Blocking on Twitter and other crazy concepts
Update #2! Tony has now changed the title of the blogpost to “Rebecca Watson (The Skepchick): a liar?”
Update! Rebecca Watson has tweeted this
I’d like to sincerely apologize to the man-children I’ve blocked. That first guy called me a “feminazi,” but maybe not a “cunt.” Sooo sorry.
— Rebecca the Undead (@rebeccawatson) June 27, 2012
No seriously, a guy complained that I misrepresented him. “I’d NEVER use the word cunt, you feminazi!” Duly corrected. LOL
— Rebecca the Undead (@rebeccawatson) June 27, 2012
There’s been an awful lot of discussion on Twitter with the skeptical/atheist communities recently, mainly about calls for equality and respect.
Tony Ryan, AKA the CoffeeLovingSkeptic has made it clear in many blogs and tweets that he dislikes Rebecca Watson. He’s one of the people, along with others in his particular group of friends, who seems to disagree with Rebecca Watson because she’s Rebecca Watson. In the past, he’s also written posts on his Facebook page seemingly directed at my friend Hayley Stevens because she’s a rational ghost hunter. He seems to believe that because he’s not particularly interested in a topic of skepticism, e.g. ghosts and psychics, that they’re not important. All in all, I don’t like the fellow because of his opinions and how he comes across. That’s not the main focus of this blog though.
Along with another person called Tom Williamson, The Skeptic Canary, who I held a lot of respect for before I realised he was *also* one of the people who dislikes what Rebecca Watson says because she’s Rebecca Watson.
They’ve both recently become embroiled in an argument with Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers via Twitter. Here’s what happened (as far as I can tell):
Tony realised that PZ Myers had blocked him on Twitter. He tweeted about this. Tom noticed and tweeted to PZ to ask him why. PZ said he didn’t know that he had. This wasn’t good enough for Tom who said “evidence suggests you are blocking” along with a screen capture proving PZ had blocked Tony.
Rebecca Watson then tweeted this to PZ:
@pzmyers That’s the guy I blocked for calling me a cunt. He emailed begging me to unblock, then called me a cunt again when I didn’t. Ha ha
— Rebecca Watson (@rebeccawatson) June 26, 2012
This tweet started a shitstorm about whether Tony had called Rebecca a cunt or not. Whatever the case, at least most of the tweet was true. Rebecca had indeed blocked Tony on Twitter. Tony later wrote a blog about it, which I will come to later.
PZ took a look at Tony’s blog and said it wasn’t a mistake because Tony’s an ass. He quite rightly them pointed out that he shouldn’t be expected to track and remember every asshole on Twitter. I certainly don’t remember most of the people I’ve blocked. That’s part of the reason I’ve blocked them – to block and forget they exist.
Tony and Tom seem to have some weird idea that blocking someone on Twitter is bad and constitutes an invasion to their freedom of speech, and this should only be done in the most extreme circumstances. That’s absolute bullshit. Blocking someone on Twitter only stops you seeing their tweets. It doesn’t stop them composing tweets. You can block someone for any reason you want to as well. There are no wrong reasons for blocking someone.
Someone’s a spambot? Block them!
Someone’s annoying you? Block them!
Someone’s offended you? Block them!
Someone spends a rather large portion of their time criticising things you say, seemingly because you said them? Block them!
The block feature is not just there to use as a ‘last resort’.
I think PZ put it well in these tweets.
.@skepticCanary What a sense of entitlement. I am not obligated to read you or @tpryan007. Bye!
— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) June 26, 2012
For the last time, YOU’RE AN ASS IF YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT WHY I BLOCK SOMEONE. I can block you ’cause my nose itches, if I want.
— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) June 27, 2012
It’s simply astounding what a sense of entitlement some people have. I especially get to block you for that arrogance.
— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) June 27, 2012
Now, back to Rebecca Watson for a minute.
Tony posted his email conversation with Rebecca on his blog. The post has the title “Rebecca Watson (The Skepchick): deluded or intentionally a liar?“
According to the screenshots, he sent an email saying:
Hi. I know this may be a bit odd sounding, but I (don’t know when) have been blocked on twitter by Rebecca Watson. I’d appreciate a second look at this, as I would like to follow her. I’m @tpryan007
I’m sure I must have said something insensitive in the past, but I’m not a troll, a bot, or a spammer!
Thanks.
This suggests to me that he seems to think these are the only real suitable reasons for blocking someone.
Anyway, Rebecca followed up with this bitingly sarcastic email:
I took a second look and you’re right, it was a mistake! I’ll fix that immediately!
Love
Rebecca
PS: OH WAIT A SECONDhttp://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1246
”I’m glad the skepchicks (ironic name in the circumstances, with an even more ironic calendar) aren’t convincing many to miss out on Dawkins’ brilliance.
I got sucked into the furore and wrote a couple of blogs on the matter (http://tonyryan.org.uk/?p=602 andhttp://tonyryan.org.uk/?p=582 ) , but I shan’t be doing any more! Time to move on to the real issues!”
http://tonyryan.org.uk/?p=602
“Let’s reclaim the elevator! AKA The Skepchick Delusion.”
“The only press Rebecca Watson should be getting right now is how ridiculous she’s become. A parody of a rational thinker.”
http://es.favstar.fm/users/TPRyan007/status/90781893724868608
None of the Skepchicks have shown a single shred of rationality or objective thinking lately. The irony is painful
http://es.favstar.fm/users/TPRyan007/status/90856161074626561
TPRyan007: RT @margotriphagen: RT @pinkearmuffs: RT @margotriphagen However, unlike Rebecca Watson, when I hit on my wife she didn’t call me a misogynist.
https://profiles.google.com/112922044656933946170/buzz/BCUQfq9s5tZ
Note: You can replace the tonyryan.org.uk in the domain names mentioned with coffeelovingskeptic.com and access those blog posts.
Tony’s response in which he sounds surprised that she won’t unblock him follows like this:
I didn’t say I agreed with you on everything, especially on Dawkins, but being blocked by you on twitter and other members of the Skepchicks for disagreeing seemed to go against every facet of critical thought I was an advocate of:
Hence, “None of the Skepchicks have shown a single shred of rationality or objective thinking lately. The irony is painful”
Oh well. I asked. Thank you for at least taking the time to respond.
That’s where the email thread apparently finishes. I don’t know if there was more communication after that, but a search through his Twitter feed didn’t reveal any tweets where he called Rebecca a cunt. I don’t know if he did or didn’t call her a cunt. If he didn’t, to be fair to him, Rebecca should at least acknowledge this. I’m assuming this isn’t where this particular discussion will end, given how obsessive some of Rebecca Watson’s critics are.
He still seems surprised as of the latest email that Rebecca and the other Skepchicks have blocked him.
After reading Rebecca’s email, I’m not.
If you talk and write about someone in a patronising manner, or constantly sneer at them and make snide comments, it’s not surprising they want nothing to do with you and will block you. You have no right to expect someone to pay attention to you – especially when you’d been nothing but an arsehole towards them.
So, something to leave you with – if you don’t want people to block you on Twitter, perhaps try not being a dick to them in the first place.
You make a fair point, Rhys, and I accept that I have been a dick. To RW, Hayley, and others. I am not making excuses for that.
If I disagree with someone, it’s because of what they either say or do, not because of their gender. There are many things I agree with you about, and many I don’t. None of those are based on you as a person, simply your opinions/actions/thoughts etc…
I know I cannot rectify the situations I have been involved in, but I do at least reserve the right to defend myself when necessary.
Anyone can block me for any reason. That’s a fact. I did ask RW to unblock me, as I wanted to follow her because she does say things of interest to me as a skeptic. She refused. That’s her right, and I accept it. PZ blocked me too, and that’s his right, and I understand why he did, especially as he’s a friend of RW.
However, the simple fact is, I am not, and have never, someone who will call a woman a ‘c**t’ (or slag, slut, bitch, *fill in the gap*). Especially someone like RW who is a feminist activist and these sorts of phrases hold a stronger meaning when I know what she believes in.
That’s all I really wanted acknowledged.
Below this line, I’m just going to copy and paste my comment from another forum to save my typing fingers:
“Have I been outspoken against Rebecca Watson’s behaviour online, specifically following her blog “The Privilege Delusion” against Dawkins. Yes.
Is that because she’s female, no, but I also don’t pretend to know what it’s like to be a woman who someone asks ‘for coffee’. However, I also deal with women suffering abuse/threats/physical violence on a daily basis so I feel as though I have ‘some’ objective basis for thinking she is OTT.
That being said, disagreeing with a feminist such as her has made the target of abuse many times. I fully support, and actively encourage, the activism in women’s rights of people like Namazie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and more local charities here in the South West. I do not support most of the things Watson has said. This is not sexist, it’s just ‘Watson-ist’ (if you must apply a label).
In this situation, a lie was told, I responded with the truth, some people got upset, and arguments occurred.
PZ has misinterpreted the situation to be about him blocking me. It wasn’t. It was about what Watson specifically said. PZ thinks she retracted it. She clearly didn’t, and he either misunderstood that, or wilfully chooses to. He then went too far with his verbals against reasonable people. 99% of whom I don’t know, but thank for their support.
I think this sums it up. It’s nothing to do with ‘entitlement’, or ‘blocking’. It’s a simple case of, essentially, libel.”
Bear in mind that I am giving reasons for my attitude toward RW, not an ‘excuse’ as sometimes there isn’t one.
I fully respect your right to say what you have, and it’s mostly fair, so I hope you allow this comment through to say what I have to on the subject.
This is something I spoke to Tony about in private, funnily enough. I took from the email he sent to Rebecca about being blocked that he didn’t understand how the way he wrote about her was probably perceived as negative. Especially using stupid graphics like this:
http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/279228_2311656951357_1247390027_32771880_7624207_o-1.jpg
from here: http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=602
As far as I’m aware the issue has been Tony wanting to defend his character and have it corrected that he didn’t call her a cunt. Maybe I’m very wrong but I haven’t seen him making a fuss about being blocked, that isn’t what this is about as far as I’m concerned. Everyone is entitled to block who they want, and sure he emailed seeing if they’d consider unblocking him, but defaming someone’s character, esp to thousands and thousands of followers, and not correcting it when faced with the evidence isn’t right. No one is entitled to be followed or liked, but he has every right to be upset about the incorrect accusations and he’s not asking anything most of us wouldn’t, and politely. He could be the biggest douche in the world but that doesn’t make it ok to say whatever you want about him when it’s blatantly untrue. I don’t know if I’ve ever agreed with anything he’s said, but he’s correct and she isn’t, simple as that. It’s her choice to correct/apologise but refusing only makes him the bigger person in this instance. Ok, 2 cents spent…
I really don’t need (and certainly don’t expect) an apology.
Simply removing the tweet would be nice. It’s still there.
I’d be happy for the whole furore to go away completely. I don’t want the attention, especially such negative attention, in any circumstance.
Sorry Rhys, but you have misrepresented me here
“Along with another person called Tom Williamson, The Skeptic Canary, who I held a lot of respect for before I realised he was *also* one of the people who dislikes what Rebecca Watson says because she’s Rebecca Watson.”
I don’t really want to say what’s wrong with this, because it will only contribute to more skeptidrama. Needless to say I refute it.
“Tony and Tom seem to have some weird idea that blocking someone on Twitter is bad and constitutes an invasion to their freedom of speech, and this should only be done in the most extreme circumstances.”
I didn’t say that, and I’d love to know why you think I did. That is not what I think. People can block who they like. I merely asked PZ why he blocked Tony, because I was interested. Is there something wrong with that?
I written about what I believe to be the underlying and serious issue here. It’s not about blocking.
http://www.skepticcanary.com/2012/06/27/on-the-bizarre-arrogance-and-willful-ignorance-of-pz-myers/
Refute it all you like – I’m just calling it how it comes across. You’ve repeatedly been very publicly critical of Rebecca Watson. It comes across as if you don’t like her and therefore anything she says it wrong. Skepidrama is already happening. I really doubt you explaining how you refute it will add to that much, if at all.
RE: Blocking. That’s odd. I’ve seen many discussions involving you talking about how blocking is bad. You’ve tweeted recently “Seriously, why block? Why not just ignore?”. You told PZ that it was unfair to block someone without reason – missing the point that one doesn’t have the right to expect someone to pay attention to their tweets in the first place.
PZ’s already said the “cunt” comment doesn’t matter to him. You came to him about blocking Tony. That’s what he was interested in, not the “cunt” comment.
It matters to Tony. I get that. If he didn’t call Rebecca a cunt, she should acknowledge that – as should PZ. I’m not
Am I not allowed to be publicly critical of someone if I think they are worthy of criticism? I expect to be criticized myself, and have civil and constructive conversations about it. That’s how you learn.
Sure you do. I’m just saying, the way you do it makes it look more like a personal attack on her.
He substantiates his criticism with evidence, what more do you want? Watson, on the other hand, is almost pathologically incapable of doing the same. She simply lies and lies, then lies some more.
BTW, not that it’s even relevant to the main issue — that Watson lied AGAIN, and refused to retract the lie once confronted with the evidence AGAIN — but blocking is not the same as not following someone back. Blocking just makes it more difficult for the blocked person to read your tweets, while keeping tweets @-mentioning you by the blocked person off your timeline, so you’re then blissfully unaware of what’s being said about you, while everyone else can still read it. Unless you do a search for your name, then you can read them too. However, since Twitter allows and encourages multiple accounts, it’s really just another penis bird. PZ and Watson simply don’t understand how Twitter works, adding a nice sprinkling of stupidity to all their lying and attempts to obfuscate the underlying issues.
She corrected the mistake that Tony called her a “cunt” and had instead called her a “feminazi”.
A very quick search on his blog will tell you that.
A mistake ≠ a lie. She’s not lying.
Believe it or not, I know how blocking works on twitter. You can’t see their tweets, they can’t see your mentions or timeline unless they log out.
There’s a HUGE difference between being critical of someone, and being dismissive of them. You are dismissive of Rebecca and others on a regular basis.
Need I remind you of your ridiculous ‘evidence, please?’ post over on Shethought? If you think you’re being criticial of someone you need to wake up, because that isn’t how you criticise people.
You also accuse me regularly of never thinking I am wrong, and not being able to accept criticism from others. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Tom, one reason some of us concluded that you think blocking is inherently wrong is this tweet of yours from last night:
“Is it just me or has PZ Myers gone a bit nuts and started blocking everyone who disagrees with him?”
And:
“real shame. Isn’t silencing people who disagree with you the definition of a closed mind?”
And:
“@pzmyers OK then, when was @TPRyan007 being obnoxious? Seems pretty unfair to me to block someone without a reason.”
You and Tony are always saying stuff like “I was merely askin” and then you paint yourselves as innocent victims. If you weren’t both such petty whingers this situation would never have arisen.
Remember that the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion. Then try to think of the last time that Rebecca Watson has provided any actual evidence for the assertions she makes, especially when attacking and criticizing others. If, in addition to her lies, this doesn’t make her worthy of criticism as a skeptic, I don’t know what would.
Also, this is irrelevant, but if you understood physics, you wouldn’t be looking for ghosts.
Rhys: “Refute it all you like – I’m just calling it how it comes across. ”
Ah, that is probably why you have got the wrong end of the stick, and not at all surprising since that is the view that PZ pushed as soon as he realised his mistake. Time to get your famed skeptical hat on and do a little investigating of the facts.
PZ is shouting away about people getting angry over being blocked. A complete smokescreen. The issue was about an accusation aimed at Tony that he used a certain word to describe Rebecca Watson. Turns out she was wrong. Maybe Tony has said/written negative things about Rebecca, and Rebecca and Myers are entitled to block him in that respect. But that doesn’t deal with the false allegation.
I agree that the melodrama is OTT, but then again, this is Skepchick we are talking about, so nothing is ever straight forward. Rebecca could have removed the offending tweet, explained it, or admitted she made a mistake. Instead, it looks like she (with the help of Myers) is trying to cover it up.
Ironically, it is not a mistake worth trying to cover up. Myers and Watson are usually so pro “calling out names”, “calling out bad behaviour”, etc. except when it comes to themselves.
Hiya,
You may have missed Rebecca posting a retraction and point out that it wasn’t ‘cunt’ she was called, but ‘feminazi’. You know who confusing it can get…
Hayley:
I have missed that ‘retraction’, but that suggests her original allegation was wrong.
She hasn’t posted a retraction, she’s continuing the smokescreen.
You’re now guilty of misrepresentation. Irrespective of how loathsome you think I am.
She specifically talks about our email conversation where she states I “called her a cunt, begged her to unblock me, then called her a cunt when refused”. She remembers the email specifically because she remembers the penis picture she sent as part of it. This was a complete lie, as I’ve shown.
Is feminaziism an appropriate term? No, it’s ridiculous, but I’m not deleting it a year later as it’s in the past so I can’t change what I said. However, she blatantly lied. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I happily hold my hands up and admit my mistake. It’s there for all to see. I’m not proud of it. The difference here is, I haven’t lied about anything, anyone, or been too arrogant to admit it.
Nobody is suggesting you are? I’m not misrepresenting you at all. You called her a feminazi on a blog and not in an email. Big deal. You still made that insult, and were clueless about why she blocked you afterwards. Hilarious.
She didn’t lie though. She just got the specifics mixed up.
Given how much abuse-dressed-as-criticism about her there is out there, it’s no wonder she’d get the two gendered insults mixed up. She’s said it to the very same audience, like you asked her to. She’s corrected her mistake.
But the “feminazi” comment was a year ago. How did she confuse that with the word “cunt”, and why would she all of a sudden remember something said a year ago, and then decide to block somebody on Twitter? Really does sound like she is making it up.
C’mon Rhys, get skeptical and live up to that reputation of yours. The ‘retraction’ from Rebecca is what they frequently call a “notpology”.
In fact, given the problems of the clarification, it smells, looks, and sounds like a bad cover up. Here’s what I think – Tony never used that word, and the only avenue left for Becky (apart from owning up) was to trawl through her messages to A YEAR AGO, and then “retroactively” use this to justify her lie.
I don’t think she’s even thought that hard about it.
She lied, ignored it for a while, then jumped on PZ’s misdirection about ‘blocking people), then someone pointed out the (stupid) word ‘feminaziism’ in a blog, and hey presto, she has a get out of jail card.
If only she hadn’t been so specific with the details of the emails that it might not be so obvious that she does remember the interaction, and she has lied clearly about it and attributed to me a completely false, damaging, accusation. It’s made it worse, as now it’s carrying on, when it could so easily have just dropped dead.
Ever consider that’s becauuse maybe, just maybe, she doesn’t *want* to apologise? She’s got nothing to apologise for. She’s corrected herself.
How could you mix them up? Hmm, maybe because they’re both gender-based insults.
It’s pretty clear that she wasn’t just talking about the emails when she mentioned being called a cunt. She also linked directly to the post where he called a feminazi.
She’s not retroactively done anything. The link was in the response from her.
What you’re doing here is moving the goalposts.
You ask her to retract and correct herself. She does it. You’re still not happy.
OK. She’s retracted.
That’s fine with me.
Can we move on?
I have no issue with anyone here. I think today’s ‘drama’ has gone on long enough. No doubt there will be some others soon enough.
Actually, no. The truth is the truth
A year ago I used the term feminaziism in a blogpost. This was obviously stupid, and I admit it. But, it’s a year old, it’s on the net, it’d be pointless deleting that.
She has not retracted. She has diverted. She did lie about the email exchange. She has shown that she remembers the email exchange by quoting the penisbird etc… and that I asked to be unblocked and so on… Her lie was that I (TWICE) called her a ‘Cunt’ during this specific email exchange. The evidence is clear, and on the balance of probabilities would certainly fall in my favour. Simple.
Lies are lies and truths are truths. I may have offended her (and others) with my post about feminism and atheism, but the fact is now that she is trying to divert people away from the fact she lied, and this lie was perpetuated by PZ MYers to a total of 125,000 people plus. A lie is bad enough, but one such as she made is very much deserving of condemnation as much as I have ever been.
CLS, I think Rhys hit the nail on the head – she corrected it, but now you are demanding that that isn’t enough. RW doesn’t have to answer to your demands, she is perfectly entitle to block you or your friends with or without reason.
You seem to want to perpetuate the atmosphere that isn’t welcoming to half the population, provide excuses to those who act in an inappropriate manner and generally enable sexist behaviour and harassment to continue.
So don’t be surprised if you get a slightly exasperated response from those who have kept out of the debate until now (hoping people would be able to see the plank in their own eyes before critising others etc)
Dalradian, as you can see, I was earlier happy to accept her (false) retraction. But, continuing nonsense means I’m not. Why? Because she hasn’t retracted. She’s putting one lie on top of another by referring to a different incident altogether.
She remembers our communication. The truth of that set of emails is I was polite, she sent a BirdPenis amongst other things. (Yes, it’s silly, but specific enough to show she remembers). She patently lied about what I said. Simple.
By diverting it she’s actually made it worse.
Tony, you are absolutely right. She has bluffed the “retraction” with a bit of misdirection. I’m shocked to see a simple bit of misdirection has fooled so many “skeptics”.
As you say, not only was that “feminazi” comment (something you admit you regret) a different incident all together, it was a YEAR AGO. I just don’t believe Rebecca suddenly remembered that comment, and though, ah, I’m going to block that person. Not only that, but she then forgets what the insult was that she suddenly just remembered a day ago. Then clumsily uses the wrong ‘insult’.
If it was anybody else other than Watson and Myers involved, folk like Rhys would be acting a lot more skeptically. I guess it is the Myers effect – anybody voicing slight disagreement with him is currently being “outed” on Twitter, etc.
Sadly, that seems to be the case.
She’s not only just blocked him.
Look at when the emails were dated. From March. That was at least when Tony asked to be unblocked. It’d probably been some time before that. And she’d linked to the post where Tony called her a feminazi.
And no, my involvement has absolutely nothing to do with it being PZ or Rebecca involved. If I disagreed or didn’t feel strongly about this, do you really think I’d be getting involved by writing a blogpost about it?!
It appears from the facts that Rebecca Watson has accused ‘Tony Ryan’ of calling her a ‘cunt’. He has denied the allegation. She has then repeated the allegation, aggravating it, and treated it as an something suitable for humour. [I realise it is difficult to be fine and accurate using Twitter, but that is not a retraction.] Tony Ryan admits that on a previous occasion, he called her a ‘Feminazi’. This has also been repeated.
It also appears that the cross-allegations are now becoming widely disseminated throughout the United Kingdom. Of course, it is possible that the comments going back and forth between the two constitute mere ‘rixa’ (‘vulgar abuse’), and thus do not have injurious effects on reputation. However, there has been a concerted attempt of late by many persons — including parties to this conflict — to have what historically amounted to mere rixa taken more seriously.
If the alleged statements are to be viewed more seriously, it is possible, if they widen and are false, that Tony Ryan (if that is his real name) will be able to prove damage to his reputation in English or Scots law (on this point, Scots law and English law are almost identical), allowing him to raise an action/bring suit in either Edinburgh or London.
If the allegation directed at ‘Tony Ryan’ is indeed false then a genuine retraction from Rebecca Watson is recommended. In response, and afterwards, an apology for the slur ‘feminazi’ should be offered, if only because it is juvenile.
I realise many skeptics (with good reason) dislike Britain’s law in this area. And not only skeptics, others, too: all three major parties are committed to reforming it (partly as a result of the Simon Singh case). However, that process will take some time and may undergo serious modification before eventual enactment. The reforms currently under consideration also only affect the law in England and Wales, not Scotland. There are no plans to change Scots law in this area. Until then, the law is as it is, not as we would like it to be, and I recommend everyone modify their behaviour accordingly.
It looks like Tony has already apologized multiple times and in multiple places for his use of the word “feminazi[ism]” about a year ago. That statement was made in a completely different context, and had nothing to do with the email exchange that Watson lied about, while Myers exacerbated and helped spread the lie to a much larger audience, even after being made aware of the falsehood. I think we can also all agree that the use of the term “feminazi” is immature and does not lead to a productive argument, but it is not libelous under American or English law. (Neither is the word “c*nt.)
Frankly, on the facts, I don’t see a problem with bringing a defamation case in most American jurisdictions, either. We have a false statement (made by a public figure about a non-public figure), publication, and probable damage to reputation. The issue, of course would be the extent of that damage, which could include psychological damage, damage to career, etc.
This is not the only defamation case that can be brought against Watson, Myers, Laden, and/or Benson. I would hope that mature adults would not refer to others as “liars” unless they have actual proof that an intentional lie was made and then not retracted. I would also think it unwise to act with intent (or negligence) to damage someone’s reputation by lying or by portraying them in a false light. Just a word to the wise, guys.
Critics of Watson’s conduct and regular character assassinations don’t have as much to worry about. Although I can always be wrong, all I’ve seem is childish name-calling as opposed to actual lies, and she is either a public figure or a limited public figure, so actual malice would need to be shown. Moreover, this controversy functioned to generate ad revenue for her, so damage can’t easily be established, either. I would like to point to Watson bragging about her new Twitter followers as an example of the evidence that she has not, indeed, been damaged by the insults thrown her way. However, threats of rape, violence, or any other illegal activity are never appropriate and can be criminal.
Standard disclaimer: The above is not intended as legal advice, and if you’re in need of such, please consult an attorney who is licensed to practice in your jurisdiction and is familiar with internet defamation law.
If ScepticLawyer is, in fact actually a legal professional and not just a really weird concern troll, then he must, surely, be aware that repeatedly accusing somebody of lying (as several people, including Tony have done) implies intentional deceit and is, consequently, potentially libellous.
It would be somewhat difficult to prove in court that somebody couldn’t possibly have misremembered a single detail of a conversation that took place months ago.
A first Googled definition of Libel is “a published false statement that is damaging to someone’s reputation”
By that definition Rebecca Watson has libeled Tony Ryan. If it was accidental, or misremembered is not relevant to the fact of the libel.
All that is really up for debate is the amount of damage that has been done to TR’s reputation, and whether RW’s subsequent statements are sufficient to clear it up. A final answer to those questions would depend on a libel trial, which (I sincerely hope) is not going to happen.
NB. To the best of my knowledge TR has not mentioned libel – only other people commenting.
I didn’t raise the libel issue, although it definitely was.
I am not, obviously, going down that route.
This is what I have to say on that issue:
http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,42324.msg9244651.html#msg9244651
I’m not talking about this c word business any more.
True, and many of the comments and emails would fall under Malicious Communications (criminal) – although not the ones on this blog I should point out.
Repetition of RW’s statement(s) may also be libellous.
The lack of basic empathy and awareness of human psychology being shown here is pretty instructive of the massive splits in the skeptical community right now.
Rhys’s take seems about right. Rebecca mixed up screennames, then referred obliquely to the fact that she’d made a mistake. Life went on. Or should have.
If it seems unreasonable for Rebecca not to give a shit about issuing a full and legalistic retraction of the mistake, in terms satisfactory to everyone, given the abuse she’s taken over the past year or so, and given that the person she mistakenly accused has written a number of attacks on Rebecca personally during that time, you need to go back to some classes in being a human being.
But instead, there’s this quasi-autistic demand that all of the facts be accepted exactly. And apparently-serious talk of libel? Grow the fuck up and spend a minute thinking about what it’s been like to be Rebecca for the past year.
Frankly, given how she behaves, I care not one iota what it’s like to be her. I care more about the people I meet every day who have it far worse. She did make a false accusation, and is now lying about it. It’s all been recorded, chronologically, as it’s the only way anyone (even people who ought to be rational) will see what’s actually true. Simple fact. If she’d done the right thing then the word libel wouldn’t have been mentioned.
In fact, I’d not really considered it. However, it is a legal position that no one can ignore, and with the perpetuation of Rebecca’s lie, topped up with another lie, spread to over 100,000 people (at least), then she might just need to be held accountable. If not her, then those in this country who think it’s ok to perpetuate it for her, making a bad situation worse for everyone.
Those who need to ‘grow up’ are the commenters on Pharyngula’s blog (I’m not on there at all) as they are completely out of order to people like James and Oranje. If you think I’m bad, then your delicate little mind might explode with what they’ve been saying.
I’ve stopped allowing comments on my blog about it. I’d suggest the same happens here. A ‘discussion’ could easily make it worse. Just let it end.
By whining about Rebecca blocking you, you’ve gained the attention of people who would otherwise not know you exist.
Congratulations! Thousands more people can now see your blog, read it, and realize that you are an asshole. Go you!
How original.
You must feel so proud.
Let’s see, you got the retraction you asked for, and now you’re threatening a lawsuit anyway.
I can’t imagine why people think you’re an entitled ass.
1. No, I didn’t.
2. Yes, entitlement, of course. Did you borrow PZ’s phrase book or buy your own?
Yes, you did. She acknowledged twice that it was someone else who called her a “cunt”.
I don’t care that PZ initiated the use of that word. The shoe fits.
Again, finally.
No, she did not retract. She joked, diverted, hid, then joked some more, before adding a layer of mistruth onto her already false accusation, pretending it was an error, but not really ever saying she made a mistake.
A web of nonsense, which you clearly haven’t seen in its entirety.
This could go back and forth with you and I, but what’s the point?
She said that her accusation against you was misdirected, and that she meant someone else.
That’s a retraction.
That she pointed out other ways in which you were an ass doesn’t mean it wasn’t a retraction.
That she continued to make fun of you doesn’t mean it wasn’t a retraction.
If you wanted a retraction, you got it. You just didn’t get any respect. Your attempt to conflate the two ideas is pathetic goal-post-moving.
You’re right, there might be no point in talking to people who don’t buy your whiny bullshit. It’s up to you to decide not to participate in those conversations.
Just as it’s up to PZ and Rebecca to avoid them, too. I wonder if you might remember that.
I did say ‘finally’ yet you seem to misread my comment as you’ve misread RW. Kudos for effort.
Yes, you did say “finally”. Apparently you think that an adverb without associated verbs or nouns is meaningful. And it was the only time you used the word in this thread, so the “Again” was completely disconnected.
If you’re going to rip on me for not understanding your words, you might want to choose to write in actual meaningful sentences instead of rogue adverbs with missing implied antecedents.
FFS, grow up yourself, CoffeeBoy.
You say “just let it end” only seconds after you repeat the threat of libel actions. Sure, that’s a fine way to demonstrate you just want the whole sequence to end, isn’t it. You’re a liar and a hypocrite.
You’re a self-evidently whiny little twit who thinks – god only knows why – that no one should ever mistake your particular flavor of internet hatred for some other asshole’s particular flavor of internet hatred. And if they do – you’ll make them pay, by god! Oh, it’s not your fault “libel” was mentioned – those mean, mean internet users made you bring it up! You say “it’s a legal position no one can ignore”. What the hell – anyone can ignore it, I’m certainly going to, and if you weren’t a hypocrite, you’d follow your own wish to “let it end” and ignore it yourself.
Remember just last month when you posted that you wanted to worry about real issues? Liar, liar, liar. You don’t want real issues – you want ginned-up internet drama with you as the “star” because it’s the only way your tiny ego can feel important.
I’m thankful I’m an ocean away from the stench of your hypocrisy.
I did say let’s end it, and have not commented further until others cause me to respond. I will continue in that vein.
How convenient of you then to perpetuate the shit-storm on multiple websites (including this one).
When people respond to your inanity, it’s sufficient “cause” for you to lay down your attempt to put it behind you.
Bullshit.
If you want to put it behind you, you have it in your power to do so. If you only offer to set it aside under the condition that the Internet stops making fun of you, then your offer is meaningless.
Others CAUSE you to respond ? You’re kidding, right ? You don’t really think of yourself as a robot with no choice in the matter but to respond whenever some other person pushes the buttons. Really ?
Hmmm, I wonder what else I could CAUSE CoffeeBoy to do. Could I make him jump ? What’s this button do ?
*pushes button*
Is this thing working ?
*push* *push*
CoffeeBoy, you’re a pointless waste of supposedly-human flesh. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself like normal adults do.
Yes, well done, you are pushing.
She seems very proud of herself, actually. She’s become significantly more famous, traveled the world as an expert on feminism (which she learned about by reading an internet blog, it appears), and publicized the situation in every way that she can. She even gets her own handlers, whom she apparently lies to and abuses (evidence is in one of her YouTube videos). I would say it would be quite fun to be her, if you had no conscience and could tolerate a bit of internet trolling, which she obviously can, as can the rest of us.
Problem is, most of us do have a conscience and don’t want to harm anyone, including her. But I can’t say that the desire to hold her accountable for her actions is inappropriate. She has lied about far too many things, far too many times.
Gosh, I must have concocted this website and its partisan postings myself. How clever.
Stop barking.
Who said you concocted this website? You chose this venue to keep digging.
But, please, just misrepresent what I said while ignoring the substance of my comment.
If you want to put it behind you, you have it in your power to do so
They blogged, made their points, I replied.
Just to make clear, I don’t have LawnBoy confused with CoffeeBoy, aka Tony Ryan. LawnBoy is a decent contributor. CoffeeBoy is a puling brat who often makes vicious slurs about people (just not “cunt”). Until one of his victims replies, then it’s go whine to Mom about how mean those people are – Mommy, she said I called her a bad word! Mommy, make her stop telling mean lies about me! Mommy, PZ is a poopyhead!
Sorry, LawnBoy, if my calling out CoffeeBoy in my post seems to in any way reflect on the basic decency of Boys in general . No, not you at all.
No problem, and no confusion on my end.
This perpetual nonsense, seemingly accepted by the owners of heresyclub, amongst other UK blogs, is actually creating a lot of stress. I don’t think it’s something I am willing to put up with any longer.
I’m not surprised that you’re feeling a lot of stress. If I were in your shoes, having made an asshole of myself in front of thousands of people, I would feel a lot of stress, too.
However, you’re not going to relieve your sense of stress by digging your hole deeper (to mix metaphors).
Accept Rebecca’s acknowledgement that her initial claim about you was misdirected and move on.
If you want to put it behind you, you have it in your power to do so.
Wow, you’re having a lot of stress CoffeeBoy, huh? And this after not even 24 hours.
Try living with this shit non-stop for a year. That’s 365*24 hours.
You’ve contributed to that. Decent, intelligent people can see when someone criticizes an idea and when someone demonizes a person and you did the latter consistently.
I hope you are proud.
Nice gravatar. I approve.
Would you be happy if I committed suicide? Is that what you’re saying?
Whoa, hotshoe.
Way over the line.
Just ignore them. You have most everyone’s support, and the law is on your side. Your initial criticism of Watson was right on point, though incomplete. Your only mistake was in attempting to reconcile. Lets let our ties with this cancer sever once and for all. Third wave feminist theory is an internally inconsistent and scientifically impossible position. The majority of us don’t want what Watson’s offering, so don’t worry, there will probably be more female skeptics in the community without her, her acolytes, and their constant abuse. I know I’ll go back to actively participating, for one.
Well that’s the most passive-aggressive thing I’ve read in quite some time.
Why do you keep sticking your oar in? Why is this hill the one you have to die on?
Not acceptable. Not at all.
Don’t you see, you’ve lowered yourself to the level of Rebecca’s detractors by telling Tony to end his life.
Not only that, you’ve given Tony cause to actually regard himself as a victim.
This is unacceptable and for that reason, I’m banning you for a week.
Please show me one instance — just one — of someone on the other side who is actively debating this issue making threats of illegal conduct or encouraging someone to commit suicide, which is illegal in most states (sorry, I don’t know the law in England) and deserves far more than a one-week ban. (Not random YouTube comments based on Amazing Atheist’s anti-feminist rants.) The worst you’ll see from “this side” is name-calling, which I agree, is immature and disgraceful.
BTW, while I appreciate the fact that you’re banning Hotshoe for a week, I think illegal criminal conduct warrants far more than that.
I’m considering it.
Considering what? Considering becoming an adult and stopping this unseemly tantrum about libel ? Considering dropping your year-long campaign of obsession against Rebecca Watson – including deleting your eleven-minute youtube diatribe against her ? Considering making a post on your blog with the title “I WAS WRONG, APOLOGIES TO REBECCA WATSON” and an appropriate genuine apology to at least partially make up for your despicable prior posts ? Considering going to your friends at ERV, the home of the people who first called her “Rebeccunt Twatson”, and telling them “you people stink and your cunting and twatting language is revolting” ?
Congratulations, then, please move from considering to acting.
I will be the first in line to apologize to you for misjudging you and being “mean” to you, if you do that.
This whole affair is just deeply embarrassing. I think all of the players should be ashamed of themselves. Due to these and other recent, public antics, I am parting company with the ‘Skeptic Community’. I remain, as an individual, an atheist and critical thinker but as far as the ‘club’, it can go to the mythical devil.
Can you imagine what newly identifying skeptics are making of this? How keen do you think they will be to embrace skepticism in the face of this kind of juvenile behavior?
You’re completely right, Sam. But it’s hard to let go once you’ve been the subject of the herd abuse. And, if I may point out, it’s not very feminist to abuse women. Watson is only making things worse for women like me, who have actually been raped and assaulted, but whose reports were not taken seriously. I don’t know what she believes or why she’s doing what she’s doing, but in the end, it’s extremely harmful to the very cause she’s professing to support. It’s hard not to want to put a stop to that, if only for the sake of the younger generations. Then again, the best response is probably no response at all. Atheists are already a huge minority. Strident atheist third-wave gender feminists are, in the scope of things, insignificant.
I can imagine all the Homeopaths, Mediums, Anti-vacs and creationists of the world in their evil lair reading these blogs, rubbing their hands and smiling over all this.
There are no winners here. Just a community divided over the fallout from something that happened nearly a year ago.
I think a few people need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture over what they think skeptisism and critical thinking means to them.
Its got to a point where people are either afraid to have an opinion of their own or being forced to take a side in this petty, childish episode.
Some may dismiss this, but is this kind of behaviour (from both sides) the message or advert we want to be sending out to people who are being exposed to skeptism and critical thinking for the first time?
I dont think people understand that this sorry series of events is doing more harm that they probably realise.
Actually, one would imagine that the current climate of fear of harassment at conferences, heads of organisations denying there have been harassment problems – even though they were dealt with, the people being dicks towards Rebecca – because she is Rebecca, etc. etc. etc. would do a lot more harm to those wanting to join in with the atheist/skeptical communities.
(Apologies for double post. Posted it from the wrong (admin) account last time!)
Well that is more an issue about how conferences are organised. If there is a climate of fear of harassment at conferences then more should be done to ensure that people feel safe at these events.
Personally I would never go to TAM. Mainly because there is no way i could afford to go (I couldn’t even afford to go to QED this year). But also because I am very much a tiny single celled organism in the ocean of skeptism around me. I would feel totally out of my depth there (as I did at the first QED).
But the only exposure ‘small-time’ skpetics like myself and those just coming into the world of skeptism are through podcasts, SITP events and more relevant to this issue Twitter.
So again is this the kind of issue that people should be focussing on?
Damn right it is. And it’s mainly sexual harassment of women, so I wouldn’t expect you to entirely understand. I’m not claiming I understand. However, I do understand that a large number of female skeptics/atheists have complained about that – seemingly quite rightly – there is still a problem of harassment in the skeptical/atheist community. Therefore, I think this is still something worth writing about.
Well firstly I want to make it absolutly clear that I was not making any sweeping generalisations over sexual harassment not being an issue. I fully accept that if even one person (male or female) feels that they have been harassed at any event (wether it be a football match, concert, skeptic conference or in the street) then certainly something is wrong and it needs talking about.
But this issue isn’t about the one that blew up yesterday. This is about the constant bickering and arguing over who is blocking who in twitter and the reasons why that is happening.
If I suddenly came into skeptism yesterday and I start following yours, Hayleys or Tom’s twitter then I wouldn’t be getting exposed to Quack cures, Ghost hunting or homeopathy. I would falling into the middle over an argument over who called someone a cunt or not.
Except the argument isn’t just about blocking. Nor is it just about whether someone called someone else a cunt or not.
It’s mostly about the dismissal of anything Rebecca Watson has to say and the constant barrage of abuse she receives whenever she says anything vaguely controversial.
Whenever anyone says something controversial in any walk of life (as the #twitterjoketrial is showing yesterday) there is always going to be differing opinions on how that is taken on board by people
That is magnified when you are in the public eye or higher up the totem pole than others.
Rebecca Watson is at the forefront of skeptism. I dont think there are many who would deny that. Most would say she is higher up that ‘skeptism totem pole’ than the majority here. So when she says something, people are exposed to that and people respond to that.
I dont question that she gets abuse for what she says at times because some of the topics are more controversial to some than others (especially when you are questioning someones belief structure). But I am sure there are people who agree with what she says and supports that opinion (nearly 24,200 people and an Alexia traffic rank of 143,190 through skepchick.org cant all hate her).
The mindless abuse is not right no matter what the provocation. Terms like **** (sorry but I dont like using that word so flippantly) and ‘feminazi’ are not right and does not help the situation.
But neither does naming and shaming someone to 24,000 followers (wrongly at first) and allowing people to build an opinion on someone based on that.
Like I said at the start. There really are no winners here. No one is walking away from this with any shred victory or pride.
Can you provide evidence of a single reported incident of harassment at an atheist or skeptic event? How was the anti-harassment policy at TAM last year insufficient or unsuccessful? I realize that one woman speaker just recently came forward and complained about a drunk guy coming on to her, but that incident was immediately dealt with at the time, and she never implied it was sexual harassment until now. A survey of attendees was taken at last years TAM allowing for anonymous reporting of harassment or discomfort, and no sexual incidents were reported at all. So what about that was improper? Please note that the organizer of the conference belongs to a minority group that isn’t even allowed the right to marry and fully supports women’s rights.
Further, a single invitation to coffee in an elevator is neither harassment nor assault, obviously — despite the fact that it has been described as both by PZ Myers.
Why is asking for evidence so offensive to people? That’s what skeptics (and attorneys, like me) have to do. Mere allegations that consist of anecdotal evidence that doesn’t even identify the alleged perpetrators are not enough.
Wheee! Now there are at least three different arguments going on in the same meme/thread/drama.
Tony Ryan wants Rebecca Watson to delete the tweet in which she falsely accuses him of calling her a cunt. He’d also like an apology that’s not buried in snark and sarcasm,like the two notpolgies shes issued so far but knows he’s unlikely to receive one.
PZ and Rebecca have tried to make it a all about Tony and Tom Williamson whining about blocking and nothing to do with her bullying behaviour
Rhys’ take seems to be that Rebecca gets unwarranted criticism and thinks that what they’re all angry about.
Me? I’m mostly disappointed that a bunch of people who often have useful things to say seem to be standing with their fingers in their ears shouting past each other.
OK, rather than reply to all the points individually I think I’ll put together a short list of statements that reflect my positions on things:
Asking for evidence of something is not the same as dismissing it.
Criticising someone is not the same as dismissing them.
The fact that someone has received abuse does not make them immune from criticism.
Sarcasm has no place in science.
Apologising for your wrongs is a strength, not a weakness.
If you put friendships and loyalties above evidence, you are not being objective/skeptical.
You can be friends with people who you disagree with.
That’s what I think.
re: ‘Someone’s offended you? Block them!’
I disagree with this advice as it reads.
Encouraging self-censorship should be reluctant and in context
There’s no censorship involved in blocking someone. None.