To Blog or Not to Blog, or Why Edwin Hasn’t Posted Recently..


Why blog anyway? Surely, there are other things to do. This cannot happen without the consent of the victim.

Possible reasons: expressions of narcissistic attention getting; to make money; to educate and inform; for fun; for diversion. There are probably a lot more. Ask a shrink.

I haven’t blogged for a while because I have not wanted to.

There are too many things to say to say anything. There are plenty of blogs to report news and religious scandals.

And the most thoughtful of blogs, I have learned, can be trashed by morons who do not seem to even understand that which they are attempting to condemn. These commenters, with their limited vocabularies. who haunt blogs they do not appear to even vaguely comprehend, can be unconsciously funny.

This phenomenon has resulted in some exchanges with more rational blog readers that are high comedy to readers who understand what is being said.

It was in this context that I learned about “Poe’s Law.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law . Poe’s Law relates to our conversation in that it can, I think, be understood to mean that no blog can possibly be so satiric, so obviously metaphoric, and other things English professors talk about, that some fools won’t actually believe that the information thereon is correct or the author serious.

The law appears to cover those readers who believed that my “Should Males Be Eliminated from the Human Genome?” was a serious proposal. http://freethoughtblogs.com/kagin/2012/09/14/should-males-be-eliminated-from-the-human-genome . That is hard to beat for high comedy.

These comments, and these posters, do not “hurt” me or anything like that. I have been subjected to the scorn of experts and lived. And these commentators, these Masters of One Word, ain’t them.

Readers who saw the absurdity, and took the commenters to task, were, and are, greatly appreciated. They give hope in the uncaring word of the blog. It is for such people that I will keep on blogging.

When I want to.

Poe was a genius.

Edwin
© Edwin Kagin, 2012.

Comments

  1. Rodney Nelson says

    If you have to explain that something is a joke, then it probably wasn’t funny. Jokes are supposed to generate grins, laughs, and general jocularity. Your “Should Males Be Eliminated from the Human Genome?” failed in that respect. Perhaps you should leave satire to people who understand how to produce humor.

  2. janiemiller says

    If you have to explain something, maybe you are speaking to a person without a sense of humor. There are a lot of folks like that around here.

  3. strange gods before me ॐ says

    The law appears to cover those readers who believed that my “Should Males Be Eliminated from the Human Genome?” was a serious proposal.

    I don’t think there were any. Can you point to one? The criticism I saw was that your satire trolling was a fail since it contained too much straw.

      • strange gods before me ॐ says

        Ah, thanks, I see you’re right about that. Scented Nectar did believe he was serious. That is amusing.

        Still she is just one person, and his current post does not seem to be addressing “one moron” who believed he was serious. So I think this post is addressing a significantly larger set — and therefore Kagin is still missing the mark.

  4. didgen says

    I didn’t think people took it at face value, I certainly didn’t, my reason for complaint was that it simply didn’t make much sense.

  5. didgen says

    Good satire does not need to be explained, and now this post kind of hits a “y’all are just to stupid to appreciate me” note.

  6. julian says

    I’d call this a win.

    Your post was crap. Your follow up was crap. Your defenders were almost universally shits.

    One less fuckbag creating a forum to take random digs at feminists.

    Yeah, definitely a win.

    And Jesus Christ. No one thought you were serious, you deluded fuck. No one read that and thought you wanted all men castrated.

    Whatever. You’ll write whatever kind of history you like.

    • strange gods before me ॐ says

      julian,

      You already said below that you were going too far, so thanks for that. I just want to address the substance here.

      Your defenders were almost universally shits.

      I think a lot of the people who are Kagin’s personal friends, and others who have been his readers for a long time, are not among the group of misogynists who showed up opportunistically.

      For instance, Roberta, who seemed surprised that people understood Kagin to be maliciously trolling, nevertheless didn’t react like the misogynists do. And a bit of googling shows that Roberta has been commenting here for months on various topics. The same can be said of JanaTheVeganPiranha. So there’s two examples of his regular readers.

      I don’t believe that all the misogynists who showed up are representative of the regular readers here. (Even while I’m losing any excuse to think charitably about Kagin himself.)

  7. says

    Presumably you started blogging cause you thought there was some aspect of something that you thought you could positively contribute to. I don’t know that there’s really a victim thing here. On blogs people share their thoughts, ideas, opinions, links, jokes etc and people comment on them. Your joke didn’t go over very well for what ever reason and many people said as much in the comments. If you want to understand why you can ask people or you could move on to other things or try making some argument in a different way. If you don’t like comments you can always turn them off or moderate them. If you don’t think this is worth your time only you can decide that.

  8. Brownian says

    I tried to resist, but…

    To Blog or Not to Blog

    Wow. No one’s ever thought to turn Shakespeare’s most iconic phrase like that. Groundbreaking.

    Have you ever thought of doing stand-up, Eddie? I bet you’d have great insights on the differences between how black guys and white guys drive, not to mention the deal with airline food.

    Just choose your venues carefully: you wouldn’t want to waste your A material on morons with limited vocabularies. Best stick to the university circuit if you’re going to pull literary allusions like “To Blog or Not to Blog”. You’ll want an audience full of English majors for sure.

    But kidding aside, don’t stop blogging. You’re fucking hilarious.

  9. julian says

    So I thought my comment was over the line so I went back and read the comments to that stupid post again. I’d bailed before the real bullshit came in and didn’t see how far your commentors took their disdain of feminists like McCreight and Greta.

    Yeah, fuck you.

    • julian says

      Right so, deep breadth.

      I’m going to apologize for dragging in drama Kagin wasn’t involved in and trying to hold him (knowing he rarely, if ever, reads blogs) accountable for things his commentors were dong.

      My last two comments were uncalled for and should not have been so personal.

  10. Hunt says

    The very fact that Kagin is still on FtB Leads me to believe that this is really just an arena of battling beards. Thunderfoot had a pretty measly beard. He really had no chance at all. But if you add PZ’s beard to Ed Brayton’s beard, it still doesn’t match Kagin’s beard. Case closed?

  11. C says

    “If you have to explain that something is a joke, then it probably wasn’t funny. ”

    I think that Romney has been accused of having this problem too.

    I don’t believe that the above adage is always true. I think that oftentimes it is the receiver of the joke who in fact doesn’t have the intelligence or the maturity to understand it.

    Admittedly, not all humor is appreciated by every person.

    I have noticed as I continue to learn, understand and grow that the world is generally a funnier place. I also know that I don’t take things so personally. See, that is what is apparently the problem over in the Middle east right now. Someone makes a horribly done movie (that could conceivably be called comedic) about the Prophet Muhammad and what happens? People Riot, people die. WHY? Because someone “offended” someone one’s “prophet”? Come on!. It shows honestly that the people that CHOSE to riot have NO control over themselves!. They are not mature enough to just say “What a horrible movie” and realize that what is being said in that movie really doesn’t say crap about their religion or their lives!. It wasn’t really honestly harming them physically or even taking away any of their rights!. They were merely expressing their right to say whatever they wanted.

    I hear a lot of stuff that could possibly “offend” me but I have a choice in how much ENERGY I want to put into the entire thing. I look and wonder if what is being said is a call to change some law, or influence or change something and I have a choice to use my intellect to argue back.

    When a RELIGION makes “Blasphemy” laws Atheists get all up in anger saying how horrible it all is and that is the reason why RELIGION is so bad. Yet, why are some so called “Atheists” trying to squelch the speech of a fellow Atheist ? Why is this blog called BAUBLES OF BLASPHEMY ????

    Seriously, if you don’t get the title of this blog then maybe you need to just go somewhere else where you would be happier. Sure, debate and argue but if the humor isn’t too your liking then maybe it is you and not the person telling the joke?

    I personally find Monty Python and Bill Hicks frelling hysterical but find Benny Hill gross and the 3 Stooges stupid. To each his own.

    Peace out!

    • strange gods before me ॐ says

      I don’t believe that the above adage is always true. I think that oftentimes it is the receiver of the joke who in fact doesn’t have the intelligence or the maturity to understand it.

      That’s true sometimes, but the actual criticism on previous posts here indicates it is not true in this case. No one has yet cited a commenter who evidently did not understand Kagin’s satire trolling.

      See, that is what is apparently the problem over in the Middle east right now. Someone makes a horribly done movie

      Wrong.

      I hear a lot of stuff that could possibly “offend” me but I have a choice in how much ENERGY I want to put into the entire thing.

      And other people have different priorities than you do, and that is okay.

      When a RELIGION makes “Blasphemy” laws Atheists get all up in anger saying how horrible it all is and that is the reason why RELIGION is so bad.

      Blasphemy, by the way, has a particular meaning, and it isn’t “things that offend some people.” Blasphemy is a purported offense against supernatural agents. And that is why people say it’s victimless — because the alleged victims do not exist.

      Yet, why are some so called “Atheists” trying to squelch the speech of a fellow Atheist ?

      Wrong. Criticism is not “squelching speech”.

      Seriously, if you don’t get the title of this blog

      Nobody doesn’t get the title of the blog. You are making unevidenced claims. Please cite your claims, use quotes and links, demonstrate that you understand the meaning of words.

      Sure, debate and argue but if the humor isn’t too your liking then maybe it is you and not the person telling the joke?

      Maybe. And maybe it is the person trolling. There are numerous explanations already, on the previous posts, of the problems with Kagin’s trolling. You only demonstrate your ignorance by failing to acknowledge the actual critiques.

      I personally find Monty Python and Bill Hicks frelling hysterical but find Benny Hill gross and the 3 Stooges stupid.

      Hey, cool, I agree with this exactly.

      Note that Hicks criticized other comedians — Leno and Leary for instance — he didn’t go along to get along with a vapid “to each his own.”

    • strange gods before me ॐ says

      Two links trigger moderation?

      See, that is what is apparently the problem over in the Middle east right now. Someone makes a horribly done movie

      Wrong.

    • strange gods before me ॐ says

      I don’t believe that the above adage is always true. I think that oftentimes it is the receiver of the joke who in fact doesn’t have the intelligence or the maturity to understand it.

      That’s true sometimes, but the actual criticism on previous posts here indicates it is not true in this case. No one has yet cited a commenter who evidently did not understand Kagin’s satire trolling.

      I hear a lot of stuff that could possibly “offend” me but I have a choice in how much ENERGY I want to put into the entire thing.

      And other people have different priorities than you do, and that is okay.

      When a RELIGION makes “Blasphemy” laws Atheists get all up in anger saying how horrible it all is and that is the reason why RELIGION is so bad.

      Blasphemy, by the way, has a particular meaning, and it isn’t “things that offend some people.” Blasphemy is a purported offense against supernatural agents. And that is why people say it’s victimless — because the alleged victims do not exist.

      Yet, why are some so called “Atheists” trying to squelch the speech of a fellow Atheist ?

      Wrong. Criticism is not “squelching speech”.

      Seriously, if you don’t get the title of this blog

      Nobody doesn’t get the title of the blog. You are making unevidenced claims. Please cite your claims, use quotes and links, demonstrate that you understand the meaning of words.

      Sure, debate and argue but if the humor isn’t too your liking then maybe it is you and not the person telling the joke?

      Maybe. And maybe it is the person trolling. There are numerous explanations already, on the previous posts, of the problems with Kagin’s trolling. You only demonstrate your ignorance by failing to acknowledge the actual critiques.

      I personally find Monty Python and Bill Hicks frelling hysterical but find Benny Hill gross and the 3 Stooges stupid.

      Hey, cool, I agree with this exactly.

      Note that Hicks criticized other comedians — Leno and Leary for instance — he didn’t go along to get along with a vapid “to each his own.”

      • C says

        Typically a “Troll” is someone who hangs out on a chat board or comment board and stirs shit up…. not generally the actual original blogger.

        Most folks who know Edwin personally have a richer understanding of him. He may poke and provoke, but he isn’t a “troll”.

        • strange gods before me ॐ says

          Typically a “Troll” is someone who hangs out on a chat board or comment board and stirs shit up…. not generally the actual original blogger.

          Typically. Yet there is the possibility of trolling one’s own blog, trolling the blog network one is on, trolling the wider community, and so on.

          Most folks who know Edwin personally have a richer understanding of him.

          I have no doubt this is true. And while I don’t know him personally, I recognize he can do other things — I would love to see him get out of the rut he’s been in for these last seven posts.

          He may poke and provoke, but he isn’t a “troll”.

          Is everyone who trolls even a little bit “a troll”? I dunno, I think it’s the sorites paradox. In any case, he was trolling — his provocations were made of 100% straw, and his post hoc rationalizations were sad at best.

      • Aratina Cage says

        Blasphemy, by the way, has a particular meaning, and it isn’t “things that offend some people.” Blasphemy is a purported offense against supernatural agents. And that is why people say it’s victimless — because the alleged victims do not exist. –strange gods before me

        That is something that has had to be repeatedly explained here (see the blog title) from day one. Apparently, blasphemy here, on this blog, means antagonistic free speech and has little if nothing to do with talking shit about the supernatural.

        • strange gods before me ॐ says

          Interesting. It just so happens that I define God to be a brontosaurus.

          But then I’m sure C will understand why the arguments about how we should support blasphemy per se aren’t relevant here, since those arguments are specific to gods.

          (And I don’t see Kagin blaspheming against brontosauruses.)

  12. embertine says

    Please tell me this is not going to end up as another John Loftus, “Why do I bother casting my priceless pearls before you ill-educated swine, not that I care because you are all so beneath me, EPIC FLOUNCE” situation again.

  13. PG says

    Oh for fuck sake, hahahaha!

    You people are so bloody pathetic, it’s amazing. The reason you didn’t find it amusing, or funny, is because you fell for it, you gullible fools, so why don’t you just admit that you did and leave it at that? You have to stoop to this level? Really? This is incredible. Just stop it. It’s only funny watching you moan and cry like children up to a point, but after a while it’s just pitiful.

    julian, michaeld, Aratina Cage, just … you guys. Oh man. You make me laugh, you do, you really do. But stop it. Stop making assumptions about people, it only makes you look immature, stop saying “fuck you” everywhere like emotional teenagers. You really should stop. If you really have to, hop on back to Pharyngula, Lousy Canuck or any other of those echochamber blogs you attend. That should cheer you up.

    As to Edwin, keep on keeping on! On the most thoughtful of blogs, indeed.

    • Brownian says

      So, just to be clear, you (and presumably Edwin) actually believe that people thought that Edwin Kagin was seriously advocating the elimination of males?

      People didn’t find it funny because they thought he was seriously advocating that?

      If that were actually the case, then wouldn’t people have been defending the existence of males, rather than criticising Edwin for trolling?

    • Aratina Cage says

      julian, michaeld, Aratina Cage, just … you guys. Oh man. You make me laugh, you do, you really do. But stop it. Stop making assumptions about people, it only makes you look immature, stop saying “fuck you” everywhere like emotional teenagers.

      Real mature there, PG, to lump me in with julian who obviously needs to take quite a few steps back and realize that he is talking about a human who will be unnecessarily hurt by what he wrote. Same goes for michaeld who did not say anything like that. But go ahead, give yourself a big pat on the back in front of all of us. We don’t mind. It’s telling.

  14. PG says

    Wrong. Criticism is not “squelching speech”.

    Maybe not, but making assumptions about someone else’s intentions isn’t really a criticism. That’s just lying about your recipient. Perhaps if you weren’t so intellectually dishonest, strange gods before me, you wouldn’t make such stupid arguments. Making out all the proponents here to be misogynist, too, with no evidence, misusing the word for the umpteenth time on this here Freethought Blog, really speaks volumes of your character as well. Oh, and here’s a bright shining star in the voice for (radical) feminism:

    One less fuckbag creating a forum to take random digs at feminists.

    Yeah, definitely a win.

    And Jesus Christ. No one thought you were serious, you deluded fuck. No one read that and thought you wanted all men castrated.

    Seems julian has been taking lessons in the Josh the Spokesgay school of hard knox. I’m surprised with the willingness to exclude crude behaviour that julian, Josh and skeptifem (men are world ruining politicians and violent criminals skeptifem) are allowed in the clique. I wonder if that has anything to do with how much they’re really willing to toe (toe, yes, tow was a typo) the party line.

    • Brownian says

      I wonder if that has anything to do with how much they’re really willing to toe (toe, yes, tow was a typo) the party line.

      ‘Echo chamber’. ‘Toe the party line.’

      Those are pretty clever.

      Did you think them up yourself?

    • Brownian says

      Maybe not, but making assumptions about someone else’s intentions isn’t really a criticism. That’s just lying about your recipient.

      No, that’s having a Theory of Mind.

      And you do it yourself in comment 17: Of course he’s not a fucking misogynist.

    • Brownian says

      Maybe not, but making assumptions about someone else’s intentions isn’t really a criticism. That’s just lying about your recipient.

      Ah, but claiming one is lying, rather than mistaken, is an assumption about intent. And your very next sentence reads:

      Perhaps if you weren’t so intellectually dishonest, strange gods before me

      If you’re going to fap all over the place, PG, use a sock. You’re getting it all over your own face, for fuck’s sake.

      • PG says

        Ah, mistaken. Is that the proper substitute? I wish Kagin’s detractors had been so curt to believe they could be mistaken. Except it was building up strawmen after strawmen claiming he marginalised the abuse of women. Some mistake. I said “strange gods before me” was intellectually dishonest because he denoted what happened to Kagin was mere “criticism.” Nope. One has to only check out the first few comments to figure out if that’s true or not, and it’s not.

        Ah, yes, theory of mind. The pseudoscience turned true science that has no method to be observed, in the same way determinism in whether we have free will or not is incapable of being observed. But please do go on and use it as a clutch to project idiocy onto unsuspecting subjects.

        As for who’s a misogynist, fair enough. Retracted.

        • Brownian says

          I said “strange gods before me” was intellectually dishonest because he denoted what happened to Kagin was mere “criticism.” Nope. One has to only check out the first few comments to figure out if that’s true or not, and it’s not.

          So, that’s what you’re going with?

          Ah, yes, theory of mind. The pseudoscience turned true science that has no method to be observed, in the same way determinism in whether we have free will or not is incapable of being observed. But please do go on and use it as a clutch to project idiocy onto unsuspecting subjects.

          You really are a fucking twit.

          Nonetheless, you stupid fuck, adult human beings are certainly capable of making assumptions about intent, and you clearly did so in the sentence immediately after decrying it as lying.

          And now you’re walking away from it.

    • Aratina Cage says

      Perhaps if you weren’t so intellectually dishonest, strange gods before me, you wouldn’t make such stupid arguments.

      Oh yeah! Hear that, strange gods? You are the one being intellectually dishonest. PG said so.

  15. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I hope the reader will recall that I believe the group of vocal misogynists who showed up are not representative of Kagin’s regular readers and commenters.

    I mentioned two obviously well-meaning defenders of Kagin already — and I recall that there were others, though I didn’t feel digging through the comments again to list them all — I’ll add that I believe C in this thread is well-meaning and not a misogynist.

    If you read my comments and think to yourself, “he wasn’t talking about me, was he?” then I assure you, I wasn’t talking about you. The many misogynistic comments, should you wish to read them, are over there on the Should Males Be Eliminated from the Human Genome? post that Kagin mentions. You’ll see there’s no ambiguity about who I’m talking about; they are blatant.

  16. Brownian says

    If you really have to, hop on back to Pharyngula, Lousy Canuck or any other of those echochamber blogs you attend.

    Wouldn’t that just leave you, alone, clapping away, and this an echo chamber?

  17. PG says

    @strange gods before me

    Of course he’s not a fucking misogynist. I would have thought you could have discerned that yourself as you seem to know without a doubt who is or isn’t. Blatant, as you say. Maybe you’re not as good a judge of character as you think you are. Most commenters on the other Kagin post were not misogynist either, but plenty of them were keen building up ridiculous strawmen, jump to conclusions and generally denigrate the author due to a previous blog post criticising Atheism Plus.

    Then again I shouldn’t be surprised at the general attitude of overreacting at this place: when Jen McCreight made a survey and PZ Myers advertised it on his blog, it apparently screwed up her data and Jen accused PZ of deliberately fucking it up. It wasn’t true, of course, but the sycophantic viewers were still quick to pick sides. Anyway, non-sequitur.

    You’re guilty of this kind of attitude yourself. Losing excuses for finding Kagin charitable? -shakes head-

    The truth is Kagin has said or done nothing to deserve this kind of treatment. Still people like julian and Josh the Spokesgay are quick to judge and project their thoughts onto Kagin in a foul-mouthed stupor, who must have the patience of a saint – that shit would have gone straight to moderation on the echochamber over at B&W, Greta Christina’s, Lousy Canuck or Pharyngula. (What does that tell you about them?)

    • Brownian says

      Then again I shouldn’t be surprised at the general attitude of overreacting at this place: when Jen McCreight made a survey and PZ Myers advertised it on his blog, it apparently screwed up her data and Jen accused PZ of deliberately fucking it up. It wasn’t true, of course, but the sycophantic viewers were still quick to pick sides. Anyway, non-sequitur.

      Do you, by any chance, remember my response to that fiasco?

      • Brownian says

        So, your answer to:

        “Do you, by any chance, remember my response to that fiasco?” is to elide the whole issue.

        But yes, there were some pretty strong reactions on both sides.

        Some mighty contentious disagreement for an echo chamber.

        • PG says

          You’re joking, right?

          On Jen’s blog, people were supporting Jen, and on PZ’s blog people supported PZ. They said PZ fucked up on Jen’s blog, on PZ’s blog they said Jen were overreacting. This is what happened. Haha. You really are removed from reality, Brownian. It was reactionary. It was idiotic. But more importantly, it was idiosyncratic.

          If you haven’t seen that FTBers have had a history of overreacting, building up ridiculous strawmen and jumping to conclusions to serve their narrative you’ve missed the vast jungle for the trees. However, I understand. It’s not clever to upset the apple cart.

  18. PG says

    @Brownian

    Oh, I’m sorry. It’s called an echochamber because only the same things are allowed to be said. However, I haven’t seen Kagin moderate anyone’s comments on here. Means it doesn’t apply. My bad. I didn’t think I would have to explain these things.

    • Brownian says

      Oh, I’m sorry. It’s called an echochamber because only the same things are allowed to be said. However, I haven’t seen Kagin moderate anyone’s comments on here. Means it doesn’t apply. My bad. I didn’t think I would have to explain these things.

      I didn’t actually think that you were that simplistic a creature.

      So, what do you make of Edwin’s comment here:

      And the most thoughtful of blogs, I have learned, can be trashed by morons who do not seem to even understand that which they are attempting to condemn. These commenters, with their limited vocabularies. who haunt blogs they do not appear to even vaguely comprehend can be unconsciously funny.

      Because that’s exactly why bloggers moderate.

      • PG says

        Let me get this straight: Kagin’s versus echochambers where comments of dissent are moderated because it disturbs the status quo (and incidentally the lovely echo effect). I argue that you hop on back to places like Pharyngula where you won’t find comments you disagree with that makes you uncomfortable, and you argue that because Kagin said the ‘most thoughtful of blogs’ (this) can be trashed by morons (you) is exactly why bloggers moderate?

        In other words, you wish for Kagin to remove dissenting comments to create an echochamber?

        I guess that’s one way to ensure morons won’t trash the ‘most thoughtful of blogs’, but here’s an idea: instead of creating yet another place where dissenting opinions are not tolerated a la Pharyngula (what was that he said about NatGeo and censorship?), how about not being morons trashing the most thoughtful of blogs? How about not condemning that which you do not seem to comprehend? How about that, Brownian?

        • Brownian says

          I’ve left a few responses to some of your other comments.

          Talk to me about comprehension when you’ve addressed them.

          But let’s just say I’m interested in keeping you honest, despite your best efforts.

          If it makes you uncomfortable while you’d rather sit here fapping in Edwin’s room because you both dislike other FtBers, well, I don’t really care.

          • Brownian says

            Haha. That’s one way to dodge the question.

            Christ, but you’re a stupid fuck.

            In other words, you wish for Kagin to remove dissenting comments to create an echochamber?

            No.

            Now go deal with your other shit, you lying little puke.

  19. PG says

    Oh. I guess this quote here doesn’t mean anything then.

    Brownian wrote:

    Because that’s exactly why bloggers moderate.

    In the context of our conversation of echochambers, that Kagin isn’t one and PZ Myers’ is, and you said that in response, I’m really not sure what relevance it has.

    • Brownian says

      I know that you’re dense, but this is ridiculous.

      And the most thoughtful of blogs, I have learned, can be trashed by morons who do not seem to even understand that which they are attempting to condemn. These commenters, with their limited vocabularies. who haunt blogs they do not appear to even vaguely comprehend can be unconsciously funny.

      Because that’s exactly why bloggers moderate.

      Do you know the difference between a descriptive claim and a prescriptive one?

      • PG says

        Yes, and what has the longstanding tradition of moderation have to do with our conversation about echochambers? I said Kagin’s blog wasn’t an echochamber and you quoted his comment about the blog being trashed by morons, and then said, “that is exactly why bloggers moderate.” Remember, in the context of echochambers. You can call me dense all you like, but it won’t do you any good if you don’t make sense.

        • Brownian says

          Yes, and what has the longstanding tradition of moderation have to do with our conversation about echochambers?

          Because, as even you note, the longstanding tradition of moderation is something that many bloggers do to prevent their ” most thoughtful of blogs, [from] being trashed by morons who do not seem to even understand that which they are attempting to condemn.

          I’m not presuming to tell Kagin how to prevent this from happening to his posts. He may choose to stop blogging. He may moderate his threads. Or he may just learn to live with it.

          As you asked, “how about not being morons trashing the most thoughtful of blogs”, well, if people did that then no one would need to moderate. That’s exactly why other bloggers do it.

          Continue to crying “echo chamber” as if it’s some useful metric, but really, it’s just a simplistic, facile and juvenile claim.

          • PG says

            Again, Kagin made the observation that morons trashed his blog for something they apparently did not even understand. He does not moderate his blog. I said I thought it was a good thing that he didn’t so it wouldn’t turn into an echochamber a la Pharyngula. You allude to the fact morons trashed his blog and implied this is exactly why bloggers moderate. You do not presume to tell Kagin how to prevent this from happening. However, Brownian, may I remind you that you were part of the morons that trashed his blog? Isn’t it almost parodial that you should suggest more moderation on a blog that isn’t heavily moderated, because morons trashed his blog that you were involved with, thus making it necessary to heavily moderate? Is this some meta shit you’re trying out?

          • Brownian says

            Isn’t it almost parodial that you should suggest more moderation on a blog that isn’t heavily moderated

            No, because I did not do that.

          • Brownian says

            And really, can we stop with the ‘trashed his blog’ bullshit?

            It’s hyperbolic whining. This guy wants to ‘blaspheme’? He’s going to deal with a lot worse than pissed of FtB commenters. I certainly hope every second post isn’t going to be him crying into his beer, for fuck’s sake.

  20. Concentratedwater, OM says

    Oh dear. You need to learn one simple lesson: posting about feminism on FreeFromThoughtBlogs, unless it is from a radfem perspective, WILL lead to your electrons being hung, drawn and quartered by such massive intellects as The Fat Canadian (Ian Brown, AKA – get this! – Brownian).

    About a year ago, PZ Meyers gave up on biology/atheism, and decided to dedicate his efforts to pleasing 30 or so regular commenters on his blog. They demanded a radfem-frindly environment, and he collapsed. Completely, utterly caved in and began feeding them their preferred brand of fishflakes. And the effects are clear: where a year ago a contentious post would have hundreds of comments from random people who had happened upon his blog. These days, such a post will get 50-200 comments, from about 6 regulars and a handful of randoms.

    Sad, in a way.

  21. PG says

    Brownian wrote:

    It’s hyperbolic whining. This guy wants to ‘blaspheme’? He’s going to deal with a lot worse than pissed of FtB commenters. I certainly hope every second post isn’t going to be him crying into his beer, for fuck’s sake.

    Holy shit. I don’t think even you realise what you just did. All I know is, it’s priceless. Brilliant.

    • Brownian says

      Jesus Christ, hold it together you spazzy little shit. It was an honest error. Fuck me, talk about grasping at fucking straws. Take a goddamn Ritalin, you freak.

      I apologise for my poor choice of words, Edwin. It was unintentional, and I would be remiss if it didn’t thank your yappy Jack Russell terrier here for bringing it to my attention.

      Again, I apologise.

    • Brownian says

      And as for you, PG: you acknowledged that I most likely didn’t know the implication of what I’d written, that it might have hurt Edwin, and you still clapped your hands in glee at the thought because it was a cheap point score for you.

      All I know is, it’s priceless. Brilliant.

      What the hell is wrong with you, you sick fuck?

      I’m done with you.

      • PG says

        @Brownian

        Clean in front of your own porch before shitting in front of mine, will you? Jesus. Who needs the Ritalin here?

        It’s priceless because you accused him of “hyperbolic whining.” Yes, because let’s not forget Amy Roth and her crying (among other things) over a t-shirt at a convention which she felt was a “dehumanising experience.” Or Jen “I get hundreds of very specific hateful insults on every blog post I make” McCreight, or Rebecca “Richard Dawkins does not care for my experience as an atheist” Watson.

        Yet it was “hyperbolic whining” you slagged him off for. Brilliant.

        Then this part here:

        I certainly hope every second post isn’t going to be him crying into his beer, for fuck’s sake.

        Wow.

  22. insipidmoniker says

    So, in short, you wrote a satirical post, were criticized for the satire being inaccurate, wrote off the criticism by claiming that it was a “literary Rorschach test” to see what the reactions would be, which is indistinguishable from the common definition of trolling, were called a troll and are now complaining that people failed to understand your post by insulting their vocabulary and intelligence? This is a pattern I’m not unfamiliar with, I just associate it more with Facebook than with FtB.

  23. C says

    As I scan through the comments on this blog I am really amazed that so many feel they must use the word FUCK in their argument to somehow get a point across?

    Word to the wise, it actually DETRACTS from what you are trying to say and makes you look honestly like an ass.

    I read far to many comments on various sites anymore where the entire comment/debate boils down to “fuck you!” “no, Fuck YOU” types of interactions.

    These are called AD HOMINUM Attacks and when thoughtful people read them they totally dismiss whatever you were trying to say because you sound like young teenagers on a playground.

    If you disagree with someone, or if they insult you in some manner or whatever, replying with “fuck you” or calling someone else an “ass” really doesn’t contribute to the attempted grown up conversation and devolves the entire conversation down to a 3rd grade level.

    It’s a real turn off.

    But whatever.. proceed

    • Aratina Cage says

      To counter the idea that emphatic usage of the word fuck makes one sound like a young teenager on a playground, one need only look at how successful Samuel L. Jackson has been in employing it.

      Richard Dawkins once wrote much the same as you, and yet, like Jackson, Dawkins has used the word fuck himself to good effect–so successfully that there is a popular clip of him saying it on YouTube.

      • C says

        Samuel L Jackson’ use of the word FUCK is very different than engaging in a debate with someone and telling them to “fuck off” or “Fuck you”.

        If you can’t tell THAT difference then I just don’t know.

        Most folks are NOT Samuel L Jackson or George Carlin, or Bill Hicks.

        I am not opposed the the word, but HOW and in manner it is used.

        Go to You Tube sometime and see what I mean. People just devolve the conversation down to personal insults..

        it is truly stupid and isn’t remotely funny. They just look like idiotS!

        • Aratina Cage says

          Samuel L Jackson’ use of the word FUCK is very different than engaging in a debate with someone and telling them to “fuck off” or “Fuck you”.

          But that’s exactly what Richard Dawkins did! And Samuel Jackson? Just watch his latest Internet video sensation.

          If you can’t tell THAT difference then I just don’t know.

          What difference?

          • PG says

            Haha. This is hilarious. Your many complaints about derailing threads and then you do this. It beggars belief.

  24. Aratina Cage says

    PG wrote:

    Haha. This is hilarious. Your many complaints about derailing threads and then you do this. It beggars belief.

    Who are you replying to? C or me?

    If me, then what are you talking about? What complaints about derailing threads? I’m beginning to think you have me confused with someone else, PG.

Leave a Reply