On that quote purported to be by The Amazing Atheist


Yeah, it might really be a quote by TJ Kincaid, given some corroborative evidence, but the exact wording of the quote cannot be found anywhere else on the internet presently. Better to damn him by what we can demonstrate he really said, and we can demonstrate he said something very close in 2006.

However, no, you probably shouldn’t damn him for holding a terrible opinion in 2006 that he’s since walked back. Not that there isn’t lots else to damn him about.

Since he’s an antifeminist and has expressed a number of backward views on topics like consent, I’m going to go ahead and treat this as a good place to put a fold and trigger-warning you all.

So, over on Pharyngula — you know, that blog over there? The one that everyone seems to think is the entirety of FtB for some reason? — PZ Myers posted an evisceration of an argument made by someone that the age of consent should be lowered to 11 or 12, the age of onset of puberty. PZ originally attributed it to Terroja Lee Kincaid, the self-styled Amazing Atheist. Since the quote was passed to him with minimal attribution, PZ didn’t do enough to vet that quote, and has since walked back the attribution.

Said Amazing Atheist is extraordinarily popular, and extraordinarily assholish. He’s done a ton of stuff that you could fairly say should exclude him from any polite company. Quotes like this are common enough from him:

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

So it’s not hard to imagine he’d say something like this:

Nature already has an age of consent. That age is approximately 12-13, otherwise known as the onset of puberty. We don’t need Christian morals to set an arbitrary age on when a sexually mature human female can mate legally. We already have clear parameters on sexually maturity as established by the law of evolution, and acting within those parameters does not under any reasonable definition constitute “rape”. Moreover, because this irrational moral imperialism is almostly solely applied against males who pursue relationships with younger females, I do believe the change of age-of-consent laws should be a critical area of focus for Men’s Rights Activists.

Tigtog at Hoyden About Town posted about this, attributing it to Kincaid (though Tigtog since walked it back as well).

So at this point, there’s not a lot of evidence as to who actually said what was in the quote, and the primaries referencing it both recanted.

However, RationalWiki has had documentation of some quotes of TJ’s for quite a while that express similar sentiments. For instance, prior to his becoming internet-famous, he posted on a Marilyn Manson forum the following on 08-14-2006:

Quote:

Originally posted by Komaschwarz
They can, period. There is no gene present within the human body that forces a human to actively molest children. Anyone who has the mental faculties to understand the law should be held accountable for their actions. It is the foundation of the law.

You don’t have to agree with the law. But if you are willing to break it, at least have the strength to accept your punishment, and not hide behind excuses and rationalization for your behavior.

Sexual predisposition does not justify molesting someone. Ever.

I agree with all that. Having pedophilic attractions doesn’t mean you automatically go out and start molesting kids. From the time I was 14 to the time I was about 19, I used to have extreme pedophilic fantasies, and I somehow managed to never even come close to acting on them. I think with my brain, not my penis.

I do think, however, the pedophilia is unfairly persecuted in today’s society.

I think the difference in punishment between child rapists and child molestors should be more significant, with molestors perhaps simply attending mandatory therapy for their first offense. I also think that the age of sexual consent should be lowered to 12 or 13.

My stance is not designed to be controversial or to offend anyone. I only want human beings to understand that the law must work within the parameters of human nature, not in defiance of it.

First, that post was made under the name Terroja, which he used consistently prior to becoming internet-famous. Second, on his more recent Tumblr, someone had asked him what the deal was about these “rumors”, and he all but confirmed he had actually said this:

Somebody said that you think that age of consent should be 13 and tau you were in a intimate relationship with a 14 year old when you were 23
Asked by Anonymous

Wow. The rumor mill just keeps on churning.

The age of consent thing is based on a post I made on an internet forum when I was like 20. And it was actually a pretty popular sentiment on the boards at that time. Hell, it was a popular sentiment on the internet in general at that time. It was also, I’m sad to say, an opinion that my father held.

After experiencing another decade on planet earth, I realize how horribly misguided that opinion was and is. I think that maybe it’s not so horrible for kids that age to begin sexual exploration with one another, but it’s definitely wrong for an adult to engage is sex with someone that young and inexperienced.

As for this nonsense about me dating a 14-year-old when I was 23, I was actually mocking a friend of mine who was over 30 and was macking on some 16-year-old girl. The sad fact is that when I was 23, I was single and pussyless. And I was too timid and frightened to even approach a girl sexually, let alone one who could wind me up in prison.

The verity of that last paragraph is questionable, though, leaving aside the timbre of the phrase “single and pussyless”. He was in chat on a broadcast by fakesagan in 2011 (time-indexed link to when he made the comments visible in the stream), after he became internet-famous. It’s doubtful fakesagan, another internet-famous atheist vlogger who runs in the same circles as TJ, would have allowed him to say this in TJ’s name if he wasn’t actually TJ.

A screengrab of that moment:

tj-youtube-comment

theamazingatheist: When I was 16 I dated a 32 year old. Then, as a 23-year-old I dated a 14-year-old briefly. So that’s about it.

He did, in his defense, say that he didn’t approach a girl “sexually”, leaving open the possibility of platonic, chaste relationships when he claimed to have been dating that 14 year old. But it seems the more recent Tumblr, which definitely belongs to Kincaid, is not telling the whole truth in his claims to have been mocking someone else, rather than opening up about himself.

While the specific quote attributed to him by PZ and others may not actually have been said specifically by Kincaid, he’s expressed a very similar statement in the past. He’s also walked back that statement as being a product of the environment he was in and that his father inculcated in him. It’s not particularly fair to damn him for what he no longer believes, nor is it fair to take something you can’t prove he said more recently and damn him for that.

In fact, it seems likely that Kincaid was thinking of that original Manson forum post when answering the question on Tumblr while the questioner was thinking of the post that hit Tigtog’s and PZ’s blogs, and it seems very likely someone is passing around a post either written by an MRA as having been written by Kincaid, or synthesized something from Kincaid’s older post, in order to write something to damn him with. That is not cool. That’s not good behaviour, it’s not intellectually honest, and it ignores that Kincaid no longer believes that.

But ripping apart and fisking the quote itself, as representative of what some fraction of society actually thinks? Go for it. Kincaid himself confirmed that it’s a common enough sentiment, and it’s certainly a morally reprehensible (and scientifically questionable) one that deserves confronting.

Comments

  1. says

    I’d appreciate a note in your post that I’ve added updates to my original post clarifying that I too have walked back the attribution, because otherwise I’m probably about to get a swarm of drive-bys again.

  2. says

    Thanks Jason. The thread’s moved on to discussing the physical risks of pregnancy for teens now, as part of the fractal wrongness involved in the quote from whoever did write it, so there’s probably little for the swarm to focus on since I’ve done the updates, but I prefer when they’re less motivated to click through anyway.

  3. says

    To whomever the quote may be attributed, I find it difficult to “damn” people for misguided opinions on age of consent laws. The reasoning in the quote is bad. But there are plenty of people on the opposite end of the topic who think the age of consent should be raised into the 20s, based on equally bad reasoning. On the one hand, the laws exist to protect the young from exploitation. On the other hand, we have to consider unjust side effects of badly formed consent laws; will people be unfairly incarcerated when they do not actually pose a demonstrable and continuing threat to others? Will those same people be publicly branded with a label that restricts their opportunities and exposes them to vigilante retribution? Our current laws manage to allow exploitation, unjust incarceration and vigilantism all at the same time.

  4. Vicki says

    cjwinstead @4: Some of that is handled by existing laws that explicitly take into account the difference between the ages of the older and younger person: for example, it might be legal for a 15-year-old to have sex with another 15-year-old, without it being legal for a 25-year-old to have sex with either of them.

    It’s also very hard to demonstrate that most people who are in jail pose a demonstrable and continuing threat to others. Is that specifically an issue with regard to child molestation, rather than burglary or murder? (I saw an argument once, I think in a mystery novel, to the effect that a person who has killed a specific rich relative for the inheritance is extremely unlikely to reoffend, because they don’t have other rich relatives they could inherit from. That doesn’t, to my mind, justify treating that murder as trivial, while coming down hard on the shoplifter who could steal from any store in a large area: part of the point of outlawing something is to deter first offenses.

  5. says

    Vicky @5: “Some of that is handled by existing laws” — there are a diversity of laws that vary by state and country. All of them have their issues. My point is that people say a lot of stupid things about this issue on a regular basis. I don’t see the point in blaming people for poor thinking; even in the referenced Pharyngula post, Myers observes that the “age of consent” is an “arbitrary” social construct. I don’t think “arbitrary” is really the right word, since the laws exist for reasons; it would be more constructive to probe those reasons rather than just dogpile on people who say wrong things.

    “It’s also very hard to demonstrate that most people who are in jail pose a demonstrable and continuing threat to others.” I agree, and I think most people in jail or prison probably don’t need to be there. Incarceration is a complex topic, and you named a good example, but in general I think we (the USA) are an excessively punitive society, and I have a hard time reconciling this view with proposals to become more punitive through tougher laws.

  6. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I don’t see the point in blaming people for poor thinking;

    Why the hell not? How does someone’s thinking improve if nobody challenges them?

    even in the referenced Pharyngula post, Myers observes that the “age of consent” is an “arbitrary” social construct. I don’t think “arbitrary” is really the right word, since the laws exist for reasons;

    By “arbitrary”, PZ was referring to the particular age we set consent laws at, not saying that we have those laws for no reason. Indeed, the referenced post discusses the reasons we have those laws.

    it would be more constructive to probe those reasons rather than just dogpile on people who say wrong things.

    Who is dogpiling? There is a discussion going on about why this particular thing is wrong.

  7. says

    Seven of Mine:

    “How does someone’s thinking improve if nobody challenges them?”
    I’m not suggesting that he shouldn’t be challenged.

    “Who is dogpiling? There is a discussion going on about why this particular thing is wrong.”
    There is a sliver of constructive discussion happening in the Pharyngula thread, but I’m responding to *this* post, which is more about the person than the topic. The original quote’s authenticity is called into question, but Canuck wants to argue that we can still detest the Amazing Atheist anyway. According to Canuck, that’s the take-home message from the Pharyngula post. For the most part, the Pharyngula discussion is not constructive or sensible. Apart from some very basic points, the quality of reasoning is not particularly better than the original questionable quote, which provides a trivial straw man.

    I’m not defending any of the things that the Amazing Atheist has said; I’m saying that personal takedown posts (i.e. “look at that horrible thing the he/she/they said/did”) are of low value, and it would be better to pursue a constructive dissection of the topics in question with some meaningful depth.

  8. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    cjwinstead @ 8

    The original quote’s authenticity is called into question, but Canuck wants to argue that we can still detest the Amazing Atheist anyway.

    There is plenty to detest about TJ Kincaid and it’s quite easily attributable to him. He’s a reprehensible human being.

    Apart from some very basic points, the quality of reasoning is not particularly better than the original questionable quote, which provides a trivial straw man.

    Quality of reasoning? Like the kind of reasoning wherein you simply assert that someone’s reasoning is bad without even mentioning specifics of what they said, let alone discussing why you think their reasoning is less than perfect?

    I’m not defending any of the things that the Amazing Atheist has said; I’m saying that personal takedown posts (i.e. “look at that horrible thing the he/she/they said/did”) are of low value, and it would be better to pursue a constructive dissection of the topics in question with some meaningful depth.

    Why are they of low value, other than because you say so? How are you assessing value? According to what goals? What would constitute constructive dissection with meaningful depth to you?

    You want constructive and meaningful and all you’re doing is hand-waving and baldly asserting.

  9. says

    When I read this post, even having written it myself, I see a debunking a misattributed quote, while including the nuance that the person in question did, in fact, believe the things in the quote at one time, and providing all the historical information that explains why the misattribution is plausible. In addition, I see an effort to proclaim that whoever made up the quote and passed it off as being Kincaid, if he didn’t actually say that thing, is being intellectually dishonest and it does not behoove us or our community to make shit like that up. That’s what this post was for.

    If that reads as a hitpiece on Kincaid, maybe you should think about why his actual words — actual things he’s said and believed — are so damning, rather than ascribing a motivation to destroy a person that, within me, just isn’t there.

  10. says

    Jason, this is the second sentence of your post: “Better to damn him by what we can demonstrate he really said, and we can demonstrate he said something very close in 2006.”

    In the third sentence, you step back: “However, no, you probably shouldn’t damn him for holding a terrible opinion in 2006 that he’s since walked back.”

    In the fourth sentence, you marched forward again: “Not that there isn’t lots else to damn him about.”

    Most of the post is about this “Amazing Atheist” guy; whether he said some bad things, whether he recanted those things, whether he was framed for saying other bad things. My critique is that the dissection of individuals (whether the Amazing Atheist or the person who framed him) adds little to our understanding of a complex topic.

    Then in the end, you say: “But ripping apart and fisking the quote itself, as representative of what some fraction of society actually thinks? Go for it.”

    There’s your trivial straw person. Shooting at straw targets is a shallow pass time.

  11. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    My critique is that the dissection of individuals (whether the Amazing Atheist or the person who framed him) adds little to our understanding of a complex topic.

    Things which are apparently the same: critiques and bald assertions.

    There’s your trivial straw person. Shooting at straw targets is a shallow pass time.

    You don’t seem to even understand what a straw person is. To whom is Jason falsely imputing what position? That’s a statement of Jason’s own opinion about what it is appropriate to do with reference to this quote.

  12. says

    Seven of Mine @13: “Things which are apparently the same: critiques and bald assertions.”

    The critique is not a “bald assertion,” it is patently obvious that if you are talking about a person — all the bad things so-and-so said, or whether so-and-so maybe didn’t say them — then you are not actually discussing the topic of age of consent laws. There are a lot of things that could be discussed which might be at least informative and enlightening. I suggested some topical aspects in my original comment. I don’t see what purpose is served by digging into this individual instead of the topic raised by the evidently fictitious quote. If you want to engage me in a productive discussion, you could try enlightening me as to the useful purpose being served, instead of parroting debaty noises like “hand waving” and “bald assertion.”

    “You don’t seem to even understand what a straw person is. To whom is Jason falsely imputing what position?”

    Jason is imputing the position described in the quote to some unknown person or persons. The problem is that the quote describes an argument that is trivially refuted; maybe there are some people out there who believe this for more than ten seconds, but I doubt many of them will be seeing any refutations that appear here or on Pharyngula. It may be a fun activity for some, but I don’t think you make any contribution to human knowledge merely by finding an easy domino to knock down.

  13. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    The critique is not a “bald assertion,

    A critique is a detailed analysis of a claim, not single sentence, completely un-evidenced assertion (in this case that talking about TJ Kincaid’s character is not useful).

    If you want to engage me in a productive discussion, you could try enlightening me as to the useful purpose being served, instead of parroting debaty noises like “hand waving” and “bald assertion.”

    You are a piece of work, aren’t you? If you want to engage me in a productive discussion you might try avoiding accusing me of “parroting debaty noises.” It is handwaving to simply assert that someone’s reasoning is bad without even obliquely referencing what was said. It is a bald assertion to simply state that “X is not useful” without expounding upon why.

    Jason is imputing the position described in the quote to some unknown person or persons.

    I said “falsely”. Someone, somewhere holds that position as evidenced by the fact that there are actually adults who actually say they hold that position. TJ Kincaid is even quoted in this blog post talking about how it was a widely held opinion in the circles he ran with in his early 20s.

    The problem is that the quote describes an argument that is trivially refuted;

    Which says nothing whatsoever about whether anyone actually believes it. See also: religion.

    maybe there are some people out there who believe this for more than ten seconds, but I doubt many of them will be seeing any refutations that appear here or on Pharyngula.

    Pretty sure TJ Kincaid admitted to believing it for somewhat more than 10 seconds and also attested to knowing many other people who also believed it, presumably also for more than 10 seconds. As to how you could possibly predict how many of them would run across any particular refutation, we’ll just file that under the heading of “debaty noises”.

    It may be a fun activity for some, but I don’t think you make any contribution to human knowledge merely by finding an easy domino to knock down.

    So are we supposed to discuss age of consent or not? Is it an easy domino to knock down or is it a worthwhile conversation to have? Do you even know what point you’re trying to make anymore?

  14. says

    I presented empirical proof that people hold that identical position, cjwinstead. Kincaid confirmed it himself. Rebutting that position is absolutely fair game, even if the person we’re rebutting is “anonymous”, or at absolute worst, a composite of things others have expressed.

  15. says

    Okay folks, go ahead and pet yourselves on the back. I’m sure you know what you’ve accomplished with this little bundle of posts, even if I’m unable to perceive it.

  16. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I’m sure you know what you’ve accomplished with this little bundle of posts, even if I’m unable to perceive it.

    I’m pretty sure you meant this sarcastically but, yes, we are all, in fact, adults who are perfectly capable of making competent decisions about how we spend our time and effort, even if the almighty cjwinstead doesn’t see the point.

  17. says

    Seven of Mine— like most adults, you are probably wasting most of your time and effort. The point of my original comment was intended to be a mild and friendly criticism, and I suggested it might be informative to talk about the criminal justice aspects in addition to the biology; that it might be more interesting (for me, a reader) if the post showed some depth of research on the topic instead of research on a particular individual. If you want to take that as a statement of my personal preference, fine. If you don’t want to further articulate the purpose or value of this post, that’s your choice. But please spare me the pseudo-logic evasions that distract from the fact that this post is more about wanting to attack the Amazing Atheist somebody, somewhere than about wanting to shed light on the nature of consent laws.

  18. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    If you want to take that as a statement of my personal preference, fine.

    It is a statement of your personal preference. You just said so:

    that it might be more interesting (for me, a reader)

    See?

    If you don’t want to further articulate the purpose or value of this post, that’s your choice.

    You’re the one claiming it doesn’t have value. You’ve said what you think would have more value (to you), but you haven’t given any reasons why it’s not useful to observe when a prominent member of a community holds repugnant views so that people can make informed choices about where they give their support.

    But please spare me the pseudo-logic evasions…

    How about you spare me the hand-waving, bald assertions (and other “debaty noises”) that others aren’t doing logic properly and actually defend your position with something other than your word?

    the fact that this post is more about wanting to attack the Amazing Atheist somebody, somewhere than about wanting to shed light on the nature of consent laws.

    Psychic now, are we? This post is clearly about setting the record straight that the quote currently in circulation cannot reliably be attributed to TJ Kincaid. It observes that he admitted to holding a similar opinion in the past but has since reconsidered. It admonishes the community to hold itself to a higher standard. All of which, incidentally, are courtesies that TJ Kincaid would never extend to feminists given that he makes a living, to some extent, by tilting at straw-feminist windmills.

    Additionally, nobody actually claimed this post was about wanting to shed light on the nature of consent laws. You said that’s what you’d rather talk about.

    I mean, I’m sorry you don’t like it when people point out that a claim you’ve made is refuted in the very blog post you’re commenting on. I’m sorry you don’t like it when people won’t take your word about what’s useful to discuss and what’s not. I’m sorry you don’t like it when others point out that you’re contradicting yourself (you’ve both claimed that age of consent is an interesting and worthwhile topic and that it’s low hanging fruit which is pointless and trivial to discuss).

  19. says

    Seven of Mines:

    Of course it is a statement of my preference. I don’t perceive the value in or utility of the post or the other posts it references. Since the perception of utility inherently rests on subjective preferences, that can only be a statement of my preference. At least, in your last comment, you actually tried to identify some utility when you said “to observe when a prominent member of a community holds repugnant views so that people can make informed choices about where they give their support.” So perhaps there is some arguable utility, but it still strikes me as a little thin.

    The style of my criticism is exactly what you find in academic discourse. When I review an article, and I think it has low utility, I say so. If I think it could benefit from further examination of some aspect, I say so. And when I submit an article, the anonymous reviewers do the same thing. If they say I need to cover more ground, I do it. I’m not saying that a blog entry is the same thing as an academic paper, but it’s a fact that most criticism is a subjective statement of preference (hopefully educated preference), and trying to debate it like it’s a pseudoscience theory is just fucking stupid.

  20. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Of course it is a statement of my preference.

    If there was no other way to read that statement, why did you give me permission to take it that way if I wanted to?

    When I review an article, and I think it has low utility, I say so.

    Do you ever say why you think it has low utility or do you just assert it over and over and then get shirty if anyone asks you to elaborate?

  21. says

    Seven of Mines:

    “Do you ever say why you think it has low utility or do you just assert it over and over and then get shirty if anyone asks you to elaborate?”

    Generally, in academic reviews, reviewers don’t go into much detail on why they think something has low value. They just say it and then either fix it to their liking or you’re rejected.

    I think I’ve already elaborated on why I think the post has low utility. First, I don’t think there’s much utility in taking down individuals, which is how this topic got started. There is value in documenting that a prominent person said something objectionable; this site documented some nasty stuff about the Amazing Atheist in the past, and I thought it was worthwhile. This post, while refuting the origin of a nasty quote, takes the time to remind us that the Amazing Atheist has a record of saying nasty things. Frankly, I don’t see the novelty of it and the continued dissection of his past statements, including an analysis of remarks made in a chat window — that kind of sustained personal inspection makes me uncomfortable and doesn’t change anything. In addition, the post lacks value because it could easily have more depth on the broader topic of consent laws. It is always preferable to pursue generalizable knowledge rather than isolated cases.

    As to the other criticism, that the quote provides a straw man, it really doesn’t matter if somebody out there believes it. What matters is that the quote exists to serve as an easy target. In my opinion, it would be more meaningful to address the depth of issues surrounding the status quo on consent laws and serious proposals to change them. In my opinion that would make a more interesting and valuable post.

    I hope that isn’t too “shirty” for you.

  22. says

    Noooope. This topic got started because people were passing along a quote by TJ Kincaid that was not actually BY him. However, here at Freethought Blogs, despite what people may think of us, we try to make our cases both against the ideologies espoused by people, and expose patterns of behaviour that might lead to better selection of freedom of association with regard to those people in question.

    In this particular post, as I’ve already explained once and as you’ve evidently ignored, I attempted to both explain why people are getting sucked in by this meme — because TJ Kincaid has expressed extraordinarily similar opinions in the past, and because he has terrible opinions in and around the topic of consent generally, outside of this one particular one — and to state unequivocally that one should not make up statements then use those statements to tar and feather someone over them.

    I further expressed the view that there’s plenty of stuff he really says and believes that you can use to damn him.

    I FURTHER expressed the view that the statement in the meme is identical or nearly-enough-so to some segment of the population that it bears being confronted.

    If you think none of that has any utility, that’s your own look-out. You don’t have to stay here and tell me what I should and should not blog, because I’m not about to use you as a litmus test for the utility of what I spend my time on. You’ve shown me in this thread exactly what “utility” that would have for me, passing things through you first.

    I suggest you walk.

  23. says

    “You’ve shown me in this thread exactly what “utility” that would have for me, passing things through you first. I suggest you walk.”

    Shit man, people express their opinions about what they would rather see or not see. I can’t believe you have such a bug up your ass about basic criticism. I think I will walk.

  24. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    So…

    You think it has low utility because you think it has low utility. Someone said something in the past that you thought was worthwhile…because reasons. Talking about someone’s past statements doesn’t change anything (except for people’s awareness of the kind of person they’re dealing with).

    In addition, the post lacks value because it could easily have more depth on the broader topic of consent laws.

    It wasn’t about broader consent laws and it didn’t purport to be. It was about making people aware that a quote being attributed to a certain person does not, in fact, appear to be attributable to that person. It was about the fact that there is quite enough to criticize said person for without making shit up. Criticizing something for not being something it wasn’t trying to be is inane.

    As to the other criticism, that the quote provides a straw man, it really doesn’t matter if somebody out there believes it.

    A straw man is, by definition, a position attributed to someone who does not, in fact, hold it. Yes, it does matter if someone believes it.

    Leaving that aside, though, which is it? Is age of consent a useful topic or is it low hanging fruit?

    What matters is that the quote exists to serve as an easy target.

    You should take this psychic show on the road. I hear there’s a lot of money in it. None of us knows the provenance of that quote. Not even you.

    I hope that isn’t too “shirty” for you.

    Well, you did manage avoid claiming that anyone is doing teh logicz rong because you say so or parroting terms they don’t understand so, I guess that’s something.

  25. says

    If I may be permitted one last post: In my perception of this thread, I made a comment stating a simple criticism. I was questioned by Vicki, and I responded. I was then hounded by Seven of Mines who repeatedly insisted that I “elaborate” and “justify” things that I thought were pretty obvious. I obliged and tried my best to explain my perceptions and my thoughts about what is and isn’t constructive. Seven of Mines is continuing to hound me even after I’ve been asked to leave. I don’t think I’m the dick here.

  26. Bryan Long says

    The troll is an obvious “what about the menz” variety. Not every time consent laws are mentioned does the topic of how they can hurt men need to be discussed. Obvious derailing is obvious.

  27. Great American Satan says

    I feel like RationalWiki did a sheisty move there in quoting the “extreme pedophilic fantasies” thing without the context of his saying he wouldn’t act on them. I fell for that and quoted it on Butterflies & Wheels recently, and now I feel a bit bad about it.

    A person should be allowed to say when they feel something at variance with their practiced ethics and not have that lifted to paint them in an extra bad light. Example:

    When I hear about the pope helping spread AIDS in Africa, I want to see the Vatican nuked, or at least knock that disingenuous fuck’s head off with a spiked bat, but I wouldn’t encourage anyone to actually do those things because they are wrong. Now RationalWiki can do an entry on me saying “Great American Satan wants to ‘see the Vatican nuked’.”

    That said, Terroja seems to have earned every bad thing said about him in spades. The misogyny and harassment that can be unambiguously attributed to him is piled pretty deep. To hell with his horrible ass.

  28. robsmith says

    @cjwinstead: A little O/T but….

    Generally, in academic reviews, reviewers don’t go into much detail on why they think something has low value. They just say it and then either fix it to their liking or you’re rejected.

    Then they’re doing it wrong. And in my experience, this simply isn’t true: reviewers are expected to justify their comments. If they recommend that a paper be rejected because of a low contribution, they ought to give an example of what additional material – in their opinion – should be included to raise that utility. I’m not saying the reviewer should go into great detail or re-write the paper on the author’s behalf, I’m saying they should explain why they consider the contribution insufficient.

    As a reviewer of many academic papers I’ve agonised over this exact issue a number of times. Reviews should be as constructive and helpful as possible and in my field this is usually encouraged (and often mandated) by the submissions chair. Saying that the contribution is insufficient and leaving it at that helps absolutely nobody.

  29. says

    Great American Satan: RationalWiki had documented those bits some time ago, and the Tumblr that Kincaid wrote to “explain” his quote was only July 17th, 2014. It’s possible (probable, even) that his page doesn’t get enough edits frequently enough to have “caught up” with his current thinking on that point, since I haven’t seen anything of his that suggested he’d changed his mind up until that point last week.

  30. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Adorable. He probably got linked to your post and, in his haste to play his gotcha card, didn’t bother to check if there were any, more recent posts on the topic. Skeptic indeed.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

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

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