Is the Persecution of Early Christians a Myth? »« Barber’s Hate Letter to LGBT Teens

First Lady Oscar Appearance Prompts Right Wing Outrage

Sunday night I was flipping channels and I happened upon the Academy Awards show just as they were giving away the Oscar for best picture. As you probably know, they did a surprise live shot from the White House and Michelle Obama, along with Jack Nicholson, gave out the award. The first thing I thought was “I can’t wait to see how the wingnuts turn this into something evil and horrible.” It took about half an hour for Breitbart.com to jump all over it.

Has a First Lady ever intruded on Oscar night in such fashion? My memory says no, but it’s possible this isn’t the first time. It is, however, typical of a White House operation that excels in glamour over substance, that feels compelled to enter every public space from sporting events to late night shows to even the biggest night of the year for Hollywood…

Conservative viewers, if there were any left by the time the show wrapped, will not soon forget this.

Really? Why? It’s not even worth paying attention to, much less turning it into some horrible slap in the face to the right wing. But the readers of the site quickly exploded in racist rage:

the word “Crock”comes to mind… like anyone cares what the spearchucker in chiefs biT*h has to say…

No, really she is just really, really ugly…

I need a toilet so I can puke. You want a traitor and her bitch in office. How typical of you liberals. It’s okay to be a traitor and run America…

I almost vomited. Just knew the Obama’s would have to interfere…

I can’t believe I had to see that ugly thug come on my TV, it almost made me sick. The Obama’s are the uglyist couple to ever grace a TV screen, and we all need to go wash out our eyes now with soap after seeing that monster…

Moochelle, nice way to degrade the White House. Stupid woman…

Just when I thought it was going to be tolerable, out comes that ugly looking pr*mate…

Michelle Obama is an ugly woman. Didn’t need to see that thing on Oscar night…

I bet this lib is getting free stuff and that’s why he/she/it, can’t even admit that Ms Obama is offensive to the eyes and ears of any normal person…

Tonight is a night for beautiful people who may be dumb but are beautiful. But that that dumb ugly Ms Obama just did America wrong again…

That’s exactly what I asked my soon to be ex-wife after the Oscars – what if Laura Bush had done this (it was bound to happen sooner or later)?

You mean like in 2002 when Laura Bush appeared on the Academy Awards broadast via taped message?

This is what obsession looks like. It’s what the Obama Derangement Syndrome looks like in action.

Comments

  1. mvemjsun says

    They did indicate that humans are primates. Or at least humans that are not them. One step towards their belief in evolution. Did they think the actresses that are not the same color as them are ugly as well? Despicable Bigoted Assholes.

  2. Michael Heath says

    I didn’t think the first lady should have accepted this request given how political some of the nominees up for the best movie award were, i.e., Lincoln, Argo, and especially Zero Dark Thirty. The latter I’ve boycotted given their false promotion on the efficacy of torture and their false claim it helped find Osama bin Laden. If the leading nominees were all non-political movies fine, but they weren’t; where I already find the media and the government far too cozy.

  3. Alverant says

    #4 Except “First Lady” is not a position in the government. She’s a private citizen. I guess women are never to step out of their husband’s shadow.

  4. says

    It was a total waste of the First Lady’s time, but so fucking what? That doesn’t even begin to justify the pure, raw, babyish squalling hatred we’re seeing here. I can’t believe so many people actually went this far out of their way to act like this in any public forum. Don’t these people even want to look like adults when they go outside?

    That’s the problem with the Internet: it enables even the most uncultured scum to expose themselves to the rest of us with impunity.

  5. Doug Little says

    The right wing conservative echo chamber in action. They really are fucked going forward, which is a good thing.

  6. raven says

    Routine.

    Racism mixed with low IQ’s and minimal education.

    I was never too clear on who Breitbart was or why I should care. IIRC, he was a drunken idiot who managed to kill himself off by being stupid and the world was a better place for it.

  7. eamick says

    They did indicate that humans are primates.

    You may be giving the commenter too much credit; it wouldn’t surprise me if he thinks that primates are subhuman.

  8. scienceavenger says

    Did they think the actresses that are not the same color as them are ugly as well?

    No, I think they described Michelle Obama as ugly because…well…she is, following a long tradition of fugly first ladies, which has a parallel tradition.of pretending they aren’t. The whole subject is sexist anyway. I guarantee you when the first First Man gives an award, his appearance is not what will be criticized.

    I think it’s time for the President to go full Steven Wright on the contrarian GOP and say something like “Fox news is right on everything, I fully endorse what they and Rush Limbaugh have to say” and watch the Teatards brains implode trying to oppose him on that.

  9. Randomfactor says

    They’d have had Clint Eastwood in the segment too, but someone kept filling his chairs for him.

  10. unbound says

    @#2 – I know the people are messed up over there, but somehow this just seems even more asinine than usual…

  11. Reginald Selkirk says

    I agree with Michael Heath #4, I would have preferred the first lady not appear. But the reactions you relay are clearly over the top with vile racism.

  12. Michael Heath says

    Me earlier:

    I didn’t think the first lady should have accepted this request given how political some of the nominees up for the best movie award were, i.e., Lincoln, Argo, and especially Zero Dark Thirty. The latter I’ve boycotted given their false promotion on the efficacy of torture and their false claim it helped find Osama bin Laden. If the leading nominees were all non-political movies fine, but they weren’t; where I already find the media and the government far too cozy.

    Alverant responds:

    Except “First Lady” is not a position in the government. She’s a private citizen. I guess women are never to step out of their husband’s shadow.

    First, First Lady is a position of government, she even has her own budget and staff. So you’re spectacularly wrong on that count.

    In addition Ms. Obama wasn’t invited to do this gig because she was Michelle Obama, but instead first lady. The producers noted that they planned this invitation in advance of last Autumn’s election, and would have extended the same invitation to Anne Romney if she were FLOTUS last Sunday [1]. Ms. Obama even held her and Mr. Nicholson’s announcement in the Diplomatic Room of the White House [2] rather than a private venue or the private quarters of White House (not that where they did the announcement would change my objection since she was acting as first lady here).

    Lastly, it’s really bad form – a demonstrable failure in character on your part, to insinuate I’m being sexist here. My objection has nothing to do with the sex of the presenter but instead the coziness of media and government. A point that I made explicit in the comment post you responded to here.

    1] http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/moviesnow/la-et-mn-oscars-michelle-obama-20130226,0,5631162.story

    2] http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/story-behind-michelle-obamas-oscar-moment-163301910.html

  13. says

    They’d have had Clint Eastwood in the segment too, but someone kept filling his chairs for him.

    That’s why they pay people to keep audience seats filled at events like this: if an empty seat appeared on camera, Clint Eastwood would start yelling at it, and that would kinda ruin the dignity of the whole tihing.

  14. Ichthyic says

    I don’t agree with Heath that the first lady should not have been invited to participate, in that I disagree that there is enough substance to the idea that her presence would act as a government endorsement of anything specific.

    I do agree with Heath that the first lady IS a defacto representative of government, and should indeed be held to all the same rules as any other government representative wrt to the 1st amendment.

  15. Who Knows? says

    Had I cared about the Oscars and watched it I would have been happy to see Michelle Obama. As for the outrage, it would seem that by now only the most hard-core morons on the right buy into the Obama hate. It’s gotten so fucking ridiculous that only complete idiots could believe any of it.

  16. Ichthyic says

    …I also agree that Heath in NO WAY was trying to imply that women “need to stay in the shadow of their men”.

    sorry, but that has never ever been Heath’s style, nor is there any evidence to indicate he was trying to do so now.

  17. Ichthyic says

    It’s gotten so fucking ridiculous that only complete idiots could believe any of it.

    this post election cycle has clearly delineated the complete idiots, that’s for sure.

    OTOH, it’s scary to see just how many of them there really are…

  18. says

    Michael Heath “First Lady is a position of government, she even has her own budget and staff.”
    And she has her own drones. To track and hunt all the fat children, firing bran muffins and salad at them.

  19. illdoittomorrow says

    Wait a minute- I thought the wingnuttospere hated Hollyweird for being all librul and anti-Traditional Family Values ™. Now they’re losing their shit because… a liberal “intruded” on the industry’s trade show?

  20. Michael Heath says

    Ichthyic writes:

    I don’t agree with Heath that the first lady should not have been invited to participate, in that I disagree that there is enough substance to the idea that her presence would act as a government endorsement of anything specific.

    I do agree with Heath that the first lady IS a defacto representative of government, and should indeed be held to all the same rules as any other government representative wrt to the 1st amendment.

    I have no problem with the producers inviting the FLOUS, I think it was a savvy business move on their part. Especially once the nominations with the best chance of winning were political; her participation gives those particular movies an unearned veneer of historical integrity. I instead have a problem with Ms. Obama accepting their invitation rather than declining it.

    I don’t however think this is a big deal. While I think this was a mistake on her part, it doesn’t change my opinion of her. That opinion is extremely high and always has been.

  21. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    No, I think they described Michelle Obama as ugly because…well…she is – scienceavenger

    No, they didn’t. They said it because she’s black. And I don’t see why your personal opinion that she’s ugly is of any relevance.

  22. Who Knows? says

    @ Nick Gotts, yeah. Scienceavenger’s comment is probably one of the dumbest things I’ve seen on this blog.

  23. slc1 says

    Re scienceavenger @ #11

    Contrary to scienceavenger, I think the Ms. Obama is pretty damn hot, and I am a Caucasian.

  24. says

    Ironically, these same commentators will move onto the next blog post where they will bitch about how President Obama isn’t doing enough to “reach across the aisle” to conservatives.

  25. Michael Heath says

    Who Knows writes:

    Scienceavenger’s comment is probably one of the dumbest things I’ve seen on this blog.

    I disagree. Michelle Obama’s attractiveness is a judgment call where making note of it is arguably lacking in decorum and class but doesn’t remotely qualify for dumbest thing written in this venue. Get a political ideologue fond of tribalism going on protecting a fellow member from legitimate criticisms that hit bone and the logical fallacies start flying. Avoidance, denialism, idiocy, and delusion are all in play.

  26. Alverant says

    The position of First Lady has no government authority. You don’t get elected, appointed, impeached, etc to that position. So I don’t consider it a government position as much as a social position.

  27. says

    As we close in on the anniversary of Cheeseburger Andy’s untimely demise* we would do well to remember that “Loyalty Pledges” do have a place in society. Just think of all the pain and suffering that we might have missed if ambulaturd Breitbart had forced his employees to commit suicide within 24 hours of his own demise. Just thinking about it makes me smile.

    * March 1, 2012. It took place approximately 43 years too late.

  28. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Get a political ideologue fond of tribalism – Michael Heath

    Translation: anyone who has a serious disagreement with Michael Heath.

  29. Christoph Burschka says

    we all need to go wash out our eyes now with soap

    An excellent idea. Have lots of fun. Then do it again.

  30. baal says

    Her looks are entirely beside the point*. I agree that the story is a bit of nut pick but Breitbart was part of the core right wing noise machine that is still churning. The racists, hateful and bigoted comments are shockingly over the top (not a surprise but still shocking) and more or less what counts as a green light for the AM radio, faux news and ditto heads around every water cooler to repeat. It’s far from a one-off and part of the case that shows the (R) haven’t gotten away from racism as a political strategy.

    As Heath correctly points out, Breitbart.com had other complaints that they could have gone with instead of the vile screed. They could also have bothered to get their other objective facts straight like Ed pointed out (Laura Bush did media!).

    *The first couple is charismatic. I harbor doubt that they would have been as successful as they are were they physically ugly or obnoxious to listen to.

  31. says

    Reading that last comment. I realize that it might seem a bit, um, “excessive, I regret that, I was going for balls to the wall disrespect of that flaming shitbag and his associates. I will try harder, next time.

  32. says

    @Alverant #5 – Actually, First Lady is a government position. She has a budget and she has a staff, both larger than even the most senior Congresscritter. Her official role is Hostess of the White House; as such, she presides over formal events and other affairs of state which put her squarely in the diplomatic field. It is not an elected position, true, but it is an important one.

  33. Who Knows? says

    @ Michael Heath & d.c.wilson

    Point taken Michael. I’m not much of a wordsmith so that’s about the extent of my talents.

    It’s possible d.c., sarcasm is tough to pull off, especially in writting. Scienceavenger should have let that thought pass unnoticed.

  34. zbeeblebrox says

    The mind of a conservative is like the pupil of the eye – the more light you shed on it, the narrower it becomes.

  35. magistramarla says

    I think that Michelle Obama is the most chic and beautiful FLOTUS that we have had since Jackie Kennedy,
    I once met Laura Bush in person while she was FLOTUS. She was drab and so shy that she seemed reluctant to even shake hands with the women in the room. I was extremely unimpressed.
    Mrs. Obama seems genuinely pleased to meet people and to participate in events that are important to her.
    She has freely admitted that she’s “a hugger”. I would truly be honored to be on the receiving end of one of those hugs.
    I am always amused when uneducated right-wingers have the audacity to call our Harvard-educated President and his equally well-educated wife “dumb” or “idiots”. They can’t seem to fathom that both of them are highly skilled lawyers.
    As for Michelle’s appearance at the Oscar’s, I think that it is very endearing that she has an interest in pop culture and enjoys participating.

  36. says

    Sites like Breitbart and Free Republic are awash in unrepentant racism. Any visit to Free Republic will quickly reveal angry posters sharing their disdain for the First Lady and their revulsion at her supposed ugliness. Preferred descriptors for Mrs. Obama include “Moochelle” (so clever!), “Sasquatch” (’cause she’s like, big, apparently), and “the wookie” (since she so closely resembles Chewbacca when your myopic eyes are reduced to narrow slits of political paranoia). It’s a wonder that more of the Freepers have not been electrocuted by their spittle short-circuited keyboards. (Or perhaps several have, but no one has missed them.) Either that, or heart attacks. For them, apoplexy is a way of life.

  37. slc1 says

    Re magistramarla @ #42

    For a woman approaching 50, Ms. Obama is in terrific shape. It’s obvious that she takes very good care of herself and works out regularly (just like Condoleezza Rice).

  38. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @ ^ magistramarla : Seconded by me. Michelle Obama is the most impressive, intelligent and For Whatever Little Its Worth (beauty is always subjective and in the beholders eye natch) beautiful First lady I can recall in my lifetime. I’ve seen her interviewed on Letterman, give speeches and inthe news generally and she comes across very well indeed to this caucasian Aussie. I’d even go as far as saying I think she’d make an excellent President herself one day if she wishes to run for that. Imagine the Republicans reactions if it was Barack Obama doing First Lady Man duties such as this!

    ****

    Two things really strike me about those ugly comments by the First lady haters there.

    First is their hyperbolically disproportionate way over the top frothing at the mouth rage.

    Second is their total, peurile, schoolyard bully childishness and complete lack of any wit, originality or real substance.

    Put together they make me wonder at the mental (& chronological) age of those commenters and remind me of that guy caught on camera at an airport in China doing his nut in a viral episode of air rage and a particularly spoilt toddler in the middle of the worst of an especially furious temper tantrum.

  39. tbp1 says

    There is apparently literally nothing anyone in the First Family can do, no matter how innocuous, that won’t prompt screams of faux outrage on the part of the right.

    Oh yeah, and racism.

  40. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    @Zeno

    The correct spelling is Wookiee. Won’t someone please think of the Star Wars geeks?

  41. says

    I am aware of the correct spelling, Hercules. The quotes indicated the Free Republic usage, where I have never seen it spelled correctly. (Actually, I see lots of words misspelled at Free Republic, but it does not surprise me. I marvel that they can turn on their computers.) I was derelict in not including [sic], I admit.

  42. left0ver1under says

    This applies not just to presidents’ wives, but also to presidents. The rightwingnuts didn’t mind when Reagan or either Bush used sports for photo ops (re: Reagan’s idiotic comment about Marcus Allen went uncommented), while Clinton and Obama were “using sports for political gain” – especially the accuracy of Obama’s “march madness” picks. I’m surprised the rightwingnuts didn’t claim he had the games fixed.

    I’m not saying the rightwingnuts’ attack on Michelle Obama isn’t also an attack on women in general or that it’s less important. I’m pointing out their consistency in being inconsistent (i.e. “We can make political gains from this, you can’t!”).

  43. says

    left0ver1under, Republican presidents really love things, like America and sports and America, while Democrat ones make cynical political calculations.
    So they are consistent. Everything Democrat presidents do is wrong.*
     
    * Even if they do the opposite, or do nothing at all.

  44. Moggie says

    magistramarla:

    I once met Laura Bush in person while she was FLOTUS. She was drab and so shy that she seemed reluctant to even shake hands with the women in the room. I was extremely unimpressed.

    Ugh, why should she need to be impressive? America elects a president, not a wife!

    IMO, this whole “first lady” thing ought to be retired. America, if you really want a royal family, the UK has one we could sell to you.

  45. Stacy says

    Jesus.Fucking.Christ.

    This is what obsession looks like. It’s what the Obama Derangement Syndrome looks like in action

    It’s also what sexism looks like in action. Because attacking women for their looks will always be considered relevant. It’s an easy way to dismiss what they have to say.

    No, I think they described Michelle Obama as ugly because…well…she is, following a long tradition of fugly first ladies, which has a parallel tradition.of pretending they aren’t.

    Exhibit One.

    Michelle Obama’s attractiveness is a judgment call where making note of it is arguably lacking in decorum and class but doesn’t remotely qualify for dumbest thing written in this venue.

    Exhibit Two.

    Get a political ideologue fond of tribalism going on protecting a fellow member from legitimate criticisms that hit bone and the logical fallacies start flying. Avoidance, denialism, idiocy, and delusion are all in play.

    You mean like Ed Brayton?

    Because anybody who disagrees with MICHAEL HEATH!!!!!11! and his “legitimate criticisms that hit bone” (lol) must be delusional!

    Hey, Mikey, want to address my point about sexism being a cognitive failing, not a moral one? Because you sort of ignored that point when I brought it up, back during the disagreement we had that obviously “hit bone” with you.

    I understood why you ignored it at the time, since it made a non sequitur of your sanctimonious outrage.

    Still upset? Feel free to repeat the argument that failed to convince anyone the first time around.

    Either that. or STFU.

  46. Michael Heath says

    Me earlier as quoted by Stacy:

    Get a political ideologue fond of tribalism going on protecting a fellow member from legitimate criticisms that hit bone and the logical fallacies start flying. Avoidance, denialism, idiocy, and delusion are all in play.

    Stacy responds:

    You mean like Ed Brayton?

    Because anybody who disagrees with MICHAEL HEATH!!!!!11! and his “legitimate criticisms that hit bone” (lol) must be delusional!

    Hey, Mikey, want to address my point about sexism being a cognitive failing, not a moral one? Because you sort of ignored that point when I brought it up, back during the disagreement we had that obviously “hit bone” with you.

    I understood why you ignored it at the time, since it made a non sequitur of your sanctimonious outrage.

    Still upset? Feel free to repeat the argument that failed to convince anyone the first time around.

    Either that. or STFU.

    Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.

    Ed is not demonstrating this behavior here, he instead has a perfectly valid argument with which I mildly disagree.

    And I could give rat’s ass about your conclusions given the fact your arguments are almost always built on fatally defective premises, and remedial ones at that. So when I respond to you I’m merely defending my own points from your misrepresentations. Learn to make a structurally sound argument and maybe then I’ll consider your thoughts.

    I think, at least unconsciously, you already realize you’ve got nothing but tribalism to support you. Otherwise you wouldn’t be compelled to make dishonest arguments from popularity as you do here and demand others like me, “STFU”. As I already stated, remedial stuff in play here.

  47. Moggie says

    Gregory in Seattle:

    Her official role is Hostess of the White House; as such, she presides over formal events and other affairs of state which put her squarely in the diplomatic field. It is not an elected position, true, but it is an important one.

    Sounds like a wealthy 1950s housewife. What happens if the president’s partner doesn’t want this role, or if the president doesn’t have a partner, like Buchanan?

  48. matty1 says

    Get a political ideologue fond of tribalism going on protecting a fellow member from legitimate criticisms that hit bone and the logical fallacies start flying. Avoidance, denialism, idiocy, and delusion are all in play.

    You mean like Ed Brayton?

    Eh? Ed has his flaws, the fact he writes posts in advance can lead to out of date commentary for instance, but he is one of the better bloggers when it comes to criticising people on his side and acknowledging good points from his opponents.

  49. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    IMO, this whole “first lady” thing ought to be retired. America, if you really want a royal family, the UK has one we could sell to you. – Moggie

    Good point. Spouses of British Prime Ministers are not public figures to anything like the same extent, and there seems no good reason why those of US Presidents should be.

  50. Michael Heath says

    Moggie writes:

    What happens if the president’s partner doesn’t want this role, or if the president doesn’t have a partner, like Buchanan?

    The wife of the president filling the role is a tradition, not a requirement of the office. It hasn’t always been presidential wives who’ve served. Since the office of First Lady is part of the Executive branch, it is the prerogative of the president who serves.

  51. says

    @ left0ver1under

    New Fox “news” meme: “Some people say Obama had NCAA tournament fixed to fit his picks. We’re just asking questions, folks. Really. Stupid, racist, with-no-basis-in-fact questions. But questions nonetheless. You know what’s another question? Is Obama’s ability to make basketball due to, you know, ‘those people’s’ love of that sport?*”

    * No, we didn’t mean BLACK people, we meant tall people. The president is tall. How dare you play the race card!

  52. thumper1990 says

    The first thing I thought was “I can’t wait to see how the wingnuts turn this into something evil and horrible.”

    At least you were expecting it, it never crossed my mind that anyone would object. WTF?

    And what’s all that stuff about her being ugly? Personally I think Mrs. Obama is quite a good-looking lady. *shrug*

  53. says

    There is apparently literally nothing anyone in the First Family can do, no matter how innocuous, that won’t prompt screams of faux outrage on the part of the right.

    If Michelle Obama were to die during Barack Obama’s presidency, wingnuts would probably complain that her funeral cost too much.

  54. rork says

    I don’t care much about the idiots.
    I think it was a mistake, because it might give the impression that you think these awards are important. Do I really care what the academy thinks? Hell no.

  55. Stacy says

    Ed is not demonstrating this behavior here, he instead has a perfectly valid argument with which I mildly disagree.

    Yes, I agree Ed is not demonstrating the behavior you describe here or anywhere. I expressed myself badly there.

    My point–poorly made as it was–was that in the disagreement to which you refer, Ed was on Ophelia’s side, as was I. Yet somehow you never accused Ed of “Avoidance, denialism, idiocy, and delusion.”

    And I could give rat’s ass about your conclusions given the fact your arguments are almost always built on fatally defective premises, and remedial ones at that.

    “Sexism is a cognitive failing, not a moral one” was a premise, Heath. Not a conclusion.

    No wonder you failed to acknowledge that premise–not only did you fail to understand it, you apparently didn’t understand that it was a premise. (Which was mighty convenient, as it undercut the premise of your argument. Blindness or dishonesty on your part? I neither know nor care.)

    Tsk tsk. Mistaking a premise for a conclusion–you were saying something about “remedial” ?

    So when I respond to you I’m merely defending my own points from your misrepresentations.

    Remind me, which of us is the one who continues to make passive-aggressive swipes at the other?

    The only reason I addressed you here at all, Heath, is because you felt the need to refer to an old and utterly unrelated point of contention and in the process misrepresented me and your other opponents.

    …maybe then I’ll consider your thoughts

    You supercilious git. Please don’t mistake my anger at you for interest in your thoughts. I addressed you only because your cowardly swipe pissed me off.

    Seriously, Heath. Think about why that particular disagreement sticks in your craw. Think hard. Be honest with yourself.

    /disengage

  56. Stacy says

    Eh? Ed has his flaws, the fact he writes posts in advance can lead to out of date commentary for instance, but he is one of the better bloggers when it comes to criticising people on his side and acknowledging good points from his opponents

    I agree, matty1. I expressed myself poorly, but I was being facetious. Heath brought up an old argument in which he disagreed with Ed and others (including me.) Those of us who opposed Heath are delusional tribal political ideologues, you see. Except for some reason Heath exempted Ed from those charges.

    I apologize for catching Ed in the cross fire.

  57. Michael Heath says

    Stacy lies:

    Heath brought up an old argument in which he disagreed with Ed and others (including me.) Those of us who opposed Heath are delusional tribal political ideologues, you see. Except for some reason Heath exempted Ed from those charges.

    Ed never engaged on the issue you raise here, that’s simply another of many lies you’ve told and continue to tell; he never took your defense of Benson lying over my pointing out her lies because he never engaged on the topic. His blog post didn’t cover Benson’s dishonesty, instead he focused on shooting the rhetorical fish in the barrel, that being Shermer.

    Because Ed never contributed any thoughts about Benson’s demonstrated dishonesty and defamation of Shermer after that was discovered, Ed was not behaving like you behaved and continue to behave. For all I know he’s never even read those comment posts. So there’s no reason to condemn him for the behavior you displayed back then and here since he never engaged at that pathetic level.

    I did criticize Ed in the relevant blog post, and that was his misreporting of what motivated Shermer, which I could and did easily demonstrate by merely posting what Ed reported was Shermer’s motivation when linking to Shermer’s article and the very different, written motivation reported by Shermer in that same article. Where it was easy to also validate Shermer’s premises were in fact true. I.e., it wasn’t Benson’s criticism of Shermer that set Shermer off, it was instead her both quote-ming him and also lying about what he stated; where her lies are incontrovertible facts – however inconvenient you find that Stacy.

    Ed’s getting Shermer’s motivation wrong was sloppy journalism on his part, something he rarely does. If this mistake wasn’t rare, I wouldn’t hang out here because above almost all else, I value objective truth. I’m also aware with the incredible volume of product Ed produces on a daily rate, he’s going to make some mistakes out of at least hastiness – where Shermer’s rhetorical fallacies were so glaring, I assume Ed never even observed what Benson did. It took me a couple of reads to recognize what Benson did. So Ed’s mistake here wasn’t the type of avoidance, denialism, dishonesty, misrepresentations of others, and tribalism you demonstrate, just mere sloppiness.

  58. says

    Jesus fucking Christ, is Heath still banging on and on about Shermer and Benson? Just in case anyone has any doubt left about how unhinged Heath’s tin-horn crusade is, let me just remind you that one of Heath’s complaints against Benson is that she didn’t interview Shermer before criticizing his piss-poor choice of words. Still no explanation of why Shermer, and not, say, the Pope, is entitled to such a courtesy from his critics…which clearly proves that Heath is not even trying to argue rationally or in good faith.

  59. Michael Heath says

    Raging Bee writes:

    Jesus fucking Christ, is Heath still banging on and on about Shermer and Benson?

    No, Stacy brought the subject up, I merely responded to her lies, her lies about me, and some new lies regarding Ed.

    Raging Bee writes:

    Still no explanation of why Shermer, and not, say, the Pope, is entitled to such a courtesy from his critics…

    Besides having a different perspective on reality, where I can validate my version with incontrovertible facts, we obviously have a different set of values. I think it’s morally and ethically wrong to misinform others in this case (and in most cases). I.e., to lie and defame; simply because the person being lied about and defamed was behaving badly. You seem to think otherwise.

    In addition, here’s another reason why Shermer is entitled to not being defamed. Ms. Benson wanted to tackle a broader subject than the topic Mr. Shermer talked about. That’s of course her right and perfectly appropriate. However Ms. Benson had a journalistic obligation to get Shermer’s take on the new topic since she doesn’t have any statements from him regarding that topic. Especially given the venue that published her article. A new topic she unilaterally raised and then falsely projected a misogynistic viewpoint on Shermer. A topic to which he never raised in the statement Benson used; which is not only clear once you add back in the quip Ms. Benson quote-mined out of Shermer’s objectionable statement and then repeatedly lied about ever doing but argues the opposite of the misogynistic statement Benson falsely accused Shermer of meaning.

    I think it’s pretty clear who is being rational and who is not being rational here. I stand with the incontrovertible facts. You don’t and now seek to excuse lying about others simply because they’ve behaved badly. And let’s be clear, Shermer’s idiotic and arguably sexist comments, and his idiotic response to Benson’s defamation of him, hardly compares to Mr. Benedict’s responsibility for the RCC abusing children and avoiding justice. Such a comparison is compelling evidence on how irrational your argument is on this topic.

    I also remain supremely confident that my position – don’t lie, and the premises I use to condemn Ms. Benson – all incontrovertible facts, is a perfect example of someone acting rational while criticizing the bad behavior of others. In this case that would be Mr. Shermer, Ms. Benson, Stacy, and you.

  60. ildi says

    Michael Heath:

    Get a political ideologue fond of tribalism going on protecting a fellow member from legitimate criticisms that hit bone and the logical fallacies start flying. Avoidance, denialism, idiocy, and delusion are all in play.

    You just can’t get past having had your ass handed to you on a plate, can you. How many threads are you going to contaminate with your passive-aggressive snark? Let it go, MH, let it go…

  61. Michael Heath says

    Me earlier:

    I think it’s pretty clear who is being rational and who is not being rational here.

    Raging Bee:

    Yep, it sure is…

    Got nothin’ huh? Hey, at least you’re not digging your hole ever deeper as you did in your last post.

    It’s poor form to be proven wrong Raging Bee, which the facts obviously demonstrate in this case, and yet still maintain the same position you held previously. It’s also a failure in character where both of us happily point that out when such failures are done by a libertarian or conservative. You can be a better person and not act like those you despise as you’ve done on this issue.

    What’s your motivation to criticize me for my condemning Benson for her lies about Shermer? The lies are incontrovertible, we know she lied, and I called her out. So why defend her for defaming Shermer and then repeatedly lying about what she did. Especially when what she did can be easily demonstrated since she did it in writing and, we have access to all the relevant statements and articles to determine the facts; where there are zero interpretative challenges as well.

    Do you have a bug up your ass about Shermer where you encourage others to lie about him? You’re certainly defending Benson’s lies about him. So what gives?

  62. ildi says

    The only lying liar and defamer here has been you, MH, as your previous delusional comments on other threads has shown. Repeating “incontrovertible facts” as some sort of mantra does not make your biased interpretation of the situation magically true.

  63. says

    Heath: you still haven’t explained why Benson was under any obligation to interview Shermer before criticizing him. Given that that transparently hypocritical and ad-hoc demand proves how unhinged your crusade against her is, I’d say it’s a question you need to answer if you want to have any credibility here.

    Oh, and +1 to ildi. We’ve been over the “incontrovertible facts” of this case many times, and each time it’s clearly shown that they’re not what you keep on saying they are. You really need to look in a mirror, boy, and figure out waht your problem is, before you sink to the Larry Fafarman level of obsessive threadjacking.

  64. Michael Heath says

    Raging Bee:

    Heath: you still haven’t explained why Benson was under any obligation to interview Shermer before criticizing him. Given that that transparently hypocritical and ad-hoc demand proves how unhinged your crusade against her is, I’d say it’s a question you need to answer if you want to have any credibility here.

    As always on this topic, this is simply not true, incontrovertibly not true. Here’s a link to a comment post of mine in the very post I made my case explaining exactly why I think Ms. Benson failed in her journalistic duties to inform her readers rather than misinform them. This is not the only post where I presented my case for why she should have interview him prior to assigning a position to him on a topic he never stated anything about. It’s simply the first post I came to using the find command in Ed’s blog post about Shermer.

    Now I’ll be the first to argue my argument on her ethical responsibilities and what she should have done are subjective arguments, and therefore other credible arguments also exist. This is not a primary objection of mine.
    My primary criticism with Benson is:
    a) her defaming Shermer by attributing a horribly misogynistic statement to him when in fact, in fact, he stated nothing in regards to that topic plus,
    b) Benson quote-mined Shermer’s statement which made it easier to misrepresent what he stated; how what she described wasn’t even about the topic Shermer comment on, and where the text that was quote-mined easily falsifies her defamation noted above in point a.
    c) Benson repeatedly lied about not quote-mining Shermer when she in fact did.

    Raging Bee sinks ever-deeper:

    You really need to look in a mirror, boy, and figure out waht your problem is, before you sink to the Larry Fafarman level of obsessive threadjacking.

    Again, I’m responding to posts directed at me. Re the ‘boy’ quip; that’s more rationalism on your part, eh?

  65. Michael Heath says

    ildi writes:

    The only lying liar and defamer here has been you, MH, as your previous delusional comments on other threads has shown. Repeating “incontrovertible facts” as some sort of mantra does not make your biased interpretation of the situation magically true.

    Then you should be easily capable of demonstrating I’m lying. I look forward to you quoting exactly what I wrote that is a lie, and then presenting the evidence which demonstrates that I’m lying. That’s exactly what I’ve repeatedly done when it comes to Ms. Benson lying on this topic. So I expect you to hold to the same standard I’m using, and no less.

    For example, when Benson falsely and repeatedly claimed she quoted Shermer exactly, I quoted what Shermer actually stated which revealed she, in fact, did no such thing. That is incontrovertible lie #1 of many lies. She instead cut-off one sentence from what he stated, a sentence that demonstrates that Shermer was not even discussing the misogynistic claims Benson unilaterally raised in her article then dishonestly projected onto Shermer, which is incontrovertible fact # 2. Where she then dishonestly claimed this was what Shermer meant, whch is incontrovertible lie # 3.

    I can go back and quote those lies word for word stacked up to what Shermer actually stated, again, if your memory fails you as badly as it does Raging Bee falsely describing my behavior here, e.g., his false claim I never explained why Benson failed on journalistic merits beyond her lies about Shermer.

  66. ildi says

    You lie about which of Shermer’s statements Benson quoted vs. paraphrased, even though you’ve been corrected on that many times; you lie about Benson quote-mining even though the 50/50 sentence does nothing to change the meaning of what Shermer says right afterward; you lie when you say Shermer didn’t make any misogynistic claims when he clearly said that more men participate in the atheist movement, even though the split may be 50/50 because men are more intellectually active, it’s more of a guy thing, you lie by omission when you ignore the rest of the conversation with the other panelists where Shermer reiterates the same concept by saying that women are probably religious for emotional reasons whereas men intellectualize their religious beliefs. You lie about the intent and focus of the entire piece written by Benson, and you obsessively bring it up at every opportunity to lie about it some more.

  67. says

    I can go back and quote those lies word for word stacked up to what Shermer actually stated, again…

    …and again and again and again? Dude, if you’re going to re-paste the same old repetitive allegations that were already debunked where you pasted them before, why don’t you just save us all a lot of trouble, and paste the links to the old threads? That way you won’t have to re-paste whole blocks of text, and we won’t have to re-paste all the refutations that ended the argument before.

    PS: No, your “explanation” of why Benson was obligated to interview Shermer before criticizing him does not hold water, primarily because a) it’s based on a false premise (that Benson’s characterization of Shermer’s words was wildly different from any reasonable interpretation of same); and b) you never make that demand of anyone else.

    PPS: Do you really think that last link enhanced your credibility? It did just the opposite, by reminding us both that you were sharing bogus arguments with that chronic jackass Steersman, and that jennerphillips had asked you a question you failed to answer:

    Michael Heath, I’ve always found you to be a thoughtful contributor to this blog, but you’re barely less ridiculous than Steersman in this case. It must be hard to be a Champion of truth, reality, honesty and critical thinking when you can dismiss ridiculous, extended descents into persecution imagery (prominently featured in TWO articles from Shermer responding to Ophelia) as silly and unfortunate and write post after post roaring at Ophelia to apologize for what was, at worst, a clumsy characterization of Shermer’s remarks. Are you writing equally passionate pleas on Shermer’s blog asking him to walk back all the Witch Hunt/McCarthyism/Nazi talk? If not, why not?

  68. Michael Heath says

    ildi @ 71:

    The only lying liar and defamer here has been you, MH, as your previous delusional comments on other threads has shown. Repeating “incontrovertible facts” as some sort of mantra does not make your biased interpretation of the situation magically true.

    Me @ 74:

    Then you should be easily capable of demonstrating I’m lying. I look forward to you quoting exactly what I wrote that you assert is a lie, and then presenting the evidence which demonstrates that I’m in fact lying. That’s exactly what I’ve repeatedly done when it comes to Ms. Benson lying on this topic. So I expect you to hold to the same standard I’m using, and no less.
    [Emphasis here only – I bolded this because ildi fails to meet this standard in his response @ 75 to which I’m rebutting in this post below. I assume he avoids this standard of good form in order to perpetuate his delusion regarding the facts and whose side they are on here.]

    ildi responds @ 75:

    You lie about which of Shermer’s statements Benson quoted vs. paraphrased, even though you’ve been corrected on that many times . . .

    Not true – I never made this argument and repeatedly pointed this out. If I’m wrong, please, quote where I did this. Good luck with that.

    I presume your continued desire to misrepresent what I’ve written is why you fail to meet the standard I’ve used and asked you to use if I’m lying and Benson isn’t, i.e., quote what I write and then refute that. You want to imagine what I argued rather than confronting what I actually wrote and meant.

    To your point: I’ve repeatedly pointed out in the relevant threads I have no problem with someone paraphrasing another person. It’s not a point of contention with me and never was. My problem wasn’t with Benson paraphrasing something Shermer said and then sloppily following that with the claim Shermer said “exactly that”, where she should have instead written, “he meant exactly that”. From my very first read of her article I understood she intended readers to understand her description of Shermer’s statement she described and then quoted was her description of it, not to be the literal representation of it. Instead my objection to Benson’s article was something distinctly different, which will be revealed as I fisk your further lies below in this post.

    Ildi @ 75:

    . . . you lie about Benson quote-mining even though the 50/50 sentence does nothing to change the meaning of what Shermer says right afterward;

    There’s two problems with this. The first is that Benson lied when she claimed she quoted him exactly and didn’t quote-mine him. She did, she stripped out and I quote what Shermer stated that she removed: I think it probably really is fifty-fifty. Benson then went on to repeatedly deny ever doing any such thing.

    Are you so delusional you can’t see that she stripped the sentence out of her article and then in the relevant threads in Ed’s blog? She then repeatedly denied ever doing any such thing – even going so far as falsely claiming she quoted him exactly and therefore didn’t quote-mine him.

    I’m guessing not given your obviously disingenuous framing of this point; where you don’t directly deny her quote-mining him, but retreat into the, “it doesn’t matter realm”; thereby providing the appearance Benson never stripped any meaning out. The problem here is that sentence does matter and we still have Benson repeatedly claiming she quoted him exactly when in fact she did not.

    Secondly you’re right that the fifty-fifty quip doesn’t change what Shermer stated afterwards; but it certainly creates a framework far too narrow to allow Benson to conjure up a meaning far broader, worse, and different to represent what Shermer stated after that “fifty-fifty” sentence. But again, I never argued the fifty-fifty quip changes what he stated; so you continue to lie about what I previously wrote. Where’s it’s a lot easier to sell your misrepresentations of what I wrote by failing to quote that which you attempt to rebut.

    Instead, I’ve repeatedly pointed out that by quote-mining the ‘fifty-fifty’ quip out, Benson makes it easier to falsely claim Shermer meant something very misogynistic where Shermer’s ‘fifty-fifty’ assertion clearly proves he meant no such thing. It’s simple logic where I’ll even show my work below where I drill down into this with more detail right now.

    The moderator asked Shermer this question:

    Why isn’t the gender split in atheism closer to 50-50?

    , where Shermer responds:

    I think it [female participation] probably really is fifty-fifty. It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”

    Here’s what Benson said in response to this in her article:

    The main stereotype in play, let’s face it, is that women are too stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because “that’s a guy thing.”
    Don’t laugh: Michael Shermer said exactly that during a panel discussion on the online talk-show The Point.

    So let’s do the logic.

    Benson’s statement, . . . women are too stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work . . . ; those three, not two as it might appear, but three assertions she projected on Shermer do not equal: [Moderator], Why isn’t the gender split in atheism closer to 50-50? to which Shermer responds: I think it [female participation] probably really is fifty-fifty. It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.

    Let’s clarify Benson’s three assertions she doesn’t believe, but argued Shermer argued for instead:
    1) There are no women nontheists. That’s based on, . . . women are too stupid to do nontheism; if women are too stupid to “do nontheism”, than none should exist.
    2) There are no women nontheists because, . . . women are too stupid.
    3) There are no women nontheists because, Unbelieving in God is thinky work . . ..

    So in the very first sentence of Shermer’s statement, the sentence Benson quote-mines out in her article, Shermer clearly conveys that he observes women nontheists exist at a fifty-fifty ratio. That’s contra Benson’s false claim Shermer is claiming that, . . . women are too stupid to do nontheism; Shermer instead observes women nontheists.

    Taking out the fifty-fifty quip make it easier to sell the outrageous and misogynistic lie that Shermer observes no women nontheists for Benson’s imagined lie, “because they’re too stupid” – a topic she unilaterally raises, Shermer never did, and then dishonestly projects onto Shermer.

    Because Shermer also asserts that he sees a 50/50 mix of female/male atheists, than it’s logical to conclude, and he certainly never claimed, that . . . women are too stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work . . . . In fact, in fact, in fact; he never claimed women were too stupid to be nontheists. That’s directly contra Benson’s false and highly misogynistic projection of that false assertion onto Shermer.

    Of course Shermer vigorously rebuts this lie by Benson in his rebuttal to which Ed and the rest of us ridiculed him for in Ed’s relevant post. Shermer’s motivation for a passionate rebuttal to Benson’s article was warranted. Benson quote-mined him just like Shermer pointed out in his article, and she also defamed him. Of course that doesn’t excuse his absurd response where he falls into Godwinism and martyrdom.

    Now of course what Shermer stated which I quote above is both objectionable and arguably sexist. I happen to think it is sexist and repeatedly noted that. My objection seems to rise to the level of what Gretchen concluded in the thread Ed posted about Shermer’s ridiculous response to Benson defaming him. But that objectionable statement by Shermer that Benson quoted in no way has him asserting that aren’t any nontheist women and that’s because they’re too stupid or unwilling to think. Benson’s lie here is so obvious only idiots or delusional tribalists can’t discern it when we break this down. And the very statement Shermer makes first which Benson quote-mines out provides absolutely zero space to even insinuate otherwise.

    Ildi @ 75:

    . . . you lie when you say Shermer didn’t make any misogynistic claims when he clearly said that more men participate in the atheist movement, even though the split may be 50/50 because men are more intellectually active, it’s more of a guy thing,

    I don’t think what Shermer actually stated which Benson quotes in her article, when including the part he stated she quote-mined out, is misogynistic. I instead think it’s sexist in a very idiotic, oblivious way. It’s not a lie to claim it’s sexist but not misogynistic; this is a subjective point. I also repeatedly castigated Shermer for making an objectionable, arguably sexist statement in the relevant threads; like this one:

    . . . anyone worthy of consideration is in agreement what [Shermer] did was dumb, insensitive, and easily perceived as sexist though it’s questionable whether he intended to be sexist (as opposed to oblivious).

    Ildi @ 75:

    . . . you lie by omission when you ignore the rest of the conversation with the other panelists where Shermer reiterates the same concept by saying that women are probably religious for emotional reasons whereas men intellectualize their religious beliefs.

    This is incoherent. My objection regarding Ms. Benson is her lying in her article. If there were other statements by Shermer that weren’t in her article that helped her validate what are now demonstrably false claims in that article based her own premises, not mine or others, than she has the obligation to quote those statements to support her thesis. Her article misinformed her readers. It’s not their obligation to imagine objectionable statements that were left out which buttress her article, if they even exist.

    Ildi @ 75:

    You lie about the intent and focus of the entire piece written by Benson, and you obsessively bring it up at every opportunity to lie about it some more.

    Please quote where I even mentioned the intent or focus of her article. I never did, this is simply another big lie. I’ve instead repeatedly made it clear this is not about her argument, but instead about her dishonesty; dishonesty that defames another. Here again are the incontrovertible facts:

    Ms. Benson quote-mined Shermer.

    Benson repeatedly lied by claiming she quoted Shermer exactly when she instead quote-mined a sentence out that helped her sell her big lie that I repeat below.

    Benson asserted that Shermer claimed women are too stupid to be nontheist. She then quoted him to support her case. But Shermer’s quoted statement not only never claimed there were no female nontheists because of their supposed stupidity, quite the opposite where he argued for a fifty-fifty ratio. He also never claimed there weren’t any because they were too stupid. You can’t reach this point with what he stated; Benson lied.

  69. Michael Heath says

    Raging Bee writes:

    Are you writing equally passionate pleas on Shermer’s blog asking him to walk back all the Witch Hunt/McCarthyism/Nazi talk? If not, why not?

    I dont recall ever posting any comments at Ms. Benson’s and know I’ve never done so at Mr. Shermer’s blog; if Shermer even has a blog, that’d be news to me. I hang out here at Ed’s blog when it comes to comment posts.

    My posts in Ed’s blog about this fiasco were directed towards Ed and his readers. When Benson joined the thread with her own comment posts and started lying, I rebutted her. I rebutted her here in Ed’s blog, not at her blog. I would have gladly done the same to Shermer if he’d arrived at this venue and also made dishonest or crappy arguments. But he didn’t.

    I gradually focused my attention on Benson’s lies in Ed’s thread about Shermer’s reaction to Benson’s lies about him because criticizing Shermer was not only like shooting fish in the barrel, lots of commenters were already doing it. That’s what we do here, and yet Benson deserved the same level of condemnation, I think worse, and yet no commenters I read or Ed seemed to even be aware of how vicious and false her article was.

    Instead Ed and his readers happily took on the person obviously deserving our ridicule while another acted in a manner I think is insidiously worse. Worse because we can easily identify and ridicule the idiotic things Shermer stated and wrote. He’s not going to influence anyone with his absurdities on what’s he’s being rightfully lambasted about. But here also we had someone acting like a Liar for Jesus and being treated like conservatives treat their Liars for Jesus. So I picked up the flag.

    I’ve long argued we should ostracize serial liars where Benson’s article and defense of it is one of the most blatantly dishonest acts I’ve encountered out of the skeptic movement. The support she received by several people in this venue was a perfect illustration that some liberals can’t help but act in the very same manner we ridicule conservative Christians for doing. Namely, making the same obvious, remedial logical fallacies in order to defend a position which is not defendable where they have no desire to adapt to defendable position while deluding themselves they have the moral high ground and their critics don’t. Where they then project their behavior onto their critics.

    So I find your insinuation totally uncompelling.

  70. ildi says

    So, in your mind, Benson saying

    The main stereotype in play, let’s face it, is that women are too stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because “that’s a guy thing.”
    Don’t laugh: Michael Shermer said exactly that during a panel discussion on the online talk-show The Point.

    is horrible, lying defamation because Shermer merely said that men are more active as atheists because talking about it and being intellectually active is more of a guy thing.

    In your mind Benson

    has him asserting that aren’t any nontheist women and that’s because they’re too stupid or unwilling to think.

    That’s not true. Nobody but you reads her paragraph to mean that, mainly because there is a whole fucking article that goes with it.

    Benson’s snark is warranted. I watched the video.The clueless of Shermer that he thought his answer that men are just more assertive and intellectually active was any sort of explanation! The idea that women in general are just more emotional – have I just been beamed back to the 50s? It was embarrassing to watch, and Shermer should have been embarrassed rather than outraged when he got called out on it. I suspect he was outraged because he is an “equity” feminist and stood behind what he said (hence witch hunts, Nazis, yada yada yada).

    I’ve long argued we should ostracize serial liars where Benson’s article and defense of it is one of the most blatantly dishonest acts I’ve encountered out of the skeptic movement.

    Yeah, that pretty much sums you up.

  71. says

    There’s two problems with this. The first is that Benson lied when she claimed she quoted him exactly and didn’t quote-mine him. She did, she stripped out and I quote what Shermer stated that she removed: I think it probably really is fifty-fifty. Benson then went on to repeatedly deny ever doing any such thing.

    The only times Benson claimed she was quoting Shermer exactly, were when she WAS quoting him exactly. Sometimes she quoted him exactly, other times she paraphrased him at least 95% exactly (something all of us do from time to time, with no objection from you); and she never denied doing either. The only person lying here is you, Heath.

    You’re acting like a flat-Earther: mindlessly and obsessively repeating claims that can easily be disproven by referring to original material that’s still up there, unclassified, on the Web for all to see. And fooling only yourself.

    …Benson’s article and defense of it is one of the most blatantly dishonest acts I’ve encountered out of the skeptic movement.

    Really?! Benson’s claims about Shermer are more dishonest than Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” crap, or Sam Harris’ anti-Muslim bigotry and torture apologetics? Do you really believe that, or are you just scapegoating Benson because you don’t have the guts to go up against the worst offenders?

    Take your stupid-assed tin-pot crusade somewhere else. Like maybe the Slymepit, where ostracizing critics seems to be all the rage. You’re embarrassing yourself, and embarrassing us as well.

  72. says

    I’ve long argued we should ostracize…

    Then you’d look like the fool in the lifeboat threatening to cut the aircraft carrier adrift.

  73. Michael Heath says

    Me earlier:

    The first is that Benson lied when she claimed she quoted him exactly and didn’t quote-mine him. She did, she stripped out and I quote what Shermer stated that she removed: “I think it probably really is fifty-fifty.” Benson then went on to repeatedly deny ever doing any such thing.

    Raging Bee:

    The only times Benson claimed she was quoting Shermer exactly, were when she WAS quoting him exactly. Sometimes she quoted him exactly, other times she paraphrased him at least 95% exactly (something all of us do from time to time, with no objection from you); and she never denied doing either. The only person lying here is you, Heath.

    You’re acting like a flat-Earther: mindlessly and obsessively repeating claims that can easily be disproven by referring to original material that’s still up there, unclassified, on the Web for all to see. And fooling only yourself.

    Here’s one of several examples of her doing exactly what I described her doing, contrary to false assertion; where I quote her:

    Good grief. I “greatly distorted what Mr. Shermer said” and I “defamed” him – by quoting exactly what he said and commenting on it.

    Dudes, I quoted exactly what he said. You can’t “greatly distort” and “defame” people by quoting exactly what they say.

    Again, I’ve never criticized Benson for paraphrasing Shermer. I understood how you might have been originally confused about that in the initial thread in spite of making no such argument, but given I’ve repeatedly noted that was never an issue with me after your confusion, including @ 77 above, it’s now become a red herring you throw out there. It’s a non-issue which is merely a diversion.

    Now what we can discern for a fact, that is if we are capable of reading and thinking clearly, that is an incontrovertible fact is:
    a) She did in fact quote-mine out a sentence of Shermer’s response to the moderator.
    b) That sentence made it easier to create create a falsehood that Shermer believes, “ that women are too stupid to do nontheism.” That quote-mined out sentence was a rebuttal to the moderator’s leading question, Why isn’t the gender split in atheism closer to 50-50?. Where Shermer responded with a sentence that Shermer stated with, I think it [female participation] probably really is fifty-fifty. A sentence that does not appear in Benson’s article no matter how much you deny her not quoting him exactly. This was a primary beef in Shermer’s response to Benson’s article, as it would be for anyone who was misrepresented by this behavior.

    So nice projection on the flat-earther assertion; you project an awful lot Raging Bee.

    By the way, she’s also wildly wrong that one, “can’t “greatly distort” and “defame” people by quoting exactly what they say“. I demonstrate @ 77 that’s exactly what she did. I’m sure it happens a lot, David Barton does it all the time. That was not a defective assertion I recall castigating her about, at least repeatedly. I instead focused on the lies in her article which harmed another person; an action I find morally repugnant which is why I speak out. Especially when we observe tribalism kicking in which allies defend the defamer at the expense of truth; that is what conservative Christians do where I advocate we do not adopt their worst behavior attributes.

  74. says

    Again, I’ve never criticized Benson for paraphrasing Shermer.

    Excuse me for being rude, but HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW! You’ve been spending the last few months calling her paraphrase “lies” and “defamation!” That’s the central feature of your hate-on for Benson! Now you’re trying to say you’ve never criticized her for paraphrasing? Bloody ‘ell, you’re turning into a proper lying sack of fertilizer, aren’t you?

    Oh, and Benson did indeed quote Shermer in her criticism of his idiotic statements, directly and exactly, using quote-marks to show she was quoting someone else. That is, in fact, where I first read Shermer’s words. So you’re lying there too. Now go ostracise yourself with a rotting broomstick.

  75. Michael Heath says

    Me earlier:

    Again, I’ve never criticized Benson for paraphrasing Shermer.

    Raging Bee’s current delusion:

    Excuse me for being rude, but HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW! You’ve been spending the last few months calling her paraphrase “lies” and “defamation!” That’s the central feature of your hate-on for Benson! Now you’re trying to say you’ve never criticized her for paraphrasing? Bloody ‘ell, you’re turning into a proper lying sack of fertilizer, aren’t you?

    You’re acting like a petulant eight year old. I am in no way backing away from the fact Benson defamed Shermer my creating a whole new meaning to what he actually said and then claiming this is what he meant. My argument has never changed one iota, your inability to read is what’s at issue here.

    The issue I’ve had has never been with her paraphrasing Shermer, but again ad nauseam, for claiming he stated something he never raised as an issue, specifically that, “women are too stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky . . .. Shermer not only didn’t state this or mean this, the sentence Benson quote-mined out of Shermer’s statement falsifies any assertion he did.

    Raging Bee writes:

    Oh, and Benson did indeed quote Shermer in her criticism of his idiotic statements, directly and exactly, using quote-marks to show she was quoting someone else. That is, in fact, where I first read Shermer’s words. So you’re lying there too. Now go ostracise yourself with a rotting broomstick.

    Now you’re acting like a total moron with no ability to comprehend what people actually write. I’m the guy who first linked to Benson’s article in Ed’s post. I’ve never claimed she didn’t quote him – I actually published a repeated posts with her quoting him! I instead pointed out that Benson quote-mined Shermer and misconstrued what he said to mean something far worse.

    I’ll demonstrate again who Benson did exactly what I claimed she did and you claim otherwise.Here’s the relevant section of Benson’s article linked to here:

    Don’t laugh: Michael Shermer said exactly that during a panel discussion on the online talk-show The Point. The host, Cara Santa Maria, presented a question: Why isn’t the gender split in atheism closer to 50-50? Shermer explained, “It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”

    It’s all there—women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up, they don’t talk at conferences, they don’t get involved—it’s “a guy thing,” like football and porn and washing the car.

    Here’s what Shermer actually stated:

    The moderator asked Shermer this question:
    Why isn’t the gender split in atheism closer to 50-50?

    , where Shermer responds:

    I think it probably really is fifty-fifty. [The bolded sentence to the left is not in Benson's article..] It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”

    Benson didn’t publish the entire quote, she left out, I think it probably really is fifty-fifty.. And then Benson repeatedly lied about not doing that, that she quoted him exactly. She not only did no such thing, she left out a sentence that helped her defame him. Again, this is incontrovertible proof that Benson did not quote him exactly and then repeatedly lied by claiming she had quoted him exactly as I link to one of Benson’s lies @ 82 above:

    Dudes, I quoted exactly what he said.

    1 + 2 + 3 ≠ 2 + 3. I realize this is a difficult concept for you to concede in certain contexts, like this one. It’s compelling evidence of tribalism on your part.

  76. says

    Here’s a post of Benson’s from 08/25/2012, where she quotes Shermer DIRECTLY, and says so:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/08/women-dont-do-intellectually-active/

    Now here’s the post from 01/15/2013 where she both paraphrases him and quotes him directly, in the same paragraph, without lying about either action:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/01/shermer-responds-again/

    Not that the “Michael Shermer said exactly that” bit is in reference to the specific words “a guy thing.” And Shermer did indeed use those very words.

    So all in all, Heath, your charge that Benson lied about what Shermer said is, itself, a lie. A lie you’ve been droningly repeating for months now. So like I said before, go ostracize yourself with a rotting broomstick.

  77. says

    The bolded sentence to the left is not in Benson’s article.

    So fucking what? That sentence does absolutely nothing to change the meaning of Shermer’s “more of a guy thing” crap, nor does it make said crap less stupid or sexist. Your “out of context” complaint it is pure bullshit. If I said something like “Hitler was right about Jews,” you’d be right to cut me down for it, no matter how where or how many times I’d previously said “Jews are okay.”

  78. ildi says

    I am in no way backing away from the fact Benson defamed Shermer my [sic] creating a whole new meaning to what he actually said and then claiming this is what he meant.

    Of course you’re not, because you’ve invested too much time and pride in defending your stance. First of all you project that “gender split” and [female participation] mean the same thing by adding the brackets into the Shermer quote each time, which is only your interpretation of what Shermer meant even though he never said that. So, there’s one lie that is not one of your infamous “incontrovertible facts.”

    Only in your obsessive, delusional mind does “women don’t do thinky” translate into Benson saying that Shermer asserted that no women are nontheists because they’re too lazy to think. (It took me a while to figure out why you were so fixated on the 50/50 because I couldn’t imagine that Benson’s paraphrase of Shermer’s sexist comment could be so grossly misconstrued by anyone with two non-sexist brain cells to rub together.)

    The incontrovertible truth is that you can’t bear to be wrong and you will wring this topic by its scrawny little neck at every opportunity until people become too bored by it to push back. Well, it’s not going to happen because Benson did not misrepresent Shermer the way you keep trying to distort, and you should be ashamed of yourself for so obsessively defaming her.

Leave a Reply