“Don’t over complicate the sexism!”
Update: Coffee Loving Skeptic was asking for a retraction from Rebecca Watson about the fact he didn’t call her a cunt. She has just posted the retraction asked for.
No seriously, a guy complained that I misrepresented him. “I’d NEVER use the word cunt, you feminazi!” Duly corrected. LOL
Coffee Loving Skeptic didn’t actually say that to Watson as far as I can see. However, a quick search through his blog found this article where he refers to Watson as a Feminazi.
Disgraceful.
————————————————————————————————
Rhys Morgan and PZ Myers have both blogged about the most recently ‘he-said, she-said’ drama to escalate online between skeptics. You should read their blogs.
Rhys wrote about how the Coffee Loving Skeptic didn’t seem to get why Rebecca Watson would block him despite the dismissive way in which he wrote about her in several blog posts. People started pointing out that actually, it wasn’t to do with the undercurrent of sexism within his blog posts. It was about Watson falsely accusing him of calling her a cunt.
When I pointed out that they were over-simplifying the issue that had deeper roots, I was told that actually we were over complicating it. Basically, by pointing out a lack of respect being the initial cause of the recent drama (e.g. the reason Rebecca blocked CLS in the first place), we were over complicating the situation.
As Amy Davis Roth recently said, ‘talking about sexism isn’t the problem. Sexism is the problem‘. I don’t believe that pointing out the way in which the Coffee Loving Skeptic was dismissive of Rebecca Watson in his blog posts that ultimately led to the recent Twitter drama is over-complicating the situation.
It’s pointing out the initial problem.
If Rebecca was mistaken then retracting her statement would be a good move, however the Coffee Loving Skeptic himself admits that he could be described as ‘watson-ist’ because of the things he has said and written in the past (though he does agree with Rebecca Watson on some things, and doesn’t just oppose her because she is who she is.) The current issue may revolve around the fact that Rebecca Watson has accused him of calling her a cunt when he didn’t, but this is not a standalone issue – it’s simply a product of a much bigger issue that the Coffee Loving Skeptic had with the way in which he wrote about Rebecca Watson.
As he said, this isn’t something he can change, but this shouldn’t be something that others simply sweep under the carpet as a non-problem. It is a problem worth noting, and pretending otherwise is ignorant and dishonest.
You may be right in one way, that there’s no need to oversimplify the situation by removing external factors. However, I also think that you are understating what RW said by saying “If Rebecca was mistaken”. She was very much more than mistaken. She made a very serious accusation which is false, and could (still?) have quite serious repercussions.
Also, saying I was ‘Watson-ist’ probably was a bad choice of phrase. I will not disagree with everything she says because of who she is. I actually agree with her on other issues than Dawkins and the TAM boycott.
But, again, this is all worth talking about. I don’t want to be misrepresented, but I also don’t expect to be thought of as a Saint when I’ve clearly said some things that are not acceptable to many people. I am happy to be accountable for those things, but that accountability does not stretch so far as the abuse I’ve received in the past 24 hours, much of which amounts to criminal malicious communications at the least, and in some cases more.
You got your clarification.
“No seriously, a guy complained that I misrepresented him. “I’d NEVER use the word cunt, you feminazi!” Duly corrected. LOL” https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/218100038356828160
“What people like Rebecca Watson et al actually promote is Feminaziism – (I know it’s a made up word, but it’s obvious in its meaning, and Godwin’s Law acknowledged) by pushing their gender as more important than the other elements of atheism. Your gender is important, but so is mine, as is my nationality, race, social standing and line of work – all of which gain a foothold in a fairer, more sane world because of the Atheist/Humanist movement.”
http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=582
I hadn’t seen that. You’re disgraceful.
What’s disgraceful about that? Someone expressing an opinion (based on observation) that you don’t share? Sheesh.
Me calling it disgraceful is also me “expressing an opinion (based on observation) that you don’t share”. Shocker.
I would need to see the context, but viewed in isolation I’m not sure that counts as a retraction. We are in Britain, not the US, and allegations of this sort have a very different effect in law over here.
Would I be able to have a link to the relevant exchange, if any of you have it to hand?
Her retraction is another lie. The quote marks imply that Ryan made a statement he never made and, additionally, he never actually called her a “feminazi.” If sufficient damage can be established, this should be actionable in the US, not that it matters.
What is it about defamation law that you find so unjust? Two public persons publish several consecutive lies to a large international audience, then continue their abusive behavior after the victim (who has actually now been told to commit suicide because his life is worthless in another blog) asks for a retraction.
I think the law operates justly on these facts.
Disclaimer: The above is not meant as legal advice, but merely as statement of opinion.
Only just saw this, sorry.
https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/218099770592464898
https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/218100038356828160
She hasn’t retracted. She’s just referring back to a different comment altogether.
The ‘cunt’ email was a lie. However, the use of the term ‘feminaziism’ in a blog post last year was not. 2 different occasions. One is a lie, one is not.
Tony, it was a retraction of the “cunt” lie, followed by a succinct explanation of why she wasn’t retracting the banhammer (unless I’m very much mistaken, in which case – by all means correct me).
I’m curious though – You said in the post last year (it seems to have vanished, by the way), that “femnaziism” is obvious in its meaning, and I have to say, I don’t see it. By that do you mean that all feminism falls under the realm of “femnaziism”? If not, then I guess I don’t think the meaning is all that obvious, and if you’d be willing to clarify, I’d appreciate it. I’ve heard that word and its derivatives used in a number of circumstances, and never in a consistent manner, except that it seems to be an attempt to get people to shut up about something or other.
Given that it’s a direct comparison, by virtue of the word itself, to one of the more vicious ideologies and horrific events in recorded history, I figure that you must have some clear indication as to why one would use it.
I’d say for an apology, it was lame. She was apologizing to someone that had “insulted” her and called her things she did not like, but an apology should be clear and unfettered.
She made a claim, that in many countries, could cause her to be open to legal action. Her apology was nothing like an apology. In this case, a “I made a mistake and told 25,000 people you did something you did not.”
I don’t care if it was Stalin or Romney or the Pope that she told the lie about, when you admit you made a mistake and apologize, it is heartfelt and without snarkiness. You say “I made a mistake”. Period. You clarify. Later, not in the apology, kick his ass. Go for it. But have some class Rebecca!
Offer an apology that is clear and goes out to the 25,000 people. That says, “I was wrong as it was not this person I was thinking of.” No, I hate his guts, so it was pretty much ok.
Please, for once, realize the position you are putting yourself into Rebecca. That apology would not be accepted in a court that was deciding this matter. You are not above the laws of many lands, and indeed the simple need we all have to be humble enough to understand an apology should be given with sincerity or not at all.
I would also say, look into legal action. She did not apologize, nor clarify. checked with my nearest lawyer, family member, and was “oh yeah…contact a lawyer now.” In a way, she needs to learn the responsibility that goes with having 25,000 plus twitter followers. I agree with elevator gate, her staying away from TAM, but her slandering and refusing to do the correct thing, it’s just plain wrong. Time to learn that having support of 25,000 people does not put you above the law.
I am.
Does this count as an apology?
https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/218099770592464898
Not in any way, shape, nor form.
The qualifier “maybe” renders it technically meaningless as an apology.
It also includes a clear gender insult.
The infantile “Sooo sorry” at the end entirely negates the “sincerely”.
On the subject of the “quality” of her apology, no, it wasn’t especially gracious, but then very few people ARE gracious when apologizing to somebody who has insulted you (one among very many) for accusing them of using the wrong insult.
Sure, she could have been more “humble” about it, but nobody expects her to be a saint (or the atheist equivalent thereof).
Given the vast number of people on the internet who HAVE called her a cunt, it’s hardly surprising that she mixed up one insulting person with another.
As to the people talking about legal action, libel/slander laws are rather tricky in that you would have to prove that the intent, in accusing him of calling her a cunt, Rebecca was trying to materially damage Tony’s career/livelihood/other. There’s not really a case there, so I would recommend against spending any money on legal action.
a) You don’t know my livelihood/career so don’t know what impact it can have. It’s not ‘just’ financial impact btw. (Nor would it necessarily cost me anything anway)
b) There was no ‘mix up’ as you put it. This is, and can be shown to be, clear.
c) Her history of interaction with people on the internet who have hurt her feelings is irrelevant.
d) It’s more than what she said. It’s how what she said has been repeated to a massive audience, and then topped up with more ‘mistruth’.
So, I ‘would recommend’ you stay out of it, unless you know something no one else does.
It was only a recommendation, and despite the fact that I disagree with you on this, and probably other issues, it was well meant.
As to there not being a mixup, I’m curious to see what evidence of that you have, since you say it can be shown to be clear.
I said nothing about hurting her feelings, I said people who insulted her – that’s a much clearer distinction, since we don’t know her reaction to said insults. And again, it’s directly relevant, since you’re one among a great many bloggers who disagree with her on certain issues, and a number of them have used the term in question.
I get that it’s more than what she said, but as a follower of hers, I can say that I’m pretty sure everybody who read the original accusation by her also read her correction of that accusation.
As to staying out of it, this is a public discussion.
How about the “femnaziism” definition? I’ve long wanted one, haven’t been able to get a clear answer on that, and you did say it was obvious.
Also, I never said it had no impact – only that you would have to prove that it did have an impact, and that said impact was intentional. That holds true whether you’re a software developer or a dancing alpaca trainer.
There was no intention of attacking you, sorry if I came off as aggressive.
Ryan is in English, and I know nothing about English law, but even in the US his intent would be irrelevant unless he were deemed to be a public person or a limited public person. Otherwise, all that’s necessary is:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.
The most problematic part, at least in the US, is damages, where the plaintiff must establish proof of damage to reputation in order to recover any damages for mental anguish (or other financial losses).
While this is opinion and not legal advice, I think international publication of Watson’s false claims by Watson AND Myers, along with name-calling, abuse, and a suggestion that Tony commit suicide may well be sufficient.
Oh – one thing I do owe an apology on, in re-reading my comment.
She implied that you called her a femnazi in objecting to her assertion that you called her a cunt. I furthered that implication, and I’m sorry.
The two incidents were separate, and only brought together, to my knowledge, in her retraction.
Tjank you, altered story, for clarifying your post. I appreciate. No aggression taken.
On my phone now so can’t type loads, but wanted to acknowledge your follow up comments.
The fact that RW puts the “I’d NEVER use the word cunt you Feminazi” in quotes as though its something CLS actually said is further evidence that she’s still trying to avoid the need for a sincere apology. She twice said to 25000 people that he called her a cunt. That is false and should be retracted.
The whole mess of allusions to the feminazi comment, elevatorgate, CLS’s alleged sexiism and the rest is a smokescreen.
She’s now issued two ‘notpologies’ without a shred of sincerity between them. Classy.
Well, he DID acuse her of “femnaziism”, whatever that means, and I read it less as a smokescreen and more as context for banning – it wasn’t that one comment that turned out to be a mistake on her part, it was a history of comments.
The feminazi comment was over a year ago on his blog, and he has since apologised and admitted it was childish/inappropriate. That seems the correct sort of behaviour to me.
Watson not only misinformed her tweet flock that he’d twice called her a cunt, but also in the email exchange with CLC she emailed him an ascii picture of a parrot gripping a large penis. Imagine the furore if he’d been the one to email it to her… she only brought the feminazi comment up after he asked her to apologise and remove the tweet.
There’s also the case where she called out Stef McGraw on something from a podium while McGraw was in the audience, and unable to make a response.
Watson is much better known than either McGraw, or CLS – and in both cases she comes across as a bully – using a position of power to dump on someone who’s irritated her, and who cannot respond to the same audience to refute the claims.
I’d never heard of CLS before today, and he may be sexist or misogynist or whatever as claimed – but from what I have read today he’s responded in an adult rational manner, and Watson’s comments and ‘apologies’ have been snide, sarcastic and childish…
Quite correct.
As to why Hayley appears to be staunchly supporting Watson in this crystal-clear one-sided debacle is beyond me.
Watson spake an untruth that is a clear and unambiguous defamation of Mr. Ryan’s character.
That much is agreed by all.
I have yet to read or see or hear a genuine retraction by Watson.
I have been ‘pointed’ to potential candidates for such, but find them laughably wanting. In fact, most of them only add fuel to her original defamation fire.
(Through her sneering & snarkish refusal to act as anything but a mental 8 year -old)
If you cannot see this fact, then I must assume that you have the same incapacity.
If anyone can show me a genuinely contrite retraction from Watson for her clear defamation, without additional salting of unnecessary snark, I’d be obliged.
Hayley: as you appear to support Watson in this potentially criminal debacle, are you able/willing to proffer same?
“he has since apologised and admitted it was childish/inappropriate.” Source? All I’ve seen is that the post in question has vanished, which speaks more of a desire to pretend that it never happened than any real contrition, especially given the comments I’ve seen here so far.
Heres one admission it was inappropriate:
http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=1542 comment #125
In a blog I said the term feminaziism a year ago. 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. … I happily hold my hands up and admit my mistake. It’s there for all to see. I’m not proud of it….
The page with that feminazi reference has not taken down. it’s here:
http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=582
he changed his domain a whil ago which may have something to do with it.
Thanks for the clarification.
“I’d never heard of CLS before today, and he may be sexist or misogynist or whatever as claimed – but from what I have read today he’s responded in an adult rational manner, and Watson’s comments and ‘apologies’ have been snide, sarcastic and childish…”
Precisely mirrors my own experience. The gap between the tones used by these two contending parties is galactic in width. I am new to both CLS and RW. To juxtapose the adult tenor of CLS with the pubescent ZOMGLOLZ!!! rambling of Watson – combined with the almost mind numbing myopia emanating from PZ Myers – disheartening to say the least, especially considering who it is with all the “followers”.
The ascii picture Watson sent him of a bird resting atop a penis is beyond description in its childishness. Not to mention the fact that, as mentioned, had those tables been turned, it would certainly be an enormous deal to her.
Disgusted. But the same way I would be disgusted at a 13 year old.
No, this is serious; these people have power, and they’re attempting to destroy lives. Watson is simply, in my opinion, an awful human being, and Myers is either blinded by an obsession for her or suffering from dementia — just a guess, of course.
“They’re trying to destroy lives”
Oh please. She was sarcastic in her retraction because the guy in question has a record of insulting behavior towards her, and she got the precise insult wrong.
Maybe you folks commenting here aren’t part of the group that will never be pleased with her no matter WHAT she says, but given that there’s absolutely no way for her to know that, why on earth would she spend time and energy trying to get it just right? She was honest, and she retracted the false accusation.
Would you prefer that she lie about how she feels on the subject, solely for the sake of soothing your egos?
“Alteredstory”
I can now fathom whence you invented your cowardly pseudonym.
Orwell would be ashamed.
No, you probably can’t, but again, I have a feeling that no matter how I expressed my opinion, you’d have the same reaction.
Should I take that to mean that you WOULD prefer a pretty lie, or are you just generally trying to be insulting?
Oh, and the “cowardly pseudonym” jab is a catch 22. No matter WHAT my pseudonym happens to be, somebody will read sinister intent into it if they disagree with my opinions, and if I use my real name, then I open myself to death threats and so on which, while I don’t expect them to be carried out, would make my life worse unnecessarily, and detract from my ability to do the work I want to do.
Rather than objecting to the name itself, or the use of a pseudonym, it seems you’re just looking for the easiest way to insult me.
How charming.
“She was honest, and she retracted the false accusation. ”
Hardly. Look at the top of this page and read what she wrote again. She notes he “claimed [she] misrepresented him” (which she did), then she includes the fabricated reported speech :
“I’d never call you a cunt you feminazi”
No retraction there at all.
Those are Watson’s words, not CLS’s – but the huge majority of the recipients (her tweet flock) – will assume they’re his, (because they won’t read threads like these). So the net effect of the ‘retraction’ will to reinforce the damage she’s done to his reputation.
I’m not one of the virulent anti -Watson crowd. Outside of a brief period after elevatorgate I’ve never followed or read anything she’s written. I came into this from PZ’s blog which I read from time to time. I followed his link to CLS’s blog and was drawn in by the difference in what i read there, and the way it had been represented by PZM.
I have power? I’m using it to destroy lives? You people are laughable.
The only power I have is to point and mock, and you guys give me so much to point at.
And that’s what this has all been about: a small collection of people who are obsessed with hating Rebecca Watson, and we treat them in the way they deserve: with scorn and sarcasm and derisive laughter.
“And that’s what this has all been about: a small collection of people who are obsessed with hating Rebecca Watson”
That may be how you see it – but to me and a fair number of people new to Watson and Tony Ryan it’s about Rebecca Watson falsely denouncing him in for twice calling her a cunt.
We know he called her a feminazi a year ago. So call him out about that , blog and tweet about it and let him defend or apologise. Laugh about him asking her to unblock him on twitter – and I have no problem with that.
But the impression I’m getting from a lot of the posts and comments in the last couple of days is that Ryan has been rude about Watson for long enough – it’s about time he got dumped on – see how he likes it… who cares if he didn’t actually say all that….
And that’s not right. We’re supposed to be the rational part of society. We don’t just make stuff up about what people say and we admit when we get stuff wrong.
If, as RW says, the tweeted accusation was a mistake then then she should retract it (without the snarky notpology) and then tear apart what he actually says.
Quite.
One R. Watson spake an untruth.
An untruth that was transparently and intentionally defamatory, a very clear libel against a public person: one Anthony Ryan.
R. Watson proceeded to ‘joke around’ with said libel, negating any claim of lack of intent.
Her purported ‘retraction’ was nothing of the kind. In fact it compounded said libel with malice, and added aforethought to the defamation.
If she does not remedy the libel, then she opens herself to potential legal action, to which Mr Ryan has full rights.
If I were Mr. Ryan, I’d engage a barrister forthwith.
If I were R. Watson, I’d do the same. And get a very good one.
I really hope Tony Ryan ignores that advice.
He may or may not have a case -but the shitstorm resulting from brining this to court would do nobody any favours except the lawyers.
This is all utterly bewildering. Is it that time of month opr something?
I can’t tell – are you making a joke, or are you seriously dismissing a concern over sexism because it’s brought up by a woman?
My guess would be the latter.
I try to stay hopeful about my fellow humans, but it’s hard sometimes…
Stay classy.
How very original…