OUTRAGEOUS - Skeptic's blog DMCA'd by radical feminist "skeptics" to stifle criticism

This is really disgusting

Info here http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/08/dmca.html

The skeptic/atheist community has been infested with radical feminist "skeptics" who bully, harrass and intimidate people who speak out. It's ridiculous.


Please help

Hi there stranger. And welcome. I would like to let you in on a little secret.

WE'RE NOT YOU'RE PERSONAL FUCKING ARMY!!!

This is about freedom of speech and censorship through malicious copyright claims, so i think this is relevant

I bet loads of people in chanology are skeptics.

related

This is the back story:

I can't seem to bring myself to care about any of this. Does that mean I am a bad person?

Move the blog to a host who won't yoink posts at the slightest complaint.

Hey, buddy, this is why you don't post other people's photos without proper attribution. Honestly I hate to be the one to say it (wait, fuck no I don't) but according to the guy's own blog, this sounds like a legitimate DMCA over legitimately misused content.

This is no different than Scientology ripping off Anons' photos to make an anti-Anon pamphlet and you can damn well bet anons would be pissed at that.

TL;DR -- they were not DMCAed because they bitched about some chick in a blog, they were DMCAed because they appropriated someone else's photographs to do so. Stupid mistake, repost the blogpost without out the photos, and get over it.

OP has cured my insomnia!

"Fair use" allows you to reproduce a photo in order to comment upon or criticize it.

If Scientologists use Anon pics in a brochure, that would probably not be fair use because they aren't commenting on the pictures themselves; they're just generally showing pictures of Anons. They could use their own pics of Anons for that.

A pic of a piece of jewelry is kinda borderline, I think. If you want to blag about it, you can't take a picture yourself. You have to reference a pic someone else took and put up on the Internet. So in the spirit of fair use --supporting a forum for public commentary and debate-- seems there is no practical alternative to using the pic.

The skeptical movement may need its own version of the Thunderdome for these type of situations.

I just realized that there is something interesting in this story --the boundaries of fair use. If the OP had highlighted this aspect I probably would have not said that I don't care. It was the heavy handed effort to provoke an emotional reaction that put me off.

Next time, OP, avoid "really disgusting" and "please help." To us that looks like "importing drama," which we reserve for the Thunderdome.

You can visit the dome by changing some option under user preferences. Hope you don't mind goatse.

To play devils advocate, was it wrong to make her cry?



People can be so mean!

Yeah that is why we invented Anonymous, I guess. When you don't have time for lawyers, you get a bunch of people/sockpuppets to make fun of the person who DMCA's you. I supposed it helps the butthurt a little.

Dear Justin/OP,
Importedrama, but interesting nonetheless.

• OP is right to stand up for 1st Amendment
• Surly Amy has a right to speak out against what she perceives as harassment
• Wearing the same shirt 3 days in a row is gross*

Idk how concerted was the campaign to troll Surly Amy. If it was really concerted, then I don't blame her for being a little butthurt about it.

Re: the "fake" jewelry and t-shirt. If the message is benign and not directed toward anyone - the "I" statements of the shirt for example - it's ok with me to wear that shirt 3 days in a row, especially if you're washing it or have a 2nd print of it to wear* - and I hope it becomes a popular shirt among skeptics who happen to be women.

Imitation/mock jewelry that says "You should be embarrassed," and was based on designs that I had made and sold would be a toss-up, and it would depend on how the people wearing it were acting. If they were going about their business, I'd probably just ignore them.

If they intentionally stood in front of me or otherwise placed themselves so that I had to look at 'my own' jewelry for 3 days, telling me to "be embarrassed," I'd probably start to get butthurt.

I wasn't at the conference, I don't know how concerted were the efforts to troll Surly Amy, and I'd rather not take sides. You atheists have enough intellectuals and liberals among you to defend yourselves from censorship of most any kind.

Attendants to the conference should also have been smart enough to anticipate a backlash from concertedly trolling a self-styled feminist skeptic intellectual with a large following.

I wish you well in your just cause, but NYPA.

no shit.

The woman who wore the shirt is in her 50s, she wanted to distancer herself from the "Skephicks". She used to be in the AIr Force or soemthing.





OH, one other one has come to light:



A fresh, laundered tshirt was worn on each day!

The feminists now the woman a troll. Anyone who disagrees with them is a rape-enabling mysoginist.

There are two witnesses about the fake jewerly:



The reference to the elevator (or 'lift' as we say in England) was that one of them was 'almost raped' in a lift:





Thanks for helping me think this over, I agree with your assessment. Regarding NYPA, I wanted your thoughts and you have kindly provided these. I am content. I guess this is harrasment, and over the line. I think you've swayed me, I initally thought she was being over sensitive but she's clearly upset. [/B]

If someone wore a t-shirt saying 'Scientology is a cult', that could be pretty offensive. I wonder if that should aslo be banned.

OP here. Dear Mods,please feel free to delete this thread!

thanks for your humour and useful responses

This is the video that started it all, for anyone who cares




And this is a video of creationist cat:

Oh, fuck off, victim-boy. And learn to spell.

They went after Richard Dawkins for exactly that! And females. It's just (mildly) intersting. That's all.

Just stop reading, if it isnt intersting to you. The original request was for some perspective on the issue, which has now been given and the case is closed. The dude just reposted the article without the photo. It's no biggie. I had initially (wrongly) thought that they had managed to get the entire article removed, for ever, but that's because I am retarded.

The additional videos are just for the lulz. I mean, it's a talking cat.

We've missed a very important point in all this.

That jewellery's fucking awful and have you seen the prices she's charging?

هذا أمر مثير للغضب! يجب علينا ألا نسمح مزقت الأمة كافر وبصرف النظر بهذه الطريقة.

Just to clarify.

That isn't my blog.

My blog only talks about hot junior Olympians and my skepticism that they'll medal.

In case any one was confused about skeptics blog being infested with feminist/atheist/ dirty hippy leanings.

Carry on!

I confess I haven't watched any of the videos above and don't really know what happened here. But I feel entitled to voice my opinion anyway:

Seems that SurlyAmy was a prominent member of the skeptics group who suddenly graduated to being a thought-leaderfag, but without realizing what happens next. Consequently she was unprepared for the treatment she received. She was like, wtf why are people being so mean? Do they hate girls or something? Do they think real life is the same as the Internet?

Now, someone who spends a lot of time making ceramic art is only two or three degrees removed from schizophrenia. So Imma guess SurlyAmy did not have very thick skin to begin with.

SurlyAmy, when you become a leaderfag many group members will treat you like a two dimensional cartoon character with no feelings of your own. This is because you are being used to represent a political position and humans can't do two things at once, relate to you as a person whom they care about and use you as a mental placeholder in some social debate.

Message to the skeptics with and without penises:



Hope that wasn't too insensitive.

That's Harriet Hall, a retired Air Force officer, Top Gun pilot, and flight surgeon. She is a badass mutherfucker who will fucking cut you, so I am not worried about her surviving this kerfuffle.

Can someone give me a tldr version of this wimmin-in-comfortable-shoes thread.

The guy behind this chanology video



is being attacked by them. (skepchick,org and freethoughtBlogs,com) They have recruited a lot of males to their cause.

They were discussing how to destroy his (Thunderf00t's) life. His IRL life, not just online life. The mistake that they made was that they discussed their super secret plans using a back channel email list serve. He leaked some of it and they went MENTAL

His whistle blowing: http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress....ed-out-of-the-community-and-forever-a-pariah/

OP here. Honestly, this shit is boring as fuck, you'd be better to skip it!

You are a smart cookie, astute observations.

A few minor corrections: she still is a leading skeptic. Legions of manginas and thought police shout down anyone who disagrees with her. they even attacked Richard Dawkins, who is very well respected. If anyone is even SLIGHTLY critical, they are banned from events and seminars(!) they get threats and one feminist (Greg Laden) turned up at a dissenters home and/or workplace. It's crazy shit!

I so love how they want equality and then give themselves a cutesy name like 'skepchicks'.

Wait, wut? Thunderfoot is pretty cool. I will have to look into this.

They seem to be laying into Richard Dawkins -- accusing him of being a white supremacist; a woman-hater and child rape advocate?!?

Further reading : www.tinyurl.com/dawkkkins