Thunderf00t one, Dillahunty nil

This is my first attempt at writing a blog in any definition of the word.
I do not have a literary background, nor do i consider my writing of any relevence to the greater community. 
These are my thoughts which i want to share with those whom have some interest in the hot topic currently flooding the twitter feed.

I've been a fan of Thunderf00t's work for the best part of two years. His "Why do people laugh at Creationists" videos have provided hours of entertainment and helped me understand the failings of religion.

Matt Dillahunty is, or was another YouTuber i held in high regard until his less than satisfactory defense of Rebecca Watson's elevator incident followed by his defense of the AtheismPlus forum.

Now, to the meat of the discussion.

Thunderf00t's video presents IMO, a rational take on what he considers a poisoning of Atheism by those who proudly wear their version of the much ambiguous "Feminism" badge.

Thunderf00t mentioned a valid point early on in his video which demonstrates the absurdity of the so-called "feminist's" interpretation of harassment. 
Fake jewellery and offensive T-shirts. 
As far as i can gather, the only company of sloths and micro-minions whom took offense was the SurlyRamic fan-base.
This was by no means a majority, nor an "almost majority", which would make it a minority group who took offense to such material. 

The right not to be offended is not a right. The right not to be harassed is more the point. Hands up those who recall just one single instance in their life they encountered any level of harassment by a T-shirt or a piece of jewellery. Anyone?  

(01:30) Rebecca Watson made an interesting point in her sPEACH noting the Skepchicks instituted a buddy system and on some occasions used a male escort because of the dangers of sexual harassment at these super dangerous unsupervised, misogynistic women hating, er, Skepchick hating conferences, where these women were invited to speak and sell their wares.

Well, it's good to see that men are still being used for some good. To protect these fragile women from the menz? Okay, got it. 

Scepticon5 has adopted a policy which i find laughable, and it says:

"Additionally, exhibitors in the expo hall, sponsor or vendor booths, or similar activities are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment."

I can't comment on the numbers of attendees that read the Scepticon5 harassment policy before attending, but this transcript of the policy begs several questions.

What is considered as "sexualized clothing"? What constitutes a sexualized environment?
Did the conference organizers employ "anti-sexual" police to keep the attendees and booth operators in check? 
How is any of this relevant to a harassment policy? 
Making rules for booth staff/exhibitors/sponsors et al to eliminate the use of sexualized clothing is a victim blaming mentality. 
Heaven forbid if you get sexually assaulted because you wore a tank top and hot pants. Amirite? 

Let's just assume for a moment that "sexualized clothing" plays a minimal role in attracting unwanted sexual advances, creepiness and indecent practices. What is PZ's excuse for gawking at college girls at conferences? Surely this is a man who should be a shining beacon of example as to what not to do at conferences. 

Harassment is an act by the perpetrator, regardless of policies in place.

Okay, moving on.

(06:30) Mr Myers voices a redefinition of atheism that is already clearly defined in any dictionary publication as - The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Thanks to Mr Myers we now have a new definition.
 "Atheism is the radical notion that we should live our lives by the principles of reason and evidence - by science."

Matt explains to Thunderf00t that this presentation has since been abandoned by Mr Myers, therefore should not be made the subject of scrutiny by Thunderf00t. I would agree with Matt if this piece of presentation was not still readily available for viewing on the internet.

Over the past 12 months or so, i've seen many words take on new meanings by way of being redefined by internet skeptics/bloggers/armchair activists/A-plussers/FTBers/pseudo intellectuals etc.

Sadly, these are the people who are currently representing the atheist community.
Fortunately for us there's an ever growing feeling of disgust toward these pseudo-rationalists. The voice of reason against these baboons is gaining traction and i welcome it.



Matt Dillahunty responded with his own vlog criticizing Thunderf00t's use of screengrabs and imagery.  

I watched this video a couple of times to make sure i didn't miss a thing.
I'm still not entirely sure what Matt's message is. 
Matt, in sensational style defends PZ's use of a slide where he (PZ) gives his definition of atheism, claiming it's an attempt to talk about the atheist community and what it values. 
I must have missed that slide presentation. 

(05:00) I was not aware Matt was an organizer at Scepticon5. 

I've read through the Scepticon5 Harassment policy and i can't find any 'clause' that states the convention focuses on ideas, and they don't want to have booth babes. 


You can set rules for your private home. The conference is a public forum last i checked.
Setting rules which discourage attendees will only alienate those who may be interested in atheism.
Fake jewellery? I'm not aware of any such thing, unless it's an outright copy of let's say "Tiffany&Co." or whatever. 
SurlyAmy sets up a stall to sell painted rock jewellery to attendees. Fair enough.
Other attendees frequent the convention wearing their own versions of "rock jewellery" and this is offensive because.......(crickets).....

Other jewellery worn by attendees is ALSO a form of expression. So are T-shirts.
How is any of this considered harassment?
The true definition is.............. 
Being offended doesn't constitute a rewriting of event harassment policies. Seriously.

I can only assume most of you are wearing your "face palm" crash helmets right about now. 

I used to watch/listen to Matt's TAE podcasts and found his dissection of theist arguments was executed methodically, as you'd expect an inquiring mind to do. It's not until i found some of his arguments were blatantly biased that i noticed his method of argumentation seemed more the style of his creationist foes.