For the sake of the record, because it’s part of the wallpaper at the place of slime and therefore stupid people think I meant it literally and are recycling it as if I had - here’s the context of that comment. The comment that ends with: “I can say that without using sexist epithets. I don’t know why you pricks can’t manage that.”
First of all – I did it on purpose. That was the joke. Derrr.
It was Monday, 04 January 2010. There was a post at RDF, about a terrible article at Comment is Free on the Danish Motoons by someone named Nancy Graham Holm. Holm’s article included this weirdly censorious paragraph:
Why did the editors of Jyllands-Posten want to mock Islam in this way? Some of us believed it was in bad taste and also cruel. Intentional humiliation is an aggressive act. As a journalist now living in the same town as Westergaard, I thought some at Jyllands-Posten had acted like petulant adolescents. Danes fail to perceive the fact that they have developed a society deeply suspicious of religion. This is the real issue between Denmark and Muslim extremists, not freedom of speech. The free society precept is merely an attempt to give the perpetrators the moral high ground when actually it is a smokescreen for a deeply rooted prejudice, not against Muslims, but against religion per se. Muslims are in love with their faith. And many Danes are suspicious of anyone who loves religion.
I commented at C is F and wrote a post, and I dropped in at RDF to see if anything interesting was being said there. I found pointlessly sexist comments. I was annoyed. I commented to say this:
Can’t you guys ever manage to disagree with a woman without calling her a bitch? Must it be all locker room all the time here?
I disagreed with her vehemently at C is F, three times, and in a post at my place, but I didn’t call her a bitch, nor did I need to.
There was some back and forth. That was then – I still thought sexism was a small part of the atheist scene. It seems so long ago now.
So, there was some back and forth, including this comment of mine:
And no, the ‘sticks and stones’ thing is no good. If the author of the article were African-American, would people here be breezily calling her a stupid nigger? I reeeeeeeeally don’t think so. Racial pejoratives are taboo, but sexist ones are just fine. Why is that? What does that say about routine contempt for women? Volumes, if you ask me.
Like Richard, I consider that article the most disgusting thing I’ve seen at the Guardian in some time, but I can say that without using sexist epithets. I don’t know why you pricks can’t manage that.
The irony was intentional. I’m not that stupid. Really.
The guy I was chiefly arguing with apparently thought I meant it literally. He was kind of a pre-slimepit slimepitter, but he changed later on, if I remember correctly. Anyway, I set him straight at the time.
Oh and for the record, ‘Saint Stephen,’ the irony of ‘pricks’ was (obviously!) fully intentional. Your bray of laughter seemed to indicate that you thought it was unconscious. Duh – it wasn’t.
If it’s true that Richard approves of this crap and tells off women who object, I think that’s appalling.
I said that last thing because people were claiming that. Well ha – Richard commented to say that he doesn’t and he doesn’t.
Again, that was then, of course. It would all play out differently now. But at the time, it was pleasant to be vindicated.
And at any rate: the irony was intentional.