Greta spots the obvious, months later
And now for a bit of hilarity.
Greta Christina has a new post at Freethought Blogs.
Not everyone uses social media the same way.
I would have thought this was obvious. But it seems not to be. So here comes the measured rant.
There’s this pattern I’ve been seeing for a while. I keep seeing people pay intense, microscopically-close attention to other people’s behavior on social media. I don’t mean “things people say on social media”: I mean their behavior. Who are they friends with? Who are they not friends with? Who did they un-friend or un-follow or block? What posts did they like or share or re-Tweet? What posts did they not like or share or re-Tweet? A lot of people pay intense, microscopically-close attention to this social media behavior — and then tie it in with a micro-analysis of the thoughts and feelings and intentions that supposedly lie behind it. People make assumptions about shifting alliances, secretly-held opinions, behind-the-scenes machinations — based entirely on this friending and unfriending, this blocking and un-blocking, these likes and dislikes. I’ve started calling it “reading the Facebook tea leaves.”
Why yes, yes they do.
Like, for instance, the way they did that about me, just three short months ago – the way they went trawling through a large busy Facebook group to record the few comments I had made there, and even what I had Liked there, and used that as items in long wordy prosecutorial venomous accusations against me. Why, even some of Greta Christina’s very own friends and colleagues at Freethought Blogs did that. Greta herself blocked me on Facebook at that time, presumably partly because of that very trawling through my Facebook activity. Greta was vocally and explicitly happy to see the way our colleagues were trashing me on their blogs, partly on the basis of that creepy intrusive secret-police-like trawling through my Facebook. So this post strikes me as very funny – and, of course, disgusting.
Not everyone uses social media the same way.
Some people use social media more for their personal lives, to stay connected with friends and family. Some people use it more professionally, to promote their work or do research or maintain professional connections. Some people have a couple hundred friends, or fewer, mostly or entirely their actual friends. Some people have hundreds or thousands of “friends”: their actual friends, plus colleagues, neighbors, friends of friends of friends, people they met at a party or a conference that one time, people they friended because they made a funny comment on someone else’s page, pretty much anyone who sends a friend request.
Some people “like” pretty much everything they see on their feed. Some people “like” only things they feel strong agreement or affinity with. Some people “like” posts to express agreement or support. Some people “like” posts to keep track of the thread, so they’ll get notifications when new comments appear. Some people share or re-Tweet only when they agree with something. Some people share or re-Tweet to increase the visibility of ugly opinions they think people are ignoring or denying.
True. So where was all this last July and August? Nowhere, that’s where.
So it’s a really, REALLY bad idea to make assumptions about people’s thoughts and feelings and intentions, their shifting alliances and secretly-held opinions and behind-the-scenes machinations, based solely on what they like or don’t like on social media, who they are and aren’t “friends” with, who they do and don’t “follow.”
Uh huh. Well spotted. Shrewd observation. Cool that it’s safe for you to make it now.
Again, I’m not talking about the things people actually say on social media. The words that come out of people’s mouths and fingers are, I think, a pretty reasonable guide to at least some of their thoughts and feelings and intentions. But when it comes to the other ways people use social media — liking and friending and following and blocking and the rest of it — can we please quit using it to decipher hidden meanings? Can we please quit trying to read the tea leaves? They’re a crappy news source, about as reliable as the National Enquirer. And trying to read them just adds more misinformation, more paranoia, more general noise, to an Internet that seriously doesn’t need any more.
Well done, Greta. Really, really well done – saying it now, instead of saying it last summer when it might possibly have gotten through to some people. You self-important coward.
I wouldn’t even go that far. There are a lot of people who pop off a thought, then later think about it. Or they say something but word it badly so it sounds like something else. Or they tend to think out loud. Or they play devil’s advocate. Or maybe they just question societal norms, but don’t actually believe everything they say. And then, of course, there is sarcasm.
But she’s right that what people say is at least a better source than what they Like or share or retweet. That much is a reasonable claim. But I can’t begin to express my contempt for her saying it now.
I can agree that far, as long as we don’t yank things out of context or miss nuances. Only, we often do, which is why we need sarcasm tags.
I almost fell out of my seat when I read that post earlier today.
Sadly, I don’t believe she or any of the condescending fuckers over there have the ability to admit that any of what she’s said applies to your situation. Instead, they’ll search and claw and dig for a thousand tenuous ways to justify and rationalize why you are a different case entirely.
They will elaborate on that in laborious, *splainy posts while re-stating your list of mortal sins.
Their asswipe followers will chime in with their incredibly insightful comments about all the ways you have condemned people to gas chambers, then sit back and pat themselves on the backs for being more gloriously and perfectly social-justicey than you have ever been, could ever hope to be.
They will all shake their heads in wonderment as they try to figure out how they all didn’t know you were a wolf in sheep’s clothing this entire time.
They will reflect on all the posts and tweets you liked and thumbs-upped and retweeted. They will list all the posts and tweets you have since liked and thumbs-upped and retweeted.
And then, somehow, despite the apparent impossibility of it, they will keep saying that Greta’s post doesn’t doesn’t apply to you. At all. Like, who the fuck could think such a thing?
And all that without the slightest hint of self-awareness.
Contempt. Good word. That’s what they have earned.
I really need to unplug my FTB RSS feed.
I liked the comment from the guy who chastised someone for using “child” as a rebuke because children constitute a globally oppressed class. I read it three times to be sure I wasn’t missing a joke. As absurdly overthought speech restrictions go, I think it may be even better than “don’t use ‘futbol’ or any other Spanish word if you don’t look to me like a native speaker.”
But don’t you see, that’s why you need to use your internal experiential filter.
Say for example I retweet a Hitler quote. Clearly I am highlighting its offensiveness.
If on the other hand YOU retweet that Hitler quote, it’s because you’re a Nazi.
The way we know this is to engage our personal expertise of what the other person has to mean, based on whether or not we know ahead of time that they are a bad person or a good person. One way to know if someone is a good person is if they retweet my tweets. That clearly is an endorsement. If they have retweeted YOUR tweets, that means they sympathize with a Nazi because see above.
When you do this, you’ll quickly find that you can usually trust your instincts. The people you know are bad usually reveal themselves to be bad, and the people you know are good reveal themselves to be good, even if they Favorited the same tweet. The only time this proves inaccurate is if at some later point that person criticizes you. Then, if you look over their past tweets, you’ll find that the ones you mistakenly thought reflected well on them actually reveal all kinds of sarcasm, derision and wily deception.
I just don’t understand why some people have such a hard time understanding this.
It’s probably because they’re probably bad people. If we check their “like” and “favorites” history that would probably confirm it.
Jafafa Hots, if there was a “like” button for your post @6, I would click it. Fortunately, there’s not, so I never have to admit to having liked one of your posts should I ever decide I need to distance myself from you.
Thank you Jafafa, you made me smile, if a little wryly.
Tony and Jafafa both nailed it.
@Pan #5: I shit you not, I had that exact same conversation with someone just a few days ago. They could not seem to grasp the concept of, “I’m not saying that children are bad; I’m saying that by the time you’re an adult, you can’t be a child anymore.” I was looking around for the hidden camera the whole time.
Tony and Jafafa both nailed it and then wrapped it in duct tape for good measure.
Where? I’m asking because I had the impression that she was one of those who remained silent. Alright, I’m neither on Twitter nor on Facebook.
Anyway, at the moment I’m not sure at all what to think. Does her text allude to what happened three months ago – can we be sure? Is it a cautious attempt to suggest that three months ago some people went over the top? Maybe she agreed with those people earlier but later she changed her mind? If so, she is truly dancing on a minefield… but maybe it is something else?
I can only guess the answers. Ophelia, you are the one who was affected and I have nothing to counter your “contempt for her saying it now”. I’ve always liked her and that’s probably the reason why my own reaction would be more along the lines “better now than never”; but, just to repeat, it was you who was affected, not me.
(Apart from that, I’m always a Pollyanna.)
On the back channel. I think I blogged about it shortly before I left the network. Lilandra had the bright idea of starting a thread with my name in the subject line suggesting we all discuss me, so several people jumped at the opportunity to rip me to shreds. Ed said let’s not do this this is a really bad idea, but they ignored him. I said using our blogs to shred each other wasn’t a fabulous idea and I’d assumed we all knew not to do that. That’s when Greta made her brave stand for the importance of using our blogs to shred each other.
No, I don’t think her post today does allude to what happened three months ago. I think it blithely ignores it. No, I’m quite sure she hasn’t changed her mind – she’s not that kind of thoughtful.
Oh, and no, it’s not better now than never, even for people not involved, because it’s not in any way a correction or rebuke of what happened three months ago. Nope nope nope, that’s not what it is.
Interesting to me, as I am quite familiar with the situation, if from an outsider’s perspective, so I’ve read the cited post. I note Greta has responded to the effect she doesn’t want to engage with or about Ophelia.
I personally doubt Greta had Ophelia in mind when writing the featured post.
Presumably she’ll make a long overdue shredding of Alex Gabriel’s “smoke & fire” post, then, since the entire thing was composed of exactly what she is now lamenting. Right? Alex himself noted how important it was to call out friends/allies when they engage in bad behavior.
Surely said post is being written as we speak.
Hahahaha very funny, Mr FP.
Of course she doesn’t want to engage, John Morales @15. Engaging effectively would require (1) a leg on which to stand, and (2) a spine. It is evident she lacks both.
Tony @ 7, our posts crossed. For the record, I ‘like’ you.
I note that Ophelia has been rightly called out by one FtB blogger in Greta’s thread for acting like a child, instead of of writing a very sober and adult comment consisting of equal parts sexual boasting, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and reference to his PhD the way said FtB blogger would.
Watch and learn, Ophelia. Watch and learn.
Is it really that difficult for commenters to see that the point is not “Ophelia thinks this post is about her”? That the point is, “Yes, quite, Greta, so why did you not apply those standards to me”?
No, it’s not. And don’t say anything to me John Morales.
The funny thing is, the *only* time I can remember seeing this behaviour (judging people based on Likes etc.), was when it was directed at you. I wonder if Greta has some recent example in mind?
Her “But it’s clear that she’s not willing to engage here in a way that’s respectful and charitable” actually gave me a brain aneurysm.
From Greta’s post @ comment 9 (by Greta)
Emphasis mine.
So, Greta is having a bob each way while making it clear what she really thinks. But to unpack this a little further:
I am unaware of Ophelia or any of her major supporters behaving in the manner described i.e. minutely analysing the (dis)likes, retweets and (un)friending behaviour of others in a systematic and ongoing manner (or in fact at all) in order to determine what said person ‘really’ believed. I did see, and engaged in, a certain amount of commenting on what people actually said and did. Correct me if I was blinkered (with examples please).
Why is there an onus to respond in a charitable and respectful manner when you have not been treated in a charitable and respectful manner? Is it just because that’s what is expected of Ophelia’s demographic, or because then Greta can kid herself that the whole clusterfuckgate was conducted in a respectful and charitable manner?
Where the living fuck in Ophelia’s response post above does she engage in the behaviour that Greta is discussing? That claim is just outright bollocks.
As for Carrier, he’s dust on my shoes. What a joke.
Guy @ 22 – Well I hope it’s just a minor one.
You have to be kidding! She’s asking for respect and charity?! Holy shit!
Hmm. Yes, now you mention it, that “she’s doing the exact thing I’m talking about here” is a pretty shameless lie. I’m doing no such thing. I responded to the words in her post, not to anything on Facebook or Twitter.
I just wanted to add – I’m a long time reader of Butterflies and Wheels (since long before your time at FTB), and I’ve never commented before because I’ve either, (99% of the time) agreed with you and haven’t had anything much to add, or hadn’t wanted my first comment to be some nit-pick of something I disagreed with. But I do wish I’d said something supportive of you at the time of the clusterfuckening. I’m glad you’re back here and you’re not letting the bastards grind you down.
Now I’m the one getting caught in the cross-post, Rob. Thanks for sharing that.
Well, there it is, all in black-and-white. Holy. Hell. Unreal.
Good job, Rob, for dissecting the massive fails in Greta’s comment. If Ophelia’s tone was nasty and insulting, it wasn’t even close to the nastiness or the insults doled out by the people that Greta is now providing cover for. Not to mention the sniveling, condescending bit of nastiness she served up in that comment alone.
But I said “If Ophelia’s tone was nasty and insulting.” Frankly, I don’t think Ophelia’s tone has been near enough as nasty or insulting as these fucks have deserved. And still the lack of self-awareness appears to dominate.
(Not sure what the Carrier thing is about. Has he weighed in to act like none of this applies in any way, shape, or form to Ophelia because reasons?)
Thank you, Guy.
I’m very glad I’m back here.
Oh, now I understand Chris Clarke’s post @20! Please disregard my parenthetical question @28.
“the clusterfuckening” Can I like that?
With every day that passes, I rue more and more the notion that any of my writing remains on that site.
ChrisClarke #20 – Ha!
Funny thing is, regarding DrSexBoastNPD, I’ve only ever read one comment by him (a really long one, left on one of Ophelia’s posts at B&W*), and only one of his own posts, and that was enough for me to immediately link him to the described behaviour/traits of ‘sexual boasting, Narcissistic Personality Disorder.’ (I didn’t know about the PhD).
* I remember said comment really well. Not all or even most of the words it contained, but rather the impression I had throughout, and by the end of, reading it, which was basically that a bloke had come by and scrawled a big dick ‘tag’, of the kind seen on individual student tables in univerisity libraries and exam halls.
Ophelia, I promise that I am not one of your supporters who tweeted, retweeted, obsessively checked and rechecked Facebook. I’m not! I promise! (This is actually easy enough, since I am on neither Twitter nor Facebook). But I suspect the fact that I followed you over here and continued to engage with you and enjoy your site is evidence that I, in fact, did all that in some magic way without ever having been on either Twitter or Facebook in my life. Because, you know, us Ophelia-philes can do all that sort of stuff magically, without actually doing it…amirite?
Chris Clarke #32
I don’t, because that is how I came across your writing.
teslalivia @35, that’s a kindness for you to say so.
And so the fissures widen again.
I have no problems with drawing wide sharp heavy lines between progressive/feminist freethinkers and the sexist liberturdarian faction, but this increasing bad blood within the former group distresses me more than a little.
Not that I have any solutions, kumbaya or otherwise, to offer (and I hope my presence here shows which side I take, however reluctantly), but all this strikes me as the answer to (e.g.) Sam Harris’s prayers.
I believe that this is the line that Greta was talking about, when she accused you of indulging in the behavior her column complains about. You’re attributing motive to her decision to block you on Facebook, with “presumably” as the sole argument for that assumption.
There’s a difference between not knowing reasons in any real way (which is what Greta wrote about), and having a pretty damn good idea about the reasoning. Greta unfriended Ophelia during a time when the FtB backchannel was raging with “omg how awful is Ophelia?!” (I assume, since I was not on the backchannel; Ophelia can correct me if I’m wrong) and when there was a concerted public effort in blog posts and comments to hound her away from her FtB blog. A good bit of that effort was in microscopically focusing on every Like or Friend that Ophelia had made. Guilty parties include Zvan, Gabriel, Hunter, and Thibeault, at a minimum. Will they follow up with posts defending themselves against Greta’s charges? Doubtful.
Freemage, #38, I see your point and it gave me pause for thought, but I think blocking a colleague is a fairly universally understood “fuck you”. I blocked someone today, because I want to keep them out of my life as much as I can. And when you’re at the centre of a shitstorm, and people are piling on, when a colleague blocks you it’s a pretty obvious sign that they don’t support you. It’s not the same as following them around the internet and building a list of things they’ve done when they’re not engaging with you directly.
Also, I’m also super happy B&W is back here. This thread had me laughing at loud, especially #4, #6 and #11. Feels like this is a place where you can comment and people might make the effort to understand what you’re actually trying to say before agreeing / disagreeing in good faith, rather than scanning your comment for signs of ideological purity / impurity.
It’s progress of a sort I guess.
Ah @Holms#41: you’re just proving that the wise words of Confucius Jenner can be well-used in almost any thread, for they bring enlightenment to the world as the song of the badger to the sett.
Also @Chris, I think I’ll just ditto what Teslalivia said #35 and leave quietly.
The “best” part is Dicky PhD admonishing you for a comment made on another’s blog. Perhaps he’s been so busy j*zzing on women’s faces lately that he’s completely forgotten about his own failings.
“…based entirely on this friending and unfriending, this blocking and un-blocking, these likes and dislikes.”
This is not exactly an apt description of what happened to you.
Echo teslalivia, #35: I’ve learned things I wouldn’t have if you hadn’t posted there, Chris. I’m calling that a win.
Ophelia, I’ve read things you have written almost every day for years and years. Forgive me if I believe that gives me more insight into what you’re about than random likings within a deliberately delineated set of topical nonsense.
I’m disappointed in Greta but not on reflection entirely surprised. She tends to wield an axe rather than a scalpel. You, I think, have a spirit level, a tape measure, an awl and a socket set.
Several years ago, when she was depressed I offered Greta some guidance about the value of meditation, with which she was clearly utterly unacquainted at the time. Subsequently, when she posted numerous (understandably silly, for a beginner) reflections on her experience, I offered some subtler guidance in an attempt to refine her experience (after almost half a century, yes I am qualified). Regrettably, she had become such an “expert” that she vigorously spurned my help, foolishly denying my earlier contribution, which of course is easily demonstrable from the comment threads. Bottom line: Greta is an egregious hypocrite, and not worth attending to, except for compassionate reasons.
Ophelia,
Just thought I’d chime in to say that I’ve been a long time reader (since about 2004 or ‘5. I found the site through my interest in all things Science Wars related), and I think the recent move from FtB has been 100% a good thing.
interesting nonsense in Greta’s comments:
End of. I see. Can’t be debated because end of.
Freemage @ 38 – yes that makes sense. That occurred to me too, hours later.
But if that is what Greta meant, she’s wrong, because it doesn’t fit. She named the problem differently:
That means things like combing through a large Facebook group to collect any Likes I may have clicked over a period of months. It doesn’t take intense, microscopically-close attention to realize someone has blocked you – all it takes is seeing someone address her by name in a thread where you can’t see her. Or, you might try to look at her wall, or her wife’s wall, for whatever reason.
I didn’t think being blocked by quondam friends or colleagues was the kind of thing she was talking about. I still don’t.
The attribution of motive was though, that’s true. But yeah – I’m pretty sure Greta didn’t block me just because she didn’t want to see what I posted. Call it a hunch – or an educated guess.
Damion @ 44 – don’t be ridiculous. I didn’t say that described the whole thing; I didn’t say that was the entirety of what “happened to” me. It was one of the things that some people did. It was one of the more grotesque things. That’s all. I never said it was the whole story.
latsot @48, here’s how I’m thinking they’re thinking…
“And how do we know what Ophelia wrote and said and did? Why, we performed a CSI-like investigation into her every movement on all social media platforms to uncover what she said and did over a long period of time, which gave us all the evidence we needed to demonstrate that she is clearly an impure heretic to our ideological cause, which necessitated that we have happen to her what happened to her. Our outrageously disproportional response to her sins was exclusively the result of her likes, associations, thumbs-ups, and retweets and was in no way a result of any actions on our part, even though we spent an inordinate amount of personal effort to uncover and document every suspect association, thumbs-up, and retweet. What we did is in no way anything like what Greta refers to in her posts since it was all obviously Ophelia’s fault. How could you think otherwise? Just because everything Greta wrote in the post could be applied to us, the standards she outlined clearly don’t apply to us because she’s on our side. Ophelia isn’t. End of”
Okay, then. Let’s just file that under “without the slightest hint of self-awareness” from @4.
AcademicLurker @ 47 – thank you, that’s nice to know.
(Science Wars posting has resumed a bit, thanks to Tom De Gregori.)
“We created a situation which became so forensically intolerable, where every word was shouted down, where all attempts to clarify even a legitimate point of disagreement were themselves hoisted up the flagpole of heresy, where historic disagreements were unearthed, old wounds resalted, forgotten transgressions re-tried, and every hatchet disinterred. Where we drowned even the voices of moderation in the pond of despair.
Then, completely by herself, Ophelia just flounced off of her own accord, seeming to be inordinately upset with us, spouting angry bile for no reason. Out of the blue, she just fucked off. Her actions speak for themselves. End Of.
And if you disagree, then you weren’t there and haven’t read this evidence we wrote and you’re denying our existence. PS you dead to us. End Of Too.
I think I see how this works.
Ophelia: Full disclosure–I’m a fan of both of you, and of Heina as well (most of the others that get named in these threads, I rarely or never read). I do realize that you got a lot of just exactly the sort of thing Greta described (Hell, Greta herself does acknowledge it). And despite being a fan, I was also far enough outside of things to be completely gobsmacked when everything blew up. So I was sorry you left FtB, glad you landed on your feet (and with style), and have been enjoying your columns, and your comments section, ever since. (I will admit that on trans issues, I’m more likely to side with the FtB opinion, overall–though I do concur with you that Caitlyn Jenner is a vapid pain the ass who needs serious education if she won’t just be quiet, dammit.)
And I’m not saying that Greta is fully correct in her accusation of you judging her by her Facebook activities–merely pointing out that that was the line that was most likely behind it. I certainly do see the distinction you point out; her blocking was not done in a vacuum. But I can also see multiple possible motivations for the blocking, from her perspective, some of them less condemnation-worthy than others.
(Guh, every time I try to work through my thoughts on this whole business, I wind up “on the other handing” myself until I seem to resemble a Hindu statue. Apologies if it gets tedious to have in your comments section.)
Freemage – well as I said, it was an educated guess. I don’t think she would have blocked me if I hadn’t been under hostile fire from multiple FTB colleagues. One reason to think that is that she never did, until I was under hostile fire from multiple FTB colleagues. It’s awkward, blocking someone who’s a colleague. (It’s also awkward blocking someone who’s a friend. But we were never friends, so that’s beside the point.) There may be non-hostile motives for doing it, but I think pretty much everyone knows that it appears hostile.
So, I think she’s right that obsessing over why X blocked Y, or assuming you know why X blocked Y, is fatuous, but I don’t agree that thinking one knows why X blocked oneself is fatuous. I can imagine multiple possible motivations for the blocking, from her perspective, too, but they’re all far-fetched compared to the obvious one – she was shunning me, because I had become a pariah.
To clarify a bit – it’s not as if we had ever been tight. We definitely weren’t. But being colleagues threw us together in some ways.
I’m very glad those days are over, frankly.
The whole being cast as “Ophelia’s supporters” is kind of weird, as though Ophelia is Manchester United or something.
Couldn’t possibly be that there are a group of people who for various reasons were appalled by the behavior of the FtB clique. Or who felt they couldn’t constrain themselves to the one true but vaguely delineated and unpredictably shifting FtB line on trans issues.
No, it’s because people chose Ophelia’s “side.”
Not that I wouldn’t, mind. But it’s weird.
You mean I’m not Manchester United?
Damn.
Not every person with a -chester United is a Man.
I think you’re more Dolly Sisters, myself. But I’m no foot-the-ball expert.
I went back to GC’s post to check for new comments, and in comment #30 she says that she’d noticed this tactic way before the clusterfuckgate, but didn’t write about it at the time because she doesn’t and simply can’t write about everything that bothers her at times when other people find it convenient. But this was a tactic she had already judged to be problematic that was being used against a colleague. What better time could there be to discuss such a tactic?
Oh, oh, I see, now it’s TOPICAL because Twitter will only let you “like” a thing anymore. (Dang, I bet GC wished she would have thought of that one before her #30 rant…)
….yeah, that’s not disingenuous or anything. I know I musn’t be uncharitable in my assumptions.
I found B&W (and Absolute Diamonds, Lousy Canuck, etc.) by way of Pharyngula by way of GC’s blog. I now only read Pharyngula on FtB, without the comments, unless I’m directed to FtB by a B&W link. I flipped a coin and made my choice! Oh shit, that’s not right, OLD LADY memory here. I actually did exactly what Chris Clarke mentions in #57. I left because I was appalled by the FtB clique’s behavior.
And I have noticed since then that Ophelia gets (sadly) blocked and ignored and called childish (or old) when she comments on aspects of the clusterfuck, while she allows comments that disagree with or even disparage her. Call me crazy, but I feel comfortable that I made the right choice.
I saw Chris Clarke’s FTB Tweets just now; in the series, he makes reference to another sacrificial lamb. I can’t handle clicking on that site … does anyone have a Cliff’s Notes on who they’re thrashing now? Is it someone I should begin following?
You probably already do, if you have good sense. Josh Spokes.
Christ. Another person I really like and respect being thrashed by a group of vapid, shrilly fucks I’ve come to detest. Can’t say I’m surprised, though it’s always a little freaky to think I used to follow some of those people regularly.
For a minute I thought it might be PZ the hyenas were going after for almost having supported you for an instant all those months ago. Is it possible that they understand that taking PZ down might actually work against them? Or is it just a matter of time before they taste his blood in the water, too?
Well they must know that if PZ stops tolerating them they will plunge into instant obscurity. They like having the platform he gives them.
#42
I don’t even know how that quote got there, that was supposed to be a quote of #20.
Who’s getting it in the neck now?
Rob@67:
Josh. Aka @Spokesgay. He committed the unpardonable crime of thinking for himself, something that he’s always done anyway, but, ya know, “where there’s smoke there’s fire” yada yada yada.
It’s going by the manual, too. Former friend “alerts” mutual friends about public posts (read that again: public) I’ve made discussing gender politics and criticizing some of the tactics. These posts are described as demonstrating that I have “gone full TERF” and I’m comfortable saying blatantly racist things. The invocation of these two terms are enough. They stand on their own, and need no further explanation, and former friends nod their assent.
Mutual friend alerts me to this going-on, which then provokes cries of “THAT WAS PRIVATE,” as if I had no right to say anything given that I learned about it.
Then former friends host a thread in which they trade stories about when they de-friended me and why, assuring each other they’re glad they did when they did because “look how far he’s fallen.”
I blocked ’em all.
Their loss. And one step closer to complete epistemic closure for them.
@ JoshSpokes:
Wut? Maybe you have a double life I’m unaware of, but that’s .. not in character with what I know of you.
Everybody knows you’re a TERF, though. TERF, TERF, TERF. (/s)
Blerrrggg…. Josh, I’m sorry this is happening to you. I’ve always enjoyed your comments and guest-posts at FtB. And that’s about all I can even say about the matter, because once again, it’s happening behind closed doors, where those of us who just like to read the damn columns and maybe comment about the subjects in them can’t see what’s going on.
Josh, deeply sorry you’re going through this rubbish. Judging you by what I’ve seen you write I’m happy to be on the same side of the barricade (the outside apparently).
I haven’t gone through nearly as much as Ophelia.
I take it the full extent of the supposed TERF evidence is simply that you don’t hold Ophelia in sufficient contempt?
I have to admit that I got into a disagreement (about that Caitlyn Jenner magazine spread, and its implications) with Ophelia, early on in the clusterfuckening. That was entirely my fault – until she transitioned, I didn’t know the Jenner woman from a hole in the hedge, not being a follower of either athletics or popular culture. So I misunderstood the thrust of Ophelia’s argument, but I didn’t get my knickers in a twist; I engaged with her – and learned something.
I get the feeling that those on the ‘other side’ not only don’t wish to learn anything, they have managed to convince themselves that they don’t need to learn anything – because they already know it all.
And their ‘knowledge’ is that body of work which fits whatever narrative is current in their little circles.
Cthulhu forbid that anything might be complicated. Nope, if someone dares to disagree with whatever today’s line happens to be, then that person must be the personification of all evil.
I’m furious with the way they treated Ophelia, and am humbly grateful that you not only forgave me for my misunderstanding of your original argument, and accepted my apology, but extended a friend request. I might not agree with you on everything – but that doesn’t matter. When it comes to highly nuanced questions, there are no definitive answers and discussing points of disagreement can be most enlightening.
That the Certain Ones have now extended their claws towards my adopted grandson is making me bristle again. I have been a little occupied over the last 24 hours: settling in a pair of rescued, previously feral, kittens (one of whom is disabled); helping hubby get ready for his trip back to Oz and bidding him farewell; and following the tragedy in Paris (all whilst fighting a heavy cold that has torn muscles in my ribcage); so I missed the news of the pile-on (I would have missed the actual pile-on anyway, since I have been avoiding both FtB and Twitter).
Josh, they don’t deserve your words of wisdom. Sending great big granny-hugs your way. Mind you, I’m not afraid for you – I doubt that their words have any more harmful effects than the swearing of butterflies – it’s more of a “For fuck’s sake – again?! Whenever will they stop?” response. Of course, the answer will probably be “When the next generation of Certain Ones displaces them, age-wise. (I sometimes wonder what will happen when they realise that Caine (whatever her current ‘nym is) is 58 this month, like me.)
Alex Gabriel’s latest post takes you to task, Ms. Benson, regarding the back channel issue. He says he has attempted to post in this thread, but that his comment was in moderation. I don’t see much need to link to the post, it’s easily found on FtB, but if anyone else is still on this thread, they can check out for themselves Gabriel’s trumpet.
@^
Of course, giving Hornbeck (who is totally not obsessed, that’s a “narrative”) another excuse to reopen the case for the prosecution.
Ophelia, it’s time to ‘fess up. Did you smuggle secret documents out of the presidium? (Anything you say can and will be used against you.)
;-)
Yes, Alex Gabriel did attempt to comment here yesterday.
@ Silentbob re your link: Oy.
Yeah. I took a look at that. The most remarkable thing, I think, is his boast of “hate-reading” me.
Arg! I just read Alex’s post in response to this one. I think I’m going to comment there to get it off my chest.
Silentbob @78: Well, my suspicions are confirmed that Hornbeck will take any statement I may make as evidence of *Ophelia’s* perfidy.
That’s one sick-ass motherfucker, I tell you what.
@ 83 Chris Clarke
He used me linking to one of his posts as evidence of Ophelia’s perfidy. At the time that post consisted of a single malicious line — my link inspired an “update” of several kabillion lines.
I concur with your character assessment.
I offer A Study In Irony:
Alex Gabriel writes a post titled Thin Skins And Male Tears about how white men feel more sorry for themselves than they do for actual victims.
And, roughly at the same time, a post about how what happened to Ophelia at FTB was so unfair… to him.