Just to correct 42's fantastical representation of his posting history, this is what happens, over and over again:

1. 42 posts some dishonest shit.

2. Multiple members point that 42 just posted some dishonest shit.

3. 42 demands evidence.

4. Multiple people explain and/or quote the bits of 42s post which are dishonest.

At this point one of two possible scenario's will occur:
A. 42 completely ignores the posts demonstrating his dishonesty and will pretend they were never posted, starting the whole process over at point 1.

or

B. 42 backpaddles, obfuscates and employs other dishonest rhetorical tactics to counter-factually assert that his post did not state or imply what it clearly did state and/or imply and repeat his request for evidence.


Now 42, I know you think I'm lying, making this up, whatever, that's fine and your perogative.
But tell me honestly, would you keep honouring demands for evidence from a person who kept repeating this pattern of dismissal and evasion?
Would you keep wasting time and energy on that?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Just to correct 42's fantastical representation of his posting history, this is what happens, over and over again:

1. 42 posts some dishonest shit.

What's your best example? Any example?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
2. Multiple members point that 42 just posted some dishonest shit.

What's your best example? Any example?

Just declaring something doesn't cut it. But, you're lying again, so it's not surprising. You haven't got a single example. You are just posting more bullshit.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

3. 42 demands evidence.

Yes, indeed. And, none is ever given.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

4. Multiple people explain and/or quote the bits of 42s post which are dishonest.

Never done. Ever. You are lying again.

You keep SAYING this has happened, but you are lying, because it has not. Prove it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

At this point one of two possible scenario's will occur:
A. 42 completely ignores the posts demonstrating his dishonesty and will pretend they were never posted, starting the whole process over at point 1.

or

B. 42 backpaddles, obfuscates and employs other dishonest rhetorical tactics to counter-factually assert that his post did not state or imply what it clearly did state and/or imply and repeat his request for evidence.

Never happened. The reality is that Thomas Eshuis keeps making false allegations, refuses to provide evidence ever, and just declares that it is been previously provided. Thomas Eshuis is lying, and doing so repeatedly. Repeating a lie, however, does not make it true.

You can win this in a heartbeat, Thomas Eshuis. Just post the clear example that you say exists. Let's see that blatant lie I told which was pointed out to me -- with quotes and links to my post -- by multiple forum members.

This is so easy for you to do, because as YOU say, it happens all the time, and has happened many times.

So, victory is in your hands on this point Thomas Eshuis. Bring on that oh-so-easy-to-find evidence, that is out there like a mountain. It would take a simple link to my post and to a post or two from a person identifying the lie I told and proving it to be a lie.

The fact that you continually refuse to take such an easy measure to destroy my position demonstrates your mendacity. You are lying. You know you're lying. And, you are trying desperately, like the proverbial pigeon playing chess, to knock over all the pieces and shit all over the board.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Now 42, I know you think I'm lying, making this up, whatever, that's fine and your perogative.

It's not just my prerogative. It's true. You are lying. Nothing that you recounted above ever occurred. If you say it did, just post a link. Either the link will prove you right, or it will prove that you've been making this crap up the whole time. Either way, the fact that you won't provide that proof, which you say is easy to come by, shows the weakness of your position.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
But tell me honestly, would you keep honouring demands for evidence from a person who kept repeating this pattern of dismissal and evasion?

Oh, I would at least honor it once, which you've never done. Ever. You have never provided a shred of evidence to support your bullshit allegations. So, I have to "keep" demanding the evidence, because you won't provide it. The pattern here is one of blind accusation on your part, which you apparently believe will just be accepted at face value. Well, anyone following this exchange can see that you have said it would be quite easy to settle the matter by providing proof of one of the very many times I've been shown by multiple users to have said something "dishonest."

Go for it. Take the easy step of demonstrating that your allegation is true.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Would you keep wasting time and energy on that?

You keep wasting time and energy on machinations and evasions designed to avoid taking the easy step of just linking to my allegedly dishonest post(s) and a link to one or two of the multiple forum members who proved that something I wrote was dishonest.

If you didnt' want to waste energy, you'd post the proof, which, again, you have said is voluminous, and easy to come by. Rather than keep going on about how I have already been provided it, just friggin provide it. Then you can keep it at the ready in a bookmark or something, and if I ever try to ask for it again, you can just link it again just past it in again and say - "see Forty Two - here it is again!" That would really shut me up, because how could I ever argue against that? You'd be just shoving it in my face every time, in a moment's notice -- and everyone else would post -- "yep, Eshuis, you've posted the evidence, and such."

Frankly, if you ever did come forward with the evidence you say you have that proves the allegation you made --- I would do the following:

(a) admission that I was wrong;
(b) apology
(c) agree never to post here again, without Thomas Eshuis' express permission.

So, I can't make it any plainer than that.

you are lying. You haven't presented the proof. If you present the proof of your allegations, I will admit, apologize and leave the forum.

Forty Two wrote:
She's the one trying to silence other people.

She's manifestly not.

Forty Two wrote:
How do you stop the act of harassment from happening in advance, without reference to specific, identifiable harasser?

You can't stop harassment from happening in advance unless, perhaps, you got wind that an individual or group were intending to participate in such an act and were able to stop them. Otherwise, harassment is an after the event matter.

Forty Two wrote:
You're the one changing what she said to fit your own narrative, and you accuse me of bias? That's rich.

Uhuh.

Forty Two wrote:Yes, she's trying to stop harassment, which she said specifically includes things like (a) making hate videos on youtube, (b) things iike "you suck" and (c) things like "you're a liar."

When delivered in such a way that constitutes harassment. i.e. not one off events, but ongoing, targeted attempts to harass her.

Forty Two wrote:If she was saying "I am trying to stop harassment, which includes a course of conduct of repeated threats and intimidation and similar conduct,".

We've already covered that harassment is not limited to threats or intimidation.

Forty Two wrote:]She got her degree in Communications Studies. LOL. A monkey can graduate with a BA in Communications Studies. It's four years of babysitting.

Did a degree that you place no value in =/= not being intelligent.

Forty Two wrote:
Meh - the "campaign" is mostly a bunch of Tweets from bogus or sock accounts that call her a cunt or otherwise call her names.

And again you highlight the problem whilst simultaneously dismissing it.
Following someone around and calling them names, with the intent of causing them distress, is harassment. The problem in the online arena is.....knowing who the fuck these people are and bringing legal action against them, especially when it is a group of individuals working in concert.

Forty Two wrote:Were they directed at a man, nobody would give a shit, and it would be expected that big boys in the public sphere are going to have to endure some unsavory comments

Oh we're back to the "if I can deal with it, so can you" school of nonsense argument again?
Seriously, this sexist shit is sooooooo persuasive.

42, I refer you this, to refresh your memory:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-chat/christmas-is-sexist-t50910-240.html#p2334247

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
She's the one trying to silence other people.

She's manifestly not.

Well, she is, by calling for systems to stop people from saying things she considers to be harassment, including but not limited to hate videos on youtube, and things like you suck and you're a liar. So, manifestly, she is.

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
How do you stop the act of harassment from happening in advance, without reference to specific, identifiable harasser?

You can't stop harassment from happening in advance

Right. But, she is asking for systems to do just that.

Sendraks wrote:
unless, perhaps, you got wind that an individual or group were intending to participate in such an act and were able to stop them. Otherwise, harassment is an after the event matter.

Exactly, but she is asking for systems to stop it from happening in advance.

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
You're the one changing what she said to fit your own narrative, and you accuse me of bias? That's rich.

Uhuh.

Yes.

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:Yes, she's trying to stop harassment, which she said specifically includes things like (a) making hate videos on youtube, (b) things iike "you suck" and (c) things like "you're a liar."

When delivered in such a way that constitutes harassment. i.e. not one off events, but ongoing, targeted attempts to harass her.

That list of Twitter comments calling her a cunt, and such, were all one-off events. Most were sock accounts that were unused or little used, and were suspended.

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:If she was saying "I am trying to stop harassment, which includes a course of conduct of repeated threats and intimidation and similar conduct,".

We've already covered that harassment is not limited to threats or intimidation.

And, we have covered that harassment does not include being called a liar or being told you suck.

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:]She got her degree in Communications Studies. LOL. A monkey can graduate with a BA in Communications Studies. It's four years of babysitting.

Did a degree that you place no value in =/= not being intelligent.

It's not that I place no value in it. It's that it's a bullshit major.

The choosing of throwaway majors in college, which anyone of below average intelligence can complete, is not indicative of a high intelligence. And, her Masters Thesis is garbage, and reads like it was written by a high school student.

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
Meh - the "campaign" is mostly a bunch of Tweets from bogus or sock accounts that call her a cunt or otherwise call her names.

And again you highlight the problem whilst simultaneously dismissing it.
Following someone around and calling them names, with the intent of causing them distress, is harassment.

LOL -- like Thomas Eshuis does here on this forum? I'm going to the UN. Thomas Eshuis says I'm a liar who posts dishonest "behavior" - he does it repeatedly. I'm going to the UN.

Sendraks wrote:

The problem in the online arena is.....knowing who the fuck these people are and bringing legal action against them, especially when it is a group of individuals working in concert.

I didn't hear her suggest eliminating online anonymity so that people who post nastygrams on the internet can be easily found, did you? Or, is that what she's "really" concerned about, but she just didn't say it?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:Were they directed at a man, nobody would give a shit, and it would be expected that big boys in the public sphere are going to have to endure some unsavory comments

Oh we're back to the "if I can deal with it, so can you" school of nonsense argument again?
Seriously, this sexist shit is sooooooo persuasive.

Suggesting that women are no less able to deal with unsavory commentary as men is sexist? LOL. Ahh...the modern definitions -- so fluid.

O.k., let me be unsexist -- "how dare you say that to a woman???? There are ladies present! Can the locker room talk, there are ladies here!"

I notice 42 still hasn't learned the difference between evidence and proof...

Thomas Eshuis wrote:42, I refer you this, to refresh your memory:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-chat/christmas-is-sexist-t50910-240.html#p2334247

No, I'm done having a conversation with you. Your consistent posting history of dodging, back-paddling, hand-waving and sometimes outright lies have demonstrated to me it's pointless to try and have a rational conversation with you on this subject.
I won't stop pointing out your dishonest behaviour until you stop said behaviour.

This is a link to your refusal to provide evidence of dishonest behavior. LOL. Love that term "dishonest behavior." What did I actually WRITE that was "dishonest."

Stop it with the dodges.

I responded with the following: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2334255

What I said in response was --

Asking for evidence is not hand waive, and your nonsense about "consistent posting history" is exactly what I you always do. The heavens declare the glory of god. You can't point to specific evidence that I do what you say I do, so you just make the sweeping generalization about "my posting history." That's hogwash. If "my posting history" is replete with examples of dodging, backpeddling and handwaving, then cite examples. You can't, so you just declare my entire posting history to be the proof you need. Convenient, fatuous, sophistry.

Outright lies? Where? Give me an example of your allegation.

You haven't pointed out any dishonest behavior. You just keep declaring it. You give no examples. No proof. You make baseless allegations, unfounded, without evidence, and declare that the proof is there to be seen in a "posting history." Poppycock.

Your allegations here are lies.

So, just as you did above - in that thread you made your usual assertion, and when I asked for evidence you said it had already been provided (when it hadn't). I responded, asking for you to point out, specifically, my dishonest behavior, and you didn't.

You accused me of "outright lies" - but, you continue to refuse to provide an example. Linking back to a previous time where you made a baseless allegation and refused to back it up is not proving your case. You need to provide a link to an example of one my outright lies or dishonesty, and show where multiple forum members have proven that I was lying.

If that link is the best you have, then I leave the case in the capable hands of anyone reading this exchange. That's it, Eshuis? That's it? That's your big example of my "outright lies" and, lol, "dishonest behavior?"

You have shown your allegations to be false. Patently, false.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I notice 42 still hasn't learned the difference between evidence and proof...

When you provide your first scintilla of evidence, then we can talk about whether it is sufficient to prove your assertion.

Your allegation is not evidence, and so far that's all we've seen.

Post the evidence.

You made some serious allegations -- remember - you said that I wrote something dishonest -- even "outright lies." You said that "multiple forum members" have not only "pointed this out" but quoted me and shown me to be lying/dishonest.

Yet, we have not a single example from you of that happening.

Face it -- you don't have any such examples. Your allegations are false. You are lying. You know it.

Forty Two wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I notice 42 still hasn't learned the difference between evidence and proof...

When you provide your first scintilla of evidence, then we can talk about whether it is sufficient to prove your assertion.

Your allegation is not evidence, and so far that's all we've seen.

Post the evidence.

You made some serious allegations -- remember - you said that I wrote something dishonest -- even "outright lies." You said that "multiple forum members" have not only "pointed this out" but quoted me and shown me to be lying/dishonest.

Yet, we have not a single example from you of that happening.

Face it -- you don't have any such examples. Your allegations are false. You are lying. You know it.

Uhuh,

I did indeed link to the wrong post.
This is the correct one. Keep this in mind when demanding 'proof'.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-chat/christmas-is-sexist-t50910-240.html#p2334313

Forty Two wrote:Well, she is, by calling for systems to stop people from saying things she considers to be harassment, including but not limited to hate videos on youtube, and things like you suck and you're a liar. So, manifestly, she is.

Uhuh. I'm looking at Sarkeesian statement again, and you're still misrepresenting her.

Forty Two wrote:Right. But, she is asking for systems to do just that.

Really?

Forty Two wrote:Exactly, but she is asking for systems to stop it from happening in advance.

I'm struggling to find a transcript that shows her asking for such a thing. Could you give me a timestamp for the point she asks for this.

Forty Two wrote:Yes.

I'm looking at a portion of the transcript of what she said, and I'm clearly not.

Forty Two wrote:That list of Twitter comments calling her a cunt, and such, were all one-off events.

Ah they were "all one off events" were they? In no way connected? You've done the due diligence on the evidence or is this just your supposition?

Forty Two wrote:And, we have covered that harassment does not include being called a liar or being told you suck.

No we haven't covered that. In fact quite the contrary. Those things, said repeatedly, could be construed as harassment.

Forty Two wrote:It's not that I place no value in it. It's that it's a bullshit major.

Forty Two wrote:The choosing of throwaway majors in college, which anyone of below average intelligence can complete, is not indicative of a high intelligence.

So you say. You'll forgive me for not placing any great weight on comments informed by your bias.

Forty Two wrote:LOL -- like Thomas Eshuis does here on this forum?

Pointing out your transparent dishonesty can hardly be considered harassment. Don't play the victim, you're fooling no-one.

Forty Two wrote:Suggesting that women are no less able to deal with unsavory commentary as men is sexist?

That's not what you suggested. You've made clear in this thread that you've little sympathy for those who can't shrug off commentary, whilst ignoring the fact that no one is obliged to shrug off such comments, not everyone is able to shrug off such comments and shouldn't be in a position of having to do so.

The quoting got a bit messed up there.

Forty Two wrote:

Boyle wrote:

Forty Two wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

When are people going to stop claiming that the people harassing her are simply disagreeing with her?

But sure, keep on ignoring that.



*edit*

The argument against Sarkeesian hinges on trying to create an appeal to ridicule of her position. Its not a great argument.

Her allegations are too general to address. When she posts a series of comments or whatever else she thinks is harassment, then we can evaluate it. Just declaring that "i get harassment on the interwebz" is not enough, and in particular it is not enough to justify government created systems to censor speech she doesn't like.

The argument against her position is, in part, that she has not established her position.

You are so lazy.

A good examination of the examples given -- [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQW-NvtAEs&feature=youtu.be[/youtube] -

At bottom, it's because she's a woman that the "you're a cunt" kind of twitter nonsense gets anyone concerned. When it's Dawkins or any male public figure, it's just namecalling. https://storify.com/Astojap/wehdon-twitter-hate

These are, of course, mean tweets and nasty things to say, and I don't advocate for people to say them. It's juvenile and stupid. But, there is not a "system" that will place a prior restraint on these types of comments that will not also invade vigorous debate and the free exchange of ideas in the public sphere.

We have to be very mindful, these days, of the war against freedom of expression that is going on in the world. Folks that refer to freedom of expression as outdated and passe' are not relegated to the reactionary right. Now we have avowed "progressives" who call themselves "liberal" that think that freedom of expression is outdated. So, we get measures like Bill 59 in Canada which mimics UN Resolution 16/18 that would criminalize speech that could be considered discriminatory.

We are entering a dangerous time in the west for freedom of expression.

Seriously? You link me a 23 minute video? Let me guess as to its content, because I'm not watching 23 minutes of "Oh, I don't believe her because I don't trust her. Also she's a scammer. Also a liar. Also a bitch." Is that roughly accurate? Is it a conspiracy theory video where she's, in fact, harassing herself?

How will this invade vigorous debate on Twitter or in her email? What great exchange of ideas are you saying will be blocked? That she's a cunt and needs to be sent that message at least once a week? How will this chill free speech?

Oh, and by the way, you've yet to provide an example of something you consider to be online harassment. I no longer believe you when you say that you think online harassment is a thing because every instance that gets brought up you just say "Well, that's mean and consistent, sure, but not harassment. If it happened to a man he'd be told to suck it up."

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Just to correct 42's fantastical representation of his posting history, this is what happens, over and over again:

1. 42 posts some dishonest shit.

2. Multiple members point that 42 just posted some dishonest shit.

3. 42 demands evidence.

4. Multiple people explain and/or quote the bits of 42s post which are dishonest.

At this point one of two possible scenario's will occur:
A. 42 completely ignores the posts demonstrating his dishonesty and will pretend they were never posted, starting the whole process over at point 1.

or

B. 42 backpaddles, obfuscates and employs other dishonest rhetorical tactics to counter-factually assert that his post did not state or imply what it clearly did state and/or imply and repeat his request for evidence.


Now 42, I know you think I'm lying, making this up, whatever, that's fine and your perogative.
But tell me honestly, would you keep honouring demands for evidence from a person who kept repeating this pattern of dismissal and evasion?
Would you keep wasting time and energy on that?

Do we have an example of internet stalking and harassment right here?

Why don't you go ahead and post or link to some examples of what you're claiming instead of just repeating your claims?

Oldskeptic wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Just to correct 42's fantastical representation of his posting history, this is what happens, over and over again:

1. 42 posts some dishonest shit.

2. Multiple members point that 42 just posted some dishonest shit.

3. 42 demands evidence.

4. Multiple people explain and/or quote the bits of 42s post which are dishonest.

At this point one of two possible scenario's will occur:
A. 42 completely ignores the posts demonstrating his dishonesty and will pretend they were never posted, starting the whole process over at point 1.

or

B. 42 backpaddles, obfuscates and employs other dishonest rhetorical tactics to counter-factually assert that his post did not state or imply what it clearly did state and/or imply and repeat his request for evidence.


Now 42, I know you think I'm lying, making this up, whatever, that's fine and your perogative.
But tell me honestly, would you keep honouring demands for evidence from a person who kept repeating this pattern of dismissal and evasion?
Would you keep wasting time and energy on that?

Do we have an example of internet stalking and harassment right here?

Nope. I have spend zero energy stalking 42 or anyone else for that matter.
As I've explained to 42 in a different thread, I regularly check the new posts page of this site and check threads that seem interesting to me. If I see someone posting false and/or dishonest crap, I'll point it out.
I've done so regardless of the poster.

Oldskeptic wrote:Why don't you go ahead and post or link to some examples of what you're claiming instead of just repeating your claims?

That's clearly explained in the post you quoted.
I've done so repeatedly in the past, in multiple threads wherein both 42 and I participated, as have other people, only for 42 to either ignore said examples and pretend they haven't been presented or to back-paddle and obfuscate in attempt to counter-factually claim he didn't do the dishonest things he demonstrably did.
At a certain point I'm done wasting my time and energy trawling through past posts, especially when the effort gets dismissed out of hand, time and time again.

Boyle wrote:
Seriously? You link me a 23 minute video? Let me guess as to its content, because I'm not watching 23 minutes of "Oh, I don't believe her because I don't trust her. Also she's a scammer. Also a liar. Also a bitch." Is that roughly accurate? Is it a conspiracy theory video where she's, in fact, harassing herself?

Also - why would you watch a 23min video about someone who spoke to the UN for approximately 2mins? I mean why not just watch the 2mins of what Sarkeesian said, rather than post a video of someone's biased commentary about her?

It's pretty clear to serious minded people who don't have a dog in this fight who's harassing whom:

Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist cultural critic, has for months received death and rape threats from opponents of her recent work challenging the stereotypes of women in video games. Bomb threats for her public talks are now routine. One detractor created a game in which players can click their mouse to punch an image of her face.

Not until Tuesday, though, did Ms. Sarkeesian feel compelled to cancel a speech, planned at Utah State University. The day before, members of the university administration received an email warning that a shooting massacre would be carried out at the event. And under Utah law, she was told, the campus police could not prevent people with weapons from entering her talk.

"This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history, and I’m giving you a chance to stop it,” said the email, which bore the moniker Marc Lépine, the name of a man who killed 14 women in a mass shooting in Montreal in 1989 before taking his own life.

The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women. Major game companies have so far mostly tried to steer clear of the vitriol, leading to calls for them to intervene.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/techn ... .html?_r=0

Stalkers who fantasize about assaulting and murdering innocent people need to be taken seriously, and their vitriolic hate campaign can end in only one of two ways: they can grow a thicker skin and not completely lose their shit over mild criticisms, or someone will act on these warped ideas and commit the crimes they dream of.

When the same person made a game where you punched Jack Thompson in the face everyone, including the media, thought it was fucking hilarious.

The police said there was no threat and recommended that she not cancel her talk.

Nothing hilarious about fantasies about assaulting your ideological enemies in place of refuting their arguments.

Bomb threats are not a very good example of 'free speech'.

proudfootz wrote:Nothing hilarious about fantasies about assaulting your ideological enemies in place of refuting their arguments.

Bomb threats are not a very good example of 'free speech'.

Is there anything you won't strawman?