You know, the people over at FTB and Atheism Plus are always whining
about how they get bullied by those of us who don’t buy into their
irrational bullshit. They constantly moan and complain about being
victims, blah blah… It’s truly pathetic.
I must say that these people are good at convincing themselves, and
those incapable of any rational thought, that these things are true.
That they are the poor little victims of constant bullying and nasty
behavior. Yet it was they that pounced on Justin Vacula the
minute they heard he was appointed to the position of co-chair for the
SCA. They were relentless with their campaign of hate in which they
demonstrated their complete lack of any kind of empathy, honesty, or
morality. But then again, we know that they lack these things because
they still pal around with Greg Laden who threatened and stalked Abbie
Smith (in real life). But who cares that Laden is an unhinged and
potentially dangerous crack pot right? As long as he drinks the kool-aid
he’s alright with them. Apparently anything goes over there if you buy
into their crap, and that is truly scary. That they will readily attack
anyone on the opposing side, but that anyone on their side is completely
innocent of any wrong doing. It’s amazing to see the mental gymnastics
these people are capable of in justifying their own bad behavior. It’s
like watching the clergy defend and support their fellow clergymen after
having been exposed as pedophiles. Who cares about the real victims or
the disgusting behavior of the perpetrators? As long as you are on the
same side of the fence we’ll protect and defend you, right? The
cognitive dissonance is disgusting.
So now these immoral pieces of crap have succeeded in getting Justin
Vacula to resign from his position at SCA. He resigned this morning and
explains his reasons why on his blog.
The thing that bothers me most about the FTB and Atheism Plus bullies
is that they will not only attack you in their blogs, or on Twitter,
but that they will actively seek out ways to destroy you at home and
your place of employment. They will spend all of their time and effort
digging for any dirt they can find on you, and if they can’t find any,
they’ll make dirt up by twisting things to suit their personal agendas.
They have no qualms about crossing the line by publicly tarring you with
lies
and unproven allegations. They don’t see others as human beings or have
any concept of what being empathetic, honest, or moral means. They’ll
stop at nothing to destroy those they do not like. These are not the
actions of sane, rational people. That is why they are so dangerous.
While I understand Justin’s reasons for doing what he did, it also
saddens me to see him give up so easily. If one wants to be a leader in
the community, then they have to be willing to take the hits. And some
of those hits will be hard and fast. It comes with the territory. Justin
did not stand firm, and I personally feel disappointed because, by him
resigning, it sends the bullies the message that they can get away with
this kind of shit. And trust me, they’ll do it again because his
resignation now serves as fuel for their fire. They will not hesitate to
employ the same tactics to bully others they do not like out of the
community. This is why I feel that Justin’s resignation was a bad move,
and that by him having done what he did, he has now sent the message
that it’s OK for these assholes to bully people because, it works.
But let me be clear to the bullies, because I want them to be aware
of what they’ll be getting into if they ever try this shit on me. I
guarantee that they will have to put on their best armor, because I do
not go down without a serious fight. I don’t back down, and I don’t take
shit from the likes of these immoral, irrational assholes. If they ever
challenge me, they better be ready to fight hard because I can promise
that I’ll return every one of their punches harder and faster than they
could imagine. If you engage me in a fight, it will be a real fight, and
you’d better come correct.
I hope those at FTB and Atheism Plus enjoy their momentary victory. It won’t last.
"The thing that bothers me most about the FTB and Atheism Plus bullies is that they will not only attack you in their blogs, or on Twitter, but that they will actively seek out ways to destroy you at home and your place of employment. They will spend all of their time and effort digging for any dirt they can find on you, and if they can’t find any, they’ll make dirt up by twisting things to suit their personal agendas. They have no qualms about crossing the line by publicly tarring you with lies and unproven allegations. They don’t see others as human beings or have any concept of what being empathetic, honest, or moral means. They’ll stop at nothing to destroy those they do not like. These are not the actions of sane, rational people. That is why they are so dangerous."
ReplyDeleteExactly! These people remind me of nothing so much as the secularist version of Scientology!
"But let me be clear to the bullies, because I want them to be aware of what they’ll be getting into if they ever try this shit on me. I guarantee that they will have to put on their best armor, because I do not go down without a serious fight. I don’t back down, and I don’t take shit from the likes of these immoral, irrational assholes"
Ditto. If they ever want to go IRL with me, I'll happily see any one of them in court.
I'm also saddened that he stepped down, but he could see that the FTB-generated shitstorm was harming the SCA, and he took a bullet rather than let his ego get in the way. He is a bigger man than all the plussers put together.
ReplyDelete"They have no qualms about crossing the line by publicly tarring you with lies and unproven allegations." - With "lies" leading to http://skepchick.org/2012/10/secular-coalition-picks-anti-woman-leader-for-pennsylvania/ :
ReplyDeleteWould you mind detailing which bits, exactly, of this article are lies? I'm interested in looking into it, if this allegation is true.
To start with, the title?
DeleteWell 'lies' might be perhaps an innapropriate way to describe the article beyond its unsubstantiated title, it's really more misrepresentation than anything else or at least that's how it appears to me.
DeleteTake the posting of the address, this did happen, he did that but the article fails to provide the oh so necessary context behind this event so as to better paint the most malign picture. Context is very important in cases such as these. To the best of my knowledge it started with Vacula posting a blog critical of Roth's words after the whole t-shirt / TAM saga, this blog post had an image of one of her products that was allowable under fair usage. Vacula received a DMCA against this blog post and he countered against the likely source of the DMCA, Roth; since confirmed I think. This was met with the suggestion that Vacula had done this merely to obtain Roth's real world address for some purpose; though there is an implication that it would only be sought to create malicious bother. Vacula responded to this allegation by demonstrating in a forum post that he did not need to utilise a counter DMCA to obtain Roth's address as it was already publicly available and a mere short Google away. One can argue as to whether he needed to post the actual address or whether he should have just alluded to the ease of obtaining it, but the fact remains that it was available to anyone who wanted it. The posting of the address generated what one might call a shit-storm and in due course Vacula sought it's removal, it was removed and an apology made, however, the apology is interpreted as being insufficient or non-existent by some.
What's also missed is that the initial DMCA against Vacula was without merit and appears to merely be a cheap retaliatory act because someone had an opinion the other took exception to, an abuse of the law essentially. Were it not for the erroneous employment of a DMCA in the first place then none of the rest would have followed, no counter, no allegation that the counter was for nefarious purpose and no demonstrating that the allegation was false because the information already existed in the public domain. There is some claim that Roth retaliated by unveiling Vacula's address but I've never seen where, I figure that it may be getting mixed up with some loon who obtained addresses and used them to send letters to his parents and other family about how terrible a person he was.
Thus the story is a bit more detailed than as presented in that article, which suggests a reprobate that callously disclosed an address without any cause beyond malice so as to encourage malicious acts.
@DarthCynic:
DeleteI appreciate your well-thought-out reply.
"... this blog post had an image of one of her products that was allowable under fair usage."
I'm deeply unfamiliar with copyright law, but is it not the right of the creator of a piece of artwork to request that it be removed from a given site, particularly when that site is for profit? I'll have to do some looking into fair usage and what its constraints are, but any resource you could point me to would help.
"Vacula responded to this allegation by demonstrating in a forum post that he did not need to utilise a counter DMCA to obtain Roth's address as it was already publicly available and a mere short Google away."
Understood, though the posting of a picture of her place seems... unnecessary.
"...however, the apology is interpreted as being insufficient or non-existent by some."
Pretty common, I think. On both sides of just about any situation like this.
"What's also missed is that the initial DMCA against Vacula was without merit and appears to merely be a cheap retaliatory act because someone had an opinion the other took exception to, an abuse of the law essentially."
Is this back to the fair use thing again? Because, again, it was her copyrighted artwork; does she not have the right to request her copyrighted work, for absolutely any reason whatsoever? I really have to look into that...
"Thus the story is a bit more detailed than as presented in that article..."
Almost always the case. Again, I appreciate your explanation.
@Parsley Victorious:
Delete"I'm deeply unfamiliar with copyright law, but is it not the right of the creator of a piece of artwork to request that it be removed from a given site, particularly when that site is for profit?"
Yes that's essentially my reading of it too when the site or person utilising it is doing so for profit, however, fair use allows images not belonging to the user to be employed in non-profit uses such as criticism, satire, reporting and more. In this case the DMCA'd image could be considered a reasonable example of fair use for criticism and / or satire. Mind you, whilst it is a general concept it is a somewhat grey area and open to interpretation by courts. Wiki has a pretty decent page on DMCA and 'fair use' so you could try there or www.chillingeffects.org has quite a bit of info; it does have a terrible Avast WebRep but that may be due to propaganda based down-voting as the site seems free from malware.
"Understood, though the posting of a picture of her place seems... unnecessary."
Superfluous and unnecessary definitely, mind you it is a stock property image of the sort found on property letting sites and ultimately makes no real difference to the post; from my perspective at any rate. Had it been taken by him and / or of her apartment specifically then it would have been much more serious and creepy.
"Is this back to the fair use thing again? Because, again, it was her copyrighted artwork; does she not have the right to request her copyrighted work, for absolutely any reason whatsoever?"
Yep, thus I don't think there was any right of claim as the image fell under fair use, and to resort to a DMCA in regards to a critical piece is to at least give the appearance of acting not for protection of copyright but as an easy avenue of retaliation against the criticism.
If I am following this correctly, someone, possibly Roth, filed a DMCA against Vacula for use of a photo of something which is considered fair game. Vacula defended himself by way of countering the DMCA. At this point his self defense was used to imply that the counter was made only in order to obtain Roth's address. In light of this accusation, Vacula attempted to show the irrationality of this allegation by demonstrating that Roth's address was easily obtainable by way of search engine, posting the address to prove this. Vacula's posting in turn was then branded an act of malice, and Vacula requested and succeeded in having the post removed. Despite Vacula's successful retraction, the result was one of outrage. Is this a correct assessment?
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the entire scene, it would appear that the only mistake Vacula made was in posting the address. While in many contexts this would seem a malicious act, it has to be considered that Vacula was dealing with not one, but two attacks; the DMCA and the accusation that his self defense of it (which is in itself a ridiculous accusation. People become emotional when attacked, and those emotions can cloud their judgement. By observing both prior defensive action on Vacula's part in regard to the DMCA, and comparing it with his future defensive action in requesting that the post with Roth's address be removed, it can be reasonably assumed that Vacula's initial posting of the address was in itself yet another defensive action in that he was attempting to defend against accusations of malicious intent.
Why then would anyone conclude malice on Vacula's part? More important, why would anyone fail to spot a pattern of witch hunting and provocation on the part of his accusers? Every defensive step he took was then turned into another attack. How are the atheists in question unable to spot the pattern in this?