Rape culture Friday

Aug 30th, 2013 11:54 am | By

It’s rape culture day in the neighborhood.

There’s Alex’s Shouting arson in a crowded theatre: rape, reputations and reasonable suspicion.

The statements we have don’t warrant certainty. They may or may not meet legal standards of proof. But they do meet what standards we need to ask ourselves, ‘Should this person attend our conference?’ or ‘Should we invite them to our group?’ – and to answer these questions reasonably, if provisionally. This does not amount to pitchfork-laden mob rule; it does not amount to vigilantism; and the evidence we have, while many no doubt would welcome legal procedures, should not in my opinion be deemed wholly meaningless in the absence of court action.

The ‘Take it to court, or else’ approach – the all-or-nothing suggestion that, until and unless a trial is held and a guilty verdict reached, no statement can ever be more than idle gossip or demand concern – is profoundly naïve and illogical. We know only a tiny percentage of rapes that occur end in conviction; refusing to entertain, even hypothetically, the notion someone may at some point have raped because no court has deemed them guilty is likely, in the real world, to mean ignoring almost every instance of rape. It evokes, too, the ‘Just tell the police’ response to conference harassment.

Personally, I wouldn’t want legality to be the sole requirement for conduct at my event, and reporters of harassment don’t always want punitive action in the first place (they might just want to be listened to; they might want organisers to look out for them throughout the conference, have a private word with someone who’s bothered them or keep an eye on that person; they might want to be placed with a friendly, reliable companion or group during social hours, so as to feel less stranded). But things like expulsion from conferences do not, in any case, require criminal convictions or the standards of proof that those demand. Innocent-till-proven-guilty, with no shades of intermediate, probabilistic grey is how court systems rightly work when incarceration or registration as a sex offender is on the table; it is not how the rest of the world has to work, where degrees of reasonable suspicion exist, and the idea accusations less than perfectly watertight can never be made is a dangerous, damaging one which silences a great many victims.

There’s Jason’s A Voice For Men: willing to publish libel to “prove” points about fake rape claims – part 1, math.

Today I woke up to a lovely morning — the birds were singing, a cat clambered up onto the bed demanding affection from my wife and me, it was reasonably cool and not terribly humid, and I had a phone notification buried in amongst the pile of work server notifications that I’d received a pingback on my blog from A Voice for Men.

I’m really moving up in the world, building a genuine rogues’ gallery of people hellbent on making my life miserable. I must be a real threat to some people’s blinkered worldviews now! My name is apparently splattered across the front page of their antifeminist conclave with the epithet “confessed rapist” attached. Two days ago it was r/MensRights, now it’s the Alpha Males themselves beating their chests and beating on my reputation.

Why? Because I believe Shermer’s accusers and believe that he’s probably a lot looser with consent than he should be, possibly up to and including being willing to rape unconscious victims. And that I’m willing to believe this even despite my having personally experienced a fake rape charge at 16. Instead of becoming an angry man shouting down those uppity feminists for advocating for clear consent, I sided with the feminists, and therefore I am the enemy. Therefore I am a monster. And I must be STOPPED.

And there’s Elyse’s hair-raisingly horrific post on what it’s like to be raped and report it and be dismissed. And then to be raped again, and then another time.

I was raped. I reported it. I was raped. I didn’t report it. I was raped. I reported it but I didn’t press charges. I was raped. I didn’t know what I was supposed to do so I told myself that I wasn’t raped.

 But I was. I was raped.

We have these conversations about rape, conversations that always include a question of “Was the rape reported to the police?” Women are taught that when they get raped, it is our duty to report it. We are obligated to press charges. We must crusade for justice. If the rapist is a real rapist, and he raped someone, it the victim’s duty to stop him.

And we think we know what rape looks like. We know there’s bushes or drinks involved. There’s kicking and screaming… or unconsciousness… and the word “NO!” can be heard from the next room or by passersby. And there’s crying. Crying during. Crying after. So. much. crying. And there’s blood. At least SOME blood.

And we know what to do when you know you’re being raped. If there’s a weapon, you don’t fight. If there’s no weapon, you do. And you make sure you scratch him to get his DNA under your nails. And you don’t shower. And you don’t change. And you go to the hospital. Right away. You’d be irresponsible to wash away evidence.

Even though women put a lot of effort into not getting themselves raped, we already have the script written. We have a plan. We know how we’ll handle it when someone finally thwarts our attempts to get through the night un-raped.

Funny thing about rape, though, is that sometimes your rapist doesn’t match what you thought your rapist would look like. Sometimes central casting sends in dudes that don’t match the type you were already planning to get raped by. And sometimes these guys go off script, ad libbing lines and their timing is off and sometimes it’s the script is edited so much, you didn’t even recognize that this was Your Rape because NONE of the shit that just went down was part of the original plan.

So that’s the neighborhood.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Sarah’s leukemia is very treatable

Aug 30th, 2013 10:41 am | By

One good thing. Wait, though, no, it’s not really a good thing – it’s just the avoidance of a bad thing. I keep noticing how often a bit of good news I’m pointing out is actually just a bit of bad news reversed or prevented or stepped around. More actual good news that isn’t just the negation of previous bad news would be nice.

One bad thing avoided.

An appeals court has sided with a hospital that wants to force a 10-year-old Amish girl to resume chemotherapy after her parents decided to stop the treatments.

Yeh that’s a pretty minimal, routine thing to greet as good news. Girl with leukemia continues chemotherapy; wow.

The hospital believes Sarah’s leukemia is very treatable but says she will die without chemotherapy.

The judge in Medina County in northeast Ohio had ruled in July that Sarah’s parents had the right to make medical decisions for her.

If refusing medical treatment for a fatal disease can be called a “medical” decision at all.

Andy Hershberger, the girl’s father, said the family agreed to begin two years of treatments for Sarah last spring but stopped a second round of chemotherapy in June because it was making her extremely sick.

“It put her down for two days. She was not like her normal self,” he said. “We just thought we cannot do this to her.”

Sarah begged her parents to stop the chemotherapy and they agreed after a great deal of prayer, Hershberger said. The family, members of an insular Amish community, shuns many facets of modern life and is deeply religious.

So that could be part of the problem. Perhaps they don’t trust “modern” medical science enough to trust the doctors when they explain that the chemo will make her much sicker in the short term but has an 85% chance of success in curing her in the longer term.

It’s a sad story. Obviously watching a treatment make your child much sicker must be horrible, and the temptation to avoid the short-term misery must be overwhelming. But the Amish don’t equip themselves well to overcome that temptation.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Removal directions

Aug 29th, 2013 5:38 pm | By

Here we go again -

Mariama N, a lesbian from the Gambia, faces a new threat of deportation after she has twice stopped attempts to send her back to anti-gay persecution.

On 24 July Mariama stood her ground, refused to get on the Royal Air Maroc plane at Heathrow, resisted all the threats of the guards, challenged them on the policy and injustice they were implementing, and rejected their warnings of what would happen to her ‘next time’. Another flight on 13 August was cancelled. Now Mariama has been given ‘removal directions’ for Tuesday 3 September, 9.15am on Monarch Airlines flight ZB5394 from Gatwick.

Please take action to call on Monarch Airlines to refuse the flight - Tell them not to collude in sending Mariama back to persecution:

Call centre:  0871 940 5040 (open at weekends)

Holiday centre:  0871 423 8568  (open at weekends)

Monarch chartered flights dept is 08712 252 555

The Monarch Group Head Office: 0871 2250 250

FACEBOOK THEM

TWEET @ THEM

 

Fill in Web Contact Form

 Email their press office: press.office@monarch.co.uk

 

 Chairman is Ian Rawlinson

Managing Director is Kevin George

 Phone/Email the Home Office: 

Quote Home Office references: Mariama S1447771/002

There is no justification in returning someone whose life is at stake, on the flimsy claim that they didn’t do enough to ‘prove’ they are gay in Home Office eyes.

Home Secretary Theresa May: mayt@parliament.uk  Fax: 020 7219 1145

Immigration Minister: ministerforimmigration@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

And copy to the following Home Office & UKBA addresses:

citto@homeoffice.gsi.gov.ukprivateoffice.external@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk;

public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.ukukbapublicenquiries@ukba.gsi.gov.uk

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



In a gallery in Ballard

Aug 29th, 2013 5:14 pm | By

I was in Ballard yesterday afternoon, and I was walking down Ballard Avenue, which is a protected historical district with beautiful 19th century brick buildings – old hotels and shops and newspaper offices – and passed a gallery with some amazing sculptures in the windows, so I went in to look at all of them.

They’re like this:

The woman in the gallery said to me, “You know what they’re made of?” I said, “I assume paper.”

They are made of lottery tickets!

How cool is that?

The sculptor is Alex Lockwood.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Guest post: Josh has the ear of Vermont Public Radio, so…

Aug 29th, 2013 4:25 pm | By

Guest post by Josh, Official Spokesgay. He wrote to Vermont Public Radio to cancel his donation because of NPR’s coverage of Chelsea Manning, and then -

So I waited for five days to hear back from Vermont Public Radio, and all I got was a polite, non-committal “Thank you for your support. . bye bye” form letter confirming my cancellation. This next won’t surprise you—I sent the board and executive staff an irritated letter for their shitty donor/listener engagement. I run a nonprofit myself and my board would have my head if I blew off a longtime donor who took the time to write such detail.

That got some attention. The development director emailed me today to apologize for “dropping the ball” —I totally get making that kind of mistake, so I understand. It was a miscommunication. He wants to meet with me in town for coffee since we live practically next door to each other, and he wants to hear what I think of the Manning coverage and NPR in general.

QUESTION—What would you like me to highlight? I plan to give him a 101 in how terribly trans people are conceived of in our culture and media (the best that I can, being a cis person) and suggest that Vermont Public Radio (at least) do a series on trans issues in society, work, and media.

Those of you who are trans—I am your vessel. I’m not the person who should be speaking for you, but I don’t want to miss this opportunity. I’ll appreciate your guidance!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Creative destruction

Aug 29th, 2013 11:44 am | By

We hear a lot about “tearing apart” this or that – skepticism, the atheist movement, the world of skeptoatheo science-loving nerdery. Sometimes the idea is that the tearing apart is mutual, and sometimes it’s that it’s only the pesky feminists (or the mythical Atheismplussers, who are always people who aren’t in fact Atheismplussers, like PZ and Rebecca and me).

Anyway – this idea of tearing apart is interesting. It seems like an odd thing for people who see themselves as involved in a movement to object to, because being involved in a movement also tears things apart. That’s the point of being in a movement. A movement about Keeping Everything Exactly the Same needn’t bother to be a movement. It can relax.

Movements tear things apart. Movements oppose the status quo; they’re about change; they move toward change. Change tears things apart.

Ok, the defender of movement purity could reply to me. Ok, the movement is about change, but it has to unite and work together to make that change happen, so a new movement within the movement that tears the movement apart will defeat that goal.

Maybe. Then again maybe not. Maybe what it will do is change the movement in such a way that it becomes better and thus more attractive and thus bigger. Or maybe it will split into two halves, and both halves will become bigger, or one will and the other won’t, but the two combined will still be bigger. There are a lot of possibilities.

But the point is that “tearing apart” is really just another word for change, and change isn’t necessarily bad – and we all know that, or else we wouldn’t be in a movement in the first place.

Shit’s dynamic, people. Change is all the time. You can’t freeze anything at one particular moment and declare that the Platonic ideal of what it’s supposed to be. Right now the atheist movement is torn apart by battles over feminism. Well I know I’m not going to stop arguing for feminism and against noisy belligerent sexism, and I know I’m not the only one with that commitment, so there you go.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



AA 1, New Jersey 0

Aug 28th, 2013 6:25 pm | By

So – Dave Silverman got his godless license plate after all. The New Jersey DMV backed down.

From the press release:

Cranford, NJ—As public backlash was growing, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission reversed its decision on Wednesday, approving American Atheists President David Silverman’s application for custom license plates reading “ATHE1ST.”  American Atheists, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, is a national non-profit dedicated to fighting discrimination against atheists.

On Monday, Silverman received a rejection email from the Commission concerning his application. It stated, “Reason for denial: Objectionable or Need Clarification.” When Silverman called to offer this clarification, he was told by a Commission official that his proposed plates were “offensive.”

“There was absolutely no reason that this plate should be denied; this is outrageously discriminatory,” said David Silverman. “There is nothing offensive about atheism or atheists. The state of New Jersey had no right to deem this ‘offensive’ as though it was their place to do so.”

Per Commission procedure, Silverman submitted a letter of appeal. Word quickly spread through social media, and traditional media quickly picked up on the story. A PDF of Silverman’s appeal letter, and the rejection email, are available here:

http://news.atheists.org/2013/08/28/american-atheists-president-david-silverman-files-appeal-for-denied-custom-new-jersey-athe1st-license-plate/

A reporter early Wednesday afternoon contacted Silverman to tell him that his application had been approved, and soon afterward a spokesperson from the Commission called to confirm it.

Once he receives the plates, Silverman plans to bring one with him to American Atheists’ 2014 National Convention in Salt Lake City, where American Atheists members will be able to take pictures with it.

Yeah the state of New Jersey isn’t the authority I would turn to for a decision on what is or isn’t offensive.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Guest post: a plant evolutionary biologist on GMOs

Aug 28th, 2013 6:00 pm | By

From comments by quixote on First world phobias.

I’m a plant evolutionary biologist. The problem with the GMO debate is, as others have said, the conflation of many issues.
.
1) The modification in approx. 75% of GM foods is RoundUp resistance. Both seed and RoundUp have to be bought from Monsanto, which strikes everybody who isn’t Monsanto as a conflict of interest. Result: besides chaining farmers to Monsanto, a whole mess of environmental issues, bad farming practices, etc., etc., etc. Triple-plus Ungood.
.
2) The evidence is unclear on the transferability of the viral vectors used to introduce foreign genes to the target plants. The initial dogma was that lateral transfer was about as likely as being hit by a meteor. However, it’s come out that the companies (Monsanto primus inter pares of course) seem to have designed their experiments to get no results. Then they said, “See? No problem.” More carefully designed experiments, especially studies that last longer than three months, and newer more sensitive methodology indicates there may be real cause for concern. Nobody’s going to glow in the dark or grow two heads. But developing allergies, cancers, certain liver conditions, are not out of the question. (Yes, I’ll scare up the links and come back and put them in comments.)
.
3)Things like golden rice were the original promise of GMOs. That idea has been around for some 20 years. They’re just barely testing it now. But RoundUp resistance is everywhere. Interesting, isn’t it? There’s no big profit in golden rice. It’s merely good for you. (I don’t know if it runs the same viral vector risks as the RoundUp-resistant crops. That depends on how it’s made.) It and its benign cousins are something like 2% of GMO trade / farming / activity. They’re very useful, though, when Monsanto and its ilk need to wrap themselves in the mantle of wanting only to Help People™ and Feed The World™.
.
None of this changes Ophelia’s point that an awful lot of anti-GMO agitation is anti-scientific and poorly informed.  But it is a way more complex issue than, say, the anti-vaccine loonies. They’re just plain, flat-out 100% wrong. Ripping up golden rice is plain wrong, too. But being anti-GMO in general is not so simple.  They have a point, just not the one they think they have.

A follow-up comment with links.

. https://www.es.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/21406/?nocache=1759778285 . 2012. Nancy Podevin*, Patrick du Jardin. Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants. This is the fairly recent article that caused a splash.

. http://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/wp-content/uploads/Toxicity-of-Roundup-Ready-Maize.pdf . 2012. Seralini et al. [Toxicity of ToundUp-Ready Maize]. This was the first widely reported recent article on this topic, and was criticized. The main critique is behind a paywall, but this: http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Seralinial-AnswersCritics-FCT_2013.pdf is Seralini’s response.

. http://www.bioscienceresource.org/docs/BSR1-MutationalConsequences.pdf 2006. Latham, A.R., Wilson, A.K., Steinbrecher, R.A. The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation. Latham, as far as I know, is strongly anti-GMO. The article is fairly old for a fast-moving field. However, interesting to see the doubts and their basis raised as far back as 2005-2006. . (And now for something different….)  2012. Reeves, R.G. et al. Scientific Standards and the Regulation of Genetically Modified Insects. I find it fascinating to see how widespread some of the testing is (often in a good cause). The people pulling up golden rice have got no idea.

. A few popular articles that may be useful for more background: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/can-biotech-food-cure-world-hunger/ “Can Biotech Cure World Hunger?” Includes points of view from five authorities, pro and con. Note 2009 date. So old-ish by now. It’s pretty much impossible to stress enough how fast the field moves.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=food-fight  2011. Brendan Borrell. The case *for* GMO.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2012/12/plant_patent_law_why_overhauling_it_will_do_more_to_help_the_food_movement.single.html On the role of IP in making the situation worse. Pretty much what @8 R. Johnston said with many fewer words.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



How do you get your information?

Aug 28th, 2013 5:40 pm | By

Mano has a great post on the strange disdain for bloggers.

I move in circles (socially and at work) where people tend to be politically interested but surprisingly ignorant of many facts. I blame it on the fact that they spend far too much time following a few big name sources of TV and print news that they think are comprehensive and giving them the full picture, but in fact are very narrow. When I discuss politics with them and point out all manner of things that they do not know, they sometimes ask me how I get information that they were unaware of. I tell them that I read a lot of blogs that monitor a wide range of news sources and alert me to news that I would otherwise have missed, in addition to providing valuable insights and commentary.

But it is surprising to see the disdain that the words ‘blogs’ still conjure up in these people as soon as I say it. Some of them proudly say that they never have and never will read blogs.

Because any damn fool can set up a blog, therefore they must all be terrible. Uh huh. On the other hand, bloggers can be more independent than people who work for Major Media™, and the good ones combine independence with other valuable qualities. People who never read blogs aren’t in a position to find this out.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



It’s all the paperwork

Aug 28th, 2013 11:32 am | By

Aw, damn, those oppressive bureaucrats in China are really oppressive – now they’re six years ago they started saying monks have to get government permission before they can reincarnate! That’s just mean.

China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is “an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation.”

It’s an interesting notion, “the procedures by which one is to reincarnate” – what would those be, do you suppose? And how do you know you’ve performed them, and how do you know you’ve performed them correctly?

By barring any Buddhist monk living outside China from seeking reincarnation, the law effectively gives Chinese authorities the power to choose the next Dalai Lama, whose soul, by tradition, is reborn as a new human to continue the work of relieving suffering.

I like that “by tradition” – that tiny, lightly disguised admission that actually it’s just a story.

At 72, the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since 1959, is beginning to plan his succession, saying that he refuses to be reborn in Tibet so long as it’s under Chinese control. Assuming he’s able to master the feat of controlling his rebirth, as Dalai Lamas supposedly have for the last 600 years, the situation is shaping up in which there could be two Dalai Lamas: one picked by the Chinese government, the other by Buddhist monks.

Another admission! Two admissions in fact – “assuming he’s able to master the feat” and “supposedly.” But anyway, if Dalai Lamas can control their rebirths, why can’t they do it from India just as well as from Tibet? Or for that matter from Alaska or New Zealand? Or Disney World, or Malibu, or Omaha.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



One of 18 women

Aug 28th, 2013 11:14 am | By

It’s everywhere. There’s the mayor of San Diego, for another example.

A San Diego parks employee who says Mayor Bob Filner put her in a headlock and rubbed against her breasts at a public event this year filed a $500,000 battery and sexual harassment claim against the city on Monday, her attorney said.

Stacy McKenzie, one of 18 women who accuse Filner of making unwanted sexual advances, is the second in two months to initiate legal action against the embattled politician. Her claim is the precursor to a lawsuit.

Filner, a former Democratic congressman who was elected mayor of California’s second-largest city last year, announced on Friday that he would step down effective August 30 as part of a settlement with the city over a lawsuit filed by his former press secretary, Irene McCormack Jackson.

So that’s not actually a perk of the job? But but but – he’s a leader – an alpha male – a prominent man – aren’t they supposed to have guaranteed access to lots of nooky?

McKenzie, a parks department district manager who has worked for the city for 32 years, alleged that the mayor touched her inappropriately during a public event in April.

“Filner, who was attending the event as a dignitary, sexually battered Ms. McKenzie after asking her on a date when he pursued her across a city park where families were gathered, grabbed her from behind and put her into a headlock with his right arm rubbing across her breasts and his left arm rubbing her upper arm,” her attorney, Dan Gilleon, said in a statement.

In her written claim, McKenzie accuses the city of failing to prevent sexual harassment by Filner or to warn of his “predatory nature.” The claim seeks $500,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

“Although the city attorney previously stated he ‘will not under any circumstance represent Bob Filner,’ he has now switched corners and is defending the mayor,” Gilleon said.

“We believe downplaying Filner’s conduct is not only legally wrong, it also sends the wrong message for a high profile, elected official to minimize the very type of sexual battery he has previously condemned,” Gilleon said.

Yes, it does. This wrong message thing is also everywhere, and it’s a bad bad bad thing.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Bungling the libertarian tweet

Aug 28th, 2013 10:34 am | By

I should start a category here, called Twitter Over-reaching or Trying to Say Too Much in a Tweet or Twitter Is Not the Place for Grand Generalizations, or something. Because I keep seeing people doing that, and it can be funny or pathetic or destructive or all those.

The latest one that I’ve noticed is by Peter Boghossian. It’s not part of a larger conversation, the previous and following tweets aren’t related, so it really is meant to stand alone and say something true.

Attempts to engineer social justice will be unfair if they target equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity.

He’s a philosopher and I’m not, but that just looks silly to me. Attempts will be unfair? They’ll be unfair if they target equality of outcome? Just like that? Really? Attempts to aim for equality of outcome will be unfair, just like that, with no qualification?

I could see saying that insistence on mandating equality of outcome will be unfair. I could see it and probably even agree with it. But that’s not what he said. He said something much more limited, and thus much more realistic and un-strawmannish, and thus much more reasonable and fair to the opposition – but then he drew an unreasonable sweeping conclusion anyway.

Attempts to aim for equality of outcome can mean for instance trying hard to do away with obstacles, including non-obvious ones that take digging and research to find. Will that be unfair? If so, why?

It’s the familiar libertarian bullshit, of course, but in trying to put that in a reasonable way and doing it on Twitter, I think he ended up with obvious nonsense.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



What a feminist looks like

Aug 27th, 2013 5:27 pm | By

God damn John Scalzi is good.

Yesterday: To The Dudebro Who Thinks He’s Insulting Me by Calling Me a Feminist

Just read it. I don’t want to spoil it with appetizers or remarks; just read it.

But I’ll give you a visual appetizer.

I’ve always wondered what that pleasant sweep of green at the top of his blog was, and vaguely assumed it was a nearby park. It’s his fucking front lawn. That plays a part, and gets its own meme, so read. Read read read.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



There are far worse people out there

Aug 27th, 2013 4:08 pm | By

Mother Jones has a long article on “ElevatorGATE.”

Earlier this month, at least five women contacted Xavier Damman, the CEO of Storify, to complain that a user who goes by the handle “elevatorgate” was harassing female users via Damman’s popular social-media curation site.

I could have told them that two years ago, or any time between then and now. I did tell Twitter several times. Twitter yawned.

…the women who complained about him say he has a history of sending abusive and misogynistic messages on other social networks. Elevatorgate’s Twitter account is suspended, but his YouTube page includes a video of Rebecca Watson, a 32-year-old New Yorker who runs Skepchick, a site about feminism and atheism, edited to make it sound like she’s saying she “had sex with Richard Dawkins,” the famous evolutionary biologist and author. Another video on elevatorgate’s YouTube page has been edited to make it appear that a female writer says, “heck yeah, I want to hook up” and “would you like to come up to my room now and have sex?”

I didn’t know that. I looked at the first one. Yup it does that. Fortunately it’s blindingly obvious that it’s edited, but still – that’s a shitty trick, aka abusive.

Storify isn’t the only tech company to cite the principle of free speech to defend its refusal to remove allegedly harassing content. But companies aren’t obliged to honor the First Amendment the same way the government is—they have the legal right to kick out or ban anyone they don’t want using their service.

“The idea that a social-media network should be entirely neutral is a myth,” says Jaclyn Friedman, the executive director for Women, Action and the Media, a nonprofit that advocates for gender equality in the media. “Neutral platforms are only neutral for straight white dudes. These companies need to make a decision: Do I want to be making a money off of a platform where abusers and harassers feel more comfortable than the abused and harassed?”

They’ve already made it. Yes, they do – probably because they think (perhaps correctly) that abusers and harassers and people who don’t mind them are more numerous than the abused and harassed and people who dislike abuse and harassment. They’ve made what they take to be the correct financial decision.

Online harassment can have serious consequences. The International Journal of Cyber Criminology says aggressive online conduct can trigger PTSD

That’s interesting, because it’s a claim the abusers and harassers like to laugh at. Oh hahahahaha, they shout, go get blown up in a war and then talk to us about PTSD! The bullies’ defense – other people have it much worse, so what I’m doing to you doesn’t count as abuse. Pu-leeze.

After Women, Action and the Media criticized Facebook in May for failing to take down hate speech against women or remove photos depicting rape and domestic violence, the social network is now requiring sections that contain vulgar and offensive content to be clearly marked, and in some cases requiring the page’s administrator to post with his or her real name. “While it may be vulgar and offensive, distasteful content on its own does not violate our policies,” a Facebook spokeswoman tells Mother Jones.

Look how the terms shift, for no reason and with no explanation. The problem with hate speech and photos depicting rape and domestic violence is not that they’re “vulgar and offensive” or “distasteful.” Talk about missing the point.

In response to questions from Mother Jones, a person claiming to “work with elevatorgate” provided access to a Google document in which elevatorgate addressed allegations that he has harassed women through Storify and other social networks—before later revoking access to the document. ”We’ve decided this story isn’t for us,” the intermediary emailed. “If you would like a villain for your piece, I would recommend finding somebody who is actually guilty of something. There are far worse people out there than a man who Storifies people’s tweets.”

See? There it is again! There are worse people out there than ElevatorGATE. Yes of course there are; that doesn’t mean ElevatorGATE doesn’t do bad things. He does do bad things. He does horrible things, and he does them all day every day.

In the Google doc briefly viewed by Mother Jones, elevatorgate wrote that he does not use his real name on social media because doing so could make him a target of harassment.

Ah. Now where did I put that irony meter…

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



This wasn’t free speech this was a silencing

Aug 27th, 2013 3:16 pm | By

As you may have already seen, Avicenna was falsely accused of raping someone at TAM 2013. He’s never been to TAM; he hasn’t been in the US for several years. He is not much pleased.

Turns out Mr. [Richard] Sanderson is a possible suspect in the fake accusation that I raped/molested someone at TAM 2013. Why? Because when I admitted publically about the accusation, I also pointed out that I had an alibi. Oh if you wish to know why I admitted to it, I felt the need to be honest because I figured that if I didn’t admit to it, someone would drop it on me as a “surprise” and I would rather do it myself. Bear in mind, work colleagues read this blog and me admitting to the accusation was handled better than if someone else did. Bear in mind at the moment I am teaching and training midwives in safe delivery methods and doing deliveries. AKA working in women’s healthcare. This resulted in me having to deal with greater scrutiny of my work and some time for administrative leave but in the end the truth is an absolute defence.

It meant that colleagues would HAVE to mention this incident. I cleared my name with work but it’s just a painful thing to do. I genuinely thought of bowing out of blogging as I felt my career was more important. It didn’t matter that my alibi was insanely solid.

See that? These angry zeroes interfered with his work – in women’s healthcare, in India – for the sake of whatever the hell their angry zero hatred is about. (Women? Feminism? Atheism+? Freethought Blogs? High fructose corn syrup? Who knows.)

They call  themselves the Slymepit out of pride. Free Speech? This wasn’t free speech this was a silencing. This was an attempt to shut me up. I don’t know why. I am not a fan of the methods of the Atheism Plus lot. Maybe I just made them look bad. Can’t call FTB slacktivists with that Avicenna bloke around right? So let’s silence  him. I know! Doctors rely on their integrity. A doctor without one is fucked! Let’s threaten that!

Oh Mr. Sanderson tried to make it seem like it was to prove a point about fake rape allegations from PZ Myers and “Jane Doe”. That it’s easy. Well? No it’s not. Because the difference between a real accusation and a fake one is that a real one is very hard and painful to do. While the Accusers here literally hammered this entire letter out in a few minutes and didn’t even bother selecting properly.

And to prove a point? You would risk my career to win an Internet fight with PZ Myers? What the fuck is wrong with you people? How the fuck can anyone be a part of the Slymepit with absolute fuckwits like this in the rank is beyond me. How can you claim to be the good guys when you behave like this? You have lost any high ground you thought you had by the actions of this absolute waste of space.

And what does that say to non-white atheists? Don’t write about stuff that’s happening locally? Like rapes and violence against women or else the Slymepit will silence you? Don’t write about your non-white problems if they involve women treated badly?

Yes. That is what that says to non-white atheists, just as it’s what it says to non-male atheists.

So that’s how that went.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



First world phobias

Aug 27th, 2013 10:54 am | By

The Annals of Irrational Fear, GMO Division. The New York Times reports:

ONE bright morning this month, 400 protesters smashed down the high fences surrounding a field in the Bicol region of the Philippines and uprooted the genetically modified rice plants growing inside.

Had the plants survived long enough to flower, they would have betrayed a distinctly yellow tint in the otherwise white part of the grain. That is because the rice is endowed with a gene from corn and another from a bacterium, making it the only variety in existence to produce beta carotene, the source of vitamin A. Its developers call it “Golden Rice.”

FrankenFoods. Playing god. It ain’t natural. Yuck.

Not owned by any company, Golden Rice is being developed by a nonprofit group called the International Rice Research Institute with the aim of providing a new source of vitamin A to people both in the Philippines, where most households get most of their calories from rice, and eventually in many other places in a world where rice is eaten every day by half the population. Lack of the vital nutrient causes blindness in a quarter-million to a half-million children each year. It affects millions of people in Asia and Africa and so weakens the immune system that some two million die each year of diseases they would otherwise survive.

So maybe, just maybe, destroying the field trial crop isn’t really such a brilliant idea.

The destruction of the field trial, and the reasons given for it, touched a nerve among scientists around the world, spurring them to counter assertions of the technology’s health and environmental risks. On a petition supporting Golden Rice circulated among scientists and signed by several thousand, many vented a simmering frustration with activist organizations like Greenpeace, which they see as playing on misplaced fears of genetic engineering in both the developing and the developed worlds. Some took to other channels to convey to American foodies and Filipino farmers alike the broad scientific consensus that G.M.O.’s are not intrinsically more risky than other crops and can be reliably tested.

And another thing: there are “risks,” known risks, in a diet that’s deficient in vitamin A. To repeat:

Lack of the vital nutrient causes blindness in a quarter-million to a half-million children each year. It affects millions of people in Asia and Africa and so weakens the immune system that some two million die each year of diseases they would otherwise survive.

That’s a little more significant than “yuck” reactions to GMO foods.

At stake, they say, is not just the future of biofortified rice but also a rational means to evaluate a technology whose potential to improve nutrition in developing countries, and developed ones, may otherwise go unrealized.

“There’s so much misinformation floating around about G.M.O.’s that is taken as fact by people,” said Michael D. Purugganan, a professor of genomics and biology and the dean for science at New York University, who sought to calm health-risk concerns in a primer on GMA News Online, a media outlet in the Philippines: “The genes they inserted to make the vitamin are not some weird manufactured material,” he wrote, “but are also found in squash, carrots and melons.”

But god put the genes in the squash, carrots, and melons, but god didn’t put the genes in rice. Therefore the genes being put in the rice makes the whole thing gross and creepy and blasphemious!

Mr. Purugganan, who studies plant evolution, does not work on genetically engineered crops, and until recently had not participated in the public debates over the risks and benefits of G.M.O.’s. But having been raised in a middle-class family in Manila, he felt compelled to weigh in on Golden Rice. “A lot of the criticism of G.M.O.’s in the Western world suffers from a lack of understanding of how really dire the situation is in developing countries,” he said.

Privilege. That’s a classic example of privilege at work. It’s the same with vaccines – we have the privilege of having grown up in a world with vaccines, so unless we know something about history or otherwise investigate the subject a little, we are clueless about what it’s like to live in a world where an infectious disease can pounce on you and kill you at any moment. That is privilege. It’s privilege and it leads to horrendous irrational phobic ideas that, if followed, would lead to the reversal of much medical and technological progress. Yes progress. Being sniffy about the idea of progress is another example of privilege.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



In the Damascus area

Aug 27th, 2013 10:00 am | By

MSF reports neurotoxic symptoms in hospital patients in Syria, according to the BBC.

Medecins Sans Frontieres says hospitals it supports in Syria treated about 3,600 patients with “neurotoxic symptoms”, of whom 355 have died.

The medical charity said the patients had arrived in three hospitals in the Damascus area on 21 August – when opposition activists say chemical attacks were launched against rebels.

But MSF says it cannot “scientifically confirm” the use of chemical weapons.

Scientific uncertainty.

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said MSF Director of Operations Bart Janssens.

But it added that the symptoms, as well as the “massive influx of patients in a short period of time” strongly suggest mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.

Another chapter in the history of human brutality.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Sourland mountain

Aug 26th, 2013 4:38 pm | By

So having mentioned the Sourland mountains (and laughed at their diminutive size) I looked them up, half thinking it might be just a family name for that tiny rise on the western horizon – but no, it’s a real thing. Sourland Mountain.

Sourland Mountain is a 17 miles (27 km) long ridge in central New Jersey, extending from the Delaware River at Lambertville to the western end of Hillsborough Township near the community of Neshanic, through Montgomery Township and into Hopewell Township in Mercer County.[1] It comprises the largest contiguous forest in Central Jersey, nearly 90 square miles (233 km2) in area. The highest point is only 568 feet (173 m) above sea level, but the way it rises steeply from the surrounding farmland has earned it the title of ‘mountain’. The ridge itself sits within a larger area of rough terrain called The Sourlands.

568 feet! Hahahahahaha – the hill I live at the top of is 500-something feet, and nobody calls it a mountain, even though it does rise steeply enough that the east and west sides of it are mostly green belt.

But it’s New Jersey. Where the mountains are short and the license plates don’t (yet) say ATHEIST.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Learning to share

Aug 26th, 2013 3:50 pm | By

It’s always a guy with three or four or six wives. Why not the other way around for a change? Well, in Kenya, three people have chosen that option.

Two Kenyan men have signed an agreement to “marry” the same woman.

The woman had been having affairs with both men for more than four years and apparently refused to choose between them.

The agreement sets out a rota for Sylvester Mwendwa and Elijah Kimani to stay in her house and states they will both help raise any children she bears.

It sounds very sensible.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The rules

Aug 26th, 2013 3:32 pm | By

I think I’ve figured out the rules now, with help from Tim Skellett aka “Gurdur” who explained it to Avicenna on Twitter. They go like this:

When someone talks shit about “FTB” that doesn’t actually mean Freethought blogs, it means “core” bloggers. Tim Skellett to Avicenna:

BTW, once again you name a peripheral FTB blogger (yourself), not a core one. Again, *cough* revealing.

Who exactly are the core ones? Skellett gives the list a few tweets later, still talking to Avi.

@saramayhew seems to refer to the core FTB bloggers, which would be PZ, Brayton, szvan, Benson, McCreight, Greta. See next.

So them’s the rules, apparently. “FTB” is just shorthand for those six people; the other 30-whatever-it-is-now don’t count.

Says who? Taslima Nasrin doesn’t count? Maryam doesn’t count, Nirmukta doesn’t count, Avi doesn’t count, Chris Rodda doesn’t, Ally Fogg, Zinnia, Yemi, Matt, Russell, Cuttlefish, Brianne, Miri – all those people and more, don’t count? They’re all “peripheral”?

What bullshit.

Update 3:30 p.m.

No lie too foul to post in writing on the internet.

aa3

Tim Skellett @Gurdur

Disgusting how FTB-ingroup use ppl like Maryam, @Million_Gods & foreign events to bolster their own egos.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)