Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So you want to go with only some of the posters over in Nugent's comment section are rapists then, OK which ones then? Just the ones with recognizable handles from the Slymepit or maybe commentators that don't ideologically resonate with a particular reader ?

Who are these rapists that Myers is talking about and what evidence does he have that that any one of those posters in that "haven" have committed a serious criminal offense ? He must have some, right> He wouldn't just make that up now would he. No of course not, he has to know not only the identities of the posters but their criminal histories as well.

We're not talking accused rapists nor alleged rapists, we're talking rapists, and a lot of them.

To reiterate the only point I have made on this matter - you misrepresented what Myers said, when there was no need for embellishment, as what he said was bad enough on its own. I reiterate this because this latest post of yours doesn't appear to be addressed to me, despite you quoting one of my posts within it.

 

[Joe Random]

<...>

You know what they say about burglars always locking their doors.

That they're innocents who were made what they are when they themselves were burgled as children, and therefore deserve <hugs> for being hapless victims of our rampant Burglary Culture(tm).

 

[Stout]

To reiterate the only point I have made on this matter - you misrepresented what Myers said, when there was no need for embellishment, as what he said was bad enough on its own. I reiterate this because this latest post of yours doesn't appear to be addressed to me, despite you quoting one of my posts within it.

OK, you're right, I was being mean to Myers for failing to note that his tweet did indeed allow for the possibility of non-rapists posting at Nugent's blog.

It's....it's just that I've been reading so much social justice lately, I must have been thinking that getting worked up about little things that nobody really cares about was normal. I might even have been a teeny tiny bit angry when I posted, and that, no doubt, subconsciously affected the words I chose to deliver the message.

 

[Meed]

That Nugent article serves as a good reminder that PZ is a joke.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

OK, you're right, I was being mean to Myers for failing to note that his tweet did indeed allow for the possibility of non-rapists posting at Nugent's blog.

I'm not saying that you're being mean, I'm saying that you weaken your own case. If you misrepresent what someone says, then people have an excuse not to take what you say seriously. If you accurately represent what someone says, then people have to deal with reality otherwise it's them who looks disingenuous.

 

[Stout]

I'm not saying that you're being mean, I'm saying that you weaken your own case. If you misrepresent what someone says, then people have an excuse not to take what you say seriously. If you accurately represent what someone says, then people have to deal with reality otherwise it's them who looks disingenuous.

I hear what you're saying, thanks for your concern

I just thought it was funny that Myers had, in the name of principal, pulled a total douchebag move and whether I describe it as 90% douchebag or the 100% douchbag wording that I used doesn't dilute the message that there's some serious douchbaggery going on. in the name of principal.

It's funny in that Myers refuses to apologize and it's even funnier when you compare him to a Slymepitter ( the group Myers was labeling in his tweet to his 157K followers ) actually did apologize for making a joke at Myers expense.

I'll agree that Myers posting a blog entry suggesting his readers contact that Slimepitters employer with regard to the joke and thoughtfully provided that Slymepitters name and place of employment, may have had something to do with forcing the issue.

Trying to reconcile Myers ideas of principled with any sort of reality is a rather interesting diversion.

Link to Myers' blog entry.

 

[d4m10n]

I didn't complain when PZ doxxed Felch Grogan / Franc Hoggle because that guy is an insufferable **** who actually threatened to commit the tort of assault against PZ.

The doxxing of Skep Tickle, and subsequent attempts to interfere with her livelihood, are way over the line.

 

[Lorentz]

The doxxing of Skep Tickle, and subsequent attempts to interfere with her livelihood, are way over the line.

That gives me an interesting idea. I'm sure that PZ thinks he's right, moral and intellectually honest.

So, to all of you, a challenge.

Describe from within PZ's mind how he views the world, his words and actions, our interpretations of his words actions, in such a way that it all conforms to his self-image. No snark please. It's an exercise I try to perform regularly, but at this point I find PZ a bit challenging.

 

[Sophronius]

Describe from within PZ's mind how he views the world, his words and actions, our interpretations of his words actions, in such a way that it all conforms to his self-image. No snark please. It's an exercise I try to perform regularly, but at this point I find PZ a bit challenging.

That doesn't seem too hard. I try to read as little of him as I can manage to keep my blood pressure down, but from what I can tell he's your basic the-end-justifies-the-means fanatic.

"The world is awash with vile, unrepentant men harassing, bullying and abusing women every day, so that innocent women have to live in constant fear. The only way to stop this abuse is a no-holds-barred defamation campaign, and anyone who stands in the way of this is either a clueless tool of the patriarchy or one of the aforementioned abusers. Either way I am justified in verbally abusing them."

It's the kind of mindset that comes from living a black-and-white world where you only ever consider your own viewpoint, your own pet cause is the number 1 most important thing in the world, and everyone is either for or against you. It is, unfortunately, not so rare at all.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm honestly not sure he gives it that much thought. I think it's more a case of stimulus/response.

And I don't think he thinks he's intellectually honest. If you think you're intellectually honest, you defend your point of view honestly. The "haven for [...] rapists" tweets show him being disingenuous. I mean, sure, he's probably blocking out the stuff that he doesn't want to hear, but putting your hands over your ears and singing "la la la la la!" is still an action you're undertaking. I believe the reason he doesn't answer the question as to what evidence he has that any rapists post there/the Slymepit is because he knows he doesn't have that evidence. The reason he ignores this is because he knows his logic isn't sound. And he cannot afford to let that knowledge enter his thinking, so he blusters, gives the runaround, and then exits the conversation. So I think he's dishonest with himself as much as he is with everybody else.

But, really, who can tell what's going on inside somebody else's head? It's all conjecture.

 

[d4m10n]

Describe from within PZ's mind how he views the world, his words and actions, our interpretations of his words actions, in such a way that it all conforms to his self-image.

Ok, then. The in-group is righteous and just, the out-group is naught but harassers and rapists. The in-group must prevail, by any means necessary.

 

[wareyin]

I didn't complain when PZ doxxed Felch Grogan / Franc Hoggle because that guy is an insufferable **** who actually threatened to commit the tort of assault against PZ.

The doxxing of Skep Tickle, and subsequent attempts to interfere with her livelihood, are way over the line.

Was that the "tort of assault" in which Hoggle threatened to put something in PZ's pocket? Or was there one which would actually have a chance of being prosecuted for assault?

 

[Stout]

Anyone planning on going to Skepticon this year?

Maybe planning on attending the Ally Skills wokshop ?

If so, fair warning to sit down, shut up and politely nod and agree with everything said or PZ Myers is going to stick his fingers down his throat and puke on you. I'd suggest wearing a wetsuit, one with a hood if you're planning on exercising any skepticism or critical thinking at this event as you'll be able to simply shower off all those partially digested burritos after Myers has had his way with you.

No, I'm not making that up

Other Skepticon reminders.....No sexualized clothing for booth staff so, if you are booth staff and were planning on expressing your sexuality, expect to be slut shamed. There's also a no nudes policy in effect for their art show so don't expect another boobgate like the one at the American Atheists convention.

Speaking of AA, remember....no touching, not even handshakes because we don't want another incident like this one.

Stay safe out there

 

[d4m10n]

Was that the "tort of assault" in which Hoggle threatened to put something in PZ's pocket? Or was there one which would actually have a chance of being prosecuted for assault?

You seem to be confusing criminal prosecution with the civil law of torts, to which I was referring. It's a dignitary tort, designed to deter the threat of an offensive touching. I doubt whether PZ would actually sue, though, given that he prefers First Amendment remedies.

This topic has already been done to death, feel free to visit the old slime pit archives for that, where you can actually see proto-Pitters siding with PZ for once.

 

[d4m10n]

Anyone planning on going to Skepticon this year?

Maybe planning on attending the Ally Skills wokshop ?

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Lorentz]

Ok, then. The in-group is righteous and just, the out-group is naught but harassers and rapists. The in-group must prevail, by any means necessary.

Thanks for your responses. I'm sure that in- versus out-group is part of the mechanism, but what I'm really looking for is the rationalised internal viewpoint.

Having formulated the challenge, I put some conscious thought into it today and I believe I can explain it to my own satisfaction. You other skeptics will undoubtedly disagree.

I think PZ's history is a large determining factor. Some years ago his focus was on fighting creationism. He approached that with a total lack of finesse, heaping scorn and ridicule upon any who disagreed. His reasoning eppeared to be that anyone who refused to accept evolution was either a creationist, a creationist apologist, or just generally didn't know what they were talking about. While there may have been some who disagreed with his methods while agreeing with his conclusion that creationism is nonsense, in his view those were just providing cover for creationists; they were creationist apologists, even if they themselves were not aware of it.

While one can disagree with his 'take no prisoners' approach, it is at least understandable.

Around half a decade ago, PZ took up the fight to give women a more equal place within the atheist and skeptical movements. The mental framework he developed for fighting creationism was then seamlessly transplanted onto the problem of feminism. He's fighting this one just as he fought the last war.

Creationists and their apologists|Misogynists, rapists and rape enablers
Oppose theory of evolution|Oppose women's rights
Get cover from religion|Get cover from patriarchy
Do not understand theory of evolution|Do not understand feminism
Are not qualified biologists|Are not qualified feminists
Those who disagree are part of the problem|Those who disagree are part of the problem

There are those who claim that those who oppose him are merely feminists of a different stripe. They are clearly lying, as Rebecca Watson and other women have received death and rape threats from this camp. There are those who claim that the threats aren't coming from serious opponents, but really, if you choose to side with the rapists and misogynists, how seriously should he take you? You made your choice and intent is not magic.

To you and me, there are significant differences between feminist theory and the theory of evolution: one is science, the other is not, one is evidence based, the other is based on critical theory, one is pretty much agreed upon by all who've studied it, the other exists in a plethora of forms with significant disagreements between those who regard themselves as feminists. One can only be validly criticised only after years of study, the other - in some of its forms - can be validly criticised by anyone with a decent education and half a brain.

In PZ's world, the two are essentially the same and those who insist that those differences make it possible to disagree with him while still espousing women's rights, are merely providing cover for the rapists and misogynists. Even if we aren't consciously aiming to do so, the result is the same, in that we're hindering PZ's progress. If we did support equality for women, we wouldn't be using some minor quibbles as pretexts for not joining him in fighting the good fight. If indeed we choose to oppose him, we're clearly either lying or in denial about our hatred of women.

I can see where he's coming from!

 

[wareyin]

You seem to be confusing criminal prosecution with the civil law of torts, to which I was referring. It's a dignitary tort, designed to deter the threat of an offensive touching. I doubt whether PZ would actually sue, though, given that he prefers First Amendment remedies.

This topic has already been done to death, feel free to visit the old slime pit archives for that, where you can actually see proto-Pitters siding with PZ for once.

Oh, I was involved in that discussion. I was against the hyperbolic escalation from creepily "putting something in a pocket" to "violent assault"* then, as I am now. From your link:

However, assault requires more than words alone.

.


*As Justicar framed it at the time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There are those who claim that those who oppose him are merely feminists of a different stripe. They are clearly lying, as Rebecca Watson and other women have received death and rape threats from this camp. There are those who claim that the threats aren't coming from serious opponents, but really, if you choose to side with the rapists and misogynists, how seriously should he take you? You made your choice and intent is not magic.

Nice to see that people who oppose him are such a single group with no diversity at all in their methods or beliefs.

What other groups can we tarnish by the actions of a subset of it? Clearly you support banning rape victims for not thinking they would have been better as murder victims or why else would you choose to associate with them?

 

[Lorentz]

Nice to see that people who oppose him are such a single group with no diversity at all in their methods or beliefs.

What other groups can we tarnish by the actions of a subset of it? Clearly you support banning rape victims for not thinking they would have been better as murder victims or why else would you choose to associate with them?

[devilsadvocate]
Why should this diversity, whether real or merely a convenient pretence, matter once those people turn out all to be siding with rapists?
[/devilsadvocate]

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Around half a decade ago, PZ took up the fight to give women a more equal place within the atheist and skeptical movements.

Was it that long ago? I don't follow these things closely, but the infamous talk where he repeatedly propositioned a female audience member was in 2010, I believe, and it seems so far removed from his current rhetoric (although he still refuses to admit that it was in any way problematic) that his change of heart taking place immediately afterwards would seem a little incongruous to me.