Thunderf00t’s new video of personal attacks on named atheist feminists is inflammatory, misleading and unhelpful to the international atheist and secular communities. As he is now making this a formal campaign, aimed at conference organizers and leaders in secular groups, I have decided to respond to it.
TF is asking us as conference organizers to ostracize named atheist feminists who he describes as toxic parasites who are dripping poison, as well as spanners and muppets, and he is asking his viewers to forward the video to leaders of secular groups to help to make this happen.
I know that TF is criticizing behavior that he sincerely believes is harming the atheist and secular communities, but his personal attacks are disproportionate to his concerns, they are unfair to those who he is attacking, and they are not helping to resolve the issues that they address.
He is also illustrating his concerns with factual misrepresentations, and I hope that this article will provide a counterbalance to those misrepresentations. I also hope that Thunderf00t will reconsider his approach to this issue, because I believe that it is not constructive.
1. Ideas that I agree with in the video
2. Recent performance of the secular community
3. Personal attack on Amy Roth Davis
4. Personal attack on Rebecca Watson
5. Personal attack on PZ Myers
6. Attack on the Skepticon harassment policy
7. The meanings of the word atheism
8. The right to say things that offend people
9. Personal attack on Melody Hensley
10. My response to TF’s requests
1. Ideas that I agree with in the video
There are two important ideas in the video about which I agree with Thunderf00t:
People should have the right to robustly criticize other people’s beliefs and ideas and behaviors, even if doing so causes offence.
Participants at conferences should not be subject to restrictions on personal behavior that are not necessary to prevent harassment.
These are genuine concerns that TF is obliged to express, if he believes that these rights are being eroded, on important issues of freedom of expression and personal autonomy. I believe that his fears about these rights being eroded within the atheist and secular community are misplaced, but they are important issues and TF is right to highlight them. His personal attacks on named people, as well as being ethically wrong, also distract from our attempts to address these important concerns rationally.
2. Recent performance of the secular community
Thunderf00t begins his video by saying:
“To be quite honest, I have been sickened by the recent performance of the secular community.”
That is an unusual reaction to the ongoing work of a mostly voluntary community, that has been actively lobbying around the world to protect the human rights of atheists and others, not only against political attacks on freedom of conscience and expression, but also against physical attacks including imprisonment, beatings and murders, and that has combined this challenging and often dangerous work with promoting reason, science and ethical secularism, as well as providing social and moral support for atheists living in often overwhelmingly religious societies.
TF then says that:
“The problem is that many in leadership positions have managed to get themselves bullied or cajoled into this bullshit PC appeasement position by people who are conspicuous in that they proudly label themselves as feminists.”
Behind this description, he scrolls a list of people, including me, who wrote articles for Skepchick last year, on the topic of speaking out against hate directed at women. Did TF even read those articles, I wonder? Because, if he did, I am unclear as to why he would choose to describe them in these terms.
These are articles encouraging people to behave in an ethical, compassionate way towards the women in our community, and to stand alongside those women when they face verbal or physical threats either online or in real life. What possible reason could TF have to be sickened by these appeals?
Even if everything else in his video was 100% accurate, even if the people he is attacking were actually worse than he believes them to be, TF should still support appeals for people to speak out against hate directed at women. That is is a very basic, rock-bottom, minimalistic ethical position that he should be able to publicly support alongside his other concerns about some people’s behavior.
3. Personal attack on Amy Roth Davis
Thunderf00t starts by calling Amy Roth Davies:
“Folk who find T-shirts like this offensive enough to reduce them to tears. Folk who think that the abusive use of copyright law to stifle free speech is a valid tactic. Folk who think that fake jewellery, and not offending people, should be classed as forms of harassment at conventions on a par with physical groping.”
He then plays an audio extract of Amy saying:
“We’re not asking for anything crazy, just basic rules so that we can say, you know, the sort of things like, making fake jewellery and intentionally offending people is not okay, nor is grabbing someone’s ass.”
So let’s examine TF’s personal attack on Amy.
Amy is a decent, kind person who devotes much of her time and creativity to doing good things. She runs fundraisers and contributes money from her ceramics to provide grants for women going to secular conferences who otherwise could not afford to go. At the conference in question, some people tried to make Amy personally feel unwelcome in various ways, including but not limited to designing imitations of her ceramics mocking her. Also, somebody wore a t-shirt mocking Skepchick generally but not specifically Amy. The combination of all of this caused Amy to feel upset, because she is a person with the same emotional vulnerabilities as most people, and she and her mother left the conference early.
TF has responded by mocking this natural human vulnerability, making fun of somebody for being upset to the extent that she cried, and minimising to the point of misrepresentation the reason that she was upset. I can’t speak for TAM, but if somebody like Amy had funded grants for people to attend an Atheist Ireland conference, and if some people were actively trying to make her feel unwelcome at the conference in this way, I would be doing my absolute best to ensure that she did feel welcome. Combatting actual physical harassment is the minimum that we as conference organisers should aim for: we should also be aiming higher, trying to help people to have a positively enjoyable and worthwhile time.
TF inaccurately claims that Amy said making fake jewellery is on a par with physical groping, which Amy never said. TF then criticizes Amy’s decision to use copyright law, to try to prevent people from creating parody images of her jewellery to mock her. As a general principle, I tend towards agreeing with TF about this, although artists are of course entitled to legitimately use copyright law to protect their work.
I assume that TF is unaware that Amy has since reconsidered that decision, and has said that she had made mistakes in her handling of the situation. She has explained that she had put so much time and love and energy into creating those pieces that she found it difficult to separate herself from her work when angry people started using her images to mock and belittle her. And she has since decided to release all of her photographs of her jewellery under a non-commercial creative Commons license, which means that anyone can share, copy or even adapt the images to make new art, under the terms of that license.
In doing this she is rising above the hate directed at her, and channelling her reaction into a positive outcome for herself and others.
4. Personal attack on Rebecca Watson
Thunderf00t then attacks Rebecca Watson:
“Well, take for instance the professional victims, who went from conference to conference telling people each time that the sexual harassment at those conferences was so bad that they were literally putting their lives on the line merely by turning up…”
Which he illustrates with video of Rebecca saying:
“You can’t trust the cops, you can’t trust people to believe your story, you can’t trust the people who hang out with you at these events, you can’t trust the leaders of our community to give a damn.”
TF then says:
“…that was so dangerous that they had to go around in pairs”
Which he illustrates with video of Rebecca saying:
“So at the conference, all of the Skepchick writers who were there instituted a buddy system, in which we always travelled together, or with a male escort, and especially when returning to hotel rooms late at night.”
I assume that TF is unaware of this, but the two video extracts that he showed of Rebecca were taken out of context, and even in the wrong sequence, from a speech in which she was talking about a far wider range of issues than harassment at conferences.
Here is the full video that TF has used selective extracts from.
And here are the relevant sections, in the correct sequence, and in context, and with the quotes that TF has used highlighted in bold:
“(Soon after starting Skepchick) I got an email from a man I didn’t know, and the email simply called me a cunt. And I responded in my trademark way, which was actually to be really over the top nice: I said something like thank you very much for your feedback I will take that into consideration. And he immediately responded, and said that if he lived closer to Boston he would come and put a bullet in my brain. So I looked at the email headers and got his IP address, and I found that he was in a town in North Carolina, so I contacted the local police department in that town. And I explained what the email said, and I asked can I forward it to you for you to pursue. and they said no, we can’t do anything about that, you should get in touch with your local police department. So I got in touch with my Massachusetts police Department, and explained everything to them, and they said what we can do is we can put this complaint in a file, and then if he does anything we will have that file… So the lesson that I learnt almost immediately after stepping into the spotlight was that the spotlight is really scary, and the police will not help me…
Within a year of starting Skepchick I had my own stalker. The twist was my stalker was a woman. And I had no idea how to handle that, because everything I knew about stalkers came from Lifetime Original Movies, about a woman escaping a domineering boyfriend or husband. None of them were about an obsessive woman on another continent who was trying to ruin another woman’s life, which was what I was dealing with. And try she did. She would spread malicious lies about me, if she saw on Facebook that I was dating she would get in touch and tell them what a whore I am, and she tried to get me disqualified from a contest I was entering for a radio show. And we had some mutual friends, and at first they didn’t believe me when I told them how obsessive and scary she was getting. They chalked it up to a personality difference that would eventually blow over. And so what I learned from that was that many people, even friends, will not believe me until they themselves are subject to the same harassment…
Last year I was scheduled to speak at the Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas and, just before I was to attend, a man tweeted that he would be attending, and that if he ran into me he would sexually assault me. The JREF, who organised the conference, allowed the man to come, and did absolutely nothing to make me feel safer. In fact, the man was even angrier at me by the time the conference rolled around because, by retweeting what he had said, my friends had actually got him fired from his freelance writing job. So at the conference, all of the Skepchick writers who were there instituted a buddy system, in which we always travelled together, or with a male escort, and especially when returning to hotel rooms late at night. So what I learned from that was that I can’t rely on the leaders of movement to care, or to actually take action to help….
So I know that’s all a bit depressing. It’s a great way to start a conference isn’t it? So those lessons: You can’t trust the cops, you can’t trust people to believe your story, you can’t trust the people who hang out with you at these events, you can’t trust the leaders of our community to give a damn. There have been exceptions though. For instance, recently I’ve been to the FBI, who have been much more willing to listen to me than local police, though at the moment no one has been arrested for making threats on my life. But I’ve had friends and strangers alike who’ve never questioned my word on dealing with harassment. At events like this, I’m inundated with the best people in the world. Every time I give a talk, I meet so many amazing wonderful people, while usually the online bullies are too frightened to talk to me. And a few organisation leaders have been fantastic.”
When you read these extracts in context, you can see that TF has, I assume inadvertently, seriously misrepresented what Rebecca was saying. He has conflated three different incidents, one about an online death threat, one about a stalker, and one about a conference, into an edited narrative that seems to be completely about conferences.
- TF said that Rebecca and others are saying that they were “literally putting their lives on the line merely by turning up” at conferences, when in fact Rebecca was referring to a death threat that she received that had nothing to do with conferences.
- TF said that Rebecca and others were ‘going from conference to conference telling people each time’ that their lives were on the line, when in fact there is no evidence of anybody saying that at even one conference, never mind at many conferences.
- TF said that Rebecca and others were saying that the sexual harassment at conferences ‘was so dangerous that they had to go around in pairs’, when in fact Rebecca said that about one conference where they had concerns about a specific person.
- TF implied that Rebecca was saying that she couldn’t trust the police in the context of conferences, when she in fact she was referring to something unrelated to conferences.
- TF quoted Rebecca as listing people she said she couldn’t trust, without including her follow-up line of ‘There have been exceptions though,’ and her far longer list of people that she could trust and who she found very supportive.
- If TF had shown more representative extracts from Rebecca’s speech, he would not have so seriously misrepresented what she was saying. I assume that the reason he did not do this was that he did not have video of the full speech available, as if he had, I assume he would have treated her more fairly.
As an aside, there is nothing unusual about women – or indeed men – instituting a buddy system, for either protection or peace of mind, in any situation where they would feel more comfortable with a friend than alone. My late wife worked in the Irish Parliament, among other places, where she and her work colleagues would do just this when they knew they were likely to be in the presence of certain individuals.
5. Personal attack on PZ Myers
Thunderf00t then attacks PZ Myers as:
“those who suggest, with a straight face, that there is actually an active debate in the secular community at the moment as to whether the women are folk toys and eye candy for privileged white men or are equal colleagues. Yes, apparently the debate is taking place online in exactly those binary terms with no other positions available.You see, PZ Myers said so.”
Which he illustrates with video of PZ saying:
“For instance, the Internet community of atheists is racked with these paroxysms of argument over, of all things, the status of women. We’re trying to decide whether women are fuck toys and eye candy for the privileged white men, or whether we are colleagues together in this movement. And I would have said some time ago: all that’s easy, that’s settled, we know the answer is that they are equal partners in this effort. But surprisingly, that debate is going on on the Internet right now. I guess misogyny is not the sole prerogative of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. There are also some atheists that feel this way.”
TF then says:
“Look I don’t know whose bright idea it was to get these guys to talk at critical thinking type conferences, but what he is saying here is so outrageously detached from reality. It’s not even a strawman. It simply bullshit. It’s an outrageous fiction, told to conjure up this bogeyman that there is a great faction of the secular community that argues that women are fuck toys and eye candy for privileged white men. Okay maybe that’s unfair. Maybe there’s a tiny fraction that think that women are fuck toys and eye candy for privileged white men.”
And he humorously illustrates this with a photograph of PZ being kissed by two women.
So let’s examine TF’s personal attack on PZ.
Firstly, PZ was clearly not suggesting that this debate was taking place in those literal terms. He was using the oratorical device of hyberpole, just as he was when he said elsewhere in that same speech:
“Twenty years ago, atheism was mainly cranky old white men arguing about the Bible, then ten years ago we advanced to cranky middle aged white men griping about religion but also talking a lot about science…”
“You could construct an interesting predictive model of how the world works based on assuming that Harry Potter is true…”
“If I believed Jesus was returning, I would be stocking up with timber and nails, because it took care of him last time…”
I doubt if there was a single person at that conference, including TF at the time, that interpreted any of these phrases literally, just as none of TF’s viewers will interpret him literally when he says elsewhere in his video that some people are spanners and muppets.
Secondly, PZ was not suggesting that that there is ‘a great faction’ of the secular community that is opposed to treating women equally. Indeed, his wider point was that the atheist community as a whole does in fact fight for equality for all. As with his selective quotations from Rebecca Watson’s speech, he did not include this part of PZ’s speech:
“Anyone acquainted with the history of atheism and feminism knows that they have often gone arm in arm anyway, because atheism is a philosophy of liberation and religion has so often been a tool of oppression. What I’ve seen over and over again in the past decades is that atheist groups find common cause on the right side of history, fighting for equality and justice for all oppressed groups.
My own atheist communities at home in Minnesota are also active in the fight for gay marriage equality. Why? Because, when you strip away the bogus religious rationalisations, there is no argument to be made against it. And humanist values for respect and autonomy simply cry out that this injustice cannot stand.
It isn’t science that tells us that we should fight for equality, although it does inform us that we are all one people. It’s something deeper, a sense of empathy, a loathing of unfairness, that fuels this cause. And I think we should embrace it. It represents the universality of atheism.”
Thirdly, I am puzzled that TF is now quoting from this particular speech in order to discredit PZ. This speech took place at last year’s European Atheist Conference in Cologne in Germany. During the breaks in that conference, TF and I and PZ and others spent time happily socializing in the beer garden of the hotel without TF raising any concerns about the content of PZ’s speech. Whatever may have happened between then and now does not change the content, or the meaning of the content, of what PZ said in Cologne.
6. Attack on the Skepticon harassment policy
TF then attacks the Skepticon harassment policy:
“Well now, thanks to the scare tactics and bogeyman that these toxic parasites have conjured up, we now have conferences with harassment policies that look like this: Additionally, exhibitors in the expo hall, sponsor or vendor booths, or similar activities are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.”
He uses this to segue into two more personal attacks. He says:
“What, you mean creating a sexualized environment like this? Or maybe like this?”
TF then shows a video sequence of PZ, on stage in Skepticon 3 in 2010, repeatedly telling a woman that if she wins a card game, that he will have sex with her later. He and the woman and the audience are all laughing.
As with other examples, TF has edited this to show it in the worst possible light. The missing context is that PZ was using a game of poker as an analogue for evolution, and he was humorously describing forfeits for losing, included chasing as squirrels for a bag of nuts, or him killing and eating her, or them having sex. TF edited out PZ saying “By the way, that last joke, if you are doing this in a classroom, don’t use it.” He also edited out the woman jokingly asking PZ for his hotel room key.
On balance, I agree with TF about this criticism, although ironically I doubt that TF agrees with it himself. I have no problem in principle with sexual dialogue on stage at conferences. In my opinion, given the context in this case of a presenter talking on stage with a volunteer from the audience who he did not know, these comments were inappropriate, and PZ should not have made them. He might not do the same today.
TF then shows a photo of somebody putting a banknote down Rebecca Watson’s top. On the face of it, there is nothing inappropriate about this picture. It seems consensual, light-hearted and private. If I am mistaken in that interpretation, then TF has a point.
TF then says:
“That’s right, the harassment policy is now venturing into telling people what they can and cannot wear at conferences. Sorry girls, dresses, jewellery, make-up, that’s creating a sexualized environment that promotes gender stereotypes, gender traitors and sister punishers diminishing and minimising the experience that their fellow women have suffered at the hands of the patriarchy. I think of the words those who want to protect you from this harassment that you are not even aware of would use. Seriously, who would pay money to go to a convention like this? I mean, the time away from your job, the travel costs, the hotel costs, the conference costs, simply to be judged by some highly strong and extremely hypocritical professional victims as to whether their clothes constitute creating a sexualised environment and therefore fall under the harassment policy.”
TF seems to be imagining a problem here. He seems to be misrepresenting the harassment policy that he is selectively quoting from. The quote that he uses refers only to the dress code for the booth staff of exhibitors, sponsors or vendors in the Expo Hall. The harassment policy says nothing about any dress code for speakers or participants at the conference.
It describes harassment as follows:
“Harassment includes offensive verbal comments [related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religious identity], deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.”
With regard to sexuality, it says:
“While Skepticon does encourage an environment of sex positivity where sex and sexuality are discussed, we will make every effort to make our convention attendees as comfortable as possible.’
You can read the entire policy here.
But the detail of specific harassment policies is not the central issue. Whatever about the detail that is included, it should not be controversial in principle for event organisers to have policies to prevent participants being harassed. I would go further, and suggest that harassment policies should be one part of a wider policy aimed at helping participants to positively enjoy their time at the conference.
7. The meanings of the word atheism
Thunderf00t then moves on to the definition of words. He says:
“But the poisoning doesn’t end there. These spanners actually wants to redefine what words mean. You know, like atheism used to mean just not accepting that there was a God or gods. Well, no it means this:”
He then shows a video of PZ showing a slide and saying:
“And when we use science, it answers problems. It resolves questions for us. We should do more of that, by the way. See now, I propose this: atheism is the radical notion that we should live our lives by the principle of reason and evidence – that is, by science.”
TF then says:
“And, of course, those rational goals are phrased in exactly the same radical notion language that constitutes the false strawman dichotomy that lies at the heart of his feminist dogma.”
Putting aside the irony of calling people spanners in the same sentence that is complaining about the changing meanings of words, there is nothing unusual in seeing the meanings of words evolve over time. The meanings of words are determined by how people use them as tools of communication, and dictionaries attempt to retrospectively record the evolving meanings.
As an observation, not as a prescription, the word atheism has more than one meaning, and those meanings have changed over time. It used to mean immoral people who rejected the established gods of their societies, and it now mostly has more neutral meanings, that include believing there are no gods and not believing there are gods.
In this slide, PZ was referring not to the philosophical position of atheism, but to the evolution of the atheist secular community that has arisen from New Atheism. And, as Matt Dillahunty has said today, PZ has since removed that slide from this presentation, precisely to avoid the type of confusion that can arise from it being taken out of context.
8. The right to say things that offend people
Thunderf00t then moves on to champion freedom of expression. He says:
“And sure, let muppets like this have their way. And they wouldn’t stop by merely trying to control what you wear. They would extend the right to prohibit you from saying things that people might find offensive.”
TF then shows Esteleth, a guest on PZ Myers Google hangout, saying:
“Your right to do something ends the second it hurts somebody else. You can wave your arms around, but that right stops when you hit somebody in the nose. And that also applies to things like language. I can say all manner of words, you know, I have the right to do that. I have the right to freedom of speech. But my right to do that ends the second that somebody who is affected by those words hears me.”
TF then says.
“For my part, I’ve watched with despair as these ultra-PC professional victims have slowly dripped poison into what used to be a vibrant and exciting conference scene. Such that I really want nothing to do with them. Hell, I’ve finally back to the happy days when I actually knew who none of these people were.”
Behind this, TF shows a screen grab from Matt Dillahunty’s Facebook page, about Matt deciding to block people from discussing Elevatorgate on his Facebook page.
I think this issue goes to the core of TF’s perception of the problem. TF is passionate about freedom of expression, as he should be, and he is concerned that this important right is being eroded in the atheist secular community, for which he blames feminism.
However, I believe that TF is simply mistaken to believe that this right is in fact being eroded within the atheist secular community. Neither of the two examples that he gives reasons to take this very seriously.
- The first example is a comment made by a guest on a Google hangout discussion, expressed from a sense of compassion and empathy for people that are hurt, and not from a desire to repress people. It is not a policy position of any atheist or secular group that I’m aware of.
- The second example is a post by Matt Dillahunty on his Facebook page, where he is perfectly entitled to discuss what he wants with who he wants, but which in any case is expressing a position which Matt has since reversed.
There simply is no evidence that the atheist secular community is opposed to freedom of expression, and there is abundant evidence to suggest the opposite. Atheist bodies are to the fore in combating blasphemy laws and apostasy laws around the world, particularly in Islamic states where people are killed or imprisoned for expressing their beliefs.
At the world atheist convention in Dublin in 2011, delegates adopted the Dublin Declaration on Secularism which began with the following clauses:
1. Personal Freedoms
(a) Freedom of conscience, religion and belief are private and unlimited. Freedom to practice religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights and freedoms of others.
(b) All people should be free to participate equally in the democratic process.
(c) Freedom of expression should be limited only by the need to respect the rights and freedoms of others. There should be no right ‘not to be offended’ in law. All blasphemy laws, whether explicit or implicit, should be repealed and should not be enacted.
What TF might be confused about is the distinction between the right of citizens to not have their freedom of expression in the public space restricted by governments, and the right of citizens to determine what is and is not discussed on platforms that they themselves create.
You have the right within the law to say what you want, but you do not have the right to insist that other people must publish what you want to say, or must give you a platform to say what you want to say. Some rights are absolute, and others are qualified and must be negotiated alongside competing rights.
As a general observation, the atheist secular movement is at the forefront of defending the right to freedom of expression, and I see nothing to cause me to fear that this is likely to change.
9. Personal attack on Melody Hensley
Thunderf00t then attacks Melody Hensley:
“Look, let me make this simple. I just got back from an experiment where I was surrounded by sane, rational, capable, able, intelligent people. And then you come back to the secular community, where you have people like Melody Hensley, the Executive Director of the Center For Inquiry in DC going creationist style ban happy on people who haven’t even mentioned her name yet, because they might say something bad about her someday.
And starting flagging campaigns against videos critical of her. Oh, and would you believe it, she labels herself a feminist. It’s just sickening to see someone from the Center For Inquiry embraced with such relish these silencing tactics which we have seen creationist use here on YouTube for years to protect their budget arguments from criticism. I mean, really an Executive Director from the Center For Inquiry running a flagging campaign. Shit, these people would give Scientology a run for their money.”
So let’s examine TF’s personal attack on Melody.
Who did she ban from where? She banned nobody from anywhere. She blocked people from following her on twitter, who were also following the Elevatorgate twitter account, which was posting tweets harassing her. That seems like a prudent and sane thing to do. She did not infringe on anybody’s right to freedom of expression.
Melody then asked her friends on Facebook to flag as ‘bullying’ a video about her, because she was tired of dealing with constant online harassment and bullying. What did this video say about her? It was titled ‘Melodramatic Melody’ and the description began
‘Melody Hensley is executive director of CFI in DC, and has been acting like a total douchebag feminist this past week.’
Some of the content included:
“Yours truly, who had never even given a shit about this little twat until today… had she not made it known that she was doing this mass blocking on twitter, people would have gone about their business of not giving a fuck about her at all… The simple fact is she has now stirred the pot and has painted a large bull’s-eye on her ass… She doesn’t know how twitter works, but that’s understandable seeing as how twitter is a bit more complicated than a cappuccino machine… as for Melodramatic Melody, well, she’s off to stick her flag on the top of Mount moaning victim. Don’t worry though, it’s more of a small hill than a mountain, because we all know that feminists don’t farewell when faced with real challenges when trying to get to the top…”
This hate-filled video was published by a woman calling herself the Woolly Bumblebee. The video ends by seeking financial support for a website called a Voice for Boys, which in turn has a link to a website called A Voice for Men, which is so misogynistic a website that it reads like dark parody, and which is currently featuring Thunderf00t’s video which we are discussing here.
Flagging this ‘Melodramatic Melody’ video seems a prudent and sane thing to do. Flagging is an entirely appropriate facility put in place by YouTube to govern how YouTube oversees the privilege that it gives to people to post videos for free on its website. If you want to start your own video website without flagging facilities, you can do so. If you want to use YouTube’s video service to publish your videos, you have to abide by the rules that YouTube determine. Freedom of expression does not mean that you control the use of other people’s communication platforms.
TF concludes this section by adding another attack on PZ Myers for disabling ratings and comments on his YouTube videos, describing this as a ‘creationist and pseudoscientist tactic’. But again, PZ is merely using one of the facilities that YouTube offers to its users. To repeat: If you want to start your own video website without the facility to disable comments, you can do so. If you want to use YouTube’s video service to publish your videos, you have to abide by the rules that YouTube determine.
10. My response to TF’s requests
Thunderf00t concludes with a call to conference organisers and leaders of secular groups:
“Seriously, those who organise conferences, get a grip. You do not have to appease the request of every PC whiner. The secular community can achieve great things, but it will never achieve anything while it has poison like this being dripped into its heart. Please forward this video to leaders of secular groups who you think need to hear this message.”
Thunderf00t, I’ll give you a straight answer. As an organiser of conferences and as chairperson of Atheist Ireland, I will oppose any attempts to ostracize the people you name, and I will also oppose any attempts to ostracize people like you who disagree with them.
Seriously, please rethink your approach to these issues. What you are doing is not helpful. If you want to support the atheist secular community, please consider different priorities than trying to attack and ostracize people with whom you disagree.
Please consider channeling your passion for freedom of expression into our fight for the right of people to express their secular beliefs without being beaten or jailed or killed for blasphemy, instead of fighting for the imaginary right of the Wooly Bumblebee to call Melody Hensley a twat on YouTube without having her video flagged.
You are of course free to set your own priorities, and I have honestly engaged with the points that you have made in this video. But I suspect that you will find little traction in your approach of reigniting an inflammatory issue that many of us are trying to resolve constructively by creating communities that are inclusive, caring and supportive.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Slow clap.