dipshit turns up to demonstrate the “substantive” strawman arguments that Amanda deleted. Cheers Jeremy “rapist” Schoenberger … I obviously think u a rapist with a male-normal name like that ;-)

    • “She is not backing down from anything and hopefully you’ll update the post to reflect this mistake on your part.”

      Of course she is. She knows of my response and is not honoring her own challenge. I’m not interested, anyway, in being moderated/banned on her turf.

      • ool0n

        And you know she is aware of your “challenge” how exactly? Given you are a “skeptic” and all I’m sure you can back that up…. Seems to me she gets whiny derps trying to get her attention all the while, what makes you stand out?

        EDIT: I’ll bet you are blocked by her… Fancy taking odds on that?

        • ool0n


          … Is Justin blocked? How does he know she know of his challenge back? All silent on the Vacula front…..

          • Since you are all friends with the FTBullies, perhaps you could inform her?

            I find it funny that you speculate whether she would have blocked somebody. We are talking about an FTBully, of course she will have blocked.

            • ool0n

              Glad you agree with me that there is a pretty large probability that she hasn’t a clue about the Vacs challenge as she’s blocked him on Twitter. Hence his post is overblown posturing based on a lie and solely designed to goad her into it on a vain hope that she reads his crap. Pretty unlikely I’d say.

    • Ms Marcotte seems to have developed an interesting rhetorical strategy: make a sequence of claims and then issue a challenge to debate on a much narrower set of questions. Any criticism of her initial set of claims is dismissed as being “off topic” as it does not meet the criteria of her challenge. She has essentially exempted the vast majority of her post from criticism and enforces that exemption with her moderation privileges. I find this particularly interesting considering the topic of the keynote speech she was criticizing.

      It seems to me that too many people are willing to abandon the principle of charity when it is their own cherished ideas which are under scrutiny.

  • TheIronFistOfDeath

    “Open challenge.” “Comment Deleted.” “Comment Deleted.” “Comment Deleted.” “Comment Deleted.” Amanda Marcotte [mod]. It’s almost comical how out of touch this woman is. She truly borders on the psychotic.

    • MosesZD

      It’s almost funny in that she’s such a parody of the Rush Limbaugh “Feminazi.’ There is virtually nothing Rush Limbaugh says or does that I respect or even partially agree on…
      Then Marcotte hits the playing field and makes me wonder if I judge Limbaugh too harshly…

  • That would be interesting, an actual debate.

  • Ronlawhouston

    Maybe she feels you’re not anti-feminist?

  • Mykeru

    Amanda Marcotte has learned a lot. From Kent Hovind:

  • Jake Spooner

    Test your faith. Read entire link. You may never believe in God again.

  • AmbivalentCynic

    It seems that in her RawStory article (Her articles until a few days ago were a rash of her overwhelming butthurt), Amanda Marcotte incessantly demands people make arguments within a remarkably vague set of qualifications, something to the tune of:

    A commenter might say, “What ideas? What exactly am I supposed to refute?”
    Dandy Mandy proceeds to block them, or say that they won’t block them unless they can come up with a convincing argument against a few issues she notably picks out as being not really good grounds for debate and where there isn’t much disagreement (reproductive rights, violence against women, fair pay), in essence saying “IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU MUST AGREE THAT REPERDUCTIV RITES R BAD, VILINS AGINST WIMMIN IZ GUD, ETC.”

    Of course, because she’s dishonest, she won’t talk about the overall philosophy and ideology behind feminism, or anything that people in the Atheist/Secular community are actually arguing about on a substantive level because she presumably suffered a terrible kick in the head from one beast of burden or another and as such is not capable of arguing about anything that she might have to put her thinking cap on for.

  • Another interesting character that made her way to the Women in Secularism conf is Soraya Chemaly. I noticed this article by her
    Boys will be boys is no excuse for bad behaviour
    And the target of her ire is a boy from her daughter’s preschool. And somehow she’s managed to link him to rape scenarios and articles.

    I know it’s a lurid metaphor, but I taught my daughter the preschool block precursor of “don’t get raped” and Boy #1 did not learn the preschool equivalent of “don’t rape.”

    Boys these days.. we need to teach them to not rape, and we need to catch them young, shouldnt we? Maybe this PSA needs to go on mainstream TV.

    Riverview TV 1

  • Ohone

    Define all their false accusations as false accusations, that puts them in a bind. How can people like Marcotte argue that false accusations are rare, when false accusations are one of their main tactics?

  • IHateFatChicks

    Simply put Marcotte is a pathological liar, intellectually/logically/factually challenged and lives in a world where woman = good, man = bad. She’s a ridiculous caricature and, quite frankly, no man with options would ever be with her. She has no qualities to make her appealing.

  • sureshiyer

    The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.