Greta Christina, McCarthyite

Yesterday I surfed upon Greta Christina's Schroedinger’s Threat post--and learned that Ophelia Benson claims to have received 'threats' pertaining to her attending TAM.  I read the email published by Benson and--while it is unpleasant and stupid--I identify no 'threat' within it.

In her post, Christina notes Benson now acknowledges the email 'seems not to have been intended as a threat — it seems to have been a sincerely well-meant warning...'

If I receive a missive which I consider includes threats and then, upon consideration, decide its writer did not intend it to communicate any threat--that it is 'sincere' and 'well-meant'--then, problem solved, right?

Not by a long shot!

By way of backstory, there's a lively atheist movement afoot, virtual and meated.  Within New Atheism, one misguided, arch interpretation of the Rebecca Watson 'elevatorgate' incident has been deemed infallible and undiscussible--a party shibboleth.

If you disagree with Watson's elevatorgate yarn, atheism's mob will not rest until you have been declared untouchable.

A corollary posits that when a woman receives an email she perceives--however temporarily--as menacing, the woman is granted an unending interpretive monopoly on the document.  If you read it and find no threat therein--even if the recipient herself has acknowledged, upon reflection, that no threat was intended--it is An Attack Upon Every Woman's Dignity for you to suggest that the matter may now be dropped.

So I left a comment on Christina's post:

The writer received a clumsily-written, weird, explicitly non-threatening email.

So apparently we’re re-working elevatorgate. Yawn.

In ‘elevatorgate,’ an offer of coffee was kookily interpreted as a grave attack upon female dignity. For sharing my viewpoint, Richard Dawkins was savaged by–among others–PZ Myers.

We miss you, Hitch.

Within minutes, commenters are lamenting my condesplaining--i.e. 'viewing a feminist-labeled perspective as unconvincing.'  Discussion is forbidden and closed on elevatorgate-tangential ideology:  Hearing a person dissenting in this area, the flock's job is to vilify and silence the critic--abjuring any substantive engagement, since that would suggest skepticism to be legitimate.

I'm then accused of 'misrepresenting facts'--though no factual error is described.  Soon Christina jumps in to warn me not to comment further, while numerous minions assassinate my character, eliciting not a word from the blogger.  Commenters insist I am incorrect--Christina did not mean to suggest I may not defend myself, within her forum.  A moment later Christina announces she's muzzling me, to protect her readers and decency.

Read the thread yourself here.