The Secular Coalition for America Hires An MRA

Yes, really.

Justin Vacula, the new co-chair of the Pennsylvania chapter of the SCA, is a writer for AVFM and has a history of harassing and stalking female atheists online, especially women from Freethoughtblogs. I am... not sure why they hired him. Do they vet these people at ALL? I know they're probably desperate for volunteers, but "not a misogynist" is really not a high bar.

He's the guy who doxxed a female atheist, and then complained when it was done to him in response, right? Not that I'm cool with doxxing, but I'm really not cool with hypocrisy.

This sort of thing is why I'm not really comfortable identifying with the Atheist Movement(TM). At the very least, this demonstrates why stuff like "Atheism+" is seriously neccessary.

has a history of harassing and stalking female atheists online

Do you have any evidence for that accusation?

I dunno, you could perhaps take a look at some of the links in my post today?

Your post wasn't up when I asked for evidence. That aside, your post is not providing any evidence either, just more hearsay.

BTW, I don't particularly like you, David. But when someone makes accusations about you on a forum I'm a member of I would ask for evidence as well. It's called having integrity. You should try it sometime.

1. This is not a court of law.
2. Even in a court of law there are exceptions to the hearsay rule.
3. All persons reporting what someone said to them is hearsay unless you heard it directly.
4. Your argument has no merit or logic to it.

Where did I bring up the law? I don't really care about the American legal system. (Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to execute mentally retarded people or people at all. But this is just my modest opinion as a German.)

Maybe I should have used the word rumors instead of hearsay. I apologize if nuances get lost in translation. I'm not trying to make a legal argument. I'm trying to make a ethical argument. That is, don't accuse people of shit if you don't have reliable evidence.

Your post wasn't up when I asked for evidence. That aside, your post is not providing any evidence either, just more hearsay.

David's post argues that Vacula is not an appropriate choice for the Secular Coalition of America because:

1. He gloated on Twitter after online harassers drove atheist blogger Jen McCreight to shut down her blog.

2. He posted a piece on A Voice for Men attacking atheist blogger Surly Amy, along with her address and a photo of her apartment building.

Now, you can argue that these are not sufficient reasons to deny Vacula a leadership position in the SCA (the atheist one, not the one with the turkey legs and jousting). You can even, if you like, argue that these were good things to do, for whatever reason.

But you can't claim that they're "hearsay" or "rumors," because they clearly happened. We can read the Twitter posts. We can look at the Voice for Men article. You can argue about the conclusions David drew from Vacula's behavior, but you can't argue that Vacula didn't do it.

Vacula has now resigned.