[Thread]
For those who followed last summer's exposure of #GenevanCommons hate group, there is an update.

It seems beneath my dignity to report it.
But then again, so much of what women end up having to say is beneath our dignity. 1/11

For *some* of the back story, see here: https://t.co/ojo19jWyvs

and here:
https://t.co/AsHuM8q861

2/11
Reminder: This group had upwards of 1,000 church officer and laypeople members. They mocked and slandered many, many of their brothers and sisters with racist, sexist and homophobic slurs. They plotted to disrupt their sister’s work for the church. 3/11

https://t.co/X52uXe75Ru
Last weekend, #GenevanCommons member Rev. Michael Spangler faced charges in a church trial. Two others in this presbytery have not been charged, though one has demitted office. 4/11
Charges
1: offenses against his brothers, “sowing discord in the church by publicly disparaging the governance of the Presbytery”
2: “publicly reviling and detracting Mrs. Aimee Byrd & Mrs. Rachel Miller,” focused especially on 2 WORDS Spangler wrote: “ruthless wolves.” 5/11
The outcome:
According to multiple sources, Spangler pled guilty to charge 1 & the Presby found him guilty of charge 2.

Recommended consequences: Suspension for 2 yrs for Charge 1, admonishment for charge 2 (the *lightest* of all possible penalties). 6/11
To my knowledge, aside from 1 other man, none of the people involved in the hate group #GenevanCommons, not even its administrators, have been held to account. 7/11
I first encountered some of these men in 2015, when I witnessed the last stage of a church trial. A minister was found guilty of not requiring his ill wife to attend church. Penalties on the table: suspension and expulsion from the church and ministry.

What have I learned? 8/11
Protect women, face serious consequences.
Revile and harass women – a slap on the wrist will suffice.

Trust the courts? Women so often bear the shame of church court failures. Courts remind us over and over, how little we are worth, how little abuse means in the church. 9/11
We are supposed to feel relieved & thankful when men take our cases to church courts. Here come the men w/ all the procedures!

But I do not trust systems that have been set up largely w/out the input of those they should protect. 10/11
Big problems are calls for big reflection, big scrutiny, potentially big change.

All that must take place at a fundamental level.

Until then, church courts are going to continue to go something like this … 11/11
I wrote this 3 yrs ago, suggesting where Presby churches might *begin* making changes to their Books of Church Order.
Perhaps someone might find it useful now.

*Sidenote: Ironically, I stopped writing for this particular publication b/c of abuse.

https://t.co/WDWxQtqq9c

More from For later read

Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options

Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other

1/13


'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/13


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.

3/13


You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"

4/13


Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

5/13
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like