Saturday, June 14, 2014

Double Standards, Ophelia Benson Style - Part II

Ophelia Benson goes digging through my old comments on her blog to find something she can use to belittle and discredit me. After she tells me to "go away," she tells her readers that I sort of but not exactly sock-puppeted because I used to post under a couple of different 'nyms years before FTB required you log in and stick to one. I've stuck to the same one for a few years now, but she doesn't mention that. Implying that I'm a dishonest person, again. Even though I told people that I changed it. People change their 'nyms on the Freethought blog network all the time. When FB network changed to require registration and log in, they wouldn't let me use the 'nym I was using, I kept getting a message saying that that person already posts here and you may be an impostor.  That happened to a lot of people besides me. So I changed it to my email ID to register and log in, no big deal. At least I didn't think it was a big deal, or that someone would actually try to use that against me in the future.

Ophelia insinuates that I'm a hypocrite because of this past comment complaining about a Yahoo group that had zero moderating (since I now complained about my disappearing comments, which is only moderating). She's "amused" at the "relevancy." Right Ophelia. She not only tone-trolls me, she flat out says I'm a troll.  I have been posting at B&W for a while, you'd think that would earn me some good faith? You'd be wrong. 
And she calls me  "shitty and vindictive."
Ophelia Benson
I’m going back through theoreticalgrrrl’s previous comments, which were made under a few different names (but the same email address, so not exactly sock-puppeting) and I found one of amusing relevance:
I used to belong to a Yahoo group and the moderator was completely anti-moderating in the name of free speech. It was a complete mess, mostly dominated by a paranoid guy who thought the government was using his microwave to control his thoughts. No one could have a normal conversation or debate about anything. It was draining and pointless. But no one could convince the moderator to do something about the trolls, he was so convinced it was some sacred duty to let people be free to spew whatever nonsense they wanted and constantly derail discussions.

Not exactly the "gotcha!" she portrays.

What was her purpose in going through years of my old comments? What was her goal? Looking for a "gotcha!" to justify treating me like a troll and not someone who comments in good faith. To find something she can spin as proof I deserved what I got, that it was perfectly righteous for her to treat me like a troll or a 'lying liar'. And that was the best that she could come up with. 

Was she trying be hurtful? Well, then
 mission accomplished, Ophelia. You win. I feel blindsided by the whole experience. I was a regular reader for years of Butterflies and Wheels, up until a few days ago when this happened. I still don't know why I was ripped into the way I was. People with strong opinions who speak their mind seemed to be welcomed on Butterflies and Wheels, colorful language is frequently used like the f-word, the shit word, the damn word, and others. Attacking me like that seems so arbitrary, I am still am pretty shocked by it. I didn't make any personal attacks, just focused on the word and why I thought the idea that it was a slur was a silly one. I thought the idea was ridiculous, not the person saying it. But I got called intellectually dishonest, accused of using "verbal sleight of hand", which I said was unfair.

But fine. I can look up things she said in the past online, right? Except I will be relying on facts. Or do we have yet another double standard for Ophelia and the rest of the world? 

Ophelia selectively deleting comments where I defend myself against accusations of lying? 

Ophelia says it was OK to do to me because I sounded "enraged" in my posts. 

The mental state she speculates I was in when I typed the comments totally justifies deletion. Forget again the blatant tone trolling, she also has a completely different standard for herself.  

Because it is positively "immoral" when it happens to her: 

"Ordinarily, yes, of course they can reject posts if they want to.  But posts rebutting a false charge of lying? No. That’s immoral."-  Ophelia Benson.

At least this is accurate, unlike her pathetic and weak attempt at twisting my words against me. This type of behavior is not at all unusual for Ms. Benson. She demanded an apology from Discover Magazine and also demanded to have other posters' comments deleted on their site:

"We stopped allowing Benson to comment here back in mid 2009, for very good reasons – among other things, she was sending us emails demanding to have other posters’ comments deleted. We had a better solution.
"Lately, Benson has been clamoring to have her commenting status restored, based on the “Tom Johnson” flap. This doesn’t make any sense, as the thread that led to her banning happened long before that affair."


"...the core of her claim for restoration seems to be something about “bilbo” attacking her here. Here are two unpublished comments that Benson left on the blog recently:
'How about an apology for allowing “bilbo” (same guy as “Tom Johnson”) to call me a liar here but banning me? How about unbanning me? '- Ophelia Benson
'So “bilbo” who repeatedly said here that I was lying in my questions to you two was not moderated, but I who repeatedly asked you two to do a better job of justifying your claims – I was banned. Do you think you should have second thoughts about that now, Sheril? Now that you know “bilbo” was William? A sock puppet? Who has made something of a career of saying I’m lying when I say something he dislikes? I think you should lift the ban on me, and I think you should apologize.' - Ophelia Benson"

Love it. No wonder she's always asking half the internet for an apology.

Yo Jean.
Interesting place, isn’t it – wild accusations of lying get through while the defense is gagged. I think I’ll change my name to Bobby Seale.
J J Ramsey – yes, yes – I know it’s not literal censorship. But I think M&K should take more trouble about this, because whatever kind of filtering it is, the outcome is that the false and libelous accusation of lying is out there while my rebuttal is not.
Hmm. There are some comments let out of moderation – so I take it that means Mooney or Kirshenbaum has done some housekeeping? If so, that means M/K has left the post saying I’m lying in place – ignoring my email message asking them to delete it. M/K has also blocked two posts of mine – saying I am not lying, and replying to the specific claim that TB made. In other words it’s a substantive comment – and they don’t see fit to allow me to make it, while they do see fit to allow people to say I’m lying.
M/K – if this is how it is – well, that’s just over the line.
Ben – exactly. I too went over chapter 8 again – I went through the end notes and did a substantive reply to TB – pointing out that the citations are for the claim that science and religion are compatible, but not for the claim that overt atheism causes people to be hostile to science. My question was about the latter, not the former, so TB’s claim missed the point. Ho hum.
A. McC. – Ordinarily, yes, of course they can reject posts if they want to. But posts rebutting a false charge of lying? No. That’s immoral.


"But posts rebutting a false charge of lying? No. That’s immoral."

Hmm. Yeah, it doesn't feel too good, does it Ophelia? But it's exactly what you did to me. 


Ophelia Benson to me: "I think the only way that deletion “misrepresented” you is by making you seem less enraged over a minor issue than you in fact were."

She actually helped me look less should be grateful to her for deleting my comments! She was just trying to help me. She sees fit to allow people to say I'm lying and leaves those comments up, but Ophelia deleted comments where I defend myself against accusations of lying.

Well that's just over the line, isn't it? Well, not for me...but again different rules for Benson:

Ophelia Benson on herself: "’s a substantive comment – and they don’t see fit to allow me to make it, while they do see fit to allow people to say I’m lying.

"...if this is how it is – well, that’s just over the line."

No. It's only over the line when someone does it to Ophelia. Got it.

Do you think I will get an apology from Ophelia? She should apologize to me, if she has any integrity and honesty. I'm not holding my breath. She can completely twist my words,  and moves the goalposts for swearing and when it's allowed. Then dismiss me completely.  I'm just a peon, foaming at the mouth with shouty fury, who gets enraged over very minor points. It's a fact... Benson has the magical ability to discern someone's tone and feelings over the internet. She knows when you are yelling, when you are shouting, and when you are typing in a ragey furor. It usually happens when you say something she doesn't like, or call her on her bullshit, but that's merely a coincidence.


Shockingly dishonest and hypocritical.

**And Ophelia's pearl-clutching at my use of the f-word?  She moves the goalpost again. Ha:**

"Fuck you , William" - Ophelia Benson, comment #122
"Fuck you , William." - Ophelia Benson, later, same comment #122


Man, deja vu.  This actually is relevant and very amusing. 

Continue to shoot yourself in the foot and arbitrarily single out and attack, then ban, women who have supported you and your blog for years. Sounds like a great plan.

Fuck You Ophelia.

No comments: