• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rational thinking and twitter?

grafvonbek

New Blood
G
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
12
There's a wee stramash developing on twitter at the moment that seems to indicate it may not be the ideal medium for rational debate. Basically, PZ Myers may or may not have blocked a twitter user. When he was asked why, Rebecca Watson chimed in with certain allegations concerning the user. I certainly don't want this to be a "bash RW" thread, but is this really acceptable from a leader in the community? Obviously, there are two sides to this, but on the face of it and the evidence presented, the injured party is showing remarkable restraint.

I've communicated privately with him and he wants to stress that he does "not want notoriety or libel money", just the truth to be known. Personally, I think it's demonstrative of certain attitudes and personalities within the skeptical community. I can't post links yet, so if anyone can translate and post these I'd be most grateful.
coffeelovingskeptic DOT com
and t DOT co SLASH 56d8EL7

So, is this type of thing acceptable?
 
grafvonbek said:
There's a wee stramash developing on twitter at the moment that seems to indicate it may not be the ideal medium for rational debate. Basically, PZ Myers may or may not have blocked a twitter user. When he was asked why, Rebecca Watson chimed in with certain allegations concerning the user. I certainly don't want this to be a "bash RW" thread, but is this really acceptable from a leader in the community? Obviously, there are two sides to this, but on the face of it and the evidence presented, the injured party is showing remarkable restraint.

I've communicated privately with him and he wants to stress that he does "not want notoriety or libel money", just the truth to be known. Personally, I think it's demonstrative of certain attitudes and personalities within the skeptical community. I can't post links yet, so if anyone can translate and post these I'd be most grateful.
coffeelovingskeptic DOT com
and t DOT co SLASH 56d8EL7

So, is this type of thing acceptable?
Click to expand...
You used "Rational" and "Twitter" in the same sentence fragment, with no separator. Have you no shame at all?
 
Wow. PZ has left some very "elegant" posts on the Coffee Loving Skeptics blog. He is totally ignoring the seriousness of false allegations made about a blogger and does not even see this as a problem.
 
No idea why I wasted five minutes to take a look, but to me it seems like this guy and his buddies (among them our Graf here) harassed RW and PZ on twitter with stuff they weren't interested in, were in return blocked, RW said the guy called her a c-word, the guy says he didn't call her a **** and now presents "evidence" proving a negative, while he and his buddies are foaming at the mouth short of calling her a ****. And PZ tells them to **** off.

You certainly can't blame twitter for that kindergarten.
 
Childlike Empress,

Just to be clear, I had no communication with either RW or PZ prior to this as I had no interest in their opinions, so please do not include me in your statement about harassment. My question was whether or not it was acceptable for perceived leaders of the skeptical community to make allegations on twitter and then refuse to accept that they may have made a mistake or clarify their statements. If you read the comments, you would have seen that I suggested it may have been a case of mistaken identity and suggested two possible sources.

Anyhoo, thanks for answering my question. You are obviously quite happy with published lies, provided they come from an approved source.
 
rwguinn said:
...

The other one don't seem to go anywhere...
Click to expand...

The second one was a link to his facebook page, don't know what happened there. I don't use facebook so maybe that has something to do with it? I'll try again if I can find the original link, and there's any interest. Thanks for that.
 
Thank you monoman.

I know this may not seem like a major issue in the grand scale of things to many, but this involves 2 highly visible personalities perpetrating a lie and throwing a hissy fit when pressed for evidence. CLS works in a sector where he could be adversely affected by an allegation such as this. I believe that is why he had made his twitter account private, and why many of us choose to try and maintain some anonymity when online.
 
I wasn't going to comment on this post, but still feel required to defend myself.

The issue is not about being blocked, and is simply a red herring being perpetuated by RW and PZ. The issue is simple - RW said something untrue, and damaging, about me.

I showed that her recollection was false, and those who saw this and wanted clarification/proof/retraction from RW were bullied and blocked by PZ.

A very weird chain of events, and genuinely depressing.
 
Sounds like a case of mistaken identity; do they think you are Ryan Grant Long, who (I think) did use the 'c' word (though in a slightly different context).
 
zooterkin

that would make sense, especially with the name you mention. Yes, a genuine mistake could have been made by RW and this could have been rectified easily, but the subsequent comments and posts by PZ to different people show evasion and complete dismissal on his part when asked about the veracity of RWs statement. He does not even acknowledge that posting a lie about a blogger to 24000 people is an issue.
 
Disappointed not to be able to read the original posts http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=602 and http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=582 that apparently contained the word "feminaziism" which Rebecca seems to have taken as being tantamount to him calling her a C word.

On the face of it the fact that I have to allude to the C word but can spell out feminaziism in plain text* is illustrative that the former is commonly seen as far more serious than the latter. However I'd like to read for myself if there was more to the posts in question that might help clarify why Watson seems to think that the difference is small enough to warrant the sarcasm in the following apologies.

https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/s...8100038356828160&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed

No seriously, a guy complained that I misrepresented him. "I'd NEVER use the word ****, you feminazi!" Duly corrected. LOL
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/s...8099770592464898&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed

I'd like to sincerely apologize to the man-children I've blocked. That first guy called me a "feminazi," but maybe not a "****." Sooo sorry.
Click to expand...

* For common decency as much as forum software.
 
I would be very upset if everyone following the skeptic cause on twitter thought I called someone else the C word. Even if it was directed at RW. Graf has a valid concern here, and every right to discuss it in a thread. You don't have to follow it if you don't think it is a big deal, but let's not give newcomers the feeling that we are dismissive jerks.

RW has two options that I can see to save her credibility. Show proof that he did it, or apologize. She didn't have to interject into the conversation with her allegations, but she did, now she has to account for it.

Graf, aside from that, you can be happy in the fact that you are now on a list that includes JREF and Dawkins.
 
tpr007 said:
Updated wordpress. The site should be fully in order.
Links all should work.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tony,

Not the best blog posts I've read but neither is it the least civil. The tone is certainly disrespectful, quite snarky even but no worse than typical RW or PZM screeds.

Watson is in danger of giving the impression that she doesn't consider calling someone a C as a big deal. We might well infer that it doesn't matter to her whether you did or didn't; its enough that you were snarky at her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom