Petition to remove MRA Vacula from SCA leaderrship

[GretaChristina]

In case you haven't heard: Justin Vacula was recently appointed co-chair of the executive council of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Secular Coalition for America. There's a petition about this on Change.org, created by Stephanie Zvan, asking the SCA to reverse this decision.

http://www.change.org/petitions/secular ... ter-of-sca

In case you're not familiar with Justin Vacula:

He has written for A Voice for Men, the notorious MRA blog, which is being monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a potential hate site.

He is the person who published Surly Amy's address on the Slymepit, where he is a regular commenter.

He has dismissed and trivialized the issue of harassment of women on the internet. He has claimed that claimed that public figures can't be cyberstalked. And he has engaged himself in Internet harassment.

More details are at the petition. If you care about this, please sign.

http://www.change.org/petitions/secular ... ter-of-sca

[piegasm]

Signed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Greta.

[Xanthë]

Signed. (Of course, the slymey types have been trolling the petition with fake signatures; why, I wonder? It doesn’t make Vacula look any better.)

Stephanie’s blog post at Almost Diamonds

[unbelieveably_happy]

Signed. Thanks Greta for posting this.

PS At the end of the petition text it says 'Behavior like this is leadership behavior.' Pretty sure there should be a 'not' in there. I couldn't see a way to contact the petition organiser, but if anyone else knows how to it might be worth a mention.

[BillHaines]

Done. I've been on conference calls for the Secular Coalition for Virginia, and hoping to participate further, but now maybe not.

[simpleflower]

I signed it =)

[Grimalkin]

Signed! Thanks for bringing attention to this.

[eNeMeE]

+1

[Skep tickle]

In case you haven't heard: Justin Vacula was recently appointed co-chair of the executive council of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Secular Coalition for America. There's a petition about this on Change.org, created by Stephanie Zvan, asking the SCA to reverse this decision.

http://www.change.org/petitions/secular ... ter-of-sca

In case you're not familiar with Justin Vacula:

He has written for A Voice for Men, the notorious MRA blog, which is being monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a potential hate site.

I had never heard of Justin Vacula before today, when I read about this petition on another site & now again here. Here's what I've found:

He has not "written for A Voice for Men". A post from his own blog from August 8th was taken down because of a DMCA claim filed by someone who remained anonymous; he filed a counter-complaint claiming that his use of an image of a piece of Surly-ramics was fair use. That censored blog post was re-posted at A Voice for Men on August 17th. Link available on request (didn't want to just post it & send people, unsuspecting, to his blog).

For what it's worth, not that it matters because he hasn't "written for" A Voice for Men, a search of SPLC and AVfM brings up AVfM's diatribes against SPLC and a general (strong) caution from SPLC about men's rights and fathers' rights groups and sites, but nothing specific by/from SPLC about AVfM. See here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women

He is the person who published Surly Amy's address on the Slymepit, where he is a regular commenter.

Having never had a reason before to visit the Slymepit, I stopped by today & did a search for his posts. While some of the other people are awful, he seems pretty level-headed to me. Sure, his POV wouldn't fit in here, but that doesn't mean he's unreasonable.

Now, regarding her address: that sounds awful! ...But it looks like it came up in response to trying to figure out who filed the DMCA claim against him. The post which contained her address has been removed or edited (apparently at Justin Vacula's request, see here: http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/08/a-clarification-surly-amy.html) so it didn't turn up on my less-than-fine-tooth-combed search, but from a glance through the thread it sounds like there was reason to think the person who filed it was using an IP address that resolved to New Jersey (which didn't fit), and the DMCA meant that his private info would be revealed (which felt like a threat to him), and apparently some letters criticizing him were sent to people close to him (I didn't catch the details, but it was interpreted as an invasion of his privacy), and - as he says at the link above - indeed the address associated with her state business license is publicly available; I found it in about 20 seconds. I'm not going to post it, or do anything with or about it, but it is publicly available information.

He has dismissed and trivialized the issue of harassment of women on the internet. He has claimed that claimed that public figures can't be cyberstalked. And he has engaged himself in Internet harassment.

I'd be delighted to follow some links to evidence that supports this, if someone could provide a couple. I didn't find such evidence in my poking around today. As above, I did not wade through the whole Slyme Pit, and don't wan't to, but a search for posts by him seemed to indicate that there are some nasty people participating there, but that he doesn't seem like one of them.

I'm sorry, but this seems like a witch hunt.

Also, it's a small point but "leadership" only has one r.

[eNeMeE]

PS At the end of the petition text it says 'Behavior like this is leadership behavior.' Pretty sure there should be a 'not' in there. I couldn't see a way to contact the petition organiser, but if anyone else knows how to it might be worth a mention.

It`s not - the next few sentences clarify what is meant. The last paragraph says that he is leading people, but he's leading them in the wrong direction.

[Flewellyn]

I'm sorry, but this seems like a witch hunt.

It isn't. It's holding his feet to the fire for bad behavior. There's a strong difference, and I think you know that.

Given your posting history here, and the fact that your "analysis" of Vacula's actions curiously bears a very strong resemblance to his own excuses, I am extremely dubious of your claims that you didn't know about this beforehand.

So, do you have anything intellectually honest to say on the matter? If not, I suggest not posting again.

[Skep tickle]

Mod edit: Banned user [ Show ]

I'm sorry, but this seems like a witch hunt.

It isn't. It's holding his feet to the fire for bad behavior. There's a strong difference, and I think you know that.

Sure, but so far what I've seen said about him doesn't seem to me to fit "bad behavior". Now, that is of course a value judgment, but there just doesn't seem to be a beef patty between the buns here.

Given your posting history here, and the fact that your "analysis" of Vacula's actions curiously bears a very strong resemblance to his own excuses, I am extremely dubious of your claims that you didn't know about this beforehand.

It's the truth. You are welcome, of course, to be skeptical of that claim of mine...and to let me know what might serve as satisfactory evidence for you of my claim that I didn't know something before I learned it today.

So, do you have anything intellectually honest to say on the matter? If not, I suggest not posting again.

Wow. How ironic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty :

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:

• One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
  
• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
  
• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
  
• References are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided

I've posted some actual information, for example that he DIDN'T in fact "write for" the MRA website on which his post appeared. I'd be delighted to post the relevant links showing the posting dates, but I'm pretty sure if I link to an MRA site (which I don't support, not that that's relevant) that would be considered a hostile act. But a quick search will turn this information up for anyone who's interested, and I'd be happy to post the links IF you'd like.

Or you can just continue with your assumption that because I am skeptically considering the claims made against this person, as I would normally do (being a skeptic and all), I'm dishonest.

Your choice.

[tekanji]

Skep tickle, do you remember the conversation we had when you first posted here, the one about positive interactions and respecting other forum goers? Because you are doing things that are the opposite of those things.

Using terms like "witch hunt", downplaying a person's participation in a hate site (I'm talking about the slymepit; I will take your word about him not having contributed his article to AVfM), downplaying a person's posting of personal information to a hate site (that it's public is immaterial; he was drawing attention to it on a site full of people known to harass others), and trying to play "gotcha" instead of genuinely trying to clear up the concerns surrounding this issue are all indications of bad faith.

Do you even understand why this is so disturbing to so many people? Do you even have a willingness to try and listen to what people are saying? Because your posts so far are sending the signal that you just want to show up all the naysayers.

[Skep tickle]

Mod edit: Banned user [ Show ]

Oh, dear. It seems I am failing the litmus test, by failing to swallow the Kool-Aid without asking what's in it.

[tekanji]

Hidden because it's a reply to a now banned user [ Show ]

Because willfully misreading my post is a great way to show good faith! Seriously, what does it get you to prove my point?? I wasn't even saying "you are wrong", I was saying "the way you are communicating isn't conducive to discussing your points." But I guess you'd rather think of yourself as a martyr?

Anyway, there is at least one point you're Skep tickle was wrong on. SPLC does directly address AVfM. Check the post "Misogyny: The Sites" (I can't link it because linking is too hard to do on my iPhone) (see the link provided by Avenel).

[Edited to hide questions addressed to a now banned user. Also, thanks Avenel! Thanks SubMor!]

[Avenel]

SPLC does directly address AVfM. Check the post "Misogyny: The Sites" (I can't link it because linking is too hard to do on my iPhone).

Well, here you go, tekanji: Misogyny: The Sites.

[SubMor]

Skep tickle: Your behavior here is completely unacceptable.

Let's examine the forum rules you ignored in this post:

Don't Be an Ass: Wheaton's Law is in full effect. Don't harrass, insult or otherwise be an asshole to other forum members. Bottom line: Play Nice.

Respect the Mods: The moderators are here to keep the forums safe, sane, and secure. If they ask you to do something, do it. Do not harass or annoy the mods. If you have a complaint about a moderator action. Make a post in the appropriate thread in the "Forum Matters" section. An Admin will PM you and the issue will be discussed.

And then, oh man, what can I even say about this?

Oh, dear. It seems I am failing the litmus test, by failing to swallow the Kool-Aid without asking what's in it.

This kind of response is completely unacceptable. People can disagree with you without trying to indoctrinate you into a cult, especially when that cult is a fantasy that exists only in your mind. You're obviously not here in good faith, so you don't need to be here at all. Goodbye.

[Jade Anon]

Glad I saw this thread. Signed.

[Setar]

First Edwina Rogers, now Justin Vacula.

I could be quite cynical about this progression if I wanted to. Suffice to say, the regressive shift seems a bit too...convenient.

[hyperdeath]

To be honest, I think the petition approach was a mistake. A letter writing campaign by people affiliated with the SCA (which of course is a subset of the current approach) would have been just as effective, without giving the haters the means for a counter attack.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm struck by how numerous and varied the haters are. I don't think I've seen that Franc Hoggle guy before.

[Flewellyn]

Hoggle is well-known on Pharyngula. Check out his entry in the Dungeon there.

[maiforpeace]

To be honest, I think the petition approach was a mistake. A letter writing campaign by people affiliated with the SCA (which of course is a subset of the current approach) would have been just as effective, without giving the haters the means for a counter attack.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm struck by how numerous and varied the haters are. I don't think I've seen that Franc Hoggle guy before.

Hopefully they are doing a letter campaign too.

And yes, I too continue to be flabbergasted as how numerous and varied the haters are.

I signed the petition, and highlighted it on my Facebook page.

[ischemgeek]

Signed. I'm willing to write a letter if anyone thinks a letter from a Canadian might help at all.

[emptyell]

To be honest, I think the petition approach was a mistake. A letter writing campaign by people affiliated with the SCA (which of course is a subset of the current approach) would have been just as effective, without giving the haters the means for a counter attack.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm struck by how numerous and varied the haters are. I don't think I've seen that Franc Hoggle guy before.

I don't know how effective the poll may be but the pro-Vacula team doesn't seen to be doing him any favors. Their posts range from vapid to vacuous to vitriolic. Particularly the Mabus wannabe from Everywhere, UK.

[hyperdeath]

Hoggle is well-known on Pharyngula. Check out his entry in the Dungeon there.

I was being facetious. Whenever you see something like that, franc hoggle (or one of his sock puppets) will almost always be in the middle of it.