Pope Francis yesterday used violent rhetoric about punching a friend if they insulted his mother. While I support the Pope’s right to use such rhetoric, in the context of a discussion about free speech, I disagree with its content. I think that it is unhelpful and irresponsible. I think that such language by a public figure about a mass murder, even when intended rhetorically and humorously, can contribute to civil dialogue being replaced by increased hostility.
PZ Myers has also criticised the Pope’s violent rhetoric. But the Pope’s rhetoric is less violent and less prolific than the rhetoric that PZ himself has used about stabbing Christians, pitching people off a pier, shanking somebody in the kidneys, shooting priests from the sky, sticking a knife in a bastard and twisting it for a good long while, and rhetorically handing people a rotting porcupine and telling them to stuff it up their nether orifice.
The violent rhetoric of Pope Francis
Here’s what triggered PZ’s criticism. Pope Francis said yesterday that he would punch a friend if they insulted his mother, when answering a question about the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris. See the video, not the text, in this Guardian article for the Pope’s full statement.
“I believe that you cannot react violently, but if my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. This is normal. It is normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.
Many people who speak badly about other religions, or religion, who make fun of them, make other people’s religion a joke, well, that is a provocation. And then things can happen, like if Mr Gasparri had insulted my mother. There is a limit, every religion has dignity, every religion that respects people…
What happened in Paris we find incredible, but let’s look at our own history. How many wars of religion have we had?.. This person gives their life, but they give it in a bad way. Many people who work, and I think of missionaries for example, they give their life but to construct. These people give their lives, killing and destroying. There is something here that is not right.”
PZ Myers responded with a post titled ‘A Papal Conundrum’, writing:
“Uh-oh. The Pope has just grossly insulted my beliefs. I believe you have a right to criticize anything — I go further and think you have an obligation to criticize. I also believe that violence is never the answer, and that the proper response to words is more words, not flinging punches. But look at what this pope is saying, violating what I hold dear.
By his own principles, I guess if ever, in some catastrophic, ugly, unpleasant stroke of bad fortune, I were to meet the pope, I’d have to punch him for provoking me. Wait. No. Fuck the pope. I’m going to reject his principles and refuse to punch him. I might have to say something about his mother, though — like that she seems to have raised him with a kind of stupidly pugilistic morality. Or was it his church that screwed him up?”
The violent rhetoric of PZ Myers
But what values that PZ holds dear has Pope Francis violated? It cannot be rhetorically saying that he would react violently to an insult, because PZ has a history of rhetorically writing that he would react violently in certain circumstances, and of using other violent rhetoric.
For example, in May 2014 PZ saw the movie ‘God’s Not Dead’, and he then wrote (source and context):
“I left the theater filled with contempt and loathing for Christians… I’ve got to start carrying a knife now. Just so all you Christians know, if I’m in a fatal accident, and I’m lying in the street dying, and you’re not running over to stop the bleeding or otherwise physically help me, and you try to pull that prayer-and-conversion shit on me, I’m going to stab you. I’ll have nothing to lose, and you sure as hell don’t deserve to continue living. I don’t like violence, but I will make an exception for this one possible circumstance.”
There are similarities between the two uses of violent rhetoric. Both Pope Francis and PZ Myers combine a statement that they do not support violence, with an exception where they say they would be willing to do so. So I assume that neither the Pope nor PZ are proposing that they would actually use such violence, but are merely using it as a humorous metaphor for how annoyed they would be if they experienced the insults they describe.
There are also differences between the two. Pope Francis says that he will punch somebody, while PZ says he will stab somebody. And, as far as I am aware, this is the first time that Pope Francis has used violent rhetoric, while PZ uses it more often. Here are some examples:
(About his blog, 2011) “This is a rude blog. We like to argue — heck, we like a loud angry brawl. Don’t waste time whining at anyone that they’re not nice, because this gang will take pride in that and rhetorically hand you a rotting porcupine and tell you to stuff it up your nether orifice…” Source
(About drawing knives and flensing) “I hate that faux-Vulcan shit so many skeptics and atheists love to pull, but I’m not forbidding it — I encourage the commentariat here to instead draw their knives and flense it so thoroughly the dispassionate ass is feeling the pain in every nerve ending.” Source
(About shanking Thunderf00t) “Now Rebecca Watson shanks him in the kidneys and mocks him cruelly. Trigger warning for sad ex-paragon of anti-creationism being publicly exposed as a moral cretin.” Source
(About going for a meal in Seattle) “The watchword for the evening is “casual”. Pleasant conversation. Friendly discussion. No pressure, no worries. Don’t show up to pick a fight or we’ll pitch you off a pier.” Source
(After a priest died when carried away by balloons in a charity fundraiser) “I think this is my favorite newspaper headline yet… I am imagining a day when every priest in the world stands smiling beneath a great happy bobbing collection of many-colored balloons, and they all joyously loft themselves up, up into the sky… This will be my new dream. It will bring a smile to my face as I fall asleep. And as long as I’m dreaming, I’ll imagine myself with an ultralight aircraft and a BB gun, buzzing above a great Sargasso of wind-gathered balloons.” Source
(About William Lane Craig) “I’d rather get his words down in writing, where I can pin him down, stick a knife in the bastard, and twist it for a good long while. Longer and with more detail and rigor than is possible in a verbal tussle.” Source
Two other interesting observations
Two other interesting issues arise from PZ’s response to Pope Francis’ statement.
Firstly, if PZ did choose to insult Pope Francis’ mother, why would he choose to insult her by saying that “she seems to have raised him with a kind of stupidly pugilistic morality”? Surely both of his parents would be equally responsible for raising him in whatever way he was raised? Why would PZ single out his mother as if a child’s mother is responsible for raising the child?
Secondly, in another post on the same topic, PZ links favourably to a video by somebody else criticising the Pope, and PZ says ‘Somebody is a little pissed off by the Pope… Hey, that’s how I feel about him all the time!’. In the comments of that post, PZ adds (about the maker of the video, not about the Pope):
“Yeah, I know. It’s a guy who made excuses for a serial sexual abuser, and I do hold that against him. But the video did reflect my feelings about the pope, so I went with it for that reason only.”
It is becoming increasingly difficult to figure out the ethics that PZ applies to his writing.
http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk/2015/01/16/pope-defends-free-speech-agrees/
That is freedom of speech – non threatening but truth telling.
BTW – why the fuck are you still concerned with the has been PZ?
You give him a free podium harping on his very fuzzy ethical concepts.
I doubt that violent rhetoric will lead to violence in the case of PZ’s relatively narrow and undoubtedly narrow-minded commentariat, mostly because they have internalized a narrative of victimhood. As to over one billion Catholics, well, I’m not so sure.
I posted this link in a previous thread but it’s possibly more relevant here.
While the pope is defending violent responses to perceived offence Muslims in Niger are responding to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons by burning Christian churches:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30853305
Religious leaders like to pretend that they represent a common front to legions of secularists but the truth is that Muslims in particular are killing Christians, Jews and other Muslims.
Meanwhile US atheism has so surrendered it’s principles that they denounce any criticism of Islam as racist, excuse the murder of cartoonists, and spend all their time slandering those who think atheism should be about rejecting religion instead of pushing US campus politics onto the rest of the world.
If your first response to the murders in France is to scour Richard Dawkins’ Twitter feed to find something to be offended at on behalf of those who support murder you are doing atheism wrong
“Uh-oh. The Pope has just grossly insulted my beliefs. I believe you have a right to criticize anything — I go further and think you have an obligation to criticize.
Putting aside the violent rhetoric for the moment, this is quite definitely not what Myers believes. He believes he has the right to criticise others but if they criticise his beliefs they are harassers, trolls, rape apologists and demented fuckwits.
Pharyngula is one of the most strictly moderated sites I know.
The headline made me laugh, but its right to put both popes, that of Catholicism and that of Atheism in one headline (both are infallible as we know). I observe that violent rhetoric is perfectly normal for the social justice side who fancy themselves as tough heroines and heroes of some sorts. As we know, some even get carried away a little with their fantasy lives as we’ve seen with Avicenna.
Noel Plum recently made a good video on “punching” rhetorics as well {1} where he discusses an article by Rebecca Watson {2}. Unsurprisingly, she is close with PZ Myers:
Not to get carried away here, but in the victim of the doxxing (Skep Tickle) did not follow PZ Myers around, at all. She posted a joke into a forum under her nym and the nature of the forum is, as we know, as such that comments get buried by the hour by an avalanche of new comments. If that is a reason to doxx someone (or to punch) then practically everything is.
On that matter, and within the same larger context of being offended so much that retribution is allegedly acceptable, Christopher Hitchens wrote {3} (on the similar Danish Cartoons incident at the time):
The paralells are hopefully clear: There is no right to not get offended. Atheits should champion free speech not champion retribution-rhetorics. If someone has a problem with a Scandinavian newspaper printing cartoons (or a French one), or with a forum that is irreverent then don’t read it. But we see here that the atheist community (the US centered conference / blogosphere) is unfortunately not living up to any ideal.
It’s certainly not the kind of movement that someone like Christopher Hitchens would champion, if he knew what was going on now. He was of course just an individual, but illustrates perhaps well that the atheist-skeptics movement is not worth any support at this point. Of course people won’t magically believe in Gods or stop mocking Creationists, but the organisations who hope to attract supporters should be afraid, because the message is loud and clear.
Kathleen Johnson, the Vice President from the American Atheists recently urged {4} the community to not call doxxers, doxxers and she is apparently pro-doxxing and pro-punching in the face, and smearing and all these things, since she has no objections to that, but showed concern that people might have negative opinions about the doxxing, smearing and rhetocially punching (and knive-stabbing) business of the social justice warriors — you know their reputation seems to have gotten a dent recently and Kathleen Johnson was concerned with that. And who can’t sympathize with her. Fewer people seem to love her thuggish friends, I really wonder why that is?
Damion 2:
You said:
“I doubt that violent rhetoric will lead to violence in the case of PZ’s relatively narrow and undoubtedly narrow-minded commentariat, mostly because they have internalized a narrative of victimhood. As to over one billion Catholics, well, I’m not so sure.”
I certainly hope that you are correct. I will point out that it would be hard to compare the likelihood of violence of FTB with that of the Catholic Church. As you point out, there are over a billion Catholics…and maybe several hundred active FTB commenters. Maybe.
On the other hand, the current pope has not, to my knowledge, expressed that he wouldn’t be so upset if a dissenter killed himself by repeatedly hitting himself in the head.
I do think it would be problematic if we assume that the FTB Horde is completely, 100% incapable of violence. More than one member has confessed to very serious crimes and their increasing disconnection with reality seems like a problem to me. Not to mention the doxing they do.
Had it been the other way around – had Sibrel followed Aldrin around, harassing him for a minute, before Sibrel punched Aldrin in the face – I would vehemently condemn the act. Does this make me a punching hypocrite? […]“
That’s not the ‘other way around’. The ‘other way around’ would be Aldrin harassing Sibrel and Sibrel punching Aldrin in the face . If Watson condemned Sibrel in that case, that would be hypocritical.
The story she has invented makes Sibel worse: he’s now the harasser and the assaulter. It wouldn’t be ‘hypocritical’ in this case, it would be mental.
Ugh.. let’s not get me started on Skep’s doxxing. That was my breaking point. Naively I thought things could be settled diplomatically. After that event I realized it was war
— (P. Z. Myers, as quoted by M. Nugent.)
Fact:
1) Myers allows a self-confessed multiple child-rapist to post his outpourings on Myers’ ‘blog, with neither alteration, nor comment.
2) But when Myers does not condone commenters’ submissions, he randomly bans reasonable & sane commenters, redacts & alters their posts (‘disemvowaling’ and such), places their comments in ‘Gumby Quoates’ as to present them as a target of ridicule to his acolytes or, more recently – simply deletes their submissions entirely in a kind of scorched-earth policy.
Now, I have no real problem with point 2).
BUT! It shows that he closely marshals comments for content.
That in itself is sufficient, in a court of law, as prima facie evidence that he therefore actively approves of the content of those post that he leaves “unmolested”, as it were.
Let us inspect that quote again:
In my opinion, the gap between making excuses for a serial sexual abuser, and actively publishing and then condoning (by lack of marshalling) the remarks of a self-admitted child-rapist is a minuscule one.
In my opinion, the Pope committed a lesser crime than has Myers.
I never thought in my entire life that I’d rise to the Pope’s defense, but PZ’s screaming hypocrisy drove me to it. (Your Grace)
There are similarities, but not in the case of combining a statement that they do not support violence with an exception; what you quoted from the Pope did, what you quoted from PZ did not.
True. Also, the pope will purportedly punch on the basis of a curse word, whilst PZ will (literally!) stab on the basis of being denied medical succor in favour of being proselytised to when in extremis.
—
Weaksauce from the scrapings of the barrel, this post.
@JohnMorales
Agreed. In fact Myers resolved to always carry a knife, so that he could put his plan of stabbing Christians into action.
I don’t know if Myers was telling porkies when he said that from now on, he was always going to carry a knife.
All I know is that Myers is honest. If he says he is going to carry a knife from now on, then the chances are he carries a knife.
Steven:
“All I know is that Myers is honest. If he says he is going to carry a knife from now on, then the chances are he carries a knife.”
I sure hope not. Don’t they have metal detectors in American schools and universities? Or is it a ceramic knife? If so, was it designed by a certain person specialized in ceramics? And if so, what are the chances it’s as effective as a chocolate kettle?
@Michael Kingsford Gray, 9
He edits the comments of other people? Are there known examples of this? Being relatively new to all this I’m initially finding this too outrageous to be true, even for Myers. Maybe I’m too naive.
Why would PZ single out his mother as if a child’s mother is responsible for raising the child?
Not to mention, according to the kind of pop, Marcottian feminism that Myers subscribes to, it would make a lot more sense to lay this one at the feet of a hypothetically hyper-masculine Pope father. He doesn’t even seem to be able to stay with the script with that much fidelity. I think the answer to the whole matter is that PZ is about as sexist as any other American male of his age, despite the vigorous feminist cleansing rituals I’m sure he’s undertaken.
PZ Myers simply expressed a great fear he apparently has — the fear that he could be known as one of those who converted on their deathbed. Then he has a thing for slimy things and both comes together, knives and cutting, and slimy things in his day job which is apparently slicing open the little bodies of zebra fish (from Pet Smart). Maybe it’s a darker side, the zebra fish as the objects at his mercy, to study, and kill in the process. Or maybe his job of taking zebra fish apart just gave him the ideas for the metaphors he uses and we would discuss his bizarre use of forklifting metaphors had he picked up a different career. Who knows.
I agree strongly with Damion Reinhardt. PZ’s post demonstrates his usual lack of self-awareness. It’s contained to the level of background annoyance he usually emits. The Pope’s statement is downright hateful and irresponsible and without question will exacerbate global terrorism.
Myers said he was going to carry a knife from now on. He then described a hypothetical situation where he was going to use the knife. But there was nothing hypothetical about his claim that he was going to carry a knife, so that he would be prepared if the occasion ever arose where he needed to stab a Christian.
Certainly if a Muslim wrote that he was going to carry a knife from now on, so that he could behead any cartoonist he saw drawing an image of Muhammad, Myers would not start saying that this is just hypothetical.
Steven Carr @11:
Leaving aside he’s not quoted as saying that, since you assert you know he’s honest, it follows that either you think telling porkies is honest or that you do know he wasn’t telling porkies.
—
Aneris @15:
<snicker>
@13 Larry Metcalfe
I don’t know about altering meaning. Certainly he used to disem-vowel posts with glee
When I see the name John Morales I just know there is going to be a nitpick or regurgitation of a dictionary followed by a disdainful wave of the hand. Standard Pharyngulite, ignore the bulk of the criticism of PZ Myers, wait for a minor slip and then haughtily dismiss the critic.
Given the weakness of your defense, the disdain is a little misplaced. The priest is doing what he considers necessary to save Myers. That may make him deluded and maybe selfish, but to PZ Myers apparently that makes him worthy of death. We have no context anyway. Was there anyone else around to administer aid. What message about the nature of ones moral code does it send to justify stabbing someone because one is beyond punishment? I don’t have any reason to suppose that this is anything more than rhetoric from Myers, but then he has done more than anyone to turn his little corner of the web into a
condemnation factory parsing for anything that can be twisted into a threat or misogyny or anything bad at all. I have yet to see any other “leader” in the atheist world consistently use such graphic violent imagery and protestation of hatred and loathing and yet he is up there with some of the worst diviners of threat and harassment.
‘“I left the theater filled with contempt and loathing for Christians… I’ve got to start carrying a knife now. ‘
According to John Morales, the words ‘I’ve got to start carrying a knife now’ do not mean that somebody is going to start carrying a knife.
Here in my fair country of France, we’ve had a lot of experience with people (mostly from the far-left) using “racist”, “misogynist” and other accusations to demonize and ostracize people who disagree with them. It holds some kind of weird political weight, because frankly, our laws are a bit fucked up.
What Myers and his clique do is no different.
You should note that although condemning Islamists for terrorism is a big no-no in SJW circles, threatening to stab a Christian for a death-bed conversion is just fine. Why is that? Maybe because SJWs think all muslims are “brown people”? They couldn’t be more wrong if they tried.
Brive @19:
I’m not sure about Myers, but some other FTBer did edit and deform meanings from dissenting comments, IIRC.
[meta]
Gerhard @20:
That form of knowing is called ‘gnosis’.
Well, I addressed the comparisons in the OP, I suppose I can at least note the violent rhetoric has been there all along — he even had a Dungeon!
(That was the bulk of the criticism, no?)
Um, you don’t think that enumeration of instances of “violent rhetoric” constitutes at least some context?
Well, you’ve quite literally stated that he leads at consistently using graphic violent imagery, so in that respect at least he is a leader without the scare quotes.
So, Morales, care to be honest someday? Or is it just all hand-waving?
Phil Giordana:
To what dishonesty and to what hand-waving do you refer?
—
I do note that my #10 is hitherto the last word on the subject of those comparisons.
Myers supports gruesome violence towards christians who may try and convert him while he’s dying.
Agreed, or disagreed?
I’ve got to laugh. PZ Myers may be an atheist, but sure acts like every other hypocritical fire-and-brimstone, hate-mongering, moral-crusading preacher in America.
Larry Metcalfe January 17, 2015 at 9:32 am
…
He edits the comments of other people? Are there known examples of this? Being relatively new to all this I’m initially finding this too outrageous to be true, even for Myers. Maybe I’m too naive.
Yes, you’re naive. Everything MKG wrote is true and he’s been doing it for years. He also quote mines and distorts what people actually said, often presenting cases that are simply not true when you read what the original source has said.
Sam Harris has been a favorite target of quote mining. But Dawkins and other ‘big name’ skeptics have all been through that wringer as well.
And he’s not the only one at FTB that does that. In fact, I’d say most of the ‘big’ bloggers there engage in similar, if not identical, behaviors listed by MKG.
Fortunately, naive is not stupid and is correctable. I’m sure there are plenty of people who’ve got links to the edited/blocked/quote-mined posts. Some of them may be posting here and will show you what has happened.
MosesZD @29
Thanks. I was familiar with the blocking, deleting posts and quote-mining, I just hadn’t heard of him editing other people’s comments until now so it would be good if anyone has any examples of this.
PZ Myers will just adore being compared to the Pope.
If there is something wrong with constantly focusing on Myers, it allows some other members of the A/S community get away with similar behaviour; FtB types aren’t the only ones who engage in doxing.
Case in point: Jerry Coyne. After I sent Coyne an email [anti-semitic details deleted – MN], he wrote a downright hysterical blog post, asking his fan club to track me down, publishing ‘my’ (or more accurately, particle accelerator pioneer and space colony enthusiast Gerard O’Neill’s) email address. The next day I was “exposed” as a Coors Lite-drinking teenager with a pudding basin haircut and a fondness for Hitler. This was interesting to me, as a bald 36-year-old man who has never drank lite beer.
I was also on the receiving end of some abusive (and hilarious) email from Coyne’s followers, one of whom claimed they could ‘find’ me (or pudding basin dude, but probably not the scientist who died in 1992), while some others signed me up to a Christian-Jewish fellowship group (???), and the Anti-Defamation League (a Masonic organization devoted to harassing American Arabs).
The point of all this? Let’s apply blame where blame lies, and hold everyone in this vast human conglomerate of non-believers to the same standard.
Phil Giordana @27:
I presume you’re asking me; I respond that though you forgot the “instead of actually helping him” bit, that is the literal meaning* of what he wrote.
(He also wrote that Rebecca Watson shanked Phil Mason in the kidneys — do you also imagine he meant that literally? 😉 )
—
* Except for the gruesomeness; personally, I think that the stabbing efforts of a dying academic who needs urgent medical attention are not likely to result in especially gruesome violence.
//and the Anti-Defamation League (a Masonic organization devoted to harassing American Arabs).//
You may not have a fondness for Hitler but you seem to be a conspiracy nut.
@Morales.
.
Its called experience.
But the priest in that scenario would probably think he was helping. Not stabbing him would cost Myers nothing. It is just pure spleen from a man who can’t tolerate people with different outlooks on life.
True. Also, the pope will purportedly punch on the basis of a curse word, whilst PZ will (literally!) stab on the basis of being denied medical succor in favour of being proselytised to when in extremis.
If a priest is trying to suffocate you with a pillow stabbing him would be self defence. That’s in extremis
Stabbing someone who is doing no harm but not actually helping is murder.
Dying yourself doesn’t absolve you.
Steven Carr @11,
That view is not supported by Myers’ behavior with regard to Michael Nugent nor with regard to Myers’ treatment of Justin Little, just to name two off the top of my head.
Myers is dishonest, hypocritical, and utterly lacking in integrity.
Nathan. Is this is what you wrote to Coyne.
I can’t really decide where I stand on the attempted doxxing, but you really are an idiot if you wrote that and I can understand Coyne’s anger.
Myers version of the Good Samaritan goes like this:
A traveller is lying half dead along the road. A priest walks by but doesn’t help – so the traveller stabs him. Then a Levite comes by and doesn’t help so the traveller stabs him too.
Finally, a Samaritan comes by, confesses to raping three children, and the traveller slaughters a fatted calf for him because he was lost and now he is found.
[anti-semitic details of Nathan’s email deleted – MN]
Wow, who’d have thought being an anti-Semitic arsehole would piss someone off?
Kirbmarc #32: The full name of the ADL is ‘Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith’. B’nai B’rith is a Jews-only branch of the Freemasons. You can search the name “Leo Frank” if you want to know the kind of people that run the ADL. Wake up and smell the sheep.
Gerhard #36: Coyne is a hypersensitive authoritarian. My beef with him has been his softer handling of Jewish issues, atheist and non-atheist, going back a couple of years now. I seems that nearly every atheist of Jewish background is prone to go soft on the Jewish religion and Israel*, and to be honest I’m fed up with it. I make no apologies for that email.
Shorter Shatterface #38: “I’m actually OK with doxing, as long as it’s done by someone other than PZ Myers.”
*Coyne has recently started hammering the ultra-Orthodox. I hope that my needling has gone some little way to provoke that
Shorter Shatterface #38: “I’m actually OK with doxing, as long as it’s done by someone other than PZ Myers.”
Shorter Nathan #39: ”I’ll just pluck an implication out of my arse”
I didn’t endorse doxxing you; I called you an anti-Semitic arsehole.
You are an anti-Semitic arsehole because (a) you think attacking Jews for being ‘ugly bignoses’ is acceptable; (b) you make sweeping generalisations about ethnic Jews and their complicity with Israel; and you indulge in conspiracy theories about Jews and the Masons.
You couldn’t be more anti-Semitic if you used a swastika as your avatar and accused Coyne of baking bread with the blood of gentile children.
Coyne has recently started hammering the ultra-Orthodox. I hope that my needling has gone some little way to provoke that
Sure, Coyne thought ‘Maybe this Nazi has a point.’
Coz that’s the way people’s brains work.
If he goes for your crackers just stand back and let him have them. This crazy person will fillet you like a zebrafish. Or a priest.
For all the Nathans, Gerards and Gerhards in this thread. [anti-semitic details deleted – MN] are off limits. Irrelevant. Nothing to do with the (surprisingly) nasty and unconsidered comment of the current pope about religious intolerance. Quite why God’s Vicar On Earth should start defending Islam is beyond me, unless he actually appreciates that any criticism of religion (even a criticism of a religion that he would consider ‘wrong’) is something that will damage the long-term value of his ‘brand’, alienate ‘stakeholders’, and provide less-than-optimal ‘optics’ (I loved doing the physics of optics, and as an owner of a couple of dozen Leica M lenses that one is particularly offensive), even if his ‘management team’ should ‘pivot’ in a ‘timely’ and ‘appropriate’ direction, so as to provide ‘solutions’ for ‘issues’. All religions are equally wrong. Even the pope’s. Screw the lot of them as incompetent thinkers who prefer fantasy over reality. Let’s leave [anti-semitic details deleted – MN] out of it.
I have a Leica camera that has been passed down from my grandfather. Must be 60 years old at least. Nice bit of kit. Pretty sure James Zbond had one.
@Nathan (formerly GerardO)
You’re an insufferable anti-semite. Jerry Coyne has “Da Roolz” and he sticks to them. He writes there {1}:
The FreethoughtBlogs usual suspects (in particular Greta Christina, Ophelia Benson, Jason Thibeault and Stephanie Zvan) moderate arbitarily and capriciously and for ideological reasons. They more likely keep a snark-free and sourced comment out of sight than obvious trolling. They’re really not in the mood to argue and defend their claims. Obvious trolling however simulates debate, gives the impression they don’t moderate and provides entertainment for their regulars (and comments and hits from the back and forth). As a plus, the regulars can farm Social Justice Points by posturing against the troll.
PZ Myers allows everything first, removes comments that are too challenging for him, and banhammers newbies who struggle to defend themselves against dogpiling regulars and whose tone trick the newbie into reaching into the same drawer of invectives. But without the intriciate shibboleth’s they’ve created over time the newbie would slip up (aka “He wrote ‘stupid’!!! That’s ableist, you moron!”). That was the sports over there, extreme-insult newbies with whitelisted words and hope they use a blacklisted one associated with some heinous views, typically racism, misogyny, sexism or ableism. When they have someone in a designated corner, they just keep distorting and building on each other’s distortions and when boredom settles in (or the “troll” / newbie is smarter than they are), the commenters pray to their host to swing the banhammer, which he often enough did.
Criticism of this, of course, get’s construed as “Freeze Peach” and Freedom of Speech absolutism which is the view that you can express everything everywhere all the time (which is nonsense). Then, in triumph, the common FreethoughtBlogs regular on occasion points out that Jerry Coyne isn’t criticized but their own Dear Leaders are, and that such is obviously hypocrisy.
#1_whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/da-roolz/
On the subject of Leica, and Jews:
The Leica Freedom Train was a rescue effort in which hundreds of Jews were smuggled out of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust by Ernst Leitz II of the Leica Camera company, and his daughter Elsie Kuehn-Leitz.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train
Ernst Leitz II was awarded posthumously the Courage To Care Award by the Anti-Defamation League
Shatterface@34
Stabbing someone who is doing no harm but not actually helping is murder.
There you go again, using the dictionary definition of words.
I was never formally banned from Pharyngula but I was threatened with a ban if I didn’t leave a particular discussion immediately. I decided not to bother returning.
My crime was that although I agreed 100% with a particular policy, I had very very slightly different justification for doing so.
I could not at the time believe any community could respond so viciously to what was not even disagreement. I attempted to clarify my position, stressing our substantial common ground and even placing the blame on myself for what I thought was a failure to make myself understood.
Today I’m much more familiar with not only the general playbook of PZ’s horde but with the specific commenters who felt it was necessary to dogpile and abuse someone for insufficient purity of thought. And with PZ, whose response to someone being dogpiled for dissent in his comments is to pile on further, cranking up his font size to show he means business, and banning as a gleeful public spectacle. To him, banning seems to be an expression of power. I have even seen him end an argument with a ban followed by an “I win.” He’s a middle-aged child.
In my opinion these two examples of violent rhetoric are a bit different. I think the Pope was clearly the worse of the two. This is partly for the reason that Damion said; the Pope has a much larger set of devoted followers than PZ. Beyond that, the Pope didn’t come right out and say he supported the Charlie Hebdo killers, but he was condoning the use of violence in the context of that incident. That’s extremely bad form.
To me the example of violent rhetoric from PZ reads like standard internet tough guy bluster. We all know the difference between the PZ that writes Pharyngula, and the one who shows up to skeptic conferences in the real world. Dr. Jekyl isn’t going to shank any Christian apologists, even if Mr. Hyde rants about doing it on his blog. Moreover, I’ve spent enough time on Pharyngula to know that most of the commenters over there are opposed to violent means, even if they are willing to wish violent death on their internet adversaries. I know this because a prolific commenter known as Strange Gods Before Me stated at one point that he was not opposed to violent means, and he attracted a fair amount of criticism for saying so.
I wouldn’t say I like the violent rhetoric at Pharyngula, but I think its mostly frustrated people blowing off steam, and not anything particularly dangerous. The Pope on the other hand is dangerous.
Old_ones @49,
Your argument is perilously close to the typical FtB “It’s okay when we do it” justification.
I’m not condoning the violent rhetoric that takes place on FTB. I find it unhelpful and stupid. This is pretty consistent with how I view most of the violent rhetoric on the internet. I don’t feel that anything but a small minority of violent statements on the internet are anything to worry about, but that doesn’t mean I think the people writing porcupine fatwas, or emailing death threats to Anita Sarkeesian are doing anyone any favors. I’ve received death threats as well on occasion, and I laughed them off as adolescent BS. And they were.
On the other hand I think the violent rhetoric from the Pope is more dangerous because of context, and the size of his following. I think it is especially bad when the Pope (or any other widely respected leader of a large community) condones violence, and especially bad when the violence condoned is in response to unpopular speech. So it isn’t that I think the FTB rhetoric is OK, just that I think there are particular reasons why the Pope’s is worse.
kraut: BTW – why the fuck are you still concerned with the has been PZ?
He hasn’t apologised yet. He hasn’t paid for his numerous crimes. He hasn’t began to grovel…which is what he needs to start doing as a minimum, as far as I am concerned.
One of these men considers himself infallible and a moral paragon, the other is the Pope.
BTW, it has been a horrible week or so for PZ Myers and his Horde. He got trolled brilliantly by kibmarc, who copied PZ’s old(er) criticisms of Islam into a new thread where the Horde was howling anything negative about Islam was “Islamophobic” and “waycist”. It was hilarious.
Secondly, he has had to explain to the organiser of Gateway to Reason why there is a certain amount of PUSHBACK over him getting a speaking gig. Something to do with the fact that PZ has abandoned reason a long time ago, is now a rape apologist by his own definition, and has being exposed numerous times by Michael as a fibber of the first kind. Aww, poor Thom of Gateway to Reason has doubled down. Not my fault if the mud sticks to Thom as well. [PS – It will – and I will make sure of it]
Larry Metcalfe said:
There are hundreds examples of PZ disemvowelling posts, but the problem is finding them. PZ posts upwards of half a dozen or more posts per day, and sifting through thousands of posts to find one that has been disemvowelled is a heavy task.
Some of the more well known FTB bloggers of the the FC(n), have indeed rewritten entire comments posted by critics. The rewriting is intended to change the meaning of the comment so as to say something other than what was intended by the original commentor or, in some cases, just to make the commentor look/sound particularily stupid. It has been a long time since I’ve witnessed this rather foul behaviour, and so I do not remember who did it, but it has indeed happened on a few occasions.
The most common act though is to simply delete a commenters post altogether. PZ’s favoured method of doing this is to leave the posters comment header, so as to show the commentor’s nym and time of posting, but to remove all content from the comment, so it’s just a blank space, which I guess gives the commentariat something to glee about.
Other FTB bloggers, Like Benson, simply remove the entire post and the header so that there is no record of the comment at all.
Old_ones @51,
Thanks for the clarification. Myers could take a lesson from you.
@Richard Sanderson,
Myers’s response to being trolled (by Kolnnauzer/Kirbmarc) with his own words? You guessed it, more violent rhetoric.
And why specifically a ball-peen hammer? That’s a rather bizarre level of detail, isn’t it? He almost sounds as someone who has experience whacking skulls and found that a ball-peen hammer works best. 🙂
Besides, real men know that a screwdriver works just as well (with apologies for this obscure in-joke).
@ John Greg, 56
Thanks for the additional information. That this sort of thing happens, and has been happening for so long, on a blog network with the name it has is astonishing really. Let’s hope that Michael, the Slymepit, and anyone else, can continue to document and expose this sort of behaviour and that conference organisers start getting the message about the toxic nature of the behaviour of these people.
//Wake up and smell the sheep.//
Could anti-semitic conspiracy nuts at least try to be original?
//On the other hand I think the violent rhetoric from the Pope is more dangerous because of context, and the size of his following. I think it is especially bad when the Pope (or any other widely respected leader of a large community) condones violence, and especially bad when the violence condoned is in response to unpopular speech. So it isn’t that I think the FTB rhetoric is OK, just that I think there are particular reasons why the Pope’s is worse.//
I completely agree with you. Myers isn’t dangerous in the slightest. When he posted about stabbing priests, or stuffing rusty porcupines up someone’s rear end he was just using some “righteous anger” rhetorical tricks in a misguided attempt to be edgy and cool.
I think that the only thing that he’s harming is the already poor reputation of atheists as prone to anger and hate.
The Pope on the other hand is held in great respect by millions of people in every continent and has more or less implied that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was justified since in his opinion you can’t mock religion and not expect people to react violently.
Some deranged Catholic extremists (yes they exist, although luckily there aren’t too many of them) may take the Pope’s words as a justification for acts of violence against cartoonist who lampoon the Catholic Church or Christianity in general.
The risks of a deranged FTB poster taking PZ’ rhetoric as an authorization to go out there and stab priests or rape people with rusty porcupines are so low they’re virtually non-existent.
[meta + OT]
Richard Sanderson @54:
You found it hilarious that brilliant trolling and PUSHBACK have made for a horrible week for PZ Myers and his Howling Horde, but since the PUSHBACK became doubling-down, you will make sure the mud sticks to the PUSHBACKER and it will not be your fault.
(It’s an informative post)
//Besides, real men know that a screwdriver works just as well//
Is this a reference to American Psycho?
Let me add that I’m not worried about PZ’ passive-aggressive violent rhetoric against me. Although I’d love to meet him, greet him politely and tell him that his hope was rewarded, since I’m still alive and that my skull suffered no ball-peen hammer incidents.
@John Morales #10:
Pope francis said:
Pope Myers said:
It is therefore unavoidable to conclude that John Morales does not understand what he reads.
John Morales furher states:
It is therefore unavoidable to conclude that John Morales is a pompous ass.
@Kirbmarc,
No. It refers to the legendary hammer/screwdriver debate that for a while held the Slymepit in thrall. (Don’t ask.)
piero @62:
He said that in May 2014, and it was not part of the two actual quotations about which the comparisons were being made.
I think your contention that Michael is comparing the Pope’s contiguous quoted piece with a combination of two quotations from PZ (one of which ostensibly supports violence without an exception and one of which conversely supports non-violence without an exception to therefore claiming both therefore simultaneously decry violence whilst advocating it is less a misreading than a tortured one.
(It’s certainly possible, I grant you that)
Morales is going to defend PZ no matter what PZ does. Even if PZ committed actual crimes against people, as long as they were against the right people, Morales would justify it. It’s what he does.
PZ and his lot using violent rhetoric with the “oh, that’s just hyperbole” as their get out of jail free card is hardly new. It’s not even slightly new.
Of course, anyone who isn’t part of the Clear doing the exact same thing, and OOOHHHH MYYYY GAWWWWRSH, that will just not do, and all of them, including Morales will collectively lose their shit about threats and violence and SEE WHAT WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH.
It’s all bullshit, and when any of them say “well, I don’t approve of that” ask them for links where they’ve actually consistently said “hey, that shit is wrong when we do it too.”
You’ll never see those links. It never fucking happens. The only time Morales et al disagree with their fellow clear is late at night, in their own heads, and even then very quietly.
John Greg and Larry Metcalfe 55
Don’t forget the best part of PZ’s comment trickery. Remember a few weeks ago when he doxed a commenter? He employed the fun technique of deleting the guy’s comments and adding a gross mischaracterization of what the guy said.
Made-up example:
Sincere dissenter: “I’m not sure that we should be mired in the feminist wars.”
PZ’s post-dox comment: “That’s right, everyone. XXX at XX@XXX.com with the IP address XXX says he wants to put all women into quicksand, presumably so they’ll drown.
Disgusting.”
[meta + OT]
@John Morales,
You forgot to close a bracket in your otherwise unremarkable* comment #64. Also, there should be a full stop after your final “that”.
*Containing as it does bog standard Peezus apologetics.
The theme of this thread seems to be cognitive dissonance and the US is full of this (or it) one case in point is coming up.
In the US they have something called “African-American History Month” every year. I have no problem with that.
The thing however is that they have this month in February and I do have a couple of niggles with this.
1) Nothing says “African-American” to me like being buried up to my ass in snow.
2) It’s in February – the shortest month of the year – so it seems that one is expected to appreciate African-American history, for the briefest time possible.
I always thought that was a bit ironic.
@Jan Steen:
To answer the ball-peen hammer question, it’s an obscure reference and a macabre joke:
Theodore Streleski, a Stanford mathematician. In 1978 he bludgeoned his adviser, Karel deLeeuw, to death with a ball-peen hammer after being told that, after 19 years of graduate school, he wasn’t going to get his doctorate.
@john welch #68
My thinking is that if they had an “African-American Day” in the US it would be on the 29th of February.
Why punch someone for upsetting you, when you can doxx him/her, and incite your followers to contact his/her employer in an attempt to damage his/her career?
@Matt Cavanaugh #71
The main problem I have had with PZ etc., et al., ad nauseam, of accusing Michael of harbouring rapists is that one of their disciples might want to convert this propaganda into physical injury if not death for Michael.
When you pump people up on emotive rhetoric – as Bill O’Reilly did with regard to George Tiller by calling him “Tiller the Baby Killer” on his show for weeks prior to someone going into George Tiller’s church whilst he was there one Sunday and shooting him in the head – is that you should not be able to get away with it if one of those influenced by this rhetoric commits a heinous crime.
By definition, if I post here then I am a rapist. If someone of the PZ etc. faction were to find out who I was and where I lived then I would be fair game to be harassed, assaulted or murdered with regard to the totally unjustified accusations lobbied against me.
[meta]
Jan Steen @66, actually, I made a far more egregious error than that: the second selection was indeed one where violence was decried and simultaneously condoned by PZ.
Also, the syntax is somewhat garbled as I submitted prematurely.
(Apparently, I have to correct myself to see it done properly!)
Michael Nager @72:
By that reasoning, if I have a drink at a gay bar then I am gay.
oO
[meta]
Shatterface @74:
What I wrote was “my #10 is hitherto the last word”, thus restricting the proposition’s domain of applicability.
I do not accuse you of bullshitting, I suspect you were serious in your claim.
@John Morales #75
“By that reasoning, if I have a drink at a gay bar then I am gay.”
I think you got that one wrong, I think it should be that because one out of six guys are gay then of the eleven guys I slept with at least one of them are gay, even though I don’t normally sleep with guys.
🙂
I want to state support for Old Ones idea that Myers is almost certainly not likely to enact any of his violent fantasies. It’s all posturing. On the other hand, it’s interesting that the comparison with the actions of the pope is one of quantity, rather than quality. In other words, if Myers were a more successful tyrant (i.e. had more followers) we’d be right to condemn Myers at the same level we do the pope, according to Old Ones.
I doubt that Myers would act out his violent fantasies – mainly because of the fact they are so fantastic.
He’s hit by a car and instead of helping a passing priest decides to pray for him? Is this a thing they do? Hell, maybe the priest will go through his pockets too. If you are going to invent some assholery why not go the whole hog?
And the second scenario? He’s dying at home and a priest bursts in demanding he repent? In 21st Century America? This happens a lot does it? It’s straight out of the first series of Blackadder.
It’s one thing to argue that religion is bad; it’s another to invent badness just so that you have another reason to hate someone. Religion does enough real harm without inventing new incidents.
I appreciate Michael Nugent’s free range comments policy, but I feel that further discussions of Jerry Coyne would be a derail of a post about PZM and the Pontiff.
I am, however, available for internet chit-chat on Twitter (@unhiddenness), and for lengthier discussions you can comment on my blog:
thenodster.wordpress.com
Goodnight, and good luck
Michael @ 74:
No, no, no, by PZ/Morales logic, if you post on the slymepit you’re a rapist. If you only post here, you support rapists, and by definition, rape.
The difference is subtle, but important.
As far as the rest goes, while I doubt they’d actually get physical with you, because they’re all raging wussies no matter how badass they talk, (and note Morales is just fine with that kind of shit as long as the source is Clear), do I think they’d condone someone else getting physical with you in their name or cause?
Oh absolutely. They’re totally fine with that, hell, watson straight up said assault is okay as long as she approves of the target.
And since Morales chooses to walk by that standard, he, by FTB/Skepchicks logic supports that standard.
Ah, the fun you can have.
@John Morales,
That’s why I called your post a piece of apologetics. But at least you are able to admit that you were wrong, which would make you a shining example to PZ Myers.
@MosesZD,
If that is indeed the thing Myers referred to, then that is pretty sick.
As for his violent rhetoric and the possibility that he himself would become violent. No, I do not think that he will. But his language is part of a strategy to demonize his opponents. Call them misogynists, harassers, rape supporters and rapists often enough, fantasize about using knives and ball-peen hammers on them, and it may well incite one of his more unhinged followers to do something nasty. Who can tell?
The sole difference, in terms of “potential”, is the absolute number of followers of Myers’ cult versus the Islamic cult.
That is the sole distinction.
The goals are equivalent.
The motivations are squarely equal.
The goals are seamlessly equivalent.
Jan Steen @83:
Leaving aside that criticising an allegation does not entail a defending its subject, I was specifically wrong about which two specific quotations were being compared (it was not the topical quotations of January 2015 but rather the Pope’s 2015 and PZ’s 2014 ones).
So, that accounts for my first paragraph @10; the second remains yet outstanding.
So we see again, an FtB regular who has, yet, to commit a crime against the hive and remains in good stead with the leadership there. John Morales sees it absolutely fit to come to MN’s blog and admonish him for his wording on posts and call in to question MN’s data.
I wonder why? I wonder how many documented cases there are of John Morales doing the same to PZ? I can only speculate that the number is quite low and perhaps under the bar for how many comments he’s managed on this comment thread alone. As with the last MN and PZ thread here, I figure it’s because John may feel MN is a softer target than PZ.
While I agree with Old_ones’ post that I think PZ is nothing more than an Internet Tough Guy, PZ’s posts about murdering people just because they’re religious is just more of an indication that this is not someone who should be in a leadership position – especially if there are pointy things or scissors around.
Anyhow John, it’s now your turn for me to leave you with this: I certainly hope nobody does to you what PZ has done to Michael Nugent – that is, smearing his real life name with the allegation that Michael provides a haven for rapists and harassers. I’m still at a loss as to why you and your ilk cannot see how this is damaging not only to the person, but to the greater Atheist community.
Have a good day.
Richard Sandersen @55,
I’ve been trying to get a response from Thom on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/gatewaytoreason) about Myers’ defamatory smears and doxing. He has thus far been remarkably resistant to explain why he is supporting someone as dishonest and lacking in integrity as Myers.
I encourage anyone who recognizes that PZ Myers owes Michael Nugent (and Skeptickle and Justin Little) an apology to join the conversation on Gateway To Reason’s page. The other speakers and sponsors of that conference should know the type of person who will be piggy backing on their reputations.
Morales: do you support Watson’s assertion that physical violence against someone who is just bugging the shit out of you without physical contact is okay?
Gateway to Reason’s facebook post is jaw dropping. They’ve drawn an analogy between us and the terrorists responsible for the Charlie Hebdo massacre. I’m used to dealing with crazy people, but this is a different level entirely.
JetLagg @89,
Thom is looking more and more like Myers’ lapdog. If he wants to bring up Charlie Hebdo, he should first confirm who is threatening violence (however ineptly and non-credibly).
I’m contacting the other speakers about the situation. I don’t expect to convince any of them to drop out, but I do hope that some appreciate the work that Michael does and will choose to have a private word with Myers about his behavior.
@Patrick,
You could also point out to this Thom person that Myers has called Charlie Hebdo an ugly and racist publication, demonstrating once more what a vile smear monger our Happy Atheist is. Thom will be hosting and enabling a lowlife who pissed on the corpses of the murdered journalists.
I still find it rather funny that the most dangerous incident to happen at a skeptic/atheist convention happened at the epicenter of Clear-Approved Cons, namely Skepticon, where someone was threatened with a gun.
But TAM and others are the dangerous ones.
Because a T-shirt will hurt you worse than a gun.
Jan Steen @91,
Please join the discussion at Gateway To Reason’s Facebook page. The more people speak up, the more Myers’ dishonesty is exposed. He has his flock supporting him on his blog but he should have his nose rubbed in this whenever he ventures out of venues he doesn’t control.
Thanks for the tip, Patrick. Now following.
Patrick@90
Thom is looking more and more like Myers’ lapdog
Truly, what is up with their response to you? It’s so juvenile I have trouble believing this is the organizer of an event of any significant size. It just seems bizarre, as if you contacted a company with a complaint and their HR department responded “LOL”.
@Patrick,
Sorry, I don’t have a Facebook account nor do I want one. I have to give it a pass.
Jan Steen @96,
I have one but don’t want one. 😉
Judging from what I read on Gateway To Reason’s Facebook page, it looks like Thomas True thinks that those protesting Myers being at the Gateway To Reason convention are kinda nuts, and really, if I had read an e-mail that said something like this,
well, I’d think the writer of that e-mail was kinda nuts, too. The first bit about “thanking Prof Myers for being the worst person in the world” looks like hyperbolic bile — which we’ve got way too much of already — and the rest looks like a poorly evidenced screed accusing someone of criminal activity — which is another thing we’ve got one too many of. Whoever wrote that e-mail wasn’t exactly covering himself in glory.
Asking someone to disinvite a guest is rarely going to work unless you have a) GOBS of people demanding it or b) real evidence that the person shouldn’t speak.
Given the event, no one really has neither of these.
The best way to get PZ not invited to these things is to not go. And if you were really going to go, as in had tickets inform the conf. people that you are now not going, specifically because of PZ, and ask, politely, if you can have a refund. Don’t get drawn into justifying it. You don’t have to. If they demand a real reason, simply reiterate, politely, that you don’t feel it is appropriate to support PZ as a speaker, or conferences that invite him, state a brief reason why and send the email.
Oh, do all of this via email. Records are good things.
Don’t just register to do this, that’s a dick move, and stupid. Only do it if you really intended to go.
Gateway to Reason has deleted the comments critical of their decision to keep Myers as a speaker. I’m pissed I didn’t think to archive it. Censoring fucks.
JetLagg 100
I have some of it on my Twitter feed.
I do wish people would paste in some of Mr. Nugent’s essays to educate the people who have no idea what Myers may have done to harm the movement.
The gent who is running Gateway to Reason was presented with this link in his comments. In response, he seems to have accused Mr. Nugent of failing to be “impartial” because Mr. Nugent is “involved” and cannot be an “impassionate referee.”
He claims he has been “attacked” by people who have pointed out the PZ problem and finishes thus:
“When I lived in Topeka, KS working in the local TV News, every day the local media outlets got a constant faxes from Westboro Church decrying this issue or this person and all such manor of horrible things taken place.
The consensus of the local media was to take any ones group mission to defamewith malice another person charetor should be otherwise ignored.”
It looks as though he is saying we should be ignored because he says it’s our mission to “defame with malice another person’s character.”
I’m somewhat taken aback by the irony, seeing as how PZ is the one who keeps throwing around rape accusations and the like.
OK then.
Baron Kirbmarc de Rothschild, Shatterface of B’nai B’rith, and Aneris of the TL;DR psychological analysis, have exposed themselves as hypocrites and closet doxing fans.
If Jerry Coyne is a potentially useful ally in the nerf war against Myers, he can do what he likes, to the point of doxing the wrong person over a mildly offensive email. Too bad if Pudding Basin O’Neill ever gets WiFi at his trailer park — punks don’t usually appreciate being publicly humiliated by Zionist nerds.
I know I’m a day late, but I have a question or two for MosesZD: First, are you suggesting that the “rules” with regard to what’s out-of-bounds are lifted when one is making a joke, such that it’s OK to talk about violence with a certain type of hammer if it’s a humorous allusion? Assuming so: Second, if some people didn’t get that something was a joke and were offended, what are they supposed to do later when it’s explained to them that it was a joke.
Oh Nathan honey, bless your heart. Honey, this is the grownups table. Your table’s out in the garage with the other children.
John Welch @ 106:
Nobody asked for your opinion, unless you are a Freemason, or a doxing fan.
Aheydis Vaakenjab @87:
The gap between reality and your perception is remarkably large; FTB is a collection of independent blogs and bloggers where the advertising income is shared, and which was founded jointly by PZ and Ed Brayton,
After the Thunderfoot fiasco, they decided to take more care and consultation before inviting new bloggers, but once (and while) a blogger is there, they are independent.
There is no “the leadership” except in the sense of maintaining the platform.
(You’re doing the equivalent of looking at the European Union and perceiving it as the Soviet Union of yore)
Your hope is almost certain to be eventuate, since I have provided a haven for nobody hitherto and am exceedingly unlikely to do so in the future.
I myself consider that Pharyngula in particular and FTB in general have actually suffered that particular fate in this particular blog’s comments where the post (as this one does) is part of Michael’s current initiative towards PZ.
Alas, it would therefore be futile for me to hope likewise towards them.
(I am not “ilk”, either; I am me!)
If all these FTN bloggers are independent, what does the Executive Committee of FTB actually do, apart from kick off people that Myers has vouched for?
[OT]
Steven Carr @109, I don’t know.
(But I do know it has nothing to do with how PZ expresses himself, the actual post subject)
“There is no “the leadership” except in the sense of maintaining the platform.”
How much do you think the platform is worth?
And how far into the rabbit hole are you willing to follow them?
I’ve got a rookie question, Steven.
Who the deuce is FTN?
If Jerry Coyne is a potentially useful ally in the nerf war against Myers, he can do what he likes, to the point of doxing the wrong person over a mildly offensive email
It wasn’t a ‘mildly offensive email’, it was racist harassment from someone clearly unhinged.
Coyne would have been within his rights to report you to the police.
Isn’t that irrelevant, Shatterface?
If Jerry claims to go about it the right way, then why the doxxing?
[OT]
Jesper:
Monetarily, so much that a number of blogs there (e.g. Love Joy Feminism, What Would JT Do?, Cammels with Hammers) moved to Patheos with the stated reason that the increased income was the salient factor.
(Socially, a whole lot more than that)
<snicker>
Whatever makes you imagine I’m anyone’s follower?
Shatterface @ 113:
For someone presenting themselves as an anarchist you seem pretty wound up by an impolite electronic correspondence.
That’s what a commenter at Pharyngula might say.
You may be the least competent anarchist on two legs. He did report me to Gmail, which no doubt amused someone toiling away at a dreary workstation somewhere on this planet.
@John Morales #108:
I presume you meant to say that the eventuality of your being smeared as Michael Nugent has been was exceedingly unlikely, given that you are not providing a haven for anyone. If that’s not what you meant, you’ll no doubt correct me.
In other words, you are implying that Michael was smeared because he did provide a haven for rapists and harassers.
Can you provide some kind of evidence for that conclusion? If not, doyou think you should apologise to Michael for implying that he provides a haven for rapists and harassers?
@Jesper, @Nathan:
Would you be so kind as to stay on topic? This is not Jerry Coyne’s blog, and Michael’s post has nothing whatsoever to do with Coyne.
@Nathan (formerly GerardO): Jerry Coyne has a robot companion called Professor Ceiling Bot with its own mail adress. Whatever you write to it, will be automatically posted in full onto the site, just like when you write something into a comment section.You are informed about this. Now when you submit personal information to Professor Ceiling Bot, it simply forwards that to the site. That’s not what’s commonly understood under doxxing. Now the Bot gets replaced by a human who does the very same—still not doxxing. Now the human only posts such information when it contains certain keywords–no doxxing here either. It follows rules you know it advance and you submit information directly to it. Just think it through. The whole point it is that it works like a “Doomsday Machine”.
Doxxing, by contrast, is when someone obtains information from somewhere or by other means and then publishes the information to a “public”. Or just pools them together and puts the public eye onto it. Since the public on the internet can be thought of as segmented into different audiences, a person can release information to one public (or individuals), but not to another and can do this by using a pseudonym. When that is broken, its deemed doxxing.
@John Morales
“The gap between reality and your perception is remarkably large; FTB is a collection of independent blogs and bloggers where the advertising income is shared, and which was founded jointly by PZ and Ed Brayton, ”
You would make an excellent backup for William Lane Craig. Ignore the real meat of the post and cherry pick a sentence to strawman. The term leadership is clear in the case that I’ve used it. Those who own and operate a blog which you frequent at FtB.
John, can you point out where you’ve been as critical to PZ and the horde as you’ve been here? As you can tell, pretty much everyone still accepts you here – and that is critical. I too welcome you here. I asked you specifically where you’ve done the same to PZ as you’ve done to MN. Still waiting, but I’m sure you’ll find a spelling error somewhere that you can use as a trump card.
“I myself consider that Pharyngula in particular and FTB in general have actually suffered that particular fate in this particular blog’s comments where the post (as this one does) is part of Michael’s current initiative towards PZ. ”
Sigh. There’s another beautiful example. Let me spell it out for you John as you’re not interested in anything but apologetics: I hope that nobody accuses you, publicly, on a popular website, using your real name, of being a rapist, rape apologist or harasser as PZ has done to MN. I hope that one day when you google your name, the first hit isn’t “[your real name] is a rape apologist. By PZ Myers”.
There, is that clear enough for you to understand?
For someone presenting themselves as an anarchist you seem pretty wound up by an impolite electronic correspondence…
That’s what a commenter at Pharyngula might say.
And if someone was posting them racist abuse they’d be right.
You aren’t challenging Coyne’s beliefs or behaviour, you are calling him an [anti-semitic details deleted – MN].
Given the prominence of Jewish anarchists in the movement I doubt your anti-Semitism would find much support:
Many people of Jewish origin, such as Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Martin Buber, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, Murray Rothbard or David D. Friedman have played a role in the history of anarchism. However, as well as these individual anarchists of Jewish origin, there have also been specifically Jewish anarchist movements, within the Yiddish-speaking communities of Eastern and Central Europe, and the Western cities to which they migrated, from the late nineteenth century until the Second World War. All the members of the first anarchist group in the Russian Empire, which was formed in 1903 in Białystok, were Jews.[1] Yiddish-speaking Jews participated to the International Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam in 1907.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_anarchism
Aneris @ 117:
Holy guacamole. At what point do you say:
“Yeah, I like Jerry Coyne, and as a bonus he doesn’t like PZ Myers, but he seriously fucked up here and completely over-reacted to this email, and wound up doxing the wrong fuckin’ person over a snide comment about [anti-semitic details deleted – MN].”
Seriously, read those two paragraphs you typed in and tell me that isn’t someone in complete denial about the actions of one of their heroes. Michael Nugent has been speaking endlessly of the need to get better in our online communications (that includes me, too), and pretending that Coyne’s behaviour here is acceptable goes completely against that.
Look at what Coyne said at the end of the first post on this:
Mob incitement. PZ Myers would be proud.
Springtime for Nathan (formerly GerardO):
Well, you know what they say about stopped clocks.
More seriously, stuff like, [anti-semitic details deleted – MN] looks pretty blatently antisemitic, and whatever faults PZ Myers and his Horde have (and they are many!), blatant racism isn’t one of them.
@John Morales
“Monetarily, so much that a number of blogs there (e.g. Love Joy Feminism, What Would JT Do?, Cammels with Hammers) moved to Patheos with the stated reason that the increased income was the salient factor.”
So basically a lot of atheists are in it for the money? Or is that primarily an American disease?
“(Socially, a whole lot more than that)”
If the in-group/out-group mentallity is what you lot are attracted to, then we won’t advance progressive atheism one bit.
“Whatever makes you imagine I’m anyone’s follower?”
Because I know you, John.
We had a small quibble on Pharyngula once. Remember?
Shatterface @ 119:
If you were going to C&P a chunk from Wikipedia, you could have at least dropped Murray “Sell Your Children” Rothbard and Milton Friedman’s son from it. Anarcho-capitalism is not a thing.
J.J. Ramsey @121:
I wouldn’t be counting out an FtB SJW being a massive closet racist. Note the Shanley-weev relationship, and what weev claims to be her private sentiments.
@John Morales,
Can you be more specific? Which statements have been made in the comments here about Pharyngula/FTB/PZ Myers that you would consider defamatory?
Da Roolz at WEIT are posted up for all to see. One of them reads:
So when Nathan writes:
I’d have to say Jerry did exactly what he promised he would do to anyone sending him insults, and furthermore did it to the correct fuckin’ person. I would guess your use of italics shows your real issue—the damage to your ego. The proper way of coping with that is to say to yourself that you deserved the outcome and will learn from it, not to go ranting around the internet about how it isn’t fair and he picked on the wrong fuckin’ person. It makes you seem like a noisy blowhard and I don’t care to listen to it. The funny thing is, that even if had dealt with this in a mature fashion, you would still be an anti-semitic bigot and I still wouldn’t care to listen to you, and nor would anyone else. This is where I would expect you to make some devastating rejoinder like “I’m gonna make you listen” that used to work for you in the grade 4 schoolyard. Please, stop embarrassing yourself and go away.
Lancelot Gobbo @ 124:
I’ve heard a lot of things said about various members of the ‘Pit, but I’ve never heard a claim that they have a fully-fledged Mong over there, but you learn something new every day.
I’ll explain it nice and slowly:
(a) I sent Jerry Coyne that email under the name “Gerard O”Neill”
(b) My name is not Gerard O’Neill
(c) Jerry Coyne posted pictures of a person from Instagram called Gerard O’Neill
We can see from a disjunction between (a) and (b), and mere statistical probability that any visual representation of Gerard O’Neill was highly unlikely to be the sender of that email.
QED — and grow a brain.
I’m assuming with “the Horde” you mean The Flock™. Here’s what you get when you search for “white” on FreethoughtBlogs.
According to their definition of racism, those statements aren’t racist, because identitarians (social justice warriors) use their private definition of racism as “[racial] prejudice + power”. This is nonsense. Prejudice is one way how people can form racist beliefs, but roughly 40% of US citizens are non-whites and you can hardly speak of prejudices (preconceived opinions) in that case.
With the more serious and orthodox definition the FTB community and identitarians in general could be viewed as racists:
So when your writing is riddled with “the whites” the “white people” and “the white dudes” (doubling with sexism), then chances are there is some racism in there. There are many such blanket statements.
The opposite position is not “color blindness” {2}. You can recognize that society or individuals are racist, or that people are recognized as belonging into some racial category and as such can be discriminated against, while at the same not overreach and construe a mythical race identity, however you arrive there. Just because people recognize, identify themselves and see other people as Irish doesn’t mean that All Irish People Are Thisandthat or that there is some sort of mythical Irish National Spirit that gets mixed into the souls of people who were born on that Island. Also compare to the Straw Vulcan {3} who doesn’t recognize emotional values non-rational actors do factor in.
In summary, social justice warriors and that includes most of FreethoughtBlogs are Bigots 2.0 from my point of view.
#1_oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism?searchDictCode=all
#2_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(race)_in_the_United_States
#3_ tvtropes.org/pike/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan
Do you really want to add sending e-mails under a false name to the charges of insulting the recipient and being an anti-semite? OK, docket amended as you requested. I am entirely happy to think that a respectable person such as JAC isn’t any good at being an internet detective, and has little experience at doxxing. It doesn’t make you look good to point that out; just the opposite. Now go away.
Lancelot Gobbo @ 127:
There was no real comeback once you checked both of Coyne’s posts, was there. You can still call me names, but its useless now you know the truth.
This is Michael Nugent’s site, and I’ll leave if asked, but I won’t be leaving on your account.
Aneris @126:
My banning from FtB involved a confrontation with PZ over the attitudes of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, whom Myers showered with praise twice in the same thread. Now Stanton was a hardcore racist; if, say, Thunderf00t started saying nice things about David Duke, PZ would be spitting gallons of venom in his direction, while Pharyngula’s comment section would go nuclear. I wasn’t going to let this hypocrisy stand.
Long story short, Myers doubled down on his praise for Stanton, and started swearing at me. I told him to calm down, he swore at me again and sent my commenting history to the Memory Hole. This from a man who lives in an uber-white town that doesn’t even have a Chinese restaurant.
Morales @ 108:
Oh this crap again. Look, y’all are fine, just FINE with grouping every single person who publicly disagrees with you for any reason into a monoculture you call “slymepitters”. You ignore all the differences, the fact these are different sites, people, all of it. Don’t follow the FTB line? Slymepitter.
You like dishing it out? Goddamned take it like a grownup. If being treated like a monoculture bothers you so much, if it is so very, very, wrong, stop engaging in that behavior yourself when it is convenient for you to do so.
But for you to complain about FTB not being a monoculture is just hypocritical dissembling, and everyone (but you and the other FTB types) know it. Once again, Morales living by the “it’s okay when we do it” credo, like a good little Clear.
Morales again (of course) at 115:
The way you blindly, relentlessly and with absolute consistency defend everything done by PZ as “good” and if you don’t see it as good, clearly you have “misunderstood” things while with the same qualities, joining in to rate everything He and the Rest of the Clear dislike as “bad” and “perfectly understood” in said badness.
Clear are always right, and you are as big a part of that as anyone.
If you don’t wish to be cast as a part of a group, stop being one of its lead public defenders.
And nathan, everywhere creating a perfect distraction, (indeed, were I more conspiracy-minded, I’d point out that he’s doing a bang-up false flag operation to turn this discussion around and get people here to start screaming at each other), almost a good job. But really, you’re a bit obvious. Still, you get a gold star.
Now THERE’S a valid criticism.
Is it my imagination or have the murders in Paris emboldened anti-Semitic shitbags everywhere?
Shatter, it’s an easy troll. You pop off with a few things about [anti-semitic details deleted – MN], bring in the standard conspiracy theory idiocy, give it a bit of a sheeple shake to stir it up nice, and watch the chaos.
It’s almost the Fisher-Price of trolling.
@John Morales #115
I think you’re a follower because I remember you as part of the dog-pile during my first visit at Pharyngula.
You were one of the people shouting misogynist and sexist. 🙂
@shatterface
There’s antisemitism and then there’s harsh, but honest criticism of Jewish practices and traditions.
This stupid idea about you only being a true Jew via your mother is bollocks.
Depending on how strict orthodox Jews have followed that doctrine, inbreeding could be an issue.
And no, we’re not talking eugenics.
Nathan (formerly GerardO) and others,
I have removed direct quotes of Nathan’s anti-semitic email to Jerry Coyne.
I have left discussion about the nature and consequences of the email.
Two things we learnt this week: that when cartoonists are murdered, Europeans should take it as a learning opportunity in cultural sensitivity (Myers & the Floque); and that when Jews are murdered they shouldn’t have been Jewish in the first place (Nathan & Jesperation)
Regarding PZ, are there any defamatory laws on the books in Ireland and England?
It’s a shitty weapon, but maybe useful if he ever sets foot there.
Regarding PZ, are there any defamatory laws on the books in Ireland and England?
The laws are stronger in the UK and Ireland. I don’t think that’s the main reason why Michael is less prone to making wild accusation than Myers – I think that may be something to do with their personalities – but it’s why Britain at least has a reputation for ‘libel tourism’ – the practice of claimants pursuing a libel case in a country where libel is easier to establish:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
For the record, I detest British libel laws because they have been widely abused to suppress free speech.
I hate libel laws as well, but it may be necessary until the likes of PZ learn how to behave in a civilized way.
There’s ridicule and then there’s malice intent…….which isn’t magic. 🙂
And no. Ridicule of ideas shouldn’t be a case for libel laws.
No matter how tiny the idea( religion ) is.
Looks like PZ got away with it, Michael.
Screw him, there’s bigger issues, atm.
piero @ 118:
Please note my comment @82, offering to move this conversation to my blog [thenodster.wordpress.com]. My Twitter handle is [@unhiddenness].
Shatterface @ 134 & 139:
To claim that I endorse the Islamofascist killings at the Hyper Kacher is a pretty low blow, bro. You’re really starting to grind my gears.
john welch @ 135:
Please pinpoint which ‘conspiracy theory’ I have been promoting on this thread. thx
Michael Nugent @ 138:
As you should. Jerry Coyne posted photos of someone completely unrelated to the emails I sent. If one of the themes of this series of posts on PZ Myers is that the wider A/S community needs to improve its online behaviour, then this incident is an important part of that debate.
As a conciliatory gesture, I would be willing to apologize to Coyne, if he were to remove the images of Instagram Gerard from his site.
@Nathan
I’m having trouble seeing what good an excuse would do.
If he doesn’t care, then excuses are useless.
Michael, I’m starting to think the slymepit is not for
us.
They just don’t care about the bigger issues.
[OT]
Jesper above:
It was clear to you because that’s what you meant by it; it is now clear to me because you’ve defined your referent.
So, to revisit your question:
“So we see again, an FtB regular who has, yet, to commit a crime against the hive and remains in good stead with the leadership there.”
This idea that PZ and Ed keep track of whether particular commenters are in good stead across FTB still seems rather far from reality; for one thing, I exiled myself from PZ’s blog as I was clearly irritating him, and for another, I very much my name means anything to Ed, whose blog I do not frequent.
Why? In either case it’s irrelevant; my criticisms stand or falls on their merits, not on whether I apply them selectively.
You’re not spelling it out; you are changing it.
(Same response applies, FWIW)
—
Your recollection is faulty. I don’t do such shouting.
Too little, too late, John.
You’re irrelevant to me now. 🙂
[OT]
Jan Steen @126:
Certainly I can be more specific.
Specifically, I was responding to this: “I certainly hope nobody does to you what PZ has done to Michael Nugent – that is, smearing his real life name with the allegation that Michael provides a haven for rapists and harassers.”
Defamation is nowhere mentioned, the term is “allegation”.
If you want references, Google “Ogvorbis” in this site. Or…
<clickety-click click>
Keep in mind that FtB has been sheltering an admitted child-rapist for quite some time.
[OT]
john welch @312 addressing me:
and
Your Bizarro perception of my actual actions makes me suspect psychological projection is the cause.
Ogbvorbis?
It is not defamation to quote what Ogvorbis said. It is called ‘research’, not ‘libel’.
‘I didn’t stop before raping three young girls (all were, give or take, the same age as ‘S’, the girl I was forced to abuse while a scout). I was older. The age difference was even greater. I knew it was wrong even as I joined in and I still did because it may be wrong but its what I was used to.’
And we’re back to petty infighting.
Michael: thanks for the free speech space. I think we’re done with that round.
Or, as an alternative, what does Jerry Coyne have to do with this talk? As far as I can tell, he hasn’t accused anyone of providing a haven for rapists, has he? Get to the Pit and talk it out there, no need to cluster the conversation being had here.
[Utterly out of topic + meta]
Steven Carr @152: Leaving aside that I provided a specific example of that which was asked (an allegation), I am curious to know how you square the reality of his acceptance within Pharyngula with their known abhorrence of rape.
//I am curious to know how you square the reality of his acceptance within Pharyngula with their known abhorrence of rape.//
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
[OT]
Kirbmarc @156, your personal interpretation is duly noted, however, it is a fair stretch to imagine that “a pattern of favoring members of one’s in-group over out-group members” satisfactorily accounts for it, since (a) there is no such pattern, and (b) this is not mere favouring an insider over outsiders, but rather being inclusive to someone who, were they seen as “a rapist”, would typically be anathema.
(I suspect you indulge in wishful thinking)
Phil Giordana FCD @154:
I have offered to move (note comments #82 & #145) this particular issue to my blog. No takers. Also, given the pro-doxing attitude of some its members, I’m more likely to become a Muslim than join, or even enter, the Slymepit.
//there is no such pattern//
PZ Myers said many “Islamophobic” things, yet he’s still accepted as a leader of sorts by a group of people who have called his own words “racist” and “idiotic” when they were presented to them under the guise of being the words of an “outsider”.
PZ Myers and Jason Thibeault also wrote about their experiences with false rape accusations and they’re believed to be telling the truth(or at least given the benefit of the doubt) by the rest of the FTB regulars while any outsider who is accused of rape is believed to be a rapist even if they deny it.
I see this as rather strong evidence of a pattern of in-group favoritism. Other can add more examples if they wish so.
//this is not mere favouring an insider over outsiders, but rather being inclusive to someone who, were they seen as “a rapist”, would typically be anathema.//
They don’t see him as “a rapist”, even though strictly speaking, if his confession is true he IS a rapist.
While there are many mitigating circumstances for his behavior (his young age at the time of the rape, his previous abuse) they do not excuse his preferential treatment at FTB, especially since according to FTB standards the notion of “rape grading” is anathema and Ogvorbis’ rape is exactly as morally compromising as any other rape.
Since Ogvorbis was a FTb member before he confessed what he did, and since there IS a consistent pattern of in-group favoritism, the hypothesis of this pattern factoring in the affection that the FTB commentariat shows for Ogvorbis doesn’t seem to be farfetched.
//(I suspect you indulge in wishful thinking)//
I suspect you indulge in projection.
@John Morales,
Didn’t you get that ‘defamation’ was shorthand for “smearing his real life name with the allegation that Michael provides a haven for rapists and harassers”? We are not talking about mere allegations, we are talking about allegations with malicious intent for which no evidence is provided. Also known as smears.
In the case of Ogvorbis we have someone who has confessed to raping children. Those members of PZ’s Flock who addressed the issue were on the whole extraordinarily supportive of him. Much of what they wrote can objectively be called rape apologetics. Therefore, it is not a smear to state that Pharyngula is providing a haven for, and is supporting a rapist. A child rapist even.
It is certainly remarkable that this would happen on Pharyngula, of all places, where rape is considered the worst crime in the world. How can these people accept, even love, someone who did the worst of the worst? One could almost admire Ogvorbis for pulling this off. Among the main explanatory factors, I think, is that he presented himself first of all as a victim of earlier abuse, who was initially also forced to abuse others. Next he managed to convince his supporters that he was ‘groomed’ to continue the abuse even when he was no longer being forced. He also convinced them that this all happened when he was a child himself (up to about twelve) and that he has been an exemplary citizen ever since (although he also admitted to having a dark side that he needed to suppress).
Whatever you may think about this affair, I maintain that it proves that it is not a smear to claim that Pharyngula supports and provides a haven for a self-confessed rapist. It’s a statement of fact.
Maybe you have better examples of defamatory allegations about Pharyngula/FTB made in the comments here?
Morales@148Why? In either case it’s irrelevant; my criticisms stand or falls on their merits, not on whether I apply them selectively.Why? In either case it’s irrelevant; my criticisms stand or falls on their merits, not on whether I apply them selectively.
It speaks to your motives, which are relevant here, as we all have very good reason to assume those defending Myers are not arguing in good faith.
@John Morales
Well, all I can say is that you’re an interesting individual John. I appreciate the fact that you’ve at least attempted to answer questions here – bonus points for that.
Nevertheless, I just hope for your sake that your IRL name is not associated with any sort of smear (read: accusation) that could cause you harm financially, personally or otherwise by those who you’ve decided to not call out their behaviour at FtB.
Have a nice day.
Morales @148
Nonsense. The consistency of your standards and application thereof are hugely important. For example, your willingness to overlook, understand and insist on all kinds of special forgiveness for any transgressions made by clear, up until the instant PZ or one of your other favorites declares said Clear as an SP makes your criticism suspect, because the “merits” of your criticisms are based primarily on do you regard the object of the criticism as clear or not clear.
If clear, then you will spend days, as you have, justifying and defending them, even when the criticism is pretty straightforward as Michael’s is. But no, because it’s criticizing PZ, you repeat the same standard dodges as any of the other Clear who have come here. Rapist doesn’t really mean rapist, PZ’s words mean something completely different than what he’s said they mean, over and over, it’s so unfair to use FTB as a catchall.
But using the slymepit as a catchall is totes okey-dokey. Playing guilt by association games to tar everyone commenting in the slymepit as a rapist is totally fine.
So no Morales, the “merits” of your criticism do not exist in some objective vacuum, because you apply them SO selectively and SO hypocritically that they have no value whatsoever. For your criticisms to have “merit” in the way you ascribe, you’d have to apply said “merits” consistently to both people you approve of AND people you don’t approve of and the behavior of both.
that of course, is never happening.
Morales @151
yes, I imagine someone not falling for your sophistry and bullshit would be rather bizarre.
But every time I see you comment, it’s always “oh no, no, PZ wasn’t wrong, you’re clearly mistaken, and if you’d just think clearly…”
Always.
oh, sorry forgot [OTMetaArgleBargle]
Can’t forget the pretentious tags, Where WOULD we be without them?
Funny the things you choose to respond to. Always the ones that leave you the ability to do your twee little dance of the Clear around every point.
So again, I ask. Recently, and with PZ bobble heading along, Rebecca Watson came out in full support of assaulting people because they are annoying to you via words.
I am assuming you support punching someone who says something you dislike since you don’t actively seem to oppose it, and by the “standard you walk by is the standard you support” line that PZ and his followers, including you are so in favor of, if you don’t ardently and loudly oppose it at every turn, you must therefore support it.
if you don’t support it, why have you not objected to it directly and loudly? Links to public comments will suffice as examples.
Even more, if one is allowed to punch someone who insults your mother, what is one allowed to do when someone insults someone who you hold several magnitudes more dear than your mother?
One needs to stop this line of reasoning at the beginning, not half-way down the glassy incline.
Jesper Both Pedersen 147
From what I see of people who post at the Slymepit, they do care about big issues as well as having fun with small issues. They certainly seem to care about the slurs being cast at Michael.
I think that Michael is doing a great job of highlighting the way in which PZ behaves. He is certainly due an aapology.
Jesper Both Pedersen, I understand your pain. There are people going through hell on earth in many places. There are also terrible things happening to other animal species thanks to human beings.
Those of us who care have a limited ability to do anything about these terrible things, but we do our best with whatever we can.
The Slymepit is not a force in itself, it is a place where many people of differing abilities and ideas like to communicate, without fear of censorship except in the case of an accidental doxxing. Trying to get them all to follow a single lead is unrealistic.
Michael’s abilities lie in fighting the restricting nature of religion, particularly in Ireland. His strength lies in communicating atheism and fighting for the rights of atheists. This is what most of his blog posts are about, and he needs to keep his name to be clear of accusations in order to do his job well.
That was not a dear muslima. Dear Muslima was RD pointing out that the elevator “incident” was a total non-incident.
I was saying, probably badly, that we all have differing, and finite, abilities. Not all of us are equipped to deal with suffering in Saudi. Most of us have to settle for what we can actually do, even if those things are of lesser importance to others.
Tell us Jesper, since you have pointed out our moral failings, if all these other things are so very important…
why are you here wasting time with such #firstworldproblems?
Bit of advice.
Jesper is currently trolling half a dozen sites right now, including the Pit.
Whatever is going on with him isn’t something you can do anything about, even if you wanted to.
Just skip his posts.
If you don’t read what he writes you won’t feel obliged to respond.
I see the Pedersen is still trolling. And, as Shatterface pointed out, he’s doing it in a LOT of places.
I’d suggest ignoring him. You will never have a productive discussion with him and he has no insights or advice of merit.
Ditto on Shatter and Moses.
I mean re. the troll and let’s all ignore.
As Moses, Shatterface, Greg have pointed out, it’s best to ignore Jesper. You can go skim the pit if you need convincing he’s a troll.
Okay, I’ve removed Jesper’s latest spate of comments.
Try not to mention him or your comment will get caught in moderation.
Awww….i didn’t get to bless your heart him.
I love doing that.
Aww Welchy bless your heart.
Well thank you honey, aren’t you just the sweetest thing?