Another, “I just can’t believe what my brain can do” »« The Emperor’s New Clothes

Horrible people don’t realize they’re horrible

I’m developing a bit of a theoretical framework in my head about people who are used to making horrifying generalizations about groups of people and their behaviors. It’s sort of a Dunning-Kruger effect for bigotry. The theory is that the more horrible you are, the more you lose the capacity to understand your own horribleness.

Let me lay this out in general terms before I get specific. Let’s say you’re “a little bit racist.” Over a long period of time where you casually drop slightly racist remarks into your conversations all the time, occasionally people will call you out on this behavior, i.e., “Hey man, that’s kind of racist.” Cognitive dissonance being what it is, you start building defense mechanisms against the people who call you out. “Geez, there sure are a lot of oversensitive people in the world,” you think to yourself. “They call things racist that aren’t even racist!”

[...]

Most likely you hang out with people who share your points of view, who are likely to be more racist than the general public, and the window of acceptable speech appears to drift in the direction of more racism.  But because you’re already used to regarding people who react badly to racism as “hypersensitive,” when you get even more of those negative reactions you just shift further in the direction of blaming them.

“What the hell?” you’ll eventually write.  “When did the world get so blasted sensitive and politically correct?  I can’t even make jokes about lynching a nigger without the thought police jumping all over me!”


Such appears to be the case with the Men’s Rights subreddit, an incredibly vile community of proudly self-congratulatory misogynists who are regularly featured on Shit Reddit Says and Man Boobz.  It’s also, apparently, a regular hangout for TJ Kincaid, the self-styled “Amazing Atheist.”

If  you’re not familiar with him, I forwarded a video about how much he hates feminism to Godless Bitches, who then did an excellent job of picking it apart in episode 2.2.

This morning I woke up to find that my wife Lynnea had been kept awake from an early hour with Someone Is Wrong on the Internet Syndrome, after discovering a MensRights thread TJ started via Shit Reddit Says.  I’ll be posting her compiled explanation of what went down, but first here’s my summary, and you’ll see why I was motivated to come up with this Dunning-Kruger effect on bigots.

TJ, going under the handle “terroja,” made a casual wisecrack about raping another poster named Lorrdernie with his fist.  The MensRights subreddit being what it is, his fellow posters thought that was awesome.  Then it somehow became even funnier when he was informed  that Lorrdernie  was in fact a rape victim.

Never one to give up on a good joke, TJ then says:

“I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow.”

Get it?

After the ShitRedditSays brigade poured in to point out that this comment does, in fact, make him a horrible person, he proceeded to post a whiny, self-pitying video log about how much they hurt his feelings, and how it’s futile to argue with feminists.

I wish I could tell you I’m making this up.

What follows is Lynnea’s trace of the thread from its inception.  I understand that it’s been pulled now, but much of it has been preserved with screen shots.


So, TJ, The Amazing Atheist has had a violent clash against feminists. Summary: He, under the handle “terroja”, deliberately tries to trigger a rape victim by telling zir that zhe deserved/deserves to be raped that he would rape people, and then winges about being called out on his cruel behavior.

Here’s a screenshot displaying the thrust of the things he said.

ShitRedditSays posts detailing the comments can be found here and here but they can be tough to wade through. [Note, on the ShitRedditSays (SRS) forum, as joke flair, positive comments display a negative sign in front of them. Posts on other reddit forums have numbers displayed normally.]

You can also easily scroll through all the things that TJ has said here, although the comments will be displaced with time.

Context:

A reddit user named ICumWhenIKillMen (full title: ICumWhenIKillMen ~not even joking~ acquitted by the misandrist court system) uses the ShitRedditSays forum to draw attention to a reddit post where users bravely state that disabled people do not deserve the title of “hero”.

TJ, fails to receive any support for his comment “I love how the whiny feminist morality brigade upvotes a user named ‘ICumWhenIKillMen’” on the original post, so he creates a new post with the same name in the MensRights forum to draw attention to the original reddit post. (The MensRights forum is famously misogynist, as can be seen by this month-spanning SRS post.) He adds the clarifying comment, “Personally, I have no problem with whatever username a person wishes to select. But for those uptight cunts who devote a significant portion of their lives to bemoaning the prevalence of misogyny to then openly celebrate the misandry that they claim doesn’t exist displays hypocrisy on a level beyond the ability of any rational person to fathom or justify.” - Link

The ShitRedditSays forum notices TJ’s attempt to garner misogynist support, and both explains the name and calls him out for caring more about the name than the content of the poster.
Choice first-reponse quotes that support feminism:
“…Its not “our” fault these roles were started long ago and pointing the finger to women isn’t going to fix the problem…” -WhyDoIHavetoSayThis
“…I suspect much of this sort of thing is largely a result of patient, polite explanations about the way men behave – especially on the Internet – haven’t really been effective. After awhile, a sense of futility sets in…” -HowlingStatic
“Hey keep calling other human beings “cunts” I heard it really helps convince them that your logic is sound and they are mistaken” – thewalking

One of the moderators of ShitRedditSays even chimes in:
“Look stupid. What we are doing there, as everyone here in this room now understands, is we are using an exaggerated form of the rhetoric and the implied values of Reddit to satirise the rhetoric and the implied values of Reddit. And it is a shame to have to break character and explain that. BLEARRRRRRRGHHHH” [link from original poster] -ArchangelleDworken

Of course, this probably wouldn’t have happened if TJ hadn’t replied to the criticism with hatred right from the bat:

“I don’t ‘get’ satire. God, I’m such an AMAZING atheist. smug” -AFlatCap
to which TJ replies:
“I’m going to rape you with my fist.” [along with another post that got self-deleted] -terroja
AFlatCap compares TJ’s “triggering” language to the dictator Yahweh (the majority of the post being a comparison to Yahweh), to which TJ replies first that he doesn’t believe in “triggering” language (link1link2), and that he will “make you[Lorrdernie] a rape victim if you don’t fuck off.” then replies immediately, “That was a joke, by the way. Did it trigger you? I hope it did.” (link1link2)

When Lorrdernie replies that he/she is actually a rape victim, TJ goes all-out trying to trigger Lorrdernie:

“Yeah. Well, you deserved it. So, fuck you. I hope it happens again soon. I’m tired of being treated like shit by you mean little cunts and then you using your rape as an excuse. Fuck you. I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow. Actually, I don’t believe you were ever raped! What man would be tasteless enough to stick his dick into a human cesspool like you? Nice gif of a turd going into my mouth. Is that kind of like the way that rapists dick went in your pussy? Or did he use your asshole? Or was it both? Maybe you should think about it really hard for the next few hours. Relive it as much as possible. You know? Try to recall: was it my pussy or my ass?” -terroja

Lorrdernie remains strong against TJ’s attempts at triggering, but TJ continues to berate Lorrdernie:

“No, I’m not mad. I’m just trying to trigger you. It’s not working, I guess. So, I guess the whole triggering thing is bullshit after all?” -terroja

“BTW, you have to admit, when I told you that I hope you drown in rape semen, you got a little wet, didn’t you? It’s okay. We’re friends now. You can share.” -terroja

“Then imagine the rapists with muscle, dumb ass. It’s your sick fantasy, not mine, you daft cunt.” -terroja

“I don’t believe in triggering. So, what I did was, in my mind, completely harmless. And you weren’t triggered. So, what was the real harm? You realized I was joking. I even stated that I was. So, for that joke, I deserve to be stabbed? I mean, do you not see how fucked up that is? Are you even a human being?”-terroja

“I am aware of the pretense offered for your violent tendencies towards me. Also, I’m pretty sure I could rape you without getting killed if it was really on my agenda. I mean, you didn’t kill the first guy, right?” -terroja [Note: Lorrdernie had already pointed out that his/her rapist was a female.]

He simultaneously replies to other people on other threads with denial of the patriarchy, slurs, and insistence that he’s anegalitarian, and that he’s not a woman-hater because he’s engaged to a woman.

Towards the end of the rape thread, veerserif makes a long post shaming TJ for his actions. “…I now know that, apart from being misguided, intentionally ignorant, and quick to resort to pathetic excuses, you are also a purposefully hurtful person with no sense of empathy, and no sense of remorse…” -veerserif

to which TJ replies that he’s hurt by this reaction, not because of his impact on other people, but because of the impact on himself:
“…I cant believe someone out there feels such genuine, seething hate for me…” -terroja

Unable to fight against the reddit backlash, he creates a video whining about the feminists who mistreated him so terribly:
“…Literally my existence pisses them off. I’m a white, male who doesn’t believe in the patriarchy. So, that alone is enough. The fact that I actively go after them, well, that’s just the cherry on the fucking Sunday. (sighs for a while) Man, man, man…Why do I do this, to myself?…” -excerpt from the transcript by throwingExpectations.


Meanwhile, here are some other fine blogs that have taken the subject and run with it:

Comments

  1. says

    “I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow.”

    Alright, I don’t suppose we have anything in our Atheist Doctrine™ that could be used to out process this guy?

    …Crap

  2. Lynnea says

    This is what I get for waking up at 5am. Honestly, it was a ridiculous amount of crap to sift through and try to get the full picture. The whole original post was just so nuts, I could hardly believe it.

    Again, this shit is so disappointing to see in atheists who should be more rational; it just makes us atheists look intolerant to Xians, and makes women feel unwelcome in atheist social circles.

    • says

      Do you think it could be due to the circumstances these atheists were in before they abandoned their belief? It just seems like you have this religion that promotes misogyny in almost every facet and nuance held by the majority, and then that misogyny is migrating with the people who leave that religion. It’s almost as if they think being an atheist because they thought critically about the subject automatically makes all of their other beliefs logical and reasonable. Of course, there are life-long atheists with this problem.

    • Sarah says

      This is why I have misgivings about the notion of atheism as a bandwagon. While I recognize the necessity of people taking up positions in the community where they speak about atheism and the way in which it’s altered the way they think about life, it also makes me a little worried that it might be used to fuel other trends. To me, atheism is a statement of; “I have given rational thought to the idea, and logic and reason tell me that there is likely no god.” When people in atheist circles start to become prominent and develop a following, I always get the sense that it’s the principle of logic and reason and thinking for one’s self that they can invoke as a sort of authority. “I have thought critically about this, you have thought critically about this, hey, while I have your attention, here are some other things I’ve thought critically about.”

      Ideally, that same principle of thinking critically for one’s self is what would inoculate listeners against any incidental belief-systems that the orator in question might espouse alongside his or her atheism (be it MRA or feminism, liberalism or conservatism, flat-earth theory, 9/11 truthing, or whatever). But it concerns me that the distinction is getting blurred into the rhetoric, the sometimes beautiful and powerful rhetoric (a la Science Saved my Soul, or qualiasoup/theramintree’s wonderful Instruction Manual for Life, not that I’m citing these as examples of such blurring of ideas, but as examples of beauty). Atheism is just atheism. Anything anyone says while identifying as an atheist, other than “I do not believe that a god exists, these are the reasons why…”, is not atheism.

      The thing is, I think that the AA has shades of that same power of rhetoric, and as a person who is moved by words, that unsettles me. Whatever the topic, hearing people speak with passion and eloquence is a moving thing, and can compel some part of you, even if you don’t agree with what’s being said. This whole debacle has nothing oblique about it, he is just straight up being horrible, and it’s right and good that he be called out on it. But I didn’t know this about him, I’ve watched his videos on one or two occasions, and never noticed. And I think a lot of people WON’T find this out about him, or won’t find it out alongside the context of other voices contributing to the discussion. I know that the one place where we have common ground does not lend credence to any of his other philosophies. But it’s that common ground that concerns me, because it’s the place that people stand while he shows off his other ideas. And if you’ve been swayed by the rhetoric of it, who says you’re not that tiny bit more susceptible to not thinking critically about what he’s really saying.

      • says

        This is where Humanism (of some flavor) comes into the picture.

        Humans DO need to sit around around and talk to each other about what is Right and what is Wrong. We are TERRIBLE at judging our own behavior. Chock full of every bias you can imagine kind of TERRIBLE.

        Morality, to me, implies that there is a necessary negotiation (this is why I do NOT like the Golden Rule, it puts the individual in the position of being the judge which is broken).

        Any moral structure needs to be a collaborative process that converges on a mutually agreeable standard of behavior – and everyone needs to agree that the outliers are being unreasonable (consensus building). Neither Majority nor Might should be the primary factor.

        The advantage of secular morality over religious morality is that we can admit our relative ignorance. We don’t KNOW the perfect answers – let’s engage and discover and learn and be willing to be wrong so that we can improve.

  3. says

    Actually we can’t even blame the GIFT for this because he wasn’t even anonymous! I used to suspect that most posters like that were intentionally inflamatory and realized they were assholes…now I know for realz that they literally are shocked that people respond negativly to slurr filled violent rants. They’re like half a step up from the people carrying “the end is near” signs in terms of self blindness to how crazy they seem to everyone else

    • tracieh says

      It actually took me awhile to learn this about people in life. I also used to think assholes know they’re assholes. But I now think the majority think they’re actually cool people, and those who dislike them are mischaracterizing them.

      Consider a scenario where I have trouble actually being accepted and bonding with others–likely from not being sufficiently socialized at a young age. I just don’t know very well how to make friends or say appropriate things—and in fact, a lot of the times if I open my mouth, my ideas get weird or negative response, and I honestly don’t know why. I can see people avoid me (I’m not invited to fun group events as much as others, I’m home alone a lot on weekends when everyone else is out partying, I notice closed body language when I approach the group, and so on). For awhile, as a kid, maybe I just keep trying to fit in—but I simply lack the tools, and I’m not able to tell what it is I need to understand or do, to be accepted. So, I start to become frustrated and give up on even trying to get these people to like me. And I start manifesting anti-social behaviors because caring if others accept me is just such a source of constant frustration. I’ve tried all I know how to do (because what I need to be doing, I don’t know how, since I didn’t have a healthy, nurturing childhood), and people still tend to just not want to hang with me. And dating—well, forget it! I can barely make friends. So, as I start moving away from “what’s wrong with me?” I begin moving closer to “What’s wrong with THEM?!” And I’m angry and frustrated with a situation where I lack the social tools to make progress—and, well, you people in your group having all that fun without me—you’re not helping when you keep me at arm’s length because I’m awkward and make you uncomfortable. I can’t help it, and you just keep rejecting me.

      So, in the end, if I’m not very good in social situations, and I end up, no matter how much I’d like to be liked and accepted, being excluded–and I’m frustrated because I honestly don’t know what this “secret code” is that everyone else seems to so easily grasp, that confounds the heck out of *me*. I think the negative response is just a defense mechanism–sort of like sour grapes; if you can’t have it, best to try and convince myself it’s not something worth wanting, anyway. It goes down more easily that way; but at the same time, it’s a final note—a closing of the door to trying to make it work. It’s defeat. And as Russell notes, I end up moving farther from the fun group interaction, and more toward those who are also anti-social or in marginal groups, who are more like me—a group where my behavior is more normal, and where we all have a similar chip on our shoulders.

      When this is the new normal, we’re then validated in everything we’ve come to, and that validation simply cements the “It’s not me, it’s you,” dynamic that may work to help keep the pain away, but that also makes it more and more impossible for me to ever improve the original problem that I never learned good social skills.

      It breaks my heart in many ways to see this. But nobody can make it better but me, if this is what I’m going through. I understand where all this ugliness comes from. It makes perfect sense. But for the person being ugly to actually admit it, reopens the wound that “It’s not *them,* it is *actually* me that needs to learn and develop a social skill I skipped over and never quite honed.” As long as I maintain “I am normal,” and defend the idea my detractors are the “real problem,” I have no incentive to improve the situation or myself. But, honestly, social rejection is quite emotionally painful. At TAE, it’s one of our most common letters—“I’m concerned family/friends will reject me if I come out.” We’re social animals. This is quite normal. So, reopening that issue, if “I don’t need you, anyway” has kept that pain, at least, at a safe distance, is scary. Subconsciously, I would have quite the incentive to let sleeping dogs lie, even if it’s to some continued detriment, since the current detriment isn’t as consciously painful to me as the original rejection—especially the longer it goes on.

        • Orlando says

          AGREE. I’ve been an outsider my entire life, so I’m used to being shunned or whatever, but I’m also an introvert so I live in my head most of the time anyway. We need a blog on this.

      • Michael says

        What an awesome reply. I felt as if I was reading about my life history (sadly.) Great insight and food for thought.

      • says

        That is a wonderfully written post. I think we have all been there – at least a little bit. I look back on my high school days and realize that, unknown to me at the time, I was sometimes very mean. I had no idea that I made other people feel bad, and thought of it as “defense” instead of being just as bad. It took someone being really direct with me, to wake up and realize this – and I am very thankful.

        I imagine that quite a bit of vitriol comes from hurt.

      • says

        Tracie,
        Reading this, it really makes me wonder if you are a female with undiagnosed Asperger’s syndrome…I was DX’ed with A.S. in summer 2010 and reading your narrative just clicks on so many levels as someone with A.S. It is strongly under-diagnosed in females, too.

        I would really look into it, if I were you. I called myself simply “introverted” too, for many years, but it lacks the explanatory power of an Asperger’s syndrome diagnosis…not to mention the ADA protections that come with a formal diagnosis…

        I’m only mildly A.S., not as much as those who are closer to “classical” autism, but affected profoundly enough that it has caused real friction and difficulties in social relations and romantic life as well…

        Good luck to you in any case. PS: keep doing all the awesome things you do for AE and GB, you are a powerful voice of reason for the atheist community.

  4. The Lorax says

    Not sure if it helps.. it probably doesn’t, but meh.

    I’ve been entering the world of Dungeon Masters for my Dungeons and Dragons group, and there was one NPC, a powerful wizard, whom the players had to fight. There was a good opportunity for role playing there, but the way the character was defined was confusing to me. He seemed genuinely good-natured and helpful, even though he murdered a guy in order to collect refugees for ritual sacrifice. The contradiction stuck in my mind, and I could not figure out a way to role play those aspects of his character.

    So, I asked for help.

    And one of the more experienced DMs told me something that really stuck with me… “Evil people don’t think that they’re evil.” And it makes sense, you know? People who murder in the name of their deity have the same amount of conviction as the people who walk door to door and preach, they’re just applying it differently. Neither of these groups think that what they’re doing is immoral, offensive, or wrong in any way.

    Just my two cents.

  5. says

    I used to be a fan of TJ, but between this and the episode of Godless Bitches, he disgusts me now.

    Does anyone know what TJ’s background is? Was he raised religious? I think it’s possible that a lot of the misogyny in the atheist community might be the direct result of atheists bringing a lot of the baggage from their theist belief systems to their new lives, baggage that doesn’t really have much to do with atheism.

    At any rate, TJ seems to be suffering from the “I am the world” fallacy. He refuses to consider that maybe some people have had different experiences and thus react to situations differently than he does. I love how he denies concepts like triggers when he has never been raped and doesn’t know jack shit about it. He reminds me of a creationist criticizing evolution, undeterred by the fact that he is proudly ignorant of the subject matter.

    • Cthandhs says

      I think it would be a mistake to put his misogyny down to a Christian or Religious upbringing. The Patriarchy is infused in our society religious and secular. For both men and women, it takes a lot of work to recognize it and fight it. It’s not a surprise that many atheists, rationalists and skeptics are misogynists, it’s a surprise that we, as a community, have found the strength to speak out about it.

    • m. a.melby says

      I don’t think it is reasonable to make assumptions about what TAA has or has not been through in his life. I have spent quite a bit of time with Power Electronics folks who seriously make misogyny an art form. (Usually they are working in the context of a personae – but not always.) It’s pretty clear that many of those artists are working through significant psychological and emotional issues. Others simply appear self-absorbed and painfully privileged. It runs the gambit. How they actually treat me and other women outside of their art, is very different than the images and statements they make within their art – and sometimes it’s completely the same.

      If there was truth in advertising for TAA’s “work” – it certainly wouldn’t be billed as a rational commentary. I subscribed to his channel, unsubscribed, then gave him another chance, then unsubscribed after he called a woman the “stupidest” person in the universe for having ideas formed in a particular feminist philosophical construct. One of his “arguments” against her ideas was that he couldn’t understand what she meant by a phrase she used. At that point I blinked at the screen and unsubscribed.

      Perhaps TAA could learn how to scream into a microphone while [description self-censored], and the “atheist” community wouldn’t have to feel the need to respond to him. However, that would mean he would be required to fess up to his anger and hatred, instead of pretend as if he is the rational one.

  6. Theodoric says

    I’ve seen enough internet drama. Can’t we get back to things of significance, things that pique our interests or hone our minds, things that matter?

    • Kazim says

      And… cue the dude reacting to a discussion about treating women decently by trying to make people change the subject. Where’s my bingo card?

      • Theodoric says

        I’ve been raised by a single mom in the Netherlands. I know pretty damn well how men and women are equal in all of the ways that matter, thank you very much.

        I meant that this guy is of no importance. ‘Cause really, the problems women do have have in society (glass ceiling, income disparity) aren’t solved by internet drama.

        • says

          I don’t get comments like these. “This isn’t important, we should be talking about other stuff.” Yeah, but why can’t blogs like this occasionally touch upon subjects like this? Not every single post has to be about a life-or-death situation, or a global hot-topic, or a nationwide emergency. Sometimes it’s nice to focus on smaller, more focused issues. It’s all part of the diversity of blogs in general, especially atheist blogs such as this one.

          Yes, there are more important things to discuss. For those issues, read OTHER posts besides this one. *waves hand* This is not the page you are looking for…

        • Jdog says

          I meant that this guy is of no importance. ‘Cause really, the problems women do have have in society (glass ceiling, income disparity) aren’t solved by internet drama.

          “Why have a show about atheism? There are so many other problems in the world, like war, famime, pestilence, and death. Shouldn’t you atheists be talking about those things instead of religion?”

          You see where that leads?

        • Aquaria says

          If you want to talk about something you think is more important, asshat, start your own fucking blog.

          Otherwise shut up and fuck off if you don’t have anything to contribute but privileged scumbag whining.

    • says

      Significant things like being decent human beings and supporting the humane treatment of other people? You mean significant things like that?

      Or “significant” things like “dumb things that Christians say that we can share a chuckle over” or “sexism and misogyny BUT only when religious people do it”?

    • amphiox says

      And this is exactly that. A thing of significance, that piques our interest, hones our minds, and, absolutely, matters.

      If you don’t want to participate, you can go away. You are not chained to your keyboard. There’s no PPK pressed to your temple, forcing you to remain logged in. Your computer has not been infected with a zombie bot that forces your browser to stay on this site, and only this site.

    • Marshall says

      Every… Fucking… Time…

      Without exception. You know, I think it’s great when the atheist/skeptic communities take on religious claims and show how utterly false they are, and I love a good atheist vs. theist rhetorical brawl as much as the next person, but if you think that the people who put themselves in a position of being visible spokespeople for atheism shouldn’t be called out when they say disgusting and ridiculous shit like this, then I have to wonder if you can even SEE the bigger picture. This is a PROBLEM. We need to SOLVE it. It IS significant.

      • Marshall says

        Yeah, pretty much. We’re all about getting up in arms about everything from gods to ghosts to goop-that-doesn’t-actually-cure-colds, but when something like this happens, well, we’ve got THINGS that are MORE IMPORTANT to be discussing. Like that goop. That goop TOTALLY harms more people than a culture of rampant misogyny and rape apologia, right?

      • says

        Oh great… now we can add “Rebecca Watson once told a dirty joke about a penis when she was 19 and is rumored to have worn tight jeans at some points, therefore middle-class white males are the only discriminated-against group in the world” comments to the thread. Is that on the “CUNTO” card? Should be.

      • says

        It does seem to be something of an ‘elephant in the room’ within the atheist community, and it’s definitely something that needs to be dealt with.

        I’m guessing partly the cause is people only go so far in questioning things. After I left religion, I questioned almost EVERYTHING. As a result, my views have changed quite radically. When I was religious, I was enough of an ass to call a friend a “sinner” for being gay, something I berate myself for to this day. How was I such an unkind human being? Indeed, how did I allow myself to be so *unthinking*?

        The worst part was, deep down, I *knew* better.

        Thankfully, I eventually recognised it, consigned it (along with other junk like creationism) to the dustbin marked “really dumb ideas” and moved on to building a better, more rational worldview.

        I call myself a supporter of equal rights (which simply means I support all the *genuine* rights concerns – women’s rights, LGBT rights, human rights etc.). I support this, because frankly there’s no excuse for allowing this shit go on in the 21st century.

        We’re better than this. Sadly in this day and age it’s not just an atheist community problem, it’s a HUMAN problem.

        The only way we’re going to get these issues sorted is by focusing on the problem, working out how to solve it, and by doing it, and doing it united and as members of the human race. Because that’s ultimately what we are – men, women, straights, LGBTs… We’re all human in the end. What right have I to say “you don’t deserve to have that particular human right?”

        I don’t. And quite rightly.

        Instead what happens is that people like this AmazingDouchebag slam into rape victims, which feeds into the religionists’ screeds that denounce atheism, which fuels many of us in anger, aaand you get the picture. This stuff makes me so weary. Knowing we’re capable of so much better, yet seeing us be so, so stupid. We are, IMHO, simultaneously the most wonderful and most terrible creatures on this planet.

        I’m beginning to fear Einstein was right about human stupidity.
        I’m not an activist (I wouldn’t know where to start here in Sydney, especially given I have limited means, and can’t drive), though a part of me (which seems to be getting progressively louder) screams to DO SOMETHING about this and other issues.

        Sorry about the rant. it’s late, and it tends to happen when I’m tired. Probably also the fact I suspect I’ve been staring at the metaphorical Abyss for far too long and am starting to see the ugly parts of humanity that are staring back at me.

        • Kelby says

          EPIC WIN. This is the most mature comment i’ve seen all day. I unsubscribed from the AmazingAsshole after his little affair with a banana (you dont want to know), and after hearing about THIS ordeal with the rape victim. I mean WTF TJ?! I mean he has some good videos full of wisdom that educated me and turned me atheist, but that does NOT excuse bullying a rape victim and acting like a perv!! Also the whole “Not Productive” thing. The whole issue is so confusing it gave me a headache.

    • pentatomid says

      Ugh. There’s always one like this around isn’t there.
      I guess the decent treatment of our fellow humans is just not ‘significant’ enough. Yes, wel, it just doesn’t ‘pique your interests’, does it. Doesn’t ‘hone our minds’.

      Dude, if all you’ve got to say is shit like this, than just shut up and move along.

    • Besomyka says

      This isn’t ‘internet drama’, this is how our society is shaped and how people interact with it. Behind each post is some asshole at his computer, and you better believe that what they say online manifests in some shape or form in their daily lives.

      Never mind that allowing shit like this to go unchallenged contributes to the over all problem.

      So yeah, I care about this. We are, currently, engaged and discussing something that I care about and something that matters.

  7. says

    My friends on Tumblr and I have been dealing with TJ as well. Someone posted a very long rebuttal to his vapid bullshit feminism video (more than likely the one on Godless Bitches), and he decided it wasn’t worth his time to respond. He was kind enough to take time last night to let me know he thinks most feminist literature is less valuable than Dianetics, though.

    TJ suffers from what I call White Cis Hetero Man Syndrome – so completely unaware or in denial of his societal privilege that he lashes out at anyone that dare speak up about oppression. He’s a vile piece of horse shit and I hope he lives a long, long life with only his audience of human garbage for company.

  8. says

    Dunning-Kruger is a good comparison. On the one hand, claims that feminism is irrelevant and overreacting to a non-problem. On the other hand, behavior that confirms the continued need for feminism. All from the same person, usually within a very short amount of time, sometimes even within the same sentence.

    And the fact that they go straight from zero to violent and threatening language in 4.6 seconds? There’s something broken in their personality that allows them to go there. I’m not even really comfortable repeating the language while discussing it, and that’s what TJ and his ilk go with the second they feel remotely provoked. Either they are constantly filled with barely-controlled rage, or they have a sociopathic lack of regard for others and think it is somehow humorous or entertaining to intentionally and knowingly hurt and/or provoke other people. Either way, terrible people.

    • Orlando says

      It’s sad that so many of the misogynist comments on the internet are made, I suspect, by teenaged boys (an assumption based on language and context). Which if true is especially sad as one would hope some sort of social evolution has been occurring since the 1960′s. Guess not so much.

    • says

      “There’s something broken in their personality that allows them to go there.”

      Sadly that seems like the easy way out. The harder thing to accept and the more likely to be correct thing is that they aren’t broken in any structural way at all. They are neither overboiling with rage or sociopaths.

      They simply end up with anger as a great many of otherwise very good people do when they run out of good arguments. Sadly their arguments are simply exhausted that quickly. But, I don’t really see it as anything different or broken, and I dare say you’d need to establish that with a lot of good evidence. Because, we all suffer cognitive biases, we all defend feelings of certainty we have with confabulations. Sometimes the things we grab for are good evidenced based reasons and sometimes they are straws.

      We are all blind to our shortfalls, if we could see them we wouldn’t have them. So if misogynists really understood why misogynism was harmful to people in general, they wouldn’t be misogynists. If assholes knew they were assholes, they’d stop.

      Attributing misogynism to mental illness sure does feel good but it’s likely false. And when somebody sees a lake monster, claiming they were drunk seems good, but even if they were drunk that’s not a right answer. Alcohol almost never induced hallucinations. Just like it feels good to think that some of the “Pray Away the Gay” people scam artists looking for a quick buck rather than entirely reasonable people looking to help their fellow people and being categorically wrong as to the best way to do that.

      We can buy sinister, bad, mistaken, greedy, psychotic motives but, aren’t often don’t consider that they might just be completely wrong and completely blind to that fact. Even though we should know full well that we are completely blind to any and all wrongness we might possess. I don’t know anything I believe that is wrong. And even very stupid people could likely and truthfully say the exact same thing.

  9. says

    According to TJ he’s one of those raised religious but never believed…so not like that excuse can cut it.

    Nor can it just be dismissed as net drama because he’s doing the equivlent of yelling on the street corner.

  10. jacobfromlost says

    Kazim, I think an analogous concept to Dunning-Kruger is warranted. (It seems like there should be some research into the kind of concept you are looking for, but I don’t know enough about psychology to know specifically.)

    This kind of behavior is one baby-step removed from actual violence. It sounds to me like there is a lot of psychological projection in there as well (not being able to take responsibility for one’s own anger, psychotic thoughts, psychotic behaviors, etc, and so obviously the cause of them is someone else: those evil women, blacks, etc). This reminds me of Joren van der Sloot’s floated defense for murdering Stephany Ramirez: Stephany apparently realized, said, or suggested that van der Sloot was the murderer of Natalee Holloway…

    …and it made him so angry that she, too, would accuse him of being a murderer when he was “innocent” that he murdered Stephany for even SAYING he was a murderer.

    So, he seemed to imply, it was her fault he murdered her. He might as well have said, “See what she made me do? How terrible of her!”

    We ignore this kind of psychotic behavior at our peril because doing so elevates criminal behavior (and behavior that hugs the border with criminal behavior, crossing whenever we turn our backs) to acceptable, and makes victimhood the fault of the victim.

    On a much, much smaller scale, this reminds me of my time teaching, when students who had things stolen from them were considered fools and laughed at for being punked, but STEALING was not considered wrong by most students. They just figured everyone steals, or would if they could get away with it, so it is up to you to hold onto your stuff–and if you can’t, that’s YOUR fault, not the thief’s fault.

    Flashforward a decade or two, and if the students don’t mature socially/psychologically, you get behavior like that described above. (I also agree it has nothing to do with the anonymity of the internet–these people truly believe they are in the right. They have to in order to live with themselves.)

    • Orlando says

      Interesting, Jacob. I read a study a few months ago wherein 50% of college kids openly admitted cheating. This was how many ADMITTED cheating. So one can assume the actual percentage is higher. I’d be interested in the gender breakdown, but I’m guessing we know the answer.

      • jacobfromlost says

        Right. High school students generally don’t see cheating as wrong. I had an AP 10th grade English class a couple years ago, and one of the hyper-overachieving, straight-A students asked me if it was ok to cheat in math class because the teacher wasn’t very good and math was hard. (I explained that it was not, and offered alternatives.) That was my last year at that school, and last time I checked in to see what was happening there, that kid is now on the SCHOOL BOARD as a student representative. He looks GREAT on paper, and is a very smart kid, but I’m certain a lot of those A’s should be B’s, and cheating is the reason. (Ironically, many more B and C students just assume the A students NEVER cheat, so many B and C students don’t cheat out of a sense of fairness, and many straight-A students just see themselves of deserving of an A no matter what, so cheating may be necessary.)

        • Dragon says

          I think your ‘ironically’ portion needs some evidence cited.

          If ‘many’ B and C students don’t cheat out of a sense of fairness or any other reason, it would be quite difficult to arrive at the 50% of students that admit to cheating.
          Maybe my high school was not normal, but the A students were rarely cheating, though there were a few highly suspected cases. And the B and C students never expressed that as the reason they would not cheat – rather they feared getting caught or not being seated next to an A student.
          But that is my personal experience, and I am not suggesting it is statistically valid.
          I found college had more cheating A students.

          • jacobfromlost says

            Dragon: If ‘many’ B and C students don’t cheat out of a sense of fairness or any other reason, it would be quite difficult to arrive at the 50% of students that admit to cheating.

            Me: Are you assuming 100% of students pass? The failure rate was high at my school due to many socio-economic factors.

            Dragon: Maybe my high school was not normal, but the A students were rarely cheating, though there were a few highly suspected cases.

            Me: There are many ways to cheat, not all of them apparent to other students, and not all of them demonstrable by the teacher. But once you do the job for many years, you get a sense of these things.

            Dragon: And the B and C students never expressed that as the reason they would not cheat – rather they feared getting caught or not being seated next to an A student.

            Me: That’s possible too. The only point I made was that some students who are not straight-A students (some even failing students) are VERY honest and very naive–they think everyone who gets good grades is getting them because they worked hard or are smart. In my experience, that just isn’t the case. (The politics in schools can be VERY strong, and students who are in sports, or whose parents are influential, or who have never gotten a grade below an A before in their life…will often get a wave of support against any teacher who suggests they only deserve a B. There were instances in my school where students who should have been suspended from sports were not, students who should not have graduated did, and students who should not have passed did. That kind of grade inflation occurs not only on the F to B range, but in the B to A range as well. Colleges nowadays have even been caught inflating SAT scores to give themselves a slight edge in rankings–its culturally rampant.)

            Dragon: But that is my personal experience, and I am not suggesting it is statistically valid.
            I found college had more cheating A students.

            Me: My experience teaching for a decade was quite different than my experience as a student. It was an eye-opening experience. I am by no means saying there are not a lot of honest, hard working straight A students. There are. There are also a lot of “posers” up and down the grading scale, and if there is enough emotion invested in making sure that kid gets an A no matter what…well, the kid often gets an A, deserved or not. (I wouldn’t play that game, which is part of the reason I left teaching.)

          • Orlando says

            50% of Americans are below average in intelligence. And roughly 50% of Americans self-identify as conservative or conservative-leaning. Coincidence? Maybe.

  11. Rabidtreeweasel says

    Well, I appreciate your willingness to sledge through all of that and offer commentary. I couldn’t get past his opening paragraph it was just SO hilarious.
    Seeing red and wanting to run screaming from the room is the same as laughing, right?
    What really amazes me is his proported disbelief in triggers. If he really doesn’t believe in them than be is ignoring all the studies on PTSD done in the military. Triggers are made from all kinds of traumatic experiences, and the changes in the neural pathways can be mapped.
    So he is either being intentionally obtuse or he truly disbelieves. In either case, I can only assume he’s rejected the available data in order to maintain a world view that (he seems to feel) protects his desire to rape and pillage from scrutiny.

    • michaeld says

      “Seeing red and wanting to run screaming from the room is the same as laughing, right?” its more of an off brand substitute.

    • echidna says

      Nah, he believes in triggers alright. He was setting up a “gotcha” – either the triggers work, and he displays his awesome power to provoke, or he can smugly say that “triggers” are yet another thing that rape victims lie about.

      Of course, by saying he doesn’t believe in triggers, he is implicitly saying that returned soldiers don’t have triggers either. Right. He’s never been around returned servicemen, then.

  12. says

    users bravely state that disabled people do not deserve the title of “hero”.

    It’s probably just that my wife and I have been watching a lot of the Office lately, but that line popped this quote into my head:

    “No, don’t call me a hero. Do you know who the real heroes are? The guys who wake up every morning and go into their normal jobs and get a distress call from the commissioner and take off their glasses and change into capes and fly around, fighting crime. Those are the real heroes.” –Dwight Schrute

    And I think that’s how I’ll imagine the MRA Redditors: inept, bumbling, self-absorbed, backwards, pompous Dwight Schrutes. Except, you know, without all the good qualities.

  13. John Kruger says

    Somebody says something you don’t like, and your response is rape threats.

    How anybody can think there is no problem with this kind of behavior is completely beyond me.

    Years ago “The Amazing Atheist” was one of the few YouTube channels I could find specifically about atheist topics. After being frustrated with all the reverence that religious criticism was generally tempered with, it was kind of empowering to see some unashamed attacks on it. It is clear to me now that he can dish it out but can’t take it. He can criticize but cannot benefit from criticism, and most of his arguments are really a way for him to feel superior to other people.

    I am glad there are so many other places to go these days. I unsubscribed months ago after his other anti-feminist video, and I have not missed him. Honestly, he really does fit in to the “you are religious because you are stupid”, condescending, arrogant, atheist stereotype I want to be distanced from. The misogyny was just the last straw.

  14. says

    Holy crap, what an unpleasant waste of flesh he is. He doesn’t even bother with a pretense of being reasonable. He’s an openly, all-out woman-hating sadist.
    He’s the gender-political equivalent of beating a puppy to death with a kitten and then masturbating over pictures of starving children.

    • Rabidtreeweasel says

      “…beating a puppy to death with a kitten and thenI masturbating over pictures of starving children” is the name of my new heavy metal band. You win all the internets; that was awesome.

  15. Sandow says

    You know, this is an example of why I am for laws against hate speech. There is a significant difference between criticizing a position and saying “I think XYZ causes societal harm and here are my reasons why.” and “You should be raped.” One of these involves actual reasoning and has value even if the arguments involved are bad, and another is a vicious attack intended only to hurt someone. I don’t think this kind of speech has any kind of value. It should be removed from any discourse.

    • says

      I’m against “hate speech” laws. Just not in favor of them at all.

      On the other hand, this isn’t even the “You should be raped” example you gave. He actually threatened rape, he said “I will make you a rape victim” and my understanding is that’s an illegal and actionable threat of a sexual assault, and his “amazing” ass should spend a couple of nights in jail for it.

      • Orlando says

        You are right, there are existing laws against this kind of threat and a few cases have gone to trial. But my understanding is that they are tricky, and certain aspects have to be met.

        The problem with the internet is that a person can make all sorts of threats that they would not be able to get away with in “the olden days” as they would have been dealt with. Anonymity grants one the ability to play the big, tough guy.

    • tosspotovich says

      We have laws against hate speech/vilification in Australia which generally work pretty well. It doesn’t impinge on free speech except for extremist positions.

      I’ve seen a man walking the streets with a “men’s rights” banner. I literally laughed in his face before realising he was NOT joking. It’s not laws that need amendment, but attitudes.

      Note to self: log into YT, unsub TAA

  16. Darketernal says

    Being a asshole dick is his shtick to get youtube views and notability.
    And from the looks of it… it’s working.
    Take this guy serious is like feeding the trolls… don’t feed the trolls.
    Sad thing is.. he’s even got PZ involved.

    • Ace of Sevens says

      TJ is the biggest YouTube atheist, and therefore one of the most prominent atheist voices on the Internet. He get hundreds of thousands of views on each video. Should we just ignore that he’s a misogynist who may have crossed the legal line into assault? What’s your view on Muslims that don’t criticize terrorists? If anything, I’m pissed that it’s taken this long for him to get called out.

      • Darketernal says

        It’s not a matter of ignoring him. Yes, he offends people. The more attention you give him (which is exactly what he wants) the more he’ll be justified in offending more people.

        I don’t know a solution, but fanning the flames with “ZOMG I ARE OFFENDED THAT YOU SPEAK CRAP” counter-rants will only encourage him to continue in his holy tirade.

        His atheism can not be used to justify his sexism. Muslim beliefs can be used to justify their terrorist acts.
        My atheism stems from my disbelief in god, and does not correlate with the sexism.
        However, my humanism and feminism belief does reflect on how I view sexism and his offending remarks.
        I will speak out against him not because I am an atheist like him, but because I believe equality in sex.

        He is poking and prodding to get a reaction, any reaction. It validates his worth, pride, etc… and gives him a kick.
        He is a troll.
        If you feed the trolls anything, they will consider themselves victorious.
        Points of contention do not matter, logic does not apply, right and wrong are not applicable. Trolls seek one thing, a reaction.

        Deny them that, and they’ll continue to rant to themselves till they’re tired.
        The moment he crosses the legal lines, I will smile and watch him get persecuted to the full extent of the law, until then, trolls like him are not different than the Westboro Baptist Church.

        • Ace of Sevens says

          And how many times have you heard someone claim that most Christians tacitly approve of Westboro because they aren’t making a big enough deal out of publicly condemning them? This guy is the public face of atheism to a lot of people. Anyone who cares about the topic can’t leave that unchallenged.

          • Darketernal says

            You don’t get it.
            Christianity explicitly states God is against homosexuality.
            Muslim explicitly states a war on infidels.
            Christians disapprove not because their religion says so, but because their modern sense of morality does. They then cherry pick their beliefs to back them up.
            Muslims disapprove of the actions of their fellow Muslims for the same very reasons.

            Atheism has no such dogma, beliefs, or morality to even weigh in on the matter. Atheists simply do not believe in god.
            This is not an Atheist issue. This is a humanist issue.
            The fact that you don’t get it either means you’re trolling me, or you’re really dense.

            “We atheist” have no bearing on the matter. Being atheist does not preclude you to have a humanist belief or view. Being a humanist does.
            But… with that, you also are wasting a lot of time and energy giving someone publicity and infamy that he is craving for.

            Besides that, I doubt the face of TAA is the face of Atheism, maybe for you, but I see someone like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillhunty, and the late Christopher Hitchens as the face of Atheism, even in the realms of Youtube.

            If you don’t get that, then I deem you a troll and be done with you.

          • Ace of Sevens says

            TAA has something like four times as many views as all those people combined on YouTube.

            Christianity isn’t really united by dogma. If you look at Fred Phelps and John Spong, there are hardly any doctrines they both believe. Yet, when Spong speaks up, plenty of people will say that his Christianity sounds fluffy and nice, but promoting religion in general just gives cover to people like Phelps. Christianity is united by branding, just like atheism.

            Besides, TJ isn’t getting called out to get him to change his mind. He’s well beyond listening. He’s getting called out because the Internet is listening. It’s a public service to tell everyone what kind of person he is. Letting shit go unchallenged is a coward’s move. He’s been mostly ignored for five years and didn’t go away. Isn’t it time to try something different?

    • evilDoug says

      I was talking to my brother about internet idiots and how to deal with them a little while ago. I don’t remember his exact words, but in essence they were that testimony given in court and left unchallenged is taken to be the truth.
      Creeps like Kincaid must be cross-examined with great vigor. Evidence must be presented to the jury. The jury (and the gallery) for this guy, to borrow from Brownian in PZ’s thread, are 14 to 22 year olds with penises. It is incumbent upon us to make the case to the jury and show beyond any doubt that Kincaid’s behavior is unacceptable.

  17. says

    At the risk of being a tad too frivolous, I have to ask. In this whole scheme of Dunning Kreuger horribility scores, would someone with a PhD in Horribleness be perfectly incapable of detecting horribility or perfectly able to detect it?

    Just wondering.

  18. otrame says

    He must be called out. I was subscribed for a while. Some of his videos a couple of years ago were pretty good. But as time went on, most of his videos were about him and how miserable he was or he was becoming more and more strident (yes, Virginia, some atheists actually are strident) and hysterical about the most inane bullshit. I unsubscribed some time ago, apparently before he really started the misogynist crap.

    He’s a pathetic little man, who has definitely lost the plot. And yes, hell yes, we have to call him on it. We have an obligation. He is a very public atheist and he is an embarrassment. We need to say so.

  19. says

    I wish I hadn’t read that. This guy seriously needs help, I mean, wow, all that HATE, where does it come from? What the hell is broken in his head that he thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to make threats of rape? More importantly, what’s broken in our society that makes it acceptable, and how can we fix it?

  20. Daemon6 says

    I’ve never liked this guy. I always found him way too unnecessarily abrasive, but this goes way beyond the pale. Any respect I *might* have had for him has been wholly and completely replaced with antipathy.

  21. bj says

    I don’t get, what’s the point of this post? Is this the morality police? This post is basically just jumping on the new hot topic to call TAA and asshole. This isn’t news, and no one, including TJ would argue that he can be an asshole some of the time, most of the time, whatever. This barely touching on the issues he brings, if you want to do what godless bitches did in an episode, that’s great and i look forward to listening to it as this is a subject that is new to my interests. No, you think its worthwhile to mention that he uses the word cunt.

    I hate the ridiculousness of needing to assert that we have this immense moral high level over him. And you list a hundred reasons or rationalizations or excuses as to why he can reach such pathetic lows to downplay what he did, but I’ll try to just list what happened. He made a joke. It was mean spirited and potentially hurtful towards someone, but even with that in mind being so far removed from the person and with a familiarity with the harshness of internet culture that TAA has in far deeper depths than many, I still laughed. Sometimes just saying the harshest meanest shit is funny, hell its a talent. Sure its best when you’re friends with the person or you know its all in good fun but we can see. He crossed a line, and then admitted it was wrong. I don’t think we need to crucify someone over this while reassuring ourselves that “i’d never do something so horrible”. It’s bullshit.

    • says

      Wow, you’re actually downplaying and defending someone who used a threat of rape to intimidate a rape victim. And has backpedalled from admitting precisely what it was that he did that was wrong, and refused to give a full public apology to the person he threatened.

      There’s bullshit in this thread, but I think you’ve misidentified the source.

      • ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

        And we KNOW they are a rape victim do we? Yeah, I’m the CEO of microsoft. It must be true because I said it on the internet.

        Someone threatened someone on the internet in the middle of a massive flamewar? Oh lordy lordy! I’ve never heard of such things!
        Where are you from? The past?

        • says

          Sorry to go after the troll, but this is a worthwhile point to rebut, I think.

          How many people are the CEO of Microsoft? I don’t know for sure, but I’m willing to bet ~1. Claiming to be the CEO of Microsoft is rather extraordinary, then, as it’s a category that excludes ~99.999999985714285714285714285714% of the population.

          How many people are rape victims? In the United States, it’s about 1 out of every 6 women, and 3% of men. If I did the math right, it comes out to about 9% of the total population, or a little less than 1 in 10. It’s a little more extraordinary a claim than “I’m left-handed,” and a little less extraordinary than “I have blue eyes.”

          So, yeah, as long as this isn’t a court proceeding, I think “because someone said it on the Internet” is enough evidence to accept a claim that represents nearly 10% of at least one first-world nation’s population.

    • says

      I don’t get, what’s the point of this post? Is this the morality police? This post is basically just jumping on the new hot topic to call TAA and asshole. This isn’t news, and no one, including TJ would argue that he can be an asshole some of the time, most of the time, whatever. This barely touching on the issues he brings, if you want to do what godless bitches did in an episode, that’s great and i look forward to listening to it as this is a subject that is new to my interests. No, you think its worthwhile to mention that he uses the word cunt.

      I hate the ridiculousness of needing to assert that we have this immense moral high level over him.

      For

      Fucks

      Sake

      There is no need to assert an immense moral high level over him, because it’s fucking OBVIOUS this is something good people do not do. The fact that TJ and his mouthbreathers apparently think they can shit in the salad bar and that people reacting to it are the ‘morality police’ just goes to show how full of shit and anti-social they are.

      You know what, yes it is the morality police. TJ failed horribly and now the court of public opinion is broadcasting it wide and delivering a much needed spanking. Because that’s how we learn. Peer pressure works. I don’t care if he changes his opinions at all but at very least he’s learning that this shit isn’t cool with normal people.

      • says

        It was mean spirited and potentially hurtful towards someone, but even with that in mind being so far removed from the person and with a familiarity with the harshness of internet culture that TAA has in far deeper depths than many, I still laughed.

        You’re a horrible person and prove the thesis of the post

        Seriously

  22. Theodoric says

    Allright, please leave me time to talk.
    What I meant to say was that, of all the billion things we could fight for, fighting for ‘respect’ from an obnoxious horrible person isn’t worth it.

    The Amazing Atheist is, as Kazim states, a horrible person. Horrible persons should be ignored when they say vile stuff, not actively argued with, as that just bolsters their egos, validates their belief and makes them think their opinion matters to other people.

    While of course he said terrible things (just to get a rise out of a rape victim,, what the hell), we shouldn’t try to make him see reason; it’s not worth it. He’s a troll, he lives off of people reacting to his daft and offensive remarks.

    So, don’t just put me in the same group as him (seriously, that disgusts me), I just think we need to ignore people like that. The internet gives people like him a stage to spew their nonsense; if you don’t listen to it or communicate with him in any way, he’ll bugger off eventually. It’s not like his opinion is worth anything.

    • Theodoric says

      TLDR: I made myself look like a fool by being bad at writing sentences; with ‘Can’t we get back to things of significance, things that pique our interests or hone our minds, things that matter?’ I meant that the Amazing Atheist didn’t matter (isn’t significant, etc.), not women’s rights.

      • Sarah says

        I think that a reasonable objection to just ignoring him is that minimizing people who have attitudes like this about women doesn’t make them dwindle out and peter away. It’s like looking at the state of Christianity in the states; sure, most people who hold these beliefs are moderate about them. But passively, the moderates give credence and validation to the people who believe the dangerous shit. And the people who believe the dangerous shit are the same people who use that system of belief as justification to go out and cause serious harm. The same is true of misogynistic attitudes, in a climate of casual jokes about rape, or outright threats of rape by even semi-prominent people, it’s passively allowing things like that to be okay, in the minds of people who don’t realize that it’s really not.

        I’m still sort of new to really actively thinking about feminism, and what it means to be a woman in an environment that can be viciously hostile. So it’s kind of hard for me to know if I’m following the right path here, but I’m trying to let the way I understand my atheism help dictate the way I understand feminism. By not saying loudly and clearly that “This is wrong, this is why…” an opportunity is missed to educate people. Some of them might get defensive, and some of them might get further entrenched. But maybe some of them could have had their minds changed. That’s the same thing AE is about, kind of. It’s the same arguments over and over and over, for the benefit of the people who might hear them one day, even for the hundredth time, and actually listen.

        I don’t know how I’m meant to contribute to this dialogue, other than putting my thoughts out there for anyone who might want to comment, and trying to understand. I read this story this morning, and it’s been with me all day. I don’t like to think I’m a bleeding heart, but this got to me. I still get staggered by stories like this, even though I know there are more experienced feminists out there who have seen this and worse pass through their scopes. I’m still too shell-shocked by the notion that the AA came up against another human being, gender or creed entirely aside, and he did everything in his power to wound her with the limited resources he had at his disposal. He was shown the thing that had maybe hurt her more than anything in the world, and instead of choosing empathy and perspective, he thought “I will use this to hurt her more.” And with so very, very little at stake. A fight on the internet was worth more to him than the risk of hurting a person. And this is someone who has come to this way of behaving while espousing the same things I believe about reason and truth and thinking for one’s self, and about how we, ultimately, are the final moral authority over our actions. I think I need to crawl in bed and pull the covers over my head now.

        • SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant says

          Hey, I just wanted to tell you that from this feminist’s perspective, you’re doing a great job. Thanks!

    • Bruce Gorton says

      What I meant to say was that, of all the billion things we could fight for, fighting for ‘respect’ from an obnoxious horrible person isn’t worth it.

      There is a basic error made by a lot of people on the purpose of Internet arguments, assuming it is like arguing with your friends.

      It isn’t, the aims are not the same. On the internet the aim isn’t to convince the other side of the argument.

      The aim is the lurkers. The point isn’t to convince TJ to change his views, it is to show the audience that TJ’s views are problematic.

      TJ may end up revising his position one day, but it will not be the result of one argument. The members of the audience will also not be swayed by one argument.

      However as more voices speak out against the sort of sloppy, stupid thinking that TJ engages in, more audience members will start to shift.

      Further the fact of the matter is he calls himself the Amazing Atheist. It is necessary to point out that we, as individual atheists, don’t much like him either lest we get splashed with his paint.

    • Kazim says

      I hate to argue from popularity, but you’re arguing from “Nobody wants to hear about this topic,” so it is significant:

      The web stats tell me that yesterday was the single most heavily trafficked day for the AXP blog since we moved it to freethoughtblogs.com.

      A snapshot at this time indicates that the topic has generated:
      * 68 comments here
      * 789 comments on Pharyngula (DAMN YOU PZ!)
      * 54 comments on Camels With Hammers
      * 120 on Blag Hag
      * 25 on Lousy Canuck
      * 8 on Crommunist
      * 27 on Natalie’s blog
      * 9 on The X Blog
      * 171 on Manboobz

      …for a grand total of 1,271 comments in under 24 hours.

      Now ask me again if I feel bad for first bringing up a topic that nobody wants to talk about.

      • ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

        So what if people want to hear about it? People want to watch “Fred” on Youtube it doesn’t mean you have to on this blog. Mind you, where PZ leads The Atheist Experience follow. If PZ blogged about the consistency of dried mashed potato in the 1940′s you’d be discussing it here within minutes.
        How are the comments of some atheist on Reddit relevant to this atheist blog? So he happens to be known as the Amazing Atheist? Big deal. His content is, and has always been, inflammatory and a lot has nothing to do with atheism. You pointing out some nasty comments he made is akin to telling us milk now comes in bottles. Pointless.

        Guess what? People are being dicks all over the internet and a lot of them don’t believe in a god. Shock, horror! Let’s track them down! Let’s blog about them! But let’s see what PZ thinks about it first so we know which side to take.

        Just look at what you are blogging about. Is this shit really your level now? Get off the bandwagon of inanity.

        I’m looking forward to next weeks topic of “someone swore on the T.V. and my kids might have heard it” or something of equal irrelevance.

    • Aquaria says

      You ignorant git.

      It isn’t about trying to change this moron. It’s about changing all the people out there who think rape is something to threaten people with, that it’s acceptable behavior to stomp on the triggers of rape victims, that thinks rape is just hunky-dory.

      You’re tedious. Go find something to do that doesn’t annoy sane people, you privileged jerk.

  23. ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

    Oh no. Someone who has a reputation for being a dick on the internet, made a following of fans by being a dick on the internet, acted like a dick, on the internet.
    Oh the drama. He will give all atheists everywhere a bad name!

    So? Most people responded to TAA with death threats but they aren’t as famous as he is so we ignore them and their comments don’t we?
    You guys have become self-obsessed, moaning, bores. You really think this is relevant for a blog post?

    Grow up.

  24. Paulo says

    So, he is a troll, dont feed him!

    It is clear that you will never change his thinking, so why waste your time arguing?

      • ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

        Pointless. So someone who shares a disbelief in fairytales made a comment you don’t agree with? “RAR!!! MUST BLOG!!!! MUST INFORM EVERYONE THAT I DON’T SHARE THAT VIEW EVEN THOUGH NOBODY ASKED IF I DID!!!”

      • says

        There’s a couple problems we’re trying to solve.

        1) Misogyny / Bigotry

        2) The fact this guy represents us and is hampering our ability to repair our reputation in society.

        If you don’t agree with those, then you’re part of the problem we’re trying to fix.

    • Aquaria says

      It’s not about him, you moron.

      Sheesh. What’s wrong with you whining privileged douchebags that you can’t get that there are more people on the internet than this guy, and they–unlike moronic assholes like you–might be reached as far as learning how not to be jerks.

      Shut up. You’re tedious, too.

  25. Kazim says

    @ICWIKB: I hear you when you say that this topic makes you very emotional. I am sorry that you are feeling angry right now.

  26. John Kruger says

    I feel like I am just piling on, but here goes.

    When one of the most prominent You Tube atheists pulls this kind of horrifying stuff they do not get a free pass because they have been provocative in the past. He is not just “some guy on the internet”, he is one of the more visible and influential atheists around.

    So when I also identify as an atheist, it is my responsibility to decry and distance myself form that kind of behavior or have my silence be considered quiet agreement. When Muslim extremists want to threaten death because of drawings, the moderates have to call them out as wrong or they are quietly supporting them.

    If hateful misogyny in a group you are associated with is unimportant and not worthy of discussion to you that is very disappointing. These things sure as hell are important to me.

    • ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

      It’s your responsibility is it?
      Do you scour the internet looking for prominent atheists who talk crap so you can call them out on it? Or do you just parrot what The Atheist Experience say?
      What a busy life you must have.

      I know an atheist who called someone a “smelly gay”. Do you want me to link their facebook page so you can give them both barrels?

        • ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

          The only similarity between us all in this community is the disbelief in a god or gods. Why bother trying to voiceiferously distance yourself from atheists who differ in other aspects of belief or are being openly knob-headish.

          Ricky Gervais, an even more prominent atheist openly uses the term “mong”. Where was the atheist internet shitstorm over that? I saw the disabled community getting (rightly) angry over it and a few humanist groups but no one in the atheist community “distanced” themselves that I’m aware of.

          This is a bandwagon. You are jumping on it.

          • Ace of Sevens says

            It doesn’t help that most Americans have never heard the term “mong.” TJ’s had critics calling him a sexist for a long time. This most recent incident is just what finally got him notice outside YouTube. What is the bandwagon criticism? Are we not supposed to criticize peopel if too may other people are already doing it? At what point do we start ignoring?

        • says

          The only similarity between us all in this community is the disbelief in a god or gods. Why bother trying to voiceiferously distance yourself from atheists who differ in other aspects of belief or are being openly knob-headish.

          This has already been explained. Repeatedly. Whether we like it or not, these people represent us. Part of repairing our reputation in society is to make sure those people who represent us aren’t giving a bad impression. It affects everyone who is in our broad category, whether we’re technically the same, or not.

          Ricky Gervais, an even more prominent atheist openly uses the term “mong”. Where was the atheist internet shitstorm over that? I saw the disabled community getting (rightly) angry over it and a few humanist groups but no one in the atheist community “distanced” themselves that I’m aware of.

          Never heard of him. Although, it’s a fact of life that we’re all victims of availability bias. That, to a good degree can’t be helped.

          Pointing at someone else who is also being an ass does not excuse another. You know, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

          This is a bandwagon. You are jumping on it.

          If you say so. Thanks for your posts. By addressing your issues, hundreds of people will be able to learn, so thanks for the example you’re making of yourself.

          • ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

            Never heard of Ricky Gervais? Let me tell you he’s a tiny bit more well known than the amazing atheist. You were the one who made the point about “how prominent” someone is.
            By being dismissiive of his comments you are proving you don’t really care about who represents us as atheists.
            Bandwagon for JT(Generic)!

          • says

            How exactly does this rebut anything I said? Because we didn’t target the most prominent person? He made a highly visible scene, which trigger this particular instance. As long as AA is prominent, the point stands.

            If he’s that bad, coupled with being prominent, we’ll get to him at some point.

  27. Ing says

    I love how TJ’s walking tumor fans are all perturbed and upset about the dogooders and busy buddies (ie non nihilist narcissists) insulting their BFF because it’s horrible someone would bully him like that.

    Of course just tormenting a rape victim for the lulz is ‘just being a dick’. It’s so hypocritical. I hope they all find religion so we can be free of them. Maybe if we’re lucky TJ will form a religion around him. This sort of angry apologetics fits right in with the Catholics, Mormons and Scientology…time for TJ to join and form the Herptologists.

    • ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

      That was great Ing! You managed to say fuck all with all those words. Well done. Mormons, apologetics, you even got a “herp” in there!

      I don’t watch the amazing atheist. I don’t go on reddit. I am aware of who he is and what he does and believe me you are displaying as much fanboyism for The Atheist Experience as the most devout AA fan.

        • tracieh says

          Yeah, I have to second this analysis.

          Just like the arguments over the label “feminism”–this is a case where the issue is not “why ya’ll talkin’ ’bout this here bit of nuthin’?” We just moved our blog recently, and I had to go through and retag my posts because they blog transferred some authors. I got a good opportunity to skim through a great many of our posts, and lo and behold, the content isn’t always Earth Shattering Revelations. It’s a blog. It hits hither and thither–like most blogs. If you’re looking for breaking headlines, check out an actual news site, not an atheist community blog where anything/everything atheist related may be discussed–even stuff that doesn’t interest you personally today.

          So, “this ain’t all that important,” doesn’t actually seem to be the real issue. And what’s funny is you know you’re transparent–you’re doing it on purpose as part of your trolling. That part is transparent too.

          Ironically, I agree that this isn’t news–but only because if someone had shown me the transcript of the Reddit exchange and asked “Which atheist do you think posted this hate?” TAA would have been my #1 guess–my only guess, in fact. And I’d have been stunned if I were wrong about it–because it’s exactly his tone–”fuck you, you fucking women…uh I mean feminists!” Just ironic in this case he was actually antagonizing a man, but as it wasn’t a woman-hating man, he was probably OK with that, too.

      • Aquaria says

        He said more than sexist slime like you could ever grasp, asshat. Maybe you’d be more comfortable over at whiningsexistscumbags.com. It’s about your intellectual speed.

      • says

        I don’t watch the amazing atheist. I don’t go on reddit

        Of course not. That’s why you show up in this particular thread at this particular time; because you have no stake in this topic at all.

        In other news, a commercial airliner was forced to make an emergency landing after a herd of pigs got caught in the engines.

  28. ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

    @ JT (Generic)

    “If he’s that bad, coupled with being prominent, we’ll get to him at some point.”

    No you won’t. Not unless you are told to by a blog. I’m sure you will be told what to think in time.

    • says

      Did you read the part where I was discussing availability bias? It’s not a good thing, but it’s a limitation of our existence.

      No you won’t. Not unless you are told to by a blog. I’m sure you will be told what to think in time.

      Could you please stop with the red herrings?

      The central point is that someone who, whether we like it or not, represents the atheist community in a prominent role is being a misogynistic asshat, and is thus being called out on it. Misogyny runs rampant, and is wrong.

      And, as was 100% predicted, the apologists are coming out in droves grasping any any straws, no matter how irrelevant, no matter how illogical, to do anything to distract the attention from what is a clear incontrovertible wrong by anyone who isn’t already too horrible to recognize it.

      You, sir, are as predictable as the “Cunto” bingo card.

      • ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

        The central point is you wouldn’t care what someone said in an internet flamewar unless you were told to care. You were told. Now you care.

      • says

        You’re grasping at straws hard to the point the straw is imaginary.

        You’re not a telepath. Yes, I was alerted to the problem by someone else. That’s how news works. Welcome to the world.

        I care because I am opposed to misogyny, and generally against asshatism. Who alerted me is irrelevant.

        And again, this distraction is irrelevant to the fact that a horrible person who happens to be prominent within the community is badly representing us, perpetuating misogyny, and needs to be called out on it.

  29. ICumWhenIKillBacteria says

    @Ace of Sevens
    the bandwagon criticism? maybe that you’re only indignant about this because everyone else is.
    The Gervais point backs this up. Technically saying “No one in America uses that term so why should I be bothered?” still doesn’t address that a prominent atheist is “making us look bad” yet no one cares because you haven’t been told to care. You are only up in arms about what some fat internet personality said in a flame war because it’s what others are doing.
    If no one had mentioned it but you discovered it yourself you wouldn’t give a flying fuck.

    • says

      Whether we’re mindless peons of the Atheist Experience, or not, is entirely irrelevant to the point.

      A prominent atheist was being an asshat, making us look bad, and proliferating a misogynistic problem within the community.

      He’s doing wrong, and he’s being called out on it.

      Accusing us of being on a bandwagon does not excuse the wrong of the perpetrator.

      • tracieh says

        Good job staying on topic JT. It’s like the kid with a hand in the cookie jar saying “Well, my brother stole one too!” You don’t say? And this means *you’re* not stealing cookies, because…why…?

    • Ace of Sevens says

      My point was that he said this on a British show and Americans don’t even know what that means, so won’t generally know to be outraged unless someone tells them.

      In the case of TheAmazingAtheist, I’ve been hammering at him at every opportunity for two and a half years. Now that other people have started catching onto what a horrible person he is, I’m not going all hipster and complaining that I hated him before it was cool and everyone else is just a follower. I’m feeling vindicated.

      What exactly would make you think criticism is legit? Sure, lots of people noticed him because of this post, but they’re responding to things TJ said, not just copy-pasting what Kazim wrote.

  30. says

    So many people disagree with me! I must be right!

    is there a opposite to the bandwagon/popularity argument? Lone wolf argument? Seems cranks, woosters and “rebels” like ICWIKB embrace it.

  31. Kazim says

    I’ve been giving it a few hours to see if ICWIKB will come up with some constructive comments rather than simply tone trolling and personal attacks. I’ve decided none is forthcoming, so, you know, banned.

    • John Kruger says

      About time.

      Looking back the only argument he seemed to have was that it did not need to be discussed because of various other irrelevant crap.

      The behavior was horrible and should not be tolerated in our community, most of the people here agree. Raging about what is really important or what should or should not be discussed has nothing to do with it.

      • says

        The gist of his argument seemed to be: “TJ isn’t actually bad. You just think so because you were told to think that.”

        And he knows that because, I guess, he’s a telepath?

        Telepathy arguments are typically show-stoppers.

  32. Kazim says

    To the guy who just tried to post for the first time: I’ll be happy to put your comment through if you will choose a more modest screen name.

    • bigMAC says

      My bad for coming off as a tone troll I legitimately didn’t know it was a thing (yes I actually looked it up). Sorry about that but are my criticisms not welcome here or something. Are atheists really now going to be the ones to say agree with me or else?

        • Kazim says

          Or else we’ll make fun of you and prevent you from being taken seriously.

          It’s the same perpetual complaint that creationists deploy against scientific journals. O Woe Is Me, I’ve been Expelled. The horror.

  33. happyMEAL says

    I wonder if anyone would ever acknowledge the fact that TJ tried to make amends with the person that he flamed and issued a public apology condemning his actions. And don’t think what I’m saying is that it is all fine now but even PZ Myers managed to leave out the apology in his post (and say that TJ missed the mark). I guess it probably doesn’t mean much if someone legitimately believes what they did was wrong. I honestly like that the atheist community arent above criticizing their own but that doesn’t mean they are also above acknowledging that someone realized they made a mistake.

      • happyMEAL says

        Are you saying that his apology wasnt honest?
        My problem is that Myers was being disingenuous by picking out parts of TJ’s response yet leaving out his apology. I doubt many people would do that. He did it in a fashion that would let him maintain his high ground. Not that he wasnt already right for condemning TJ’s actions but at least be honest enough to acknowledge TJ’s attempts at righting his wrongs. It’s a bitch when you try to make up for things you’ve done wrong and no one is willing to listen. It seems as if people want someone to do what he did and feel no remorse.

          • happyMEAL says

            I like how dissenting opinions aren’t even being handled civilly. Its actually kind of ironic seeing as I’m getting treatment similar to how TJ acts on his channel. If anyone needs to grow up it is you. I’m going to continue to be civil but if you aren’t willing to present your case with any type of substance or civility then I guess we have nothing further to discuss. And your ridiculous argument that because he did something wrong “teases rape victims” he is automatically not sorry for it. But I’ll be nice enough to let you clarify your position if you’ll be willing to at least defend your position with honesty instead of insults.

          • Kazim says

            I tell you what… you can take that tone trolling somewhere else. Maybe you can complain to TJ about how I banned you, and he can tell you all about how he’ll rape me with his fist.

            Ah… I feel the place becoming more civil already.

        • says

          AWWWWWWW POOR TJ. He tries to apologize and no one wants to listen to him. Now everyone’s being mean and won’t let him play reindeer games!

          Not christian, not required to forgive because someone did a hail marry. I do not believe the sincerity. Forgiveness takes time and his track record now ain’t good.

          But yeah once again it’s all about TJ! ME ME ME ME ME why won’t anyone think about how mean they’re being to me! I said I was sorry!

          • happyMEAL says

            Well I not sure why you don’t believe the sincerity of his apology but you can you state reasons. Also you should probably take note that TJ isn’t entirely the his abrasive persona he represents on his channel and it is still dishonest for PZ to essentially cherry pick TJ’s apology. But I don’t know why he did it so ill leave it at that.

          • Kazim says

            Link or quote this apology, please.

            Also, Lorrdernie has participated in this thread, so I assume he can weigh in on whether the apology was sincere or not.

          • Ing says

            TJ isn’t entirely the his abrasive persona he represents on his channel

            No he’s the abusive persona where he teases rape victims.

            This is why I call bullshit on you and the apology. Because it’s bullshit.

            “Don’t judge him based on his actions!”

          • says

            How idiotic. TJ is playing a character, so it’s all OK? Those comments have to come from SOMEwhere. He has this straw-man built up in that big, empty head of his, and he has been arguing against this sexist point of view for months now, if not longer.

            He has a track record of misogyny. One little half-assed apology will NOT cut it. “Don’t say it, SHOW IT,” I like to say. He can apologize all he wants, but he has to change his actions and his behavior before anybody should be expected to accept anything he has to say.

        • says

          Are you saying that his apology wasnt honest?

          No, I’m saying that some people, like abusive boyfriends, can be abusive, apologize, and continue being abusive.

          At that point, the apology doesn’t absolve much. If he wants to absolve himself…

          Step 1: Stop being an asshat.

          After awhile of that, maybe.

          • happyMEAL says

            I find it strange the way you put that and I’m not sure if you’re implying that he is abusive or whatever but TJ isn’t entirely his YouTube persona and I’m not sure how you will take this comment but I doubt you have any insight into his character past that. Although he has allowed for other facets of his personality to be on display so you should at least take those into consideration.

          • says

            I find it strange the way you put that and I’m not sure if you’re implying that he is abusive or whatever

            Every analogy has it’s limits. My point was purely about apologies versus continued transgressions.

            but TJ isn’t entirely his YouTube persona and I’m not sure how you will take this comment but I doubt you have any insight into his character past that.

            I’m not sure that matters. The aspects that have the most impact on the community and people around him is his public behavior. It could be that he’s satirical, but has simply taken it too far. Maybe we’ve been poe’d.

            The fact remains, he took actions that hurt people – whether meant in jest or not.

      • happyMEAL says

        Well that’s pretty decent for a notpology but he did technically fulfill they whole public apology term on his blog and I’m assuming you don’t find his original post to be in error unless you’re just making the claim that he wasnt sincere. Although I’ll admit I take issue with the fact that he is acting as if he is being coerced into making a public apology although he already did. I’m assuming that you find him dishonest because of his conduct on reddit and his YouTube persona. Although that would be pretty stupid without glaring examples of him being dishonest on those forums.

          • happyMEAL says

            Can you tell me exactly what you mean by “that”. Also you should at least attempt to make a distinction between an excuse and a reason. His outlined his reasons for what he did, no they werent good reasons and he has admitted this. An excuse would actually imply that he believed his actions were justified which we can try to tie down why you think he feels as if he did no wrong. And just to throw this out there, no one noticed how messed up PZ Myers’s reply to TJ’s reply/apology. I mean he didn’t even try to acknowledge the apology in TJ’s response but I guess in light of what TJ did all is permissible.

      • tracieh says

        I lean with JT on this one about the apology. If he posted several hateful racist videos over months and months, and later went on a “lynch” rant against a black person on reddit, it really wouldn’t (a) surprise me, or (b) matter to me if he apologized or not. It’s not “this incident” that is the problem. It’s that this is his normal M.O. It’s just a statement that, “I really shouldn’t have let my hatred toward women show *THAT* much, so sorry I forgot to pad it a touch while in public, this time.” But the only honestly shocking thing about this to me is that he had some subscribers who seem to be surprised by this latest rant, like it wasn’t just par for the course for this guy. I have no explanation for that.

        My favorite part about the apology, though–the one I read, I think at his blog, talking about PZ–was where, to paraphrase, he basically said “Yeah, I’m sorry…sorry some of you can’t take a joke!” Way to own your own statements, Dude!

  34. littlewilly says

    if someone makes a joke about ‘lynching niggers’ they are racist, they’re isnt any middle ground on that one, i think it was a bad example.
    is saying ban the burka racist? i dont think so, but the BBC probably would

    • Kazim says

      It’s not a bad example — the fact that “lynching niggers” is obviously racist is precisely the point. Racists who are not used to being called out gradually manage to desensitive themselves to things that sound more and more obviously like racism. Some people even come to think that “I hope you drown in rape semen” is not offensive and people should just get over themselves. Believe it or not.

      is saying ban the burka racist?

      Kind of a tangent, but I’ve said many times that banning the burka is a non-constructive way of attacking the symptoms. And Pat Condell is a bit of a nutter.

    • John Kruger says

      It may be possible to use racist terms or ideas in ridiculous ways that are not really racist in jokes and such, but the bile that was being put out by AA I think hardly qualifies. He knew who he was talking to was a rape victim and deliberately pressed the issues to try and intimidate them and “win” his argument.

      And if you want to use controversial things like rape for comedy purposes, you should prepare to explain yourself to those who will, not surprisingly, misunderstand. Even though it is possible to use racist or sexist ideas for comedy that is not really racist or sexist, just because “it was a joke” is no guarantee that it was not indeed racist or sexist.

      • Orlando says

        Do we actually know all of the facts? Is the rape victim actually a rape victim? I’m only pointing out that if people are talking about akin active measures against a perpetrator, all pertinent facts should be established.

        I haven’t read all of the threads. So the facts may have been established. If so, then good. Just saying that we should confirm that what we think is true is actually true before taking action. On the internet, as we all know, anyone can say anything.

        It is very easy to get carried away with noble feelings, maybe as easy as it is to get carried away by ignoble ones. This will probably get me banned, as these issues turn binary very quickly and it does not pay to question the Right Side.

        • Marshall says

          Do we actually know all of the facts? Is the rape victim actually a rape victim? I’m only pointing out that if people are talking about akin active measures against a perpetrator, all pertinent facts should be established.

          In the context of what happened, does it really matter? Suppose I told you I was a rape victim. Even if I’m lying (which you wouldn’t be able to know) would that make it alright to respond in the way TJ did? Because TJ didn’t know either. It really doesn’t matter, because if there was the slightest possibility that the person in question wasn’t lying (more info on said person at the Canuck’s post’s comments, by the way), he shouldn’t have said ANY of the terrible shit he said.

          I haven’t read all of the threads. So the facts may have been established. If so, then good. Just saying that we should confirm that what we think is true is actually true before taking action. On the internet, as we all know, anyone can say anything.

          Ok, but if someone tells you they were raped, don’t you think the best idea is to work from the assumption that they aren’t lying? And what, exactly, do you MEAN by “we should confirm that what we think is true is actually true before taking action”? What I think is true is that this asshole tried to deliberately make someone who (at the very least) claims to be a rape victim relive his traumatic experience (see Canuck, his is correct), and made threats of rape. Honestly, even if it turned out that the person he was attacking WASN’T actually raped, I know enough to know that TJ is a horrible person and I want to run him out of my general sphere of activism.

          It is very easy to get carried away with noble feelings, maybe as easy as it is to get carried away by ignoble ones. This will probably get me banned, as these issues turn binary very quickly and it does not pay to question the Right Side.

          AH, I see now, the old ‘echo chamber’ defense. The old ‘I’m just being skeptical of THIS TOO’ foil. Now if you get criticized in any way you can just write it off as the expected result of strolling casually into the hivemind chamber to dispense your wisdom to the herd. Nope, sorry, not ringing true, swing and a miss. All I need to know is that TJ said the things he said. He did. He admits as much. There isn’t any way to interpret the things he said in a positive light (although I’ll be damned if people haven’t been trying), and I’m going to call him out for it. Unless you can show that this whole thing is a great big hoax and these things were never said, I’m justified in that.

        • Ing says

          Do we actually know all of the facts? Is the rape victim actually a rape victim?

          Does it matter? TJ thought it was or knew it could have been and did it anyway. WTF is wrong with you?

        • evilDoug says

          Asshat was put to a test.
          Even if he knew with absolute certainty that the person in question was not a rape victim, his conduct was utterly reprehensible. Rape is a real crime with real victims, not a figure of speech used to score points.
          He failed his test. He should and is suffering the consequences.

  35. jacobfromlost says

    It’s weird how in the last thread, a guy who was (apparently) arguing for Buddhism claimed AE hosts were not compassionate enough.

    In this thread, a guy seems to be arguing that AE is TOO compassionate.

    I’d pay good money to see a Thunderdome match between the two.

  36. pyrobryan says

    I went ahead and unsubscribed from his youtube channel. I enjoyed his angry rants from time to time, but this was just distasteful. At first, I thought he had a good point; How can people who fight so hard against misogyny turn around and voice support for someone with such a misandristic (is that a word?) name? Content of the poster? Really? So then femenists wouldn’t have a problem with a guy named “ILaughWhenIRapeWomen” as long as his posts weren’t misogynistic?

    Then… well, then he just went overboard. Was she really a rape victim? Who knows? Does that excuse the vile things he said? No. It’s obvious he was trying to get a rise out of her, that he was trying to “trigger” her, and that is a big part (though not all) of why I take issue with what he said. If he actually meant what he said, at least it could be responded to by actually trying to get him to understand why it’s not a proper response. But he was actually intending on inflicting some form of harm on her.

    • Kazim says

      I agree with you, the screen name is really not justified. Just for context though:

      ShitRedditSays reacts a lot to the shit specifically said in the MR area. The name is meant to be a reflection of the dynamic that goes on there, with shock value intended. As I understand it the point of the username is more or less “This is a mirror of the kind of crap these guys say about women. How does it feel, guys?”

      Having said that, I’ll repeat it’s not an angle I would have gone with, and I’m not real comfortable with that kind of “satire” either. Some commenters elsewhere compared the handle to atheists making jokes about roasting babies, i.e., “They say that about us already anyway, so may as well make light of it.”

    • says

      Saying that he was intending on inflicting harm on her is like saying I intend to send a Christian to Hell by convincing them there’s no reason to believe in God. My disbelief kinda stands in the way of that accusation.

      Of course the difference here is that there’s evidence that triggers are real and not just a part of PC culture, but no one seemed to try to educate the guy on this, there was just a misogynist hunt.

      I’d never expect better of SRS regulars, the batshit scum pit straw man factory of Reddit that it is, but you folks? Fuck.

  37. georgefromny says

    Zounds! So “TJ” the so-called Amazing Atheist is a bullying, gutter-sniping, bombastic, ad hominem-slinging douchebag with no sense of decency, civil discourse or conversational boundaries?

    Wow… that’s only been apparent in just about every video he’s ever posted.

    TJ’s been acting like this for years – except that his targets were Pro-Lifers, religious folks and other Designated Hate Objects of the so-called New Atheist movement so none of you gave a rat’s ass…

    … until he went and spat his particular brand of venom at the wrong target. Now it’s a five-alarm fire of “How could this happen?” and “This creep isn’t One Of Us, is he?”

    I’m not defending TJ. We are well rid of him. But I can’t help thinking that in the hivemind of the SkeptoBlogoSphere, TJ’s “crime” was not despicable conduct, but his choice of targets.

    • Marshall says

      TJ’s been acting like this for years – except that his targets were Pro-Lifers, religious folks and other Designated Hate Objects of the so-called New Atheist movement so none of you gave a rat’s ass…

      You wanna come down off your high horse, please? Did you miss the part where The Godless Bitches tore apart his anti-feminist rantings in a podcast episode? This is bullshit, and you know it. I was pretty much entirely unaware of the guy until this incident, and it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s true of others as well. Search around this place and you’ll run into PLENTY of examples of atheists attacking religious believers in a dishonest or just plain mean manner and getting called out for it.

      I’m not defending TJ. We are well rid of him. But I can’t help thinking that in the hivemind of the SkeptoBlogoSphere, TJ’s “crime” was not despicable conduct, but his choice of targets.

      YEAH, that makes complete sense. We the collective would have been TOTALLY FINE with this if it had been a Christian he was attacking. I tell you what, why don’t you go collect evidence of the blind spot you’re trying to say the bloggers here collectively possess, and THEN maybe you’ll have something worthwhile to say.

    • says

      Getting a little weary of telepaths telling me what I think and what my motivations are, and accusing me of being controlled by others.

      I was aware of AA’s existence, but never listened to him. Because a particular instance arose, and I’m aware the details, now I’m railing on him.

      I’m sorry you can’t grasp that a bunch of independent people can be anti-misogynous and NOT be rationalized away as a “hive mind”.

      • Marshall says

        This kind of thing is being dribbled all over the various posts relating to the asshole in question. “Oh, he’s said things like this before, but nobody called him out. Out of the possible reasons why that might be, I’m going to jump straight to the conclusion that nobody here cared until he attacked someone who you don’t already HATE.”

        Note that YEAH, George DID say that his previous targets were “Designated Hate Objects”.

        Not new, these accusations, from what I can tell. Still maddening though.

    • says

      FFS, most of us have already stated we saw this coming and that this shit is along the lines of what TJ has been doing since the dawn of time. I have only seen a handfull of people genuinely surprised by this and TJ’s supporters are still being the driveling bovine/hominid hybrids they’ve always been and keep supporting him using lame apologetics. People have called him out before, especially on his blatant misogyny (but also on other issues, like his position on vegetarians). Note also that outside of youtube, many atheists hadn’t heard of this guy. In particular, I get the impression that a lot of regulars here at FTB didn’t know about him.
      Seriously,”How could this happen?”… Pretty much noone is saying that.

      • jasper76 says

        I’d never seen this guy until his response to that “I hate religion but love Jesus” video came out. I couldn’t get through half of it due to all the f-bombs.

        When this story hit the FTB chambers, when I clicked the link, I was not surprised one bit.

        Seems like the guy is a rage-aholic who’s built himself a nice big echo chamber.

        I’m not sympathetic to the guy’s behavior, but feel genuinely sorry for him in a “this guy needs medication combined with extensive therapy before he hurts himself or someone else” kind of way.

    • says

      I’m not defending TJ. We are well rid of him. But I can’t help thinking that in the hivemind of the SkeptoBlogoSphere, TJ’s “crime” was not despicable conduct, but his choice of targets.

      As a former viewer I assure you. It is that he is dispicable. Before people could rationalize it that he was an asshole but ultimately ok because he just had one blind spot, or ‘that’s just the character’.

      Now he has removed any doubt and is getting the proper response.

      Might I add that the EG thing was one of the ones I would dismiss and forgive for with a “oh he’s just an idiot” thing or “he just doesn’t get it” This is the one that destroyed that objection.

      And I don’t even know if the target of his rant was “one of us”. It doesn’t matter. It was what he did. So you’re just wrong.

    • Kazim says

      FYI,

      I consider George a friend, notwithstanding that he’s a bit of a polemicist. We did have a bit of a chat, which I’m sure I’m not at liberty to share in its entirety. But here are a few relevant excerpts. I’ll assume this stuff is okay to post, George can tell me if it’s not or he can add more context if he wants.

      George: I am enjoying TJ’s auto-destruct, btw. I e-corresponded with him briefly awhile back and felt like washing my hands after typing messages to him.
      George: I’m part of it [the hivemind]. As are you. We are all loci of many intersecting hives.

      George: When I say “hivemind” it’s not an INSULT.
      Kazim: Are you surprised that msot people take it as one?
      George: No, given how resistant most people are to acknowledging their membership – esp those who very tribal identity is the pretense of non-tribalism. Heh.

      Anyway, I wouldn’t say that we don’t talk past each other a lot, but I’m glad we talked.

      Needless to say, I remain in disagreement with the hivemind characterization, whether it’s meant to be an insult or not. But, whatever.

      • says

        He’s using hivemind in a completely different way others are. It’s annoying. Of course now that he knows that it is offensive he can either correct or use better language, or he can go the TJ route and keep using it irregardless because DANCE PUPPETS DANCE.

        • Kazim says

          That’s kind of what I was trying to tell him.

          Except, I didn’t say “irregardless,” because that’s not a word. ;)

        • says

          He’s using hivemind in a completely different way others are.

          Ah, this is a personal hobby-horse of mine. It’s perfectly ok to use a word or expression in a non-conventinoal way, BUT if you do so, you have a responsibility to explain what you mean by it and you don’t get to act surprised, annoyed or superior if other people misunderstand you.

          I don’t know why this is a difficult concept to understand. Communication relies on the agreed upon meaning of certain words. If you deviate from that meaning without clarification, you’re essentially sabotaging any attempt at communication.
          In that case, you’re no longer communicating. You’re just making noise.

      • georgefromny says

        Kaz,

        I’m glad we hashed it out, as well.

        Go ahead and quote any relevant bits. Just leave out that stuff where I started yelling about breakfast cereal.

        BTW, I wholeheartedly agree that comparing this to ElevatorGate is just absurd. That ain’t apples and oranges; that’s apples and a punch in the mouth.

        —G

    • Ace of Sevens says

      This was my initial reaction, but after getting yelled at a lot on Pharyngula, I’m now convinced that despite TJ’s popularity, most people around here had never heard of him or were only vaguely aware of him. It must be nice.

  38. Stacy says

    Riiight. Ricky Gervais once used [an apparently offensive?] word. People called him on it (rightly, you agree). Therefore it’s wrong of us to call out TAA on a long, hateful rant in which he threatened rape and taunted a rape survivor. Um, bandwagon!

    Brilliant argument ya got there. Thanks for the elucidation.

    • Orlando says

      What I mean is that several people have made comments that dissent from the norm (the AA is evil norm) or merely ask questions and they are lambasted. The first victim of rationalist flame wars is rationality. The second victim is civility.

      • Marshall says

        What, you mean like how you raised the entirely irrelevant question about whether or not someone claiming to be a rape victim is ACTUALLY a rape victim and having it pointed out that it DOESN’T MATTER? Please point to where people are being lambasted for asking questions. Really. Because, for example, you weren’t being lambasted for raising that question, if you were being lambasted for ANYTHING it was your suggestion that we need to know whether or not that person is ACTUALLY a rape victim before we attack JT for his statements. And I see that instead of responding to the replies you received, you are instead acting put upon because you don’t LIKE those replies.

      • Marshall says

        Also, I believe I wrote this above:

        AH, I see now, the old ‘echo chamber’ defense. The old ‘I’m just being skeptical of THIS TOO’ foil. Now if you get criticized in any way you can just write it off as the expected result of strolling casually into the hivemind chamber to dispense your wisdom to the herd.

        I didn’t expect you to so directly prove my point. Wait, scratch that, I DID.

    • says

      Do you have an example of a “mere question” that was “lambasted”?

      A passionate answer to a question isn’t lambasting or a loss of rationality.

      Those who you characterize as “dissenting” aren’t “lambasted” for “dissenting”, they’re corrected for being wrong.

      Dissent != wrong. Wrong == wrong.

    • says

      The thing is, we can actually discuss why they’re wrong, but when the “dissenters” have no leg to stand on, the standard operating procedure is to shift focus to character attacks on those trying to point out that something is wrong (and why).

      That’s where the non-productive no-content accusations of “hive minds” and “attacking dissenters” gushes forth.

        • Marshall says

          Come on now, you said people were being lambasted SIMPLY for dissenting or asking questions. Please show that the people being lambasted are legitimately being attacked JUST for dissenting or asking questions. Put up or shut up.

          • Orlando says

            1. Read this thread for examples. Because I’ve been down that road too many times. I give an example and it is rejected for some reason and I’m asked for another, and on and on.

            2. Not the Shut Up argument. That is always a bad sign.

            If you wouldn’t be so “I’m not the Hive but Get in line” we could have a reasonable discussion. But it is clear that is not wanted. I would suggest, related to the blog title, that people in the hive don’t realize they are in the hive.

            What is reasonable, you might ask. Well, you could summarize why AA is evil and welcome dissenting comments. Something like, “here is what I think, but these things are subjective, so let me know you strongest reason for disagreeing and let me ruminate on it.” That kind of discussion.

            If you read the thread you will see the same dynamic that forms when people want everyone else to agree with them. Some of us want participants to take a breath and realize what is happening. The warning signs of self-righteousness and name-calling are on full display.

            I’m in no way defending AA. I’m probably considered prudish by most because I do not use expletives, or engage in name-calling. AA reminds me of some of the former inhabitants of the Chatroom before it was moderated. Similar anti-female, violent language.

            But I am about collecting all the facts in a case and laying them out for analysis. And I always look for a dissenting opinion or different optic. So when these incidents begin to take on the appearance of a band of witch-hunters with pitchforks and torches, I reflexively react in an opposing manner.

            Make sense?

          • Marshall says

            1. Read this thread for examples. Because I’ve been down that road too many times. I give an example and it is rejected for some reason and I’m asked for another, and on and on.

            Seriously, I have read this thread. I’m not seeing ANYTHING that suggests people are being lambasted JUST FOR DISSENTING. YOU made that claim, YOU get to back it up.

            2. Not the Shut Up argument. That is always a bad sign.

            I said PUT UP OR SHUT UP. The meaning of which is ‘if you aren’t willing to back up the claims you are making then you shouldn’t be making them’. Do you really think that’s the same as the Shut Up argument?

            If you wouldn’t be so “I’m not the Hive but Get in line” we could have a reasonable discussion. But it is clear that is not wanted. I would suggest, related to the blog title, that people in the hive don’t realize they are in the hive.

            What the fuck? I gave a substantive response to your question about whether or not we knew that the person claiming to be a rape victim IS a rape victim, and you chose to ignore that and complain about a hive-mind by asserting that people are being attacked simply for dissenting, an assertion that you are now DIRECTLY REFUSING TO BACK UP. So no, we couldn’t have a reasonable discussion, because you aren’t PARTICIPATING.

            What is reasonable, you might ask. Well, you could summarize why AA is evil and welcome dissenting comments. Something like, “here is what I think, but these things are subjective, so let me know you strongest reason for disagreeing and let me ruminate on it.” That kind of discussion.

            Original post makes clear why AA is ‘evil’ (I prefer wrong and an asshole, but whatever). You made a dissenting comment. I responded, as did a few others. You ignored those responses and made a separate claim that you have now refused to substantiate. Don’t lecture me on what is expected in a reasonable discussion.

            But I am about collecting all the facts in a case and laying them out for analysis. And I always look for a dissenting opinion or different optic. So when these incidents begin to take on the appearance of a band of witch-hunters with pitchforks and torches, I reflexively react in an opposing manner.

            Make sense?

            Not really, because that is NOT what you are doing here. Do you agree that it is entirely unacceptable to say the things he said WHETHER OR NOT the person he was talking to is ACTUALLY a victim of rape? And why do you even question that in the first place? How would he prove that he had, in fact, been raped in the past? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN ASK HIM TOO? I don’t know about you, but when someone tells me they are a rape survivor I don’t stand there saying “Prove it”. I take them at their word until I have some pretty damn clear reasons to believe otherwise.

            Stop digging and start backing up your arguments and participating in the discussion.

          • Marshall says

            Damn, put one to many ‘O’s on that to, so I’ve taken one away from a word in this sentence to balance the books.

  39. hotshoe says

    Damn, put one to many ‘O’s on that to, so I’ve taken one away from a word in this sentence to balance the books.

    Hey, that’s a cute solution. I’ll remember that for the next time I make a similar mistake.

  40. efrique says

    Take a look at the couple of hours where terroja burns karma, then bridges, then falls into the chasm …

    http://i.imgur.com/LAk6E.png

    around the end of that period the post got deleted. Then as downvotes continued to pour in, and the second round of shit from the publicity brought by bloggers started to bite, he deleted his account as well.

    I failed to muster a tear at his disappearance. Good riddance.

  41. Marshall says

    So the ‘Atheism’ page on Facebook posted a link to PZ’s post. The comments are fucking horrendous. To be expected, of course, but it is AMAZING the lengths to which some people will apparently go to try to defend this asshole.

  42. Guppy says

    People need to get a grip. TJ was attacked for hours on end and he said one comment in the heat of the moment, which he was baited into saying. She asked about rape, remember. Tj obvious went too far, but to say he is a misogynist is clearly dumb, especially for those who has watched his videos regarding feminism. It’s down right disgusting you guys would cherry pick comments.

    And he has apologized to that person, but that doesn’t matter because saying mean names on the internet is just unforgivable, just terrible.

    What other thing could he do in the realm of reason that would suffice? Sacrificing himself to the radical feminist god? This situation makes me angry because of the circle jerk in the comment section by people who clearly don’t understand what happened.

    • Guppy says

      This shit happened to Dawkins too. He rightfully called Skepchick out for attacking someone who asked for coffee.

      And then he was attacked by this very community. It’s no wonder why atheists are vilified. It’s because we are assholes.

      • says

        You say it’s no wonder atheists are villified. Well it certainly isn’t as long as there are assholes like TJ pretending to represent atheism.
        And don’t start with me on Elevatorgate. All Rebecca said was ‘Guys, don’t do that’. Richard Dawkins missed the point completely with his reaction, and obviously, so did you.

      • Kazim says

        You know… as much as I was genuinely disappointed by Richard Dawkins’ comments and found it a bit tone-deaf… I’m downright shocked that you would be so disrespectful to Dawkins as to compare what he said to the kind of vile shit that TJ did.

        Or rather, I WISH I could be more shocked than I am, because in reality it is a perfect illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I described at the beginning of the post. Deliberately desensitize yourself to abusive language, and eventually there is nothing so extreme as to seem abnormal.

        • Guppy says

          I agreed that TJ went too far. But, he apologized, which was accepted by the person he did this too. What else can TJ do at this point?

          Secondly, Dawkins got the same treatment TAA did. I remember because I saw comments you guys making on this blog that were made to Dawkins.

          Even though skepchick is completely out of her mind.

          • Kazim says

            Link the apology, please. I’ll make you a bet that you don’t have a copy on hand that isn’t immediately followed by the pissy retraction he also hastily provided.

            I saw comments you guys making on this blog that were made to Dawkins.

            Quote me then. Seriously. Do it.

        • bigMAC says

          I like how you’re taking the Dunning-Kruger effect way out of its own bounds. Especially when the guy actually admits to his fault. I mean that doesn’t even make sense. Stupid people don’t know their stupid (Dunning-Kruger) horrible people realize their horrible (what you’re doing).

        • Orlando says

          While I usually agree with you Kazim, I think in the EG incident as well as this you see self-proclaimed rationalists and skeptics spin into emotional frenzy and invoke the “you’re with us or against us” dynamic that, for some of us, chills questioning or dissent. Just saying that there are nuances and contrary views should be welcomed, not quashed.

          I’m in a similar discussion on an investing website (hard to believe, right?) where there is conventional wisdom being challenged by a few, with hard feelings and so forth. Not as serious as rape threats, but the right to question and dissent should be respected (in my opinion) in all discussions.

          Off to the hospital (nothing serious), so I’ll hopefully watch AE this sunday.

          PS: As an English major, nice catch on the irritating “irregardless.”

          • Marshall says

            You HAVE the right to question and dissent here, but you don’t get to just say things and not be criticized for them. Come on now, why don’t you go back and respond to the relevant objections that people have raised against the things you’ve said, because right now you aren’t even dissenting or raising questions, you’re just repeatedly complaining about perceived group-think.

          • says

            PS: As an English major, nice catch on the irritating “irregardless.”,

            As a science major english minor, language changes and it’s apparently in dictionaries now. Deal with the times.

    • says

      This situation makes me angry because of the circle jerk in the comment section by people who clearly don’t understand what happened.

      Well there certainly someone here who doesn’t know what’s going on…

      People need to get a grip. TJ was attacked for hours on end and he said one comment in the heat of the moment, which he was baited into saying. She asked about rape, remember. Tj obvious went too far, but to say he is a misogynist is clearly dumb, especially for those who has watched his videos regarding feminism. It’s down right disgusting you guys would cherry pick comments.

      Cherry pick comments. Seriously? I don’t fucking care if every thing else he said in the course of his entire life was as nice as Winnie the Pooh, the things he said now are inexcusable. FFS he deliberately tried to trigger a rape victim, and now we’re supposed to be sorry for him?
      Also, he IS most definitely a misogynist, and that has been obvious from pretty much everything this guy has ever said on subjects vaguely related to sexism.

        • says

          Also for berating people about not knowing the facts and hive mind

          HE brought up rape, not SHE.

          And now. HE didn’t. TJ used it as a threat/insult because he was annoyed with someone and thought they were a woman.

        • Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

          The only way that’s “goading” is if he’s a psychotic misogynist. Which he clearly is, so thanks for finally admitting it.

        • says

          Wow, seriously? WTF! First of all, he was in no way ‘baited’. What a ridiculous notion. Even if the other person mentioned rape first, you’re argument is bollocks. Secondly, even if he was in some way ‘baited into that’ on this occasion (which I again stress he was not), older comments and videos by TJ have already demonstrated that he is a blatant misogynist and all round horrible person (like his ‘hate week – feminism’ video or that video in which he called gay teens who comitted suicide cowards). Stop defending this asshole!

    • Aquaria says

      There was a saying in the Air Force back when I was in:

      One “Ah, shit!” destroys a thousand “Attaboys!”

      If he didn’t want to be slammed for saying something hateful and stupid–hey! guess what! He shouldn’t have said something hateful and stupid!

      He gets his free speech–we get ours, to tell him how much of sexist slime he is! Welcome to reality!

      And Dawkins had no business saying what anyone else’s priorities can be, that people can’t care about women being treated like sex objects because he thinks someone else “deserves” more attention. We can multitask, dipshit.

      You’re an idiot. And another tedious sexist moron.

  43. says

    Rape jokes aside, TJ is right about feminism being a hate movement.

    I am suing Europe’s largest gender studies department, at London’s LSE, for its use of sex discriminatory learning materials (no joke)
    and the court hearing date is on March 13th.

    You can read all the press about the case, watch the hit youtube vid, and show your support, all at the sexismbusters website.

  44. Orlando says

    When threads turn surreal – I feel like I’m trapped in Ghost World, watching the shirtless guy sling his nunchukus.

    • Marshall says

      Are you EVER going to get around to responding to the points raised against your assertions? Because if you aren’t, you should really stop popping in here just to restate with different words what you’ve already said previously without addressing the objections that were raised the first time.

  45. Guppy says

    I have come to realize the problem with this blog post. We can all agree that TJ overstepped his bounds, some people would be dumb enough to say that he is beyond redemption, which at that point just makes you vindictive. But he isn’t a misogynist. I have been following him for the last five years, he is for equal rights, but he is against anti-sex feminism. He’s also against the masculine movement, which is basically guy feminism.

    I am okay with calling him on his shit for the comment, but to falsely label and to generalize him is wrong.

    He has even admitted his mistake, which if I recall means he couldn’t fit the Dunning-Kruger effect because horrible people don’t realize they are horrible, which he obviously thinks what he did was wrong.

    He has made an apology to the person he attacked, but he isn’t going to make a public apology because he was threatened to make one by anonymous.

    • Ace of Sevens says

      He may be for women putting out, but that hardly makes him a sex-positive feminist. He has a history of bullying people. This prominently includes using misogynistic memes and slurs when dealing with creationist women. He’s done pretty much the same to any woman who called him out on it, even semi-prominent YouTube atheists. Look up his interactions with Laci Green, for instance. He also has a history of straw-manning feminism and trying to portray all feminists as a bunch of sex-hating harpies who want to take away your porn, shame men for having sexual urges and generally keep them from having sex. Search his channel for feminism for a dozen or so examples. Most relevant here is that he has a history of dismissing the concerns of rape victims. Apparently, trauma is for wimps and they need to just walk it off and quit crying.

  46. bigMAC says

    Here goes one of the apologies:http://blog.thatfatatheist.com/post/17271717670/p-z-liars

    Here goes some learning for ya since you have apparently have no idea of what you’re talking about:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    And don’t forget he realized he was horrible so that nullifies that whole “horrible people don’t realize their horrible” crap.

    Now the only case you can make is to prove that TJ has been diagnosed with Narccisitic Personality Disorder or Aspergers or something similar instead of just speculating for fun cause last time I checked, you don’t have any experience in diagnosing mental disorders.

    Now to the whole apology bit. His apology is in the response
    to PZ Myers. Now don’t pull a Myers and skip over all of it and say he missed the mark, but I don’t think you’ll do something that dishonest.

    • says

      And don’t forget he realized he was horrible so that nullifies that whole “horrible people don’t realize their horrible” crap.

      Now he didn’t realize he was horrible. he was told. LOUDLY. because he ignored the first 5000 times.

      • bigMAC says

        I’m assumming you didn’t take the chance to read the apology/rebuttal but what can I say, there’s a good chance you’ll never examine this at another angle. You’ve come to your conclusion and it’s one you’re probably not willing to defend. Now I’ll scratch out that crappy argument you made earlier and let you take another chance. What makes you think that TJ’s apology wasn’t honest?

    • Kazim says

      Here goes some learning for ya since you have apparently have no idea of what you’re talking about:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

      Gosh, that link is completely new to me. It’s not as if it’s linked in the second sentence of the original post, but obviously you haven’t been able to read that far.

      Now to the whole apology bit. His apology is in the response
      to PZ Myers. Now don’t pull a Myers and skip over all of it and say he missed the mark, but I don’t think you’ll do something that dishonest.

      Awesome, sort of an “I apologize to all you douchebags who are offended.” The perfect definition of a notpology.

      • bigMAC says

        1. Show me when they discussed the results of a study similar to Dunning Kruger that talks about people being horrible or something to that effect. I mean cause really Russel you should at least present something factual.

        2. Awwww snap. Just shoehorn a douchebag in there and what do you know, now it looks like a notpology. I must’ve forgot to put my TJ’s evil filter on. I wouldn’t have missed the douchebag. Mmmmm… I forgot that atheists aren’t above being dishonest.

        3. I think at this point you should actually try to present a reason you think his apologies weren’t sincere cause that’s really all I wanted. Instead of rising your high horse when people make a mistake. What else is a person to do but apologize and make amends with the people he’s wronged?

        • Kazim says

          Show me when they discussed the results of a study similar to Dunning Kruger that talks about people being horrible or something to that effect.

          Nowhere did I say that there was any such study. Seriously, I’m finding it difficult to believe that you can be this dense, which is why I’m actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying you just didn’t read the post.

          I think at this point you should actually try to present a reason you think his apologies weren’t sincere

          Probably becase he clearly wasn’t sincere with the first apology he made.

          Honestly, when you state that you are apologizing because you think you were bullied into it, there’s no reason whatsoever to think that he was actually sorry. And if he comes to be sorry AFTER this shitstorm, then that constitutes an excellent reason to think that it was worth bringing up in the first place.

          And now I’m done with you and your pedantry.

  47. says

    That’s an apology?

    “I regret saying that. Now let me go on to spend ten times as much space to describe how right I am, how stupid other people are, how unfair their criticism is, and how it was really quite reasonable for me to say it after all.”

    That’s not a fucking apology!

    He even says in his “apology” that doesn’t feel that he has any responsibility to take the feelings of other people into account, to modify his expressions to avoid triggering painful memories or even to give them a heads-up so they can stop reading if they feel that his writing might trigger such memories.

    I’m as sympathetic towards those who’ve suffered trauama as anyone else, but if you have such issues, it’s your responsibility to avoid triggers, not my responsibility to protect you from them

    Note that a trigger warning doesn’t imply that you can’t say what you want. All it means is that you ought to add a little disclaimer saying “If you don’t like reading about puppy-sodomy, you might want to go somewhere else”. Is that really an unreasonable request?

    So, a major theme of his apology is “I don’t have to give a shit about you or to show you the least amount of consideration.”
    Does that really sound like a genuine apology to you? How’s the weather on your planet?

  48. says

    You know what an apology looks like:

    “I was wrong, and I’m sorry. There is no excuse for my behavior, or for my stubborn refusal to accept that I was wrong, or for the actions I took in order to avoid taking responsibility for my actions. The apology goes out to the people I directly attacked, and all of the people who were or might have been harmed by my behavior. I was 100% wrong, I deserve the negative response I got, and I’m going to try to correct my underlying attitudes so that I don’t behave this way in the future. I don’t expect anyone to automatically forgive me, but I hope I can earn the forgiveness and respect of people as I do some hard work on my personal issues.”

    Something like that, not something like “I’m sorry, now stop fucking with me” or “I’m sorry, but you’re a bunch of assholes for calling me out” or “I was a little wrong, but PZ Myers is a liar!”

  49. says

    I let my relationships with people change me for the better. We all come up with stupid ideas sometimes; we all say stupid crap. People don’t always do it nicely, but they’ll often inform you if something you’re saying sounds wrong, or offensive, or derogatory to something or someone. It’s up to all of us to decide whether or not to take that advice on board.

    I like to think that I’ve discarded the things that weren’t necessarily true (for instance, “You’re being unfair to Christianity!”; I truly believe it’s Christianity that has an unlevel playing field advantage, making it unfair to pretty much everyone else), but that I’ve taken on that which deserved thought and examination (“This language simply reinforces the divide between women imposed by men” — I used to be pretty feminism-neutral until I explored and learned that women, for as much trail has been blazed and as many wrongs have been righted, still have a ways to go as far as fair and equal treatment in the world).

    TAA strikes me as no less in the theist mindset than even the staunchest theocrat — he takes on what supports his deeply entrenched views and discards anything that challenges them.

    What a shallow existence.

    • Kazim says

      I almost filtered this useless comment straight to trash. But then I thought about it some more, and decided it was instructive after all.

  50. Lita says

    I wonder, what if he met a rape victim face to face? Would he feel any empathy at all? Or would he say all of those nasty things to her in person? I think the internet has disconnected him from reality and the people he was writing to, he didn’t really mean all of those things. If he was serious, he’s mentally ill and we should seek help for him. He’s casting our atheist community in a bad light. We should put a stop to him before he puts out more ignorant videos, this isn’t what atheism is about. The majority of atheists are actually pro-feminism by nature because they’re enlightened, humane individuals. If you’re an atheist, please, do not defend this guy!

  51. fffff says

    seems to be more evidence for the non-existence of free will/people’s ultimate control of themselves. why would someone want to become bad behaving?

  52. Michael says

    Just another loser on the internet who has no idea how to function in reality. Just like all these keyboard warriors out there, if he said that offline, he would have been on the recieving end of a baseball bat. They’re all gutless little men anyway. Talk big but ultimately are socially retarded.

  53. KCH says

    I do feel sorry for those that have clashed with T.J. But… I don’t think he’s “horrible” for saying those things. Yes, those things ARE horrible, but I think that he’s just an insecure man with anger issues that can’t articulate himself properly. He does raise good points in his videos and I don’t believe for a second that he’s misogynist… but until he gets his act together I don’t think MRAs like him are good representations for advocating gender equality. He’s severely misrepresenting his position.

    But if I’m missing something here, I’d really like to know. =(

Trackbacks

  1. [...] The Atheist Experience also discusses this awful little man. Share this: Posted in Atheism, Equality « Why I am an atheist – Julia Brandon You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. //GA_googleFillSlot("Science_Embed1_300"); adsonar_placementId=1533106;adsonar_pid=2444769;adsonar_ps=0;adsonar_zw=540;adsonar_zh=225;adsonar_jv='ads.adsonar.com'; [...]

  2. [...] This is actually just a small sampling of things they said, but you get the idea. There are so many problems in these five sentences that it’s hard to know were to begin. I suppose I should address the obvious first. Hard as is may be to believe, this is not an ironic joke about the obliviousness of transphobes. This is the reason Poe’s law exists. I am actually reminded of something Kazin wrote a month ago about how horrible people don’t realize they’re horrible. [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>