The Trial of Justin Vacula

[SteveB]

Looks like the case against Justin consists of poor at least one poor PR judgement and unorthodox views on gender relations so far.

Do we have a strong example of Justin being anti-woman?

[SteveB]

blergh

[Coito ergo sum]

O.k. - so far we have

1. Bullying Jen McCreight by saying that this time it wasn't her boyfriend who kicked her off the interwebz...
2. The article he wrote that was posted or reposted on A Voice for Men.
3. Alleged doc-dropping, which appears to be only linking to an already publicly available contact information, made public on purpose by the complaining person.

That about sum it up?

If not, I hope someone will add additional allegations.

If that is it, then Vacula's resignation was a travesty, and it reveals the witch-hunt mentality of the dickbags at ApeLust.

Come on folks! Those of you supporting ApeLust -- how can you support them when they do shit like this?

[Pappa]

Looks like the case against Justin consists of poor at least one poor PR judgement and unorthodox views on gender relations so far.

Do we have a strong example of Justin being anti-woman?

Can someone translate that into English for me?

[Thinking Aloud]

Can someone translate that into English for me?

English Plus, or just English?

[hadespussercats]

I don't know Vacula-- but I just wanted to point out that getting caught on film holding posterboard with the words "women's rights" markered on it doesn't mean he might not be a douche.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know Vacula-- but I just wanted to point out that getting caught on film holding posterboard with the words "women's rights" markered on it doesn't mean he might not be a douche.

And, he could very well be a douche, without being a misogynist and without having done anything wrong meriting being driven out of a non-ApeLust humanist organization.

This is an important event to keep in mind when evaluating ApeLust. They like to claim that they just want their own safe space away from all the privileged spaces out there, and they ask why people can't just leave them be. Exhibit A: Vacula -- they reached out from their safe space and demanded that he be ousted from an organization not their own. They cannot fairly claim the right to do that without others having the right to (a) defend Vacula, of they so choose, (b) reach into ApeLust's sphere and exert influence there.

[hadespussercats]

I don't know Vacula-- but I just wanted to point out that getting caught on film holding posterboard with the words "women's rights" markered on it doesn't mean he might not be a douche.

And, he could very well be a douche, without being a misogynist and without having done anything wrong meriting being driven out of a non-ApeLust humanist organization.

This is an important event to keep in mind when evaluating ApeLust. They like to claim that they just want their own safe space away from all the privileged spaces out there, and they ask why people can't just leave them be. Exhibit A: Vacula -- they reached out from their safe space and demanded that he be ousted from an organization not their own. They cannot fairly claim the right to do that without others having the right to (a) defend Vacula, of they so choose, (b) reach into ApeLust's sphere and exert influence there.

Actually, reaching out from the safe space is what gives me hope they actually are an activist organization.

As for resisting outside influence, it's an effective defense strategy, isn't it? Whether or not it's right?

Of course, it blasts big holes in their theory of holding the moral high ground.

[Cormac]

I don't know Vacula-- but I just wanted to point out that getting caught on film holding posterboard with the words "women's rights" markered on it doesn't mean he might not be a douche.

And, he could very well be a douche, without being a misogynist and without having done anything wrong meriting being driven out of a non-ApeLust humanist organization.

This is an important event to keep in mind when evaluating ApeLust. They like to claim that they just want their own safe space away from all the privileged spaces out there, and they ask why people can't just leave them be. Exhibit A: Vacula -- they reached out from their safe space and demanded that he be ousted from an organization not their own. They cannot fairly claim the right to do that without others having the right to (a) defend Vacula, of they so choose, (b) reach into ApeLust's sphere and exert influence there.

Actually, reaching out from the safe space is what gives me hope they actually are an activist organization.

As for resisting outside influence, it's an effective defense strategy, isn't it? Whether or not it's right?

Of course, it blasts big holes in their theory of holding the moral high ground.

I prefer to have the realistic view set out by Oscar Wilde: "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars*"



*Hint: It ain't Ape Lust wot's stargazing.

[DaveDodo007]

Back to The Trial of Justin Vacula.

He doc dropped Amy whatshername, that is a no no in my book. He did apologize and had the offending comment removed on the Slymepit though it still showed a lack of judgement. You don't take internet drama to meatspace and that is that.

I thought the alleged doc dropping was a reposting of information that Surly Amy already posted publicly on her site. Am I wrong about that? If I'm not, I don't think that's doc dropping, because if someone puts something out there, it's out there.

Then why not just link to it (even this is a bit iffy.) why repost it. especially on a site that they consider (very unfairly I need to add) as the very pits of slime, full of rape apologizes and sexism and hates women, He could have just pointed out that her address is online and there wouldn't have been any sinister overtones. At the very least he left himself open to attack which fully rebounded on him and the very reason he ask for it to be removed/edited, which is very hard to do* on a free speech site like the slymepit.

* By hard I mean frowned on.

That is a separate question. It's a fair question, but a separate one.

First I would like to know if it is accepted that Vacula didn't publish something that was secret or confidential. I.e. was the information publicly available on the interwebz because Surly Amy had posted it herself. That is my understanding. But, I don't want to just assume it. Is it your understanding too?

Now, it may have been a better strategy for him to just link to it, or point out that the information is there, but, you know, if I put my name and address on a website, and then someone who doesn't like me does a screen capture and posts it somewhere else, what is my beef?

In the case of Surly Amy, it was being claimed that Vacula was only counterclaiming against Amy's DMCA takedown request in order to get her address. Vacula then responded to that allegation by linking to an page where Surly Amy disclosed her address herself.

I don't get what the problem is there. That isn't "doc dropping." It seems to me that if Amy is concerned about people knowing her address, she shouldn't make the address public. It would be another thing if he hunted it down and retrieved it from a nonpublic source and publicized it. http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/08/a-c ... y-amy.html

I'm well aware of the events that led up to him doc dropping as I lurk on the Slymepit a lot, mainly for the lulz. The cunt who doc dropped Pappa on Myers blog justified it by saying it was freely available on this forum and we all know how angry that made us. For a so called leader (fuck off) of the atheist 'movement' and has a blog site and podcast, he acted like a fuckwit. He could have alluded to the fact her address was on line or even printed it while censoring it with x's. I have zero tolerance for doc dropping.

Edit: off/of

[Thinking Aloud]

Just for clarity, Pappa's details were available by doing a whois search on the domain for Ratz, rather than on the forum itself. </info>

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm well aware of the events that led up to him doc dropping as I lurk on the Slymepit a lot, mainly for the lulz. The cunt who doc dropped Pappa on Myers blog justified it by saying it was freely available on this forum and we all know how angry that made us. For a so called leader (fuck off) of the atheist 'movement' and has a blog site and podcast, he acted like a fuckwit. He could have alluded to the fact her address was on line or even printed it while censoring it with x's. I have zero tolerance for doc dropping.

Edit: off/of

Except, it's not doc dropping if the person whose information is disclosed intentionally published the information publicly.

[Animavore]

Is no one going to besmirch him by tying him to a certain Transylvanian?

A bit slow on the smear campaign, people

[Pappa]

Is no one going to besmirch him by tying him to a certain Transylvanian?

A bit slow on the smear campaign, people

Late.

[Animavore]

Is no one going to besmirch him by tying him to a certain Transylvanian?

A bit slow on the smear campaign, people

Late.

Uh! How?