What is the proper place of religion in modern society? »« Why I am an atheist – Julia Brandon

The not-so-Amazing Atheist self-immolates

There’s a youtuber who goes by the name “the amazing atheist” who I’ve never cared much for — he’s a raving MRA who ought to change his name to “the asinine atheist” — who has just flamed out on reddit in a revealing long angry thread. I don’t recommend it. It’s very ugly. The only virtue is that this already marginal hater on the fringes of atheism just made himself even less relevant, and we can all wash our hands of him now.

I’ll put a few highlights from his rants below the fold; these aren’t really surprising, since this kind of thing has always been part of his youtube schtick, but you might want to brace yourself for the virulence. He really, really hates uppity feminist women, and he finds threats of rape to be an appropriate response to them. This whole affair was prompted by a poster on reddit going by the nickname “ICumWhenIKillMen”, which I find reprehensible too, but it in no way justifies the eruption of even greater hatred that this “amazing” atheist (going by the name terroja or TJ) spouts.

I will make you a rape victim if you don’t fuck off.

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

I’m going to rape you with my fist.

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

Fuck you, liar. All night you douches have tried to shit on me and tear me down. Then when I do the same it’s like, “Whoa man! That’s too far. Calm down.” No. Fuck you. Go get raped in whatever orifice you have to get fucking raped in. I am sick of your shit. I regret nothing.

Nasty piece of work, isn’t he? To top it all off, after a long night of rage, he makes a youtube video whining about arguing with feminists. You don’t need to watch it, it’s ugly and pathetic, since fortunately someone else made a transcript. I do want to seriously address one part of it, though, because it’s a claim I often seen these freaked-out misogynist kooks make.

Let me just clue you in, folks, any fucking belief system or belief structure, well any belief structure or belief system is just WRONG to begin with. I mean, fucking think for yourself, don't just join some stupid fucking group. But- but- ESPECIALLY the ones that try to control your sexuality and that tell you that the things you desire are wrong and shameful.

If that starts to happen, even if everything up until that point seemed pretty cool, that's when you gotta get the fuck out. When you start hearing like, "Oh yeah, and by the way, those things you like to do sexually? Those are aaaalll wrong. You can't be doing that anymore." 'Cause that's really how any fucking, uhm, ideology controls, people.

And why do you think pretty much every religion in existence tries to control your sexuality? Why do you think, that, the number one thing that destroys a politician is, an extramarital affair. Or if you're Republican, you know, you suck a dick in the bathroom or something.

I mean, it's always about sexuality. It's always about controlling people's sexuality. Because, y'know, that's, err, that's like one of the big, I mean, y'know, if you're gonna look at like Freudian psychology, which is like outdated and everything. But still, I think Freud had a point when he said that the two major driving factors in human life are sex and death.

So if you'd control sex, you'd pretty much control a motherfucker. And that's like the two areas that, y'know, Religion has gone after, sex and death. It's like, "Oh, you can't have this kinda sex. And then, when you die, you get to go to a magical sky palace."

And y'know feminism doesn't really do much to control the death thing, but they sure love controlling fucking human sexuality.

That’s a lot of bullshit.

The feminism I embrace is sex-positive. It includes heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, trans men and women, and every kink and twist you can imagine. It is not about controlling your sexuality, but liberating it — it most definitely does not say “you can’t have this kinda sex”. It does not judge your sexual behaviors and say “Those are aaaalll wrong.” The Amazing Atheist/terroja/TJ is just lying when he claims that’s what’s going on.

Because here’s the thing: you have freedom to exercise your sexuality, but that does not mean you get to impose your sexuality on others. If, for example, your kink is peeing on women, and you’ve got a partner whose kink is being peed upon, I’m happy for the two of you, I hope you have a grand time, but please, if I ask you not to share your stories with me because I find it unpleasant, respect my wishes…and do not imagine for one second that your desire to pee on someone trumps their desire to not be peed on. I’m not going to judge you or tell you what you can and can’t do in your bedroom unless you’re trying to force it on someone who is unwilling. That’s the hard and fast line you don’t get to cross.

Rape is a fundamental violation of that basic principle of autonomy and respect for other people’s desires. This guy jokes about rape, threatens rape, and doesn’t seem to recognize the line between consensual sexual activities and the violent act of rape. He’s amazingly self-centered; he complains bitterly about the limits on his desires to put his penis where ever he wants as an awful example of feminism controlling his sexuality, completely oblivious to the fact that what he ultimately wants to do is control other people’s sexuality, putting it in service to his fantasies.

That moral blindness is standard MRA egocentrism; the whole premise of the pick-up artist is to find a way to manipulate other people into doing their sexual bidding.

The other element you’ll often see in these guys is rage at women’s sexuality: they get extremely upset at the idea of the object of their desires making independent sexual choices. Women are supposed to be either chaste and not being sexy at all, or they must submit to the man’s desires, servicing the man’s sexual needs by whatever methods the man dictates. A woman cheerfully flirting with her choice of a partner? She’s a hypocrite (because feminists are supposed to hate sex!) and she’s a ball-buster (because she’s not having sex with me!) and if ever she said “no” to a man, she must be demeaned and detested. Or possibly raped, just to teach her a lesson.

The only control issue here is who gets to control sex: do women get to be in complete charge of their own sexuality, or should they hand it over to the whims of men? And in their answers to that question, MRAs like this TJ jerk are fundamentally allying themselves with the patriarchal religions of Abraham.


The Atheist Experience also discusses this awful little man.


The awful little man has posted a rebuttal. As you might expect from this guy, it’s full of misconceptions.

I knew it was inevitable the day that I started talking about feminism that one day, PZ Meyers would open his gob to mount some manner of lazy and lackluster attack against me. He is a radical feminist who once claimed that when it came to gender issues men just need to “shut up and listen to women.” That’s a direct quote, by the way. He really said “shut up and listen to women.” Men, in his opinion, have nothing useful to say on gender issues.

Yes, that quote is here. That last sentence? More bullshit. Of course men have useful things to say on gender issues — but you have to make room for women to speak, too. It’s amazing how often men, especially the obtuse, blithely patriarchal men, are unable to simply listen to women for two minutes without overriding them.

He has more excuses.

What PZ Meyers may not be aware of is that my words were promulgated by a conversation with a male feminist who told me in no uncertain terms that looking at females sexually was wrong. It’s wrong to follow your natural imperative to note the sexual attractiveness of a woman in your presence, because that makes women feel bad. That’s nonsense. I am a biological organism that got here because my ancestors loved to fuck, and fucking starts with lust. I’m glad that PZ Meyers doesn’t take issue with this, but when he claims that ALL feminists are sex positive, he’s simply being disingenuous. There are plenty of feminists, many of whom I have addressed in the past, who are virulently anti-porn and anti-male sexuality. Meyer’s ignores this at the peril of his credibility.

First of all, nowhere have I ever claimed that all feminists are sex positive; some feminists are assholes, just like some atheists (case in point: The “Amazing” Atheist) are total flaming jerkwads.

But also, I really, really despise the naturalistic fallacy. Why, yes, some of my ancestors were stoat-like mammaloids one step beyond a reptile, and the males would wrestle the females down and ejaculate into their reproductive tracts whether the female was cooperative or not. I wouldn’t even be surprised to learn that some significant fraction of my human ancestors were locked in loveless marriages, or even brought about some of their progeny by rape. These facts do not justify stoat-like fucking or rape.

Lust and fucking are great, but that also does not imply that they should be the boundaries of our relationships — I lust after my wife all the time, but I also recognize her as a fellow sapient human being with her own interests. I also meet women all the time and don’t have sex with them — in fact, no matter how much of a Lothario you might be, the fraction of women with whom you will have sex is infinitesimally small. You are a stunted and impoverished human being if you look at half the population of the planet only through the lens of lust and sex; that’s probably the least important perspective on human relationships that you’ve got.

Of course you can notice that a member of the sex you find stimulating is attractive; that’s not the issue. It’s the sad wankers who meet strange women and think “great rack!” instead of “I wonder what she’s got to say?” that have the real problem.

And then he completely misses the mark.

Here’s an M. Night Shymalan style twist for you, PZ. Something that shatters your narrative of me as a would-be rapist just looking for the right bush to hide in. I’m a submissive. As in, I like to be dominated. Spanked. Humiliated. As in, the exact opposite of what you’re portaying me as.

So? I had no assumptions at all about his sexual habits. He seems to be obsessed with his own gratification, and there’s nothing about that that is incompatible with being a submissive. Although the fact that he likes to be humiliated does explain much about his behavior on the internet.

Also, does he even realize that saying you’ve got a “Shyamalan twist” to your story just means you’ve got a really shitty gimmick?

Comments

  1. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart, liar and scoundrel says

    Caine:

    Personally, I’d rather face the great zombie uprising than deal with the idiots populating youtube.

    At least zombies can be stopped. Idiocy on Youtube, not so much.

  2. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    At least zombies can be stopped. Idiocy on Youtube, not so much.

    Shotguns are effective against zombies. The authorities take a dim view of using shotguns against YouTube idiots.

  3. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Ace of Sevens,

    What exactly do you want the Pharyngula commentariat to do about TAA? Vote his videos down? Refuse to accept his notpologies? Ask him about bananas? If he came around here he was using a different nym. None of us appear to be his followers on YouTube. Few if any of us visit reddit regularly.

    You obviously want us to do something and think we’re bad people for not doing it, but you haven’t actually said: “Fifth Pharyngula Brigade, insult his cat; Seventeenth Pharyngula Armada, piss on his lilac bushes; Third Heavy Horde, make rude remarks about him on YouTube Meatloaf videos” or anything like that.

  4. Gregory Greenwood says

    @ Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform;

    No matter how much they beg me, I will not show them how I make a pencil disappear.

    I remember that scene, and its impressive squick factor, from the movie.

    Work blocks Pervocracy, but “The weirder your sex, the more enlightened you are” strikes a chord. There is definitely a type of person who thinks being kinky makes them a better person, and the kinkier they are, the more “open-minded” they are. And how dare anyone “oppress” them by asking them not to discuss their favorite tawse and its effects at Thanksgiving dinner in front of Great-Aunt Edna.

    The worst ones IMHO are the poly evangelists. Especially insofar as they imply or outright claim that monogamous people are insecure and selfish for wanting monogamous partners. Women get this guilt trip a lot, especially.

    It is just like so many other things – society unfairly and harshly judges ‘difference’ from its constructed ‘norm’, especially when that difference relates to sex and sexuality, but the fact of being ‘different’ in some way does not in and of itself stop people from being repulsive bigots in other regards.

    For example, there are some people who have suffered the most abominable racism but are themselves homophobes, and appear completely incapable of recognising how discrimination based upon race and that predicated upon sexual orientation are similar. Equally, every now and then you may encounter a gay man who is a misogynist and seems oblivious to the way the patriarchy seeks to control, demean and silence women using almost the exact same tactics it deploys against homosexual men.

    The problems really start when bigots of this type start to use their status as part of a marginalised group as a shield against criticism:-

    “I can’t be a bigot about anything, because I am part of *insert marginalised group*. Thus, when I throw someone else under the bus because they don’t conform to my prejudices about how people should live, not only can’t you call me a bigot, you must accept that I am simply speaking the truth from a position of unassailable authority, and if you don’t go along with that, well then you are automatically a *insert marginalised group*-aphobe, somehow…”

    It is a particularly nasty silencing tactic, especially when such pseudo-authority is used by other bigots to say that the group they are targeting are not really victims of discrimination, and that other, ‘genuine’ victims of discrimination back them up on that.

    In some ways, this is even more damaging than common-or-garden bigotry, because it can have the effect of setting different socially disenfranchised groups against each other, when everyone who is aware of the toxic, discriminatory memes and authority structures in our society need to work together to dismantle them so that equality can be acheived for all, rather than adopting the perverse, zero-sum mindset that the acknowledgement of the humanity of one group must somehow come at the expense of another.

  5. says

    The Amazing Atheist was a marginal contributor to the atheist movement. He had his fans, but notice that he wasn’t invited to atheist conventions, wasn’t involved with any atheist organizations, and while he seemed to think I was destined to attack him, it took this egregious tirade to catch my attention.

    I’ve given him the contemptuous back of my hand in this post. I won’t be mentioning him again.

    And that’s where he belongs…in a state of neglect.

  6. Gregory Greenwood says

    @ Caine, Fleur du Mal;

    Personally, I’d rather face the great zombie uprising than deal with the idiots populating youtube.

    Agreed. Afterall, it is acceptable to deal with a zombie uprising via the simple expedient of that which pop culture tells us is the zombie hunter’s best friend – a shotgun (and a flair for head-shots). Treating with youtube morons in this fashion, however, would be justifiably frowned upon…

  7. says

    Gregory:

    Treating with youtube morons in this fashion, however, would be justifiably frowned upon…

    At least zombies are looking for braaaaiiiins, which is more than I can say for youtube commenters.

  8. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart, liar and scoundrel says

    Gregory:

    Treating with youtube morons in this fashion, however, would be justifiably frowned upon…

    If I treated Youtubers like zombies, I’d prolly end up shooting my laptop.

    This is why I don’t own guns, people.

  9. Gregory Greenwood says

    @ Caine, Fleur du Mal;

    At least zombies are looking for braaaaiiiins, which is more than I can say for youtube commenters.

    Zombies are better conversationalists as well. The droning refrain of “braaaaiiiins” is like sweet music set next to the nails-on-a-chalkboard privileged arse-hattery of all too many youtube commenters.

  10. says

    When TJ’s Elevatorgate video was mentioned on Butterflies and Wheels (comments #13 and #38 in particular), it only garnered a few comments about how pathetic of an argument it was–not worth watching–and how angrily violent it sounded.

    And look – there I am, in a thread about people who were calling us cunts and those defending it, pointing out that it’s just as bad to call conservative Christians cunts.

    But, y’know, I didn’t watch or respond to that video, so I’m obviously tolerant of misogyny andor guilty of negligence.

  11. says

    Having (finally) caught back up with this thread, I’m also recalling 3D4K. I wish just once that one of these shitstorms didn’t feel like we are all fighting to stand still in huge currents of misogyny. It’s exhausting.

  12. says

    SC:

    But, y’know, I didn’t watch or respond to that video, so I’m obviously tolerant of misogyny andor guilty of negligence.

    Which is infuriating, given the amount of time and effort most of the Horde puts into fighting bigotry of all kinds and the time and effort put into explaining things like privilege and attempting to educate people. Aaaand, we get to do those things over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    So, I was unaware of this TAA person’s existence. I oughta be whipped or something. Geez.

  13. says

    Slignot:

    It’s exhausting.

    Yes, it is and it’s made worse by people like Ace of Sevens, who seems to think we ought to be tracking every single misogynistic douche on the net and “taking care of them” in some way or another.

  14. says

    The specific problem I’m wanting to discuss is people who were aware on TJ’s behavior and didn’t say anything because they thought he was funny or going after acceptable targets or whatever. This clearly happened or he wouldn’t be the most popular atheist on a very popular website, though you can’t really prove who these people were for the most part. It must have been lots of people, though and it isn’t a stretch to say these people are active in the atheist community online. Don’t you think this reflects poorly on atheists? Doesn’t this bother you?

    FFS. I coped to this . You are addressing me. A) I don’t like your insinuation about me now B) what the fuck do you want from me now? To open a vein for you?

  15. says

    @Caine, fuck yes. But since we care, any time we’re too tired or busy to jump on the slightest problem (that we naturally are required to know about immediately), we have compromised everything.

    I wonder if we could exhort Ace to read the terrible bargain we have regretfully struck to understand what it’s like. Because it really does seem like many view this as an intellectual exercise where for us, these are our daily fucking lives.

    Between this festering thread and watching my state legislature debate adding our own “Don’t Say Gay” + Never Tell Kids About Sex bill, I want to weep in frustration today.

  16. truebutnotuseful says

    Ace of Sevens says:

    I brought it up here because here seemed like a place people would care and do something.

    After 1,000+ posts, I think you now probably have a pretty good idea how much Pharyngulites in general care about misogyny, rape-apologia, male supremacists, etc. I’ve been reading and posting here off and on for a few years and can assure you that this thread is not anomalous. This kind of thread explosion is par for the course on these issues.

    And what comprises the bulk of these 1,000+ posts? Scathing criticism of TAA and articulate smackdowns of his toadies. That’s ‘caring and doing something’ Pharyngula-style.

    So, consider the facts presented and honestly ask yourself which is more likely:

    1. That the typical Pharyngulite has known of TAA and what an execrable shitlizard he is for a while but gave his disgusting misogynistic behavior a free pass because he also doesn’t believe in Yahweh or cloudponiez

    2. That the typical Pharyngulite saw the thread title and asked themselves “who the fuck is The Amazing Atheist?”

    As argued upthread, there doesn’t seem to be a huge degree of overlap between the kind of atheist who comments on Pharyngula and the kind who subscribes to and comments on YouTube videos. On the Internet Cesspit Continuum, YouTube probably lies* somewhere between Reddit and 4chan. I can really only bring myself to watch YouTube videos when they are embedded, because clicking through to the site itself all but guarantees exposure to reagent-grade bigotry and stupidity.

    ____________________

    *OK, it doesn’t so much lie there as it stands on a rooftop waggling its genitals at unsuspecting passersby.

  17. says

    Before Ace of Seven continues to go on basically beating up on anyone who watched his fucking videos and didn’t comment I’ll share the conversation with friend about it. Cause apparently he has a lot of ideas exactly what those people are like and what the problem was.

    10:29:12 PM) Ing: so….
    (10:29:21 PM) Ing: Amazing Atheist jumps the shark right over the moral event horizon
    (10:29:35 PM) Mycroft: …fuck
    (10:29:39 PM) Mycroft: what did he do?
    (10:29:52 PM) Ing: reddit forum
    (10:29:55 PM) Ing: sorta…
    (10:29:59 PM) Mycroft: I’m going to feel bad for defending him as seeming like a fairly decent person despite obnoxious moments.
    (10:29:59 PM) Ing: bullied a rape victim
    (10:30:02 PM) Mycroft: …
    (10:30:03 PM) Mycroft: oh
    (10:30:07 PM) Mycroft: yeahhh
    (10:30:10 PM) Ing: I will make you a rape victim if you don’t fuck off.
    (10:30:17 PM) Ing: List of quotes
    (10:30:30 PM) Mycroft: …
    (10:30:39 PM) Mycroft: Oh my fucking god.
    (10:30:47 PM) Ing: yeah
    (10:30:51 PM) Mycroft: I..
    (10:30:52 PM) Mycroft: what the fuck
    (10:30:54 PM) Ing: I’m right with you with the defending him
    (10:30:58 PM) Ing: you know….
    (10:31:00 PM) Mycroft: that just..
    (10:31:02 PM) Ing: in light of this and…
    (10:31:11 PM) Ing: ok this sort of puts stuff he does in a different context
    (10:31:17 PM) Mycroft: see, I always kind of got the read of him being.. while abrasive and slightly obnoxious
    (10:31:26 PM) Ing: where there does seem to be a sort of patern of narcisism
    (10:31:28 PM) Mycroft: still ultimatly being well-meaning and empathetic
    (10:31:30 PM) Mycroft: buuuut Jesus
    (10:31:33 PM) Mycroft: oh yeah
    (10:31:45 PM) Mycroft: even when I was sympathetic towards him its evident he has an incredibly high opinion of himself.
    (10:31:46 PM) Ing: and apparently before that there was a video saying gay kids who killed themselves were cowards
    (10:32:09 PM) Ing: and a HUGE “I am a rebell who will do the contrary to what I’m told to” chip on shoulder

  18. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    If the Monument demonstrated anything, it was that arguing with assholes for an idiotic readership is the first step toward a week of bile and misanthropy. I have a higher tolerance for slime immersion than most, and I figuratively drowned over in that shit. The ennui took weeks to fade.

    I’m glad that I never heard of the human excrement under discussion. I will not be monitoring his shitty YouTube vids. Without knowing any more about the putrid fuck than has been revealed here, I wish him ill.

    Also: Ms. Daisy Cutter…you comment somewhere above that included I believe the phrase “oligarchy-felching cubicle monkey” may have ruptured my spleen. In a good way.

  19. Brownian says

    I’m a bit puzzled by the idea that I’m supposed to know what YouTube atheists say. I don’t watch YouTube videos with people talking, unless the talking is singing set to something with at least 120 BPM. I get bored listening to people talk, unless it’s in conversation. I’m told that I speak at a rate that’s difficult for non-English speakers to follow, and I of course read at a rate some magnitude greater. I won’t use software if the only tutorials are on video and I can’t work out how to use it without watching them. I don’t like documentaries unless they’re absolutely visually stunning, because the rate of information provided is too damn slow. And you better be one part Hitchens, one part Dench, and one part Barry White if you expect me to slow down just to listen to your voice.

    So, in case it needs to be said, join my voice (!) to those saying they’d never heard of TAA before this thread, mostly because I simply don’t use YouTube that way—rather, I read, and have been doing so ever since I learned how some three decades ago. It’s one of the reasons I come here—I don’t have to listen to PZ talk to hear what he has to say.

  20. Ace of Sevens says

    Thanks to PZ for the response. I’m sorry if I went off half-cocked here. I shouldn’t have insinuated any accusations. After this blows over, he’ll lose 2% of his subs, tops, and keep right on at it. As I said, it’s very personal for me with this guy because of things he’s done or tried to do to people I really respect, his rape apologetics and his constant bullying. I guess my real problem isn’t TJ himself, but the fact he has an audience. I had a friend die recently whose life had been ruined by PTSD resulting from a rape and to have this guy out there allegedly representing me saying rape victims just need to shake it off while 300,000 people egg him on and tell him to put those whiny bitches in their place really cuts to the core, especially since he makes a good living sitting on his lazy ass and bullying people.

    There’s no network or sponsors to appeal to and, as in this case, he’s smart enough to keep the more blatant bullying off YouTube so he’s not shut down for TOS violations. Other than trying to build a channel off hammering him on every point (which would get me a full-time job dealing with his fans’ attempts to DMCA or doc-drop me, mostly), I don’t know what to do. Can the Mormons baptize him and his fans to get him out of the atheist box?

  21. Brownian says

    Ace of Sevens, I don’t know what to say. I share your frustration, I really do.

    Dara Ó Briain has a sack for the homeopaths. Perhaps we can make one large enough for TAA and his pals.

  22. Ace of Sevens says

    It would have to be pretty big. His subscriber base is a good deal larger than my county.

  23. Ichthyic says

    wish just once that one of these shitstorms didn’t feel like we are all fighting to stand still in huge currents of misogyny. It’s exhausting.

    on the bright side, if this was 30 years ago, you might be swept away and drowned by them instead.

    at least one is ABLE to stand against the current, because now there are others to hold on to.

    er, with cheese on top.

  24. Ace of Sevens says

    Just read the Man Boobz coverage. I was not previously familiar with the site. I’m glad to see people there have been on his ass for a while.

  25. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    OT: Brownian…same for me. Growing impatient with the pace of news programming is part of my morning routine. It’s like coffee for me. I mean besides the cup I’m already drinking.

    When I find myself screaming at the television, I am ready for the day.

  26. Ace of Sevens says

    And lots of people there calling out the MRAs for mostly ignoring TJ, even though he was on an MRA forum and attacking a male rape survivor. It seems that MRA concern for male rape survivors only extends as far as complaining they get less attention than the women and/or blaming feminists for rape.

  27. janine says

    When I find myself screaming at the television, I am ready for the day.

    Shit, I wake up every morning screaming.

    Mentally anyways.

  28. says

    As I said in that B&W thread Aratina Cage linked to above, I’m often struck by this horror and disbelief that I’m actually having these conversations. It’s still difficult to accept that The Monument really exists and people remotely connected to this community wrote and defended those things, or happily ignored them. It was almost like discovering that a solid chunk of your community is sympathetic to Scumfront. The past several months have offered a sickening spectacle, but I think there has been progress.

    There’s no network or sponsors to appeal to and, as in this case, he’s smart enough to keep the more blatant bullying off YouTube so he’s not shut down for TOS violations. Other than trying to build a channel off hammering him on every point (which would get me a full-time job dealing with his fans’ attempts to DMCA or doc-drop me, mostly), I don’t know what to do.

    Well, it might not be the most productive action in the world, but you can always come here when you’re feeling the rage and share on TET. You’ll be getting the word out to a large number of people, keeping them aware, and it would probably help you feel better.

  29. evader says

    Why are atheism and feminism fused together everywhere I look now?

    *yawn*

    I know I’m alone when I say I want atheism to be about atheism.

    *shrug*

    What can you do? Scream in the wind and die lonely I guess.

    And when did people start caring what Amazing Atheist has to say? Wasn’t he flushed out with Thunderf00t?

  30. says

    Why are atheism and feminism fused together everywhere I look now?

    Atheism and feminism and anti-racism and anti-homophobia and anti-worker-exploitation and anti-poverty and pro-choice and civil rights and decency and honesty and pro-public education and a whole lot of other things are all fused together into this thing called “not being a narcissistic shithead.”

  31. Ichthyic says

    I know I’m alone when I say I want atheism to be about atheism.

    if you know you’re alone, then why bother to mention it?

    obviously, if you know you’re alone, you also know nobody cares.

    *shrug*

    what I see is someone so poor at supporting their actual argument, they would rather pretend at playing the victim in order to try and garner attention that way instead.

    Did I see through your freshman drama queen act?

    so sorry.

  32. says

    And as a less snarky response, atheism and feminism and the other things share one thing in common – they are the result of the toxin of religion.

    Where exactly do you think sexism comes from? Not entirely from religion, but religion certainly has enabled it more than any other single thing.

    Fighting religious influence necessarily means being a feminist, just as it means supporting gay rights. Guess who the opponents in those battles are?

  33. says

    Why are atheism and feminism fused together everywhere I look now?

    Oh, it has something to do with women being human beings and people in general being decent human beings.

    Have a decaying porcupine, Cupcake. Be sure to shove it backwards and hard in the orifice of your choice. It might alleviate that mock ennui for a few moments*.

    *If those words were too big for you: Fuck off, Cupcake.

  34. says

    Jafafa Hots:

    Atheism and feminism and anti-racism and anti-homophobia and anti-worker-exploitation and anti-poverty and pro-choice and civil rights and decency and honesty and pro-public education and a whole lot of other things are all fused together into this thing called “not being a narcissistic shithead.”

    *Clenched Tentacle Salute*

  35. says

    evader,

    who forced you to read this blog? The internet is a big place, good luck with your search for the atheist site that “is about atheism”,

    and don’t let the door hit you on your way out…

  36. says

    I like a nice dark beer. I can sit and watch TV and dink one and it’s tasty.

    Another thing I like to do is go to a bar, order a dark beer, and then then start shouting “Hey, what the fuck does going to a bar have to do with having a beer? Why do you need to come here to do that when you can at home?”

    “And what the FUCK is with all the loud music and dancing? What the hell does that have to do with enjoying a nice dark beer? Hey you. Yeah YOU, over there! STOP PLAYING DARTS!”

  37. says

    In my travels through atheism, TJ is the only figure I have found — ever — who even comes close to fitting the Universal Straw Atheist that the religious and their allies love to throw around.

    evader #236 (+~800):

    Why are atheism and feminism fused together everywhere I look now?

    They always have been, we just haven’t acknowledged it until now. Atheists are a marginalized group, but we also have to turn the lens on ourselves and look at how we deal with the marginalized groups that exist within the scope of atheism. This includes women. If you don’t like that, then the door can be found in PZ’s link to r/MensRights in the post at the top, where you can happily spew all the pseudoskeptical bullshit you want without getting deconstructed by people more well versed in social justice issues than you are.

  38. jessesteck says

    Please get off your high horse, meyers.

    “Of course you can notice that a member of the sex you find stimulating is attractive; that’s not the issue. It’s the sad wankers who meet strange women and think “great rack!” instead of “I wonder what she’s got to say?” that have the real problem.”

    here’s PZ Meyers being a total goddamn lech at Skepticon:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ch1XFqmGeM

    start at about 13:00. No, this isn’t nearly as bad as what TJ said, but please don’t tell me you’re above thinking “great rack” or something very much like it. It’s such bullshit it’s insulting. If that woman was my wife you’d have heard a few choice words from me professor.

  39. says

    jessesteck:

    Please get off your high horse, meyers.

    You have the wrong person, Cupcake. Thanks for being so upfront about your idiocy, saves time.

    Before you respond again with what will end up as pathetic rape apologia, here’s a protip: shut the fuck up and read every single comment, all 1,000+ of them. In case you’re too stupid to figure out where all those comments are, they start here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/08/the-not-so-amazing-atheist-self-immolates/comment-page-1/#comments

  40. bitchpeas says

    In my opinion, it looks like you’re taking what The Amazing Atheist said a tad too personally. It’s not like he was specifically singling you out and accusing you of being like that, yet all I read in your blog was I, I, I, me, me, me, I’m not like that,” “I don’t do that,” etc etc. That’s part of why he doesn’t like feminists, and why I (as a female) also dislike them. 99% of feminists I’ve met are all way too uppity and defensive over any little negative thing said about them.

    I’m not discrediting the great work feminists have done for my gender. But I find the view too extreme. If we have any hope of all getting along any time soon, we need to all be equal. All of us. That means women AND men. Feminism imo preaches that women are superior to men. Not true.

    Anyways that’s just my two cents. Take it as you will. I’m sure I’ll be chewed out and told how wrong I am by the OP because well, she’s a feminist and that’s what they do.

  41. janine says

    So, I am not supposed to care when one person treats an other with contempt?

    You are beneath contempt. bitchpeas.

  42. says

    It’s not like he was specifically singling you out and accusing you of being like that

    Being like what, Cupcake? We weren’t the ones threatening to rape someone.

    Feminism imo preaches that women are superior to men.

    That’s not true and it’s generally a belief that is held by misogynists and sexists everywhere.

    Anyways that’s just my two cents. Take it as you will.

    Fine. I think I’ll take it with a beer, because it’s the same weak ass shit every other non-thinking, over-privileged asspimple who is too stupid to grok entrenched sexism says, over and over. You’re hardly the first sexist woman to show up here.

    I’m sure I’ll be chewed out and told how wrong I am by the OP because well, she’s a feminist and that’s what they do.

    Let me guess, reading isn’t your strong suit, is it? I’m sure PZ will have an interesting time telling his wife he’s a woman.

  43. bitchpeas says

    It’s the internet. If you haven’t figured out yet that it’s all people do on the internet and you still take everything seriously, that’s your problem not mine. I gave my opinion. That’s all it was.

  44. bitchpeas says

    ^ My last comment was for janine, I’m still trying to figure out the posting format on here. Sorry for any confusion.

  45. says

    So, yes, now you’ve posted three times and it’s kinda beyond doubt that you’re a moron: so if you came here to just give us your opinion which magically enough is not to be taken seriously, frankly, just fuck off please.

  46. janine says

    This is just the internet and this is just my opinion but I think that you are a horrid and rather unpleasant person.

    Please, go to an other part of the interest.

    And I promise not to give a shit about you if a person on the internet wants to rape you with their fist.

  47. bitchpeas says

    I’m pretty sure by all your reactions and anger on TJ’s actions lately, I’d say he’s winning. You’re all terribly pissed off.

  48. says

    Janine, as I said earlier in this thread you didn’t fucking read, the internet is NOT a different universe.

    If you’re an asshole on the internet, you’re an asshole, period.

  49. janine says

    Wow, bitchpeas, you seem to think that you know that everyone here is pissed off. Just where did you find this amazing ability, it has left me speechless.

  50. Rey Fox says

    Hey, evader. I remember that nym from the Super Bowl thread.

    Is there a word for people who only ever post to declare how much they don’t care about the subject at hand?

    (like maybe…”Chas”?)

  51. Pinkamena, Panic Pony says

    Please get off your high horse, meyers.

    STOPPED READING THERE.

    M.
    Y.
    E.
    R.
    S.

    It’s right. Fucking. There. It is at the top of the fucking article. The only explanations are that you are either a troll, or too damned ignorant to pay the most basic amount of attention.

    Either way, fuck right off.

    That’s part of why he doesn’t like feminists, and why I (as a female) also dislike them.

    HORSESHIT.

    Eat a live scorpion, Cupcake.

  52. bitchpeas says

    Boy, I can’t wait for someone else to come on here and post their harmless opinions so you guys can all go jump down their throats too like a bunch of circle jerking hyenas. This is hilarious. First and last time poster, for sure.

  53. Tethys says

    TJ has certainly won my disdain and a guarantee that I will never look at any of his youtube posts.

    I can’t really be bothered to use enough energy to work my way up to pissed off.

    Thanks for offering your worthless opinion, and fuck right off.

  54. says

    jessesteck being a moron:

    here’s PZ Meyers being a total goddamn lech at Skepticon: [vid]
    start at about 13:00. No, this isn’t nearly as bad as what TJ said, but please don’t tell me you’re above thinking “great rack” or something very much like it.

    Fucking stupid ass trolls! The “sex” part is a card-model demonstration of how sexual reproduction works.


    I also only recently noticed that TJ Kincaid had posted a Shyamalan-a-ding-dong rebuttal to PZ. In it, Kincaid says this:

    I was trying to make my point about triggers by writing the most “triggering” paragraph I possibly could. I should have at least provided some context. It was poor wording on my part and I sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by it.

    I was trying to hurt you! Sorry if I hurt you! Way to go, Kincaid. You can’t write worth shit.

  55. Rey Fox says

    I’ll also agree with Brownian that I don’t watch Youtube to listen to some idiot talk. Because really, what are the odds that someone filming themselves talking is saying anything worth listening to? That, and I get too distracted by their faces and the way they speak, and such like that. I’d rather just read ideas without all that getting in the way. I’ll skip a news story if it’s a video. Just give me the words.

  56. says

    BP,

    did you actually read the 857 comments before you showed up? This late in the game, people do tend to get pissed off at people completely disregarding what has been said on the thread..

  57. Pinkamena, Panic Pony says

    Good riddance, shitpiece, and stick the fucking flounce. Don’t forget your porcupine, too.

  58. says

    Yeah, Janine, sorry. I had typed the reply and forgot who I was replying to, scrolled up and say your riff on the original, etc.

    It’s my back pain meds, I swear. ;)

  59. Tethys says

    BP

    Just google the monument at scienceblogs. It sounds like your kind of crowd.

    Endogenous Retro Virus

  60. says

    bitchpeas:

    that’s your problem not mine.

    In that vein, Cupcake, your stupidity is your problem, not mine and I’d much prefer it if you took your stupidity elsewhere. Either get to the standard rape apologia immediately, so we can get it over with, or take this decaying porcupine and place it next to your head, which is up your ass.

    Don’t leave assprints on the door, please.

  61. janine says

    Boy, I can’t wait for someone else to come on here and post their harmless opinions so you guys can all go jump down their throats too like a bunch of circle jerking hyenas. This is hilarious. First and last time poster, for sure.

    Here is a little bit of reality, you deluded sack of shit, sometimes the person saying “harmless opinions” on the internet because a stalker in real life. It fucking happens, sweetpea.

    Now fucking go away, like you promised.

  62. says

    Boy, I can’t wait for someone else to come on here and post their harmless opinions

    Boy, I can’t wait for a dull, broken crayon named bitchpeas to stop being such a boring lackwit.

  63. says

    I’m pretty sure by all your reactions and anger on TJ’s actions lately, I’d say he’s winning. You’re all terribly pissed off.

    I’m sure on some planet that is a good strategy. The problem is that this is earth.

    HAHA my plan went perfectly! I’ve offended a bunch of people and now people think I’m a horrible person! All according to plan!

  64. says

    And how can people come in here defending TJ Kincaid with such thin skin? Bitchpeas, have you ever watched a single fucking video of TJ Kincaid’s?? You know, TJ Kincaid, the guy who says that victims of anti-gay bullying are losers and cowards and deserve what they get? Then you burst in here with your hostility and think we’ll all comfort you after you pull your crybaby act? Get real, and get lost!

  65. rackcity says

    I was never defending him. I find him bland at best. I don’t ever think it’s right to wish rape on anyone (although apparently it seems like some users around here think it’s okay, how hypocritical), and his words are inexcusable. I was simply giving my own opinion on the topic of Feminism. And to be honest, everyone kind of proved my point on the whole uppity, defensive comment. I need some ice for all these burns!

  66. janine says

    YOU GUYS ARE SO MAD THIS IS MAGICAL

    I bet that you are also amused by a penlight being pointed on a wall.

  67. rackcity says

    Not trolling, trying to tweak my account settings. As I said before, I’m new to wordpress. Definitely don’t regret the years of not touching the site though, if this is the community this place has I’m not interested.

  68. janine says

    You like the word “uppity”. It implies that we are reashing for a station that is beyond us.

    Aren’t you the smugly superior shitstain.

  69. says

    (although apparently it seems like some users around here think it’s okay, how hypocritical)

    FFS you’re just going off a script aren’t you?

  70. Ace of Sevens says

    In my travels through atheism, TJ is the only figure I have found — ever — who even comes close to fitting the Universal Straw Atheist that the religious and their allies love to throw around.

    You apparently aren’t familiar with his YouTube buddies. Some of them are worse.

    And how can people come in here defending TJ Kincaid with such thin skin? Bitchpeas, have you ever watched a single fucking video of TJ Kincaid’s??

    That’s different, though. TJ talks about people who aren’t like them.

  71. says

    Oh…oh that is special.

    I even checked the back page. Rackcity gave no opinions just cackling…until suddenly he acts as if he’s replying on behalf of bitchpeas.

    WOW. That is truely…*slow clap* well done. Well done. Fail.

  72. janine says

    @ Janine smug or not I’m still right. And you hate that.

    Please, enlighten me oh wise one. What else do you know about me.

    And prove your statements; how are you right and how do you know that I hate that?

  73. says

    @Janine

    Well clearly he was right about “ahahahahha” and “this is magical you guys are so mad”

    Cause you know…that’s all he posted.

  74. says

    @Caine, Fleur du Mal, no kidding about this one having no imagination. The very first thing out of rackcity/bitchpeas mouth, “Y U So Mad?”, the oldest play in the troll book. As if us getting mad means that threatening to rape someone is A-OK!

  75. says

    Oh man we are so pwned, getting all insulted and laughed at in public like this.

    Damn, recess is going to be HELL. I’m not going out on the playground, no way. I’m going to the nurses office. Say I have a stomachache.

  76. janine says

    Oh I fully believe this is a tuber.

    I think we need to put it back in the ground, it is not ripe yet.

  77. Ace of Sevens says

    You know, after your previous bad behaviour here, you might want to stop running your mouth in TJ’s defense. Enough.

    I have no idea how you got that from what I said.

  78. Ichthyic says

    I need some ice for all these burns!

    actually, that pain is from hitting yourself in the head so hard.

    It’s funny to us, but you might want to stop doing it eventually, before permanent brain damage sets in.

  79. Ace of Sevens says

    To clarify @ Caine, you got upset that I was unfairly accusing you of giving TJ a pass, despite the fact i never accused you specifically of anything, then accused me of being an actual TJ supporter for no apparent reason when I’ve made it quite clear I despise him. What gives?

  80. says

    I think I get what you meant, Ace of Sevens. Rackcity isn’t like those other people playing “the victim-card” who TJK rants about. Rackcity is a special kind of cupcake. One with extra sprinkles and candy dots. … Please excuse me while I snicker myself to sleep. I don’t think I’ve previously seen a troll spin on its heels as fast as rackcity just did.

  81. Ace of Sevens says

    Feminism imo preaches that women are superior to men.

    This isn’t really a matter of opinion. Besides, are you familiar with feminism beyond what guys like TJ dig up when they need some kindling?

  82. Ichthyic says

    I’m pretty sure by all your reactions and anger on TJ’s actions lately, I’d say he’s winning.

    winning… what?

  83. says

    Ace of Sevens #303:

    You apparently aren’t familiar with his YouTube buddies. Some of them are worse.

    I’m familiar with a couple, mostly that idiot MannixThePirate, but neither of them are nearly as prominent as TJ.

    Of course, the youtube atheists I hung out with viewed TJ with a lot of disdain because, well…he didn’t really do much other than make noise, which isn’t terribly endearing to the crowd who tend to follow the actual informative stuff (on which Thunderf00t is a low end; I much prefer AronRa, potholer54, AndromedasWake et al as they’re a lot heavier on pure information and less on owning low-rent idiots like Hovind [but there's still no f--king carbon in it!]).

  84. Ace of Sevens says

    I’m pretty sure by all your reactions and anger on TJ’s actions lately, I’d say he’s winning.

    There’s a word for people who win by making people angry on the Internet as an end unto itself. We call them trolls.

    What does he win? The satisfaction of knowing that he has the power to make people angry. Yet, no one can make him angry, because he’s too Amazing to care about anything.

  85. Ichthyic says

    And people wonder why we don’t want anything to do with youtube. Gad, the stupidity is flat out overwhelming.

    oh, any youtube vid that has anything at all relating to any kind of social issue on it is just entirely flooded with 13 year old wankers, or old wankers with 13 year old brains.

    It’s worse than the commentary sections for places like WaPo.

  86. Ace of Sevens says

    I’m familiar with a couple, mostly that idiot MannixThePirate, but neither of them are nearly as prominent as TJ.

    I’d say check out FakeSagan, but IIRC YouTube shut him down with good reason.

    Of course, the youtube atheists I hung out with viewed TJ with a lot of disdain because, well…he didn’t really do much other than make noise, which isn’t terribly endearing to the crowd who tend to follow the actual informative stuff (on which Thunderf00t is a low end; I much prefer AronRa, potholer54, AndromedasWake et al as they’re a lot heavier on pure information and less on owning low-rent idiots like Hovind [but there's still no f--king carbon in it!]).

    I really like Richard Coughlan, who’s a stand-up comic who’s made it his main mission to take on white nationalists, particularly those who try to hide behind anti-immigration nuttery behind a veneer of secularism. He also hosts an annual pwnage olympics which rewards good arguments and style instead of who can come up with the allegedly funniest insults.

    I also suggest checking out Todd Allen Gates, who deals mostly with the history of Christianity and is the best I’ve seen for finding the bet possible apologetics to deal with instead of going after the idiots.

    There are plenty of good YouTube atheists. They just struggle to get 10% of TJ’s audience.

  87. SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant says

    So… how does this work again? Dude threatens to rape a rape victim. Folks get angry.

    Dude… wins? What does he win? A toaster? A luggage set? Why does inspiring anger with egregiously anti-social behavior constitute some sort of victory? What is the battle being fought?

    I have so many questions.

  88. janine says

    Dude… wins? What does he win? A toaster? A luggage set? Why does inspiring anger with egregiously anti-social behavior constitute some sort of victory? What is the battle being fought?

    They struck a nerve? You proved their point? You are angry because they are right? You are uppity? You are immature? You are too serious?

    It is all rather murky.

  89. says

    I read this very long and informative article about YT recently

    So they mention this YT partner program. Is TAA one, and is there a ranking? If TAA is making money with this, maybe we need to contact Google about this. Though I have no sense for proportions in the YT world. Though I do know about this Vietnamese-American YT star they mention…

  90. Ace of Sevens says

    Yes, he is a partner. I would estimate he makes about $50,000 a year from YouTube money and considerably more once you count all the merchandise he sells, or reportedly allegedly sells and never ships.

  91. Ace of Sevens says

    I should add being a partner isn’t special. I’m a partner and I only have a little over 1,000 channel views.

  92. says

    yes, they mention in the article:

    YouTube’s Partner Program, begun in 2007, has also flourished. YouTube sells advertising against popular channels created by homegrown YouTube stars—vloggers, sit-down comedians (a form of comedy unique to YouTube), mashup artists, bedroom auteurs, Mr. Fix-Its—and shares the revenues with the channels’ creators. For most of YouTube’s thirty thousand partners, this means a few hundred dollars a month, but the top five hundred partners earn more than a hundred thousand a year, and in some cases—Real Annoying Orange, a socially inept talking citrus who converses with other pieces of fruit; Shane Dawson, a madcap twenty-three-year-old sketch comedian; and Michelle Phan, a Vietnamese-American beauty guru, among them—they earn much more. Tweens are more familiar with these “welebrities” than they are with the stars on TV, a grim augury for the future of traditional television.

  93. Ace of Sevens says

    He’s probably driving about 30 million page views a year, so that’s a lot of advertising YouTube is getting.

  94. says

    well, then maybe it’s about time someone asked Google if they want to be associated with rape apologists?

    Or do they just not care?

  95. Ace of Sevens says

    I don’t think they do. In a way, this is a good thing. Google, probably more than any other corporation, has fought for free speech for their users. His channel was suspended once for a TOS violation, but was only down a week. So long as he isn’t using his videos to do something criminal, they’re cool with it. If he had issued his rape threats in a video instead of Reddit, he’d likely have a problem, but he’s smarter than that.

  96. says

    If that woman was my wife you’d have heard a few choice words from me professor.

    Oooh-ooh, feel like he would have trespassed on your property?

    bitchpeas
    You’re a special little snowflake.
    Or Ms. Dunning-Kruger, one of them

    First and last time poster, for sure.

    And everybody’s glad for that.
    Here’s a hint: If you don’t get offended at somebody threatening rape, there’s something wrong with you.

    Definitely don’t regret the years of not touching the site though,

    Neither do we, neither do we…

    BTW, has anybody noticed the inflated use of “uppity” lately? They really think that it’s a good word to call people…

    I’m pretty sure by all your reactions and anger on TJ’s actions lately, I’d say he’s winning.

    winning… what?

    The contest for the biggest sexist asshole that calls itself an atheist. And the competition is strong (unfortunately)

  97. says

    I didn’t mean to imply he should get banned from YT, of course not. But if he is one of those top-tier partners, his scumbaggery will also fall back on Google. Though since I haven’t watched his videos, I don’t know how misogynistic he is in those..

  98. Ace of Sevens says

    And it looks like TJ’s minions flagged Richard Coughlan’s video criticizing TJ until it got pulled. We’ll see if he can get it back up.

  99. Ace of Sevens says

    He’s not in the top 100 channels, but I’d bet he’s in the top 200. It’s not like they’ll feature him on the homepage or anything. I don’t think they think there’s any danger of being mistaken for endorsing him.

  100. says

    dang, I just checked and I have almost 350,000 views. And I haven’t uploaded anything for a couple years I think. My videos, though, have nothing to do with me in any way. I don’t appear in them, I don’t say a thing. Imagine that.

    YouTube is a strange place.

  101. says

    I didn’t mean to imply he should get banned from YT, of course not. But if he is one of those top-tier partners, his scumbaggery will also fall back on Google. Though since I haven’t watched his videos, I don’t know how misogynistic he is in those..

    Problem is, from the little I’ve seen from Google, they really don’t give much of a shit. There have been people scamming, there have been false DMCAs (wonderfull tool: You claim a DMCA, youtube blocks the video, if you protest the other one gets your personal details, if you don’t you lose) and flags and people had a really hard time getting their things back.

    And it looks like TJ’s minions flagged Richard Coughlan’s video criticizing TJ until it got pulled. We’ll see if he can get it back up.

    I’m not surprised, I’m not surprised.
    If Richard is really good at something it’s making high-profile enemies. Seems like he’s doing something right.

  102. Ace of Sevens says

    To summarize: Coughlan posted a video called “Are You Reall that Stupid, TJ?” calling him out on his video about arguing on the Internet. TJ complained that people never listen in Internet discussions and just yell and try to score points. (He apparently thought trying to claim to be a rape victim is an underhanded tactic to make whatever your opponent says look bad.)

    Coughlan pointed out that’s rich considering what TJ said in that argument seeing as he resorted to threatening rape and generally avoided rationally engaging his opponent.

    TJ responded to call Coughlan an ingrate and said he was only popular because TJ had sent people to his channel and Coughlan stabbed him in the back the first time he said somethign stupid, that it’s unfair to pick to pick on him after he apologized and made some remarks about Coughlan’s looks and wished that he would die of cancer.

    Coughlan made another video called “TJ Really Is That Stupid” where he pointed out this is hardly the first stupid thing TJ has done. He’s made lots of bad arguments and had an embarrassing incident Coughlan never mentioned. Coughlan left him alone until now except for two fights that TJ started. Also, he’s never gotten personal and started insulting people’s girlfriend’s or looks like TJ is doing. This video is now gone. I thought Coughlan was rather restrained, considering.

  103. says

    I’d watched the occasional video by TAA. Some of the political rants were good (that’s frankly what he should stick to – he does it OK), so I’d subscribed.

    It probably goes without saying that after reading about this, I’ve unsubscribed and will abstain from his channel from now on.

    I *did* watch his “apology” video (which was nothing of the sort) and that only confirmed his status as a douchebag.

  104. Ichthyic says

    YouTube is a strange place.

    I spend as little time there as possible. It’s like Kafka created an entire dimension for retrograde personalities to thrive in.

  105. says

    Ace of Sevens #355:

    And it looks like TJ’s minions flagged Richard Coughlan’s video criticizing TJ until it got pulled. We’ll see if he can get it back up.

    False flags, DMCAs, etc are absolutely loathed among the Youtube atheist community because of how many whiny religious idiots abuse them. If TJ’s minions have false flagged Coughlan of all people, expect at least 100 mirrors of his downed video by dawn and a torch-and-pitchfork-mob of scathing responses and calls for TJ to (at the absolute least) publicly denounce such actions by nightfall.

  106. Ichthyic says

    OK. It looks like Youtube is not the place I would wanna upload my videos, if I had any…

    no, that’s exactly what it’s for.

    if you want to avoid the bizarreness, just disable comments on your vid.

  107. Ichthyic says

    of course there are other places to upload your vids too.

    I even upload some of mine to Flickr.

  108. Ace of Sevens says

    I suppose it’s possible Coughlan pulled it himself, but I’m not sure why he would. His response wasn’t full of things he’d regret saying and it’s not like he has any great love for TJ. (The other two recent videos criticizing TJ are still up.) It’s possible TJ pulled the video he was responding to, so he pulled this as a good faith gesture. I’m not sure where TJ’s video he responded to was on even which channel it was on, so I can’t check, not that I’d care to.

  109. Ace of Sevens says

    On an encouraging note, it looks like TJ did have some fans who somehow have managed to miss the fact that he’s a bully and a misogynist until now and who are unsubbing.

  110. Gnumann says

    On a slightly meta note, I think the morphing troll de jour’s frist rant is a perfect example of why you should never call yourself “egalitarian” if you’re serious about women being fully human.

  111. maia160 says

    TAA has lost 10,000 subscribers since yesterday. Not bad but I’d like to see that number go up a lot more.

  112. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    rackcity, I get that this is hard for you, but you need to seriously stop, take a step back, and think about what you’re saying here. You’re entertained and have decided that TAA is winning because he pissed people off. By threatening someone with rape. The slimy loudmouth wins, because his rape threats and deliberate attempts to trigger a trauma survivor caused harm, and deliberate cruelty pisses people off.

    Now, I get that you’re trolling. I get that you get some kind of juvenile rush from knowing that someone, anyone is paying attention to you, is taking you seriously. But what I’m saying right now is that you need to grow the fuck up. Right now you are facing, among others, actual people who have suffered horrible crimes. And you are getting your childish jollies from watching someone treat them like shit.

    Is this really a place you want to be in your life?

    Do you think you’ll look back on this and be proud? Someday, when your daughter, your son, your sister, your best friend comes to you and tells you that they have been violated, maybe by a stranger, maybe by someone they love – that they can’t sleep for the nightmares, that they can’t stand to be touched anymore, that sometimes they are thrown back and in broad daylight, in school, at work, they are forced to experience the torture someone inflicted on them again and again, that some days they’re afraid they’ll never leave the room where it happened, not really – will you look back at this moment and smile at the daughters, sons, sisters, friends you’re taunting, how powerful it made you feel to get a response from them? If someone like TAA tells them they should be raped again, that the person who hurt them deserves a fucking medal, you really think you won’t be right where we are, shaking with rage?

    Do you really think that it’s some kind of a fucking virtue to attack people and then claim victory when they hit back?

    Fucking really?

    [Yes, I know this is utterly wasted on the blithering idiot. My hope is that when she reaches intellectual maturity, she’ll remember this. I’ll admit to hoping she feels ashamed.)

  113. Gregory Greenwood says

    @ Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM;

    Well said. It is a pity that your eloquent words are almost certainly wasted on a morphing troll like Rackcity/Bitchpeas. In my experience, people who think it funny to taunt rape survivors all share the same delusion – not only do they seemingly lack empathy for others, but they are also convinced that such a thing could never happen to them or anyone they care about. I have never been able to decipher their (for want of a better term) ‘reasoning’ as to why they believe that they should enjoy such immunity, but I imagine it has its root in the standard victim-blaming and slut-shaming mentality of misogynists everywhere.

    I hope that Rackcity/Bitchpeas comes to the realisation that their actions are irresponsible and harmful, and matures into a better person, but as a humanist I fervently hope that she doesn’t have to learn about the trauma of rape the hard way.

    Nobody deserves that.

  114. Brownian says

    Boy, I can’t wait for someone else to come on here and post their harmless opinions so you guys can all go jump down their throats too like a bunch of circle jerking hyenas.

    You mean harmlessly jump down their throats, idiot.

  115. Brownian says

    Why are atheism and feminism fused together everywhere I look now?

    They aren’t, any more than atheism and being Canadian are fused. Or is plurality that difficult to grasp?

    I know I’m alone when I say I want atheism to be about atheism.

    Indeed. Alone and dumb. I noticed you kept your yap shut all the times PZ fused atheism with science.

  116. says

    Oh no! PZ’s blog isn’t just about atheism! Someone bring me a fainting couch and some salts, stat!

    I’m not sure about everyone else, but I get bored pretty quickly just talking about atheism.

    Me: “Hey! I don’t believe in any gods. I’m an atheist!”

    Brownian: “What a coincidence. Me neither.”

    (Sounds of crickets chirping fill the awkward silence.)

    Me: “Say. Wanna get a beer and participate in some ghey secks?”

  117. janine says

    NigeltheBold, you forgot all of the atheist women who find the contents of DMFM’s skull sexy.

  118. thepint says

    Why are atheism and feminism fused together everywhere I look now?

    Because not all atheists are a bunch of navel-gazing, self-centered nitwits who think that atheism exists in a vacuum.

    I know I’m alone when I say I want atheism to be about atheism.

    Unfortunately, considering the immense number of “Don’t we have more important things to worry about” derailing attempts that spill out like a sewer rupture every time PZ or anyone else tries to bring up the sexism and misogyny problem in atheism, you’re not.

  119. Gregory Greenwood says

    @ nigelTheBold, Abbot of the Hoppist Monks;

    Me: “Hey! I don’t believe in any gods. I’m an atheist!”

    Brownian: “What a coincidence. Me neither.”

    (Sounds of crickets chirping fill the awkward silence.)

    Me: “Say. Wanna get a beer barbeque some babies and participate in some ghey secks?”

    There, fixed that for you.

    ;-)

    Oh, and nigel – stop trying to jump the que. We all just have to wait our turn for ghey secks with Brownian….

  120. says

    janine:

    NigeltheBold, you forgot all of the atheist women who find the contents of DMFM’s skull sexy.

    Oh, I haven’t forgotten. I find DMFM’s intellect extremely sexy. Scary at times, but sexy. (Unless you were referring to the zombie women, and meant the actual physical contents.)

    I just didn’t want to speak for atheist women everywhere. That’d be a tad presumptuous.

  121. thepint says

    Anyways that’s just my two cents. Take it as you will. I’m sure I’ll be chewed out and told how wrong I am by the OP because well, she’s a feminist and that’s what they do.

    Oh please. I’m not even going to bother breaking out the teeny tiny violin for you, snowflake.

  122. Gregory Greenwood says

    @ janine;

    NigeltheBold, you forgot all of the atheist women who find the contents of DMFM’s skull sexy.

    I don’t doubt there are also plenty of atheist men who find the contents of David’s skull sexy.

    Now, if only I could find a lady version of DMFM who could actually put up with me…

    *sigh*

  123. thepint says

    I’m pretty sure by all your reactions and anger on TJ’s actions lately, I’d say he’s winning. You’re all terribly pissed off.

    Being pissed off is a natural reaction to asshattery like TJ’s. So really, the question is, why aren’t you?

  124. janine says

    And the writers of Futurama would have only one appropriately response.

    Bite my shiny metal ass!

    My seven year nephew is not using this line, when his parents are out of earshot.

  125. Gregory Greenwood says

    @ Caine, Fleur du Mal;

    Mmmmm, me too. Actually, most of the Horde gives me one raging brainer after another. Deliciously sexy, that.

    Now, that made me laugh. I seem to remember s similar line from Professor Farnsworth on Futurama when he went to the planet Da Vinci…

    Now, lets see if my google-foo is sufficient to find the clip…

    Ah, there it is

  126. Gregory Greenwood says

    Gah! Too slow, too slow!

    At least I don’t keep confusing Leonardo Da Vinci and Leonardo Dicaprio like Fry…

  127. Gregory Greenwood says

    @ nigelTheBold, Abbot of the Hoppist Monks;

    Curses! Foiled again.

    I’ve been in line forever.

    Nah, it just seems that way; a little relativity in action…

  128. says

    Should someone start a “Not Amazing Atheist” channel with the goal of not promoting movies but being a tally of both unsubscribers and people who never heard of him and don’t like him? A protest petition account to send a message that as atheists we do not like this guy speaking for us? My only fear is that he’d still have more subscribers and thus ‘win’

  129. says

    Ing, you still wouldn’t get me involved in youtube and I expect there are a lot of other people who wouldn’t either. Seems to me that the less attention he’s paid, the better. Why go out of the way to provide him with attention and publicity?

  130. says

    @Caine

    Just brain storming to avoid the “moderates give cover to the extremists” thing that theists are criticized for. I guess the blogosphere is enough of a demonstration of that.

  131. Brownian says

    I’m pretty sure by all your reactions and anger on TJ’s actions lately, I’d say he’s winning. You’re all terribly pissed off.

    Hi, fourteen-year-olds on the internet? Go back to masturbating with your genitals thanks, and leave dealing with issues of substance to those of us who don’t think being obnoxious on the public transportation equals ground-breaking performance art.

    I’ve been in line forever.

    The Queue is what keeps this place from being a circle-jerk. At best, the trolls can only accurately criticise us for having a tangent-jerk.

  132. says

    Why are atheism and feminism fused together everywhere I look now?

    …I know I’m alone when I say I want atheism to be about atheism.

    And you knew where you were then.

    Girls were girls and men were men.

    Mister, we could use a man like Ronald Reagan again…

  133. says

    Ing:

    Just brain storming to avoid the “moderates give cover to the extremists” thing that theists are criticized for. I guess the blogosphere is enough of a demonstration of that.

    :Sigh: Look, a lot of people in this thread took the time to explain a number of things, such as the time they have, where they prefer to hang out, net connections, those pesky things like jobs, family, etc.

    If a person or persons wants to storm youtube and invest the time and effort and heavy lifting into changing the culture of youtube, go for it.

    Not one of the regulars I noted “gave cover to the extremists” in any way, shape or form. If someone is stupid enough to think that, fine, let ‘em. Every single fucking site on the ‘net is not our responsibility to clean up and make it a good place for people. We are not the ‘net police and we shouldn’t have to apologize for not running about playing white knight all over the godsdamned place.

  134. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    …you guys can all go jump down their throats too like a bunch of circle jerking hyenas

    lolwut?

  135. thecollaboratrix says

    My fondest dream is that some day idiots will realize that feminism =/= some kind of radical lesbian separatist movement that preaches the inferiority of men. But I guess it’s easier to keep flailing away at those strawmen.

    I can’t find the comment, but upthread someone pointed out that there has been next to no MRA outrage over the fact that TJ was attacking a male rape victim. I keep looking for the “good ones,” but every damn discussion with MRAs seems to boil down to some people being upset that women might have the temerity to demand the same rights to bodily autonomy as men. They really could not give a fuck about any man who doesn’t think all women are castrating, gold-digging bitches.

  136. thepint says

    My fondest dream is that some day idiots will realize that feminism =/= some kind of radical lesbian separatist movement that preaches the inferiority of men.

    I want to go to there. Sigh.

  137. nyarlathotep says

    I’ve been a fan of TJ for some time. When discovering my atheism he was among the first Youtubers I found. I agreed with him often, but when he’d start blabbing about feminism I tuned it out. After this, however, I can no longer support him in good faith. I was certain that, him being a mostly reasonable human being, something or someone would eventually burst through his bubble regarding feminism, as had happened with his Libertarian streak early on.

    It’s now become clear that this is somewhat unlikely. I encourage others, if there are any reading this, to do the same as I have: unsubscribe and stop watching his videos until such a time as he has a genuine change of opinion.

  138. eline says

    I’m kinda late to the party and have tried to read up on this but if someone could point me to where this TAA dude says people prohibiting rape are infringing on his right to express his sexuality (my wording, dunno the original, if it was about him specifically or not), I’d be very grateful. I just wanna see it with my own eyes and I can’t actually find it, just references to it. Thanks!

  139. Ace of Sevens says

    Bizarrely, TJ can issue a decent apology to Coughlan for accusing him of being on a mission to destroy him, but can’t apologize properly to someone he did much worse to.

  140. Ace of Sevens says

    @eline. He’s not going to be stupid enough to say that outright, but watch the videos linked upthread, especially “Hate Week – Feminist.” He does claim that anti-rape activism is just a way to demonize men.

  141. jijoya says

    Thanks for the link, Ace.

    I’m not a fan of Coughlan’s – he lost me years ago and his vids on the TJ subject just reminded me why. For example, the tone of the latest one is so ecstatic (“TJ – we’re fine!!”) one would either think that a) TJ never went on a multi-volume hate-dripping rampage while attempting to trigger a rape victim he thought was a woman, or b) he did, but Coughlan doesn’t consider it all that problematic.

    Can’t say I’m surprised. Back when I was subbed to him, the following never failed to bug me: As passionate as he was when arguing against racism, homophobia and xenophobia, Coughlan’s input on women’s rights was always perfunctory at best. He’d either completely ignore YT fiascos on that subject, or (after much prodding) issue “a joke” which, contrary to what one’d learned to expect, was remarkably concise and totally devoid of his usual flare for the dramatic. Or, he’d start selling a “Got Rape?” t-shirt to “piss off” YT radical feminists with.

    As soon as I noticed his tendency to rage about every injustice in the world BUT misogyny, I unsubbed, and I’m finding it quite unexpected to see Ace actually recommend the fella in the context of what’s going on. (Right after complaining about TJ and free passes, no less.) Content-wise Coughlan’s material, when it isn’t deliberately offensive or dealing with his private life, has indeed been known to contain actual information and be educational. In terms of his stance on feminism (and free passes), however, he isn’t much better than TJ. Just sneakier.

  142. Ace of Sevens says

    I think he’s not strong on women’s rights. He’s gotten a bit paternalistic about people who attack women on YouTube for instance.

    He did pull the got rape t-shirts. It wasn’t a joke at the expense of rape victims, but understanding this required lots of context (meaning being one of the few thousand people that followed feud he got in) that wasn’t on the shirt and he pulled it when this was pointed out.

    I won’t say he has the greatest record on sexism. He’s gotten rather paternalistic when people have made pwnage videos aimed at women. He’s also made jokes about rape and domestic abuse, as pointed out above, but they aren’t rooted in dismissal of rape claims. They’re more along the lines of Sarah Silverman’s jokes about racism. I don’t have a problem with that per se, though he has gone over the line a few times, notably his video making fun of Caster Semenya and insinuating she was a man who has snuck into women’s track. To be fair, this was before anyone knew she was intersexed, but it is implicitly transphobic. Also, I’m generally against picking on celebrities just for catching the public eye. He’s also made some videos with rather strong condemnations of transphobia more recently.

    He tries to understand where people are coming from and deal with them politely for the most part. Ironically, his beef with TJ started when TJ accused him of being too nice to bigots in the interests of keeping the peace. I do think he’s being way too easy on TJ here. He hasn’t backed off what he said before (except for the part abotu TJ calling him an ingrate) and seems to be sticking with saying that what TJ said isn’t cool, but he has no personal problem with him. I can’t see him ever doing this with Pat Condell or Brett Keane. Of course, I csn’t imagine those assholes apologizing, either.

    Based on his previous history, I think it’s fair to assume Coughlan’s view is that he’ll civilly deal with anyoen who will civilly deal with him, regardless of how repugnant their views are. His first two videos aimed at TJ are his concept of how to deal with peopel civilly and I think that’s commendable for the most part.

    I am writing to him, or possibly making a video (I haven’t decided yet) questioning why he’s been so aggressive about going after bigots, but has, as he asserted in his defense, ignored TJ, even though this is hardly the first bigoted thing TJ has said. I’m also going to call on him to clarify that being cool with TJ personally doesn’t mean he’s cool with any of the bigoted things TJ has said.

  143. Ace of Sevens says

    Oh, and I should point out it turns out Coughlan’s video getting pulled was due to a Brett Keane supporter, not one of TJ’s. It’s back up and widely mirrored now.

  144. tiberiusbeauregard says

    Another amazingly embarrassing statement by PZ Meyers
    —————————————————–

    Mr. Meyers has a history of being a mangina feminist trash talker; just remember his “attack” Mr. Dawkins for his comments on the “Elevator-Gate” non-incident, if you will. Terrible thinking, deeply religious and massively irrational.

    And now he goes at it again. Everyone who reads the -complete- transscript will easily find out that “The Amazing Atheist” had a somewhat over-the-top reaction towards an allegedly female person and self-proclaimed rape victim, who had aggressively insulted him multiple times during a little post war.

    His outburst – and it could be clearly seen as such – tried to catch her on exactly that point, although he himself didn’t actually believe her claim in the first place – and said so.

    The things he said were nasty – but that’s exactly what you get if you keep on pressing someone with slurs and crap talk all the way. Your post war counterpart is going to use the most-likely-to-work retalation available. Sorry, that’s human nature and it doesn’t even take a real asshole to do so, just someone who is completely fed up with the shit you dish.

    So far, so bad. But not for Mr. Meyers. He has got the nerve to obviously and malevolently misinterpret his rants as “rape threat” and worse.
    You know, every even half intelligent person understands that only a seriously-meant or at least as-seriously-received commment can constitute a “threat”, both of which is obviously not true.

    And Mr. Meyers understands that as well. He just doesn’t want to admit it, because that much honesty would ruin his little hate game. What hate game ? Go through his post at the top and you will probably find as many slurs per sentence than in the “Amazing Atheist”‘s original post.

    And that’s what reminded me so terribly of his equally repulsive commentary towards Mr.Dawkins: As soon as he successfully implemented the disingenuous proposal of “The Amazing Atheist” being a misogynist, potential rapist and whatnot, he then goes on a long and boring blah-trip about his own mangina feminist religious attitudes and about his journey on the moral high road… Boring ? Yes. Dishonest to the bone ? Yes again.

    I really wish Mr. Meyers would only blog about Biology, something he knows a lot about and leave the things aside he doesn’t know little or nothing about – or isn’t at least willing to approach HONESTLY.

    He has shown grave errors of judgement when attacking Mr.Dawkins, alarming carelessness misrepresenting Mr. Hitchens shortly after his death and it’s safe to assume that his posting wasn’t the last of mindless rants he will present to us.

    Very bad thinking.
    End.

  145. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Mr. Meyers has a history of being a mangina feminist trash talker; just remember his “attack” Mr. Dawkins for his comments on the “Elevator-Gate” non-incident, if you will.

    Fuckwitted idjit, PZ said nothing about Dawkins comments. The horde, on the other hand, had a lot to say about Dawkins inappropriate comments. Also, keep in mind PZ wasn’t the one who made elevatorgate a brouhaha, it is was the MRA fuckwits who can’t shut the fuck up and listen to women or treat them as equals. Oh, and by the way slack-jawed fuckwit, it is Dr. Myers, not Meyers. What a loser if you can’t even look at the masthead before making an utter and total fool of yourself.

    The things he said were nasty

    That was PZ’s point. They never should have been said in any reasonable company, and not in public.

    He has got the nerve to obviously and malevolently misinterpret his rants as “rape threat” and worse.

    They are. You know it. But you can’t accept it.

    You know, every even half intelligent person

    Oh, you have only a quarter of a brain, and as a result, think the comments were innocuous and not mean, malevolent, and inappropriate? Those with full brains, like the folks here, know better.

    And that’s what reminded me so terribly of his equally repulsive commentary towards Mr.Dawkins:

    What? You keep lying. PZ and Dawkins are friends, and remarks by PZ would be deliberately repulsive. Unless, of course, you are a MRA who thinks a man can hit on a woman at all times and places, no matter how inappropriate in context.

    isn’t at least willing to approach HONESTLY.

    Well, that means agree with a slack-jawed fuckwitted idjit like yourself, no. Sorry, PZ is a man of real honesty and integrity, unlike you, who has shown a utter and total lack of context, intelligence, and cogency.

  146. tiberiusbeauregard says

    @Nerd of Redhead : Spit as much fanboy poison as you like, you’re wrong on every single count. For the rest – blahblah, no content, just slurs. Terrible thinking. Again.

    And I know that you know it.

  147. says

    Mr. Meyers has a history of being a mangina feminist trash talker; just remember his “attack” Mr. Dawkins for his comments on the “Elevator-Gate” non-incident, if you will.

    Oh, I’m sorry. I tried to remember that “attack”, and a complete replay of my life from birth to the present day reveals no such attack. Richard Dawkins has been and remains to be a respected colleague.

    Maybe it was Mr. Meyers’ scurrilous attacks that you recall? If so, you’ve got the wrong blog.

    Dumbass.

  148. ChasCPeterson says

    This evident misunderstanding could be easily remedied with one of them ‘hyperlinks’ to Mr. Meyers’s “”attack”” on Mr. Dawken.
    how bout it?

  149. KG says

    Another amazingly embarrassing statement by PZ Meyers – tiberiusbeauregard

    Who?

    Look, fuckwit, if you can’t even get the name right, why should anyone take any notice of your moronic dribblings?

  150. tiberiusbeauregard says

    @PZ Myers Is that a joke? Is there a hidden camera somewhere ?

    No, I’m actually serious and I’m also 100% sure it was -you-on this blog- who took the opportunity to attack Mr.Dawkins in the crude manner you just repeatedly demonstrated.

    May I quote from one of YOUR articles, addressing Mr. Dawkins response to Mr. Watson? Here I go.

    “The response has been to belittle her reasonable suggestion, belittle her, accuse her of hysteria, defend the rudeness of the fellow with the proposition, and mostly act as if utterly obtuse to both the unpleasantness of the elevator faux pas and to disrespect the rational concerns of women.”

    and

    “This isn’t slightly bad. It’s very bad. Atheist men are alienating the people we want to work with us on the very same problems, the oppression of women under religious regimes, that you cited in your comment.”

    The first quote is bad enough, full of unwarranted imputations against Mr. Dawkins, questionin his judgement, his intent in writing his statement, his allegedly ignorant attitude towards Mr. Watson and women in general.

    The second piece of the quote is worse. That’s a roundhouse slap against all males in the atheistic community, equally uncalled for.

    As I insinuated earlier – the sleayzness of your attacks is probably unmatched – but it doesn’t hide very well.

    And you, Sir, are a serial offender.

  151. Gregory Greenwood says

    mangina feminist trash talker

    Leaving aside hir near patholgical inability to spell ‘Myers’ properly, tiberiusbeauregard has already outed hirself as a reactionary misogynist with terminology such as the above. I see no point in even trying to engage with someone who is so clearly beyond the reach of reason. All that leaves is well-deserved mockery, and the Horde excels at puncturing the pomposity of egomanic internet bigots…

  152. tiberiusbeauregard says

    O BTW:
    I hope noone takes offence in the word “mangina”. It’s a joyful rescription of what the feminist blogger “skeptifem”, one of Mr. Watson’s colleagues, chose to describe as “gender traitors”.

    It does not mean that certain male actually has female genitalia. I thought this surrounding might appreciate the clarification.

  153. KG says

    That’s a roundhouse slap against all males in the atheistic community, equally uncalled for. – tiberiusbeauregard

    No, just against disgusting misogynist scum like you. As a male in the atheist community, I wasn’t in the least offended, since I had done none of the things complained of.

  154. ChasCPeterson says

    here‘s your link, dumbass. If that’s your idea of a sleazy “”attack”” on Richard Dawkins then you really are stupid.

  155. tiberiusbeauregard says

    @KG I’m glad to hear that you weren’t offended – neither was I. The self-destructive weakness of the accusation didn’t make it the most powerful tool to deliver the intended roundhouse slap.

    And I’m equally glad you actually agree on the points I made about Mr. Myers’s (I got it right this time :) attack on Mr. Dawkins. At least I can safely assume you do agree, since I haven’t spotted any substantial rebuttal (just the usual slurs).

  156. ChasCPeterson says

    Here’s your rebuttal: the sentences you quoted out of context (and without a link) were quite obviously not directed at Dawkins, nor at all atheist men.
    That’s why your claim is stupid.

  157. ChasCPeterson says

    oh, sorry: also those quotes are reasonable, not an “”attack””, and hardly sleazy. Even stupider.

  158. KG says

    tiberiusbeauregard,

    Lying scum, aren’t you? “Atheist men” does not mean “All atheist men”, and your pretence that it does is transparent; I was not offended because I knew I neither had done the things complained of, nor was it being in any way implied that I had. As for the lie that you can assume I agree with you that Myers “attack[ed] Mr.Dawkins in the crude manner”, you know very well you can assume no such thing. It is ludicrous to describe your quotation, if it is indeed aimed at Dawkins (you do not link to the source and I’m not going to go looking for it), as a “crude attack”. It is quite in order to criticse a respected colleague if you believe they have done something wrong or unwise. Now fuck off, shit-for-brains.

  159. tiberiusbeauregard says

    @ChasCPeterson Well, I appreciate the fact that you actually relate to the content of my posts, but you’re obviously wrong.

    The article in question is very clearly written – no miscommunication ^^ – and the “The response…” part was neither taken out of context nor falsely attributed to anything other than Mr. Dawkin’s “reply” to Mr. Watson’s initial post (the now infamous “uh, don’t do that” rant).

    And the same goes for you, @KG
    It’s a simple naked fact that the first quote was directed towards Mr. Dawkins. That’s not even debatable, because it isn’t a matter of interpretation or opinion – it’s a clear cut reference.

    For the second quote – At least when he’s writing articles, he uses a clear and simple to understand language. If he says “Atheist men”, then he means that, or you’d have to attest him a mental blackout when forming that particular sentence. I don’t think that’s your intention.

    And yes, I do think what he said was seriously rude and slanderous, nothing you would say about somebody you consider a friend.
    Mr. Myers can consider himself lucky that Mr. Dawkins sometimes seems to be a bit ignorant, or shall we say insensitive, towards social semantics, otherwise he might have been really crossed.

  160. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Mr.Dawkins

    Professor Dawkins you fuckwitted idjit. Can’t do anything right, not even blow bile.
    Still waiting for you to prove it was PZ, and not the commentariate, that proper took Prof. Dawkins to the cleaners. Yes, Prof. Dawkins attempts to redirect the comments was ill-considered and naive. What’s your excuse for thinking they were right?

  161. tiberiusbeauregard says

    I forgot that I wanted to refer you to something that might cheer you up.

    Maybe you know it already – it’s really funny youtube video with the title : “Racism in the Elevator”.

    Spoiler:

    It’s about a black man who steps into an elevator, immediately recognising a scared white woman in it, who is so full of racist stereotypes about blacks that she’s almost scared to death of him robbing her. He’s not very happy about the situation and becomes aggressive.

    Unfortunately, the story is told from the black guy’s perspective. “Unfortunately”, because if it were told from the racist woman’s perspective, the video would’ve surely ended with the words “Uh, black guys, don’t do that.”

    Wouldn’t that be an epic irony?

  162. KG says

    tiberiusbeaureagrd,

    It’s a simple naked fact that the first quote was directed towards Mr. Dawkins.

    I didn’t say it wasn’t. But since you’re a dishonest little shit, I certainly wouldn’t simply take your word for it without a link to the source.

    If he says “Atheist men”, then he means that

    PZ Myers is an atheist man. Do you think he was attacking himself? You’re either simply lying, or even more stupid than you appear, difficult though that would be.

    Mr. Myers can consider himself lucky that Mr. Dawkins sometimes seems to be a bit ignorant, or shall we say insensitive, towards social semantics, otherwise he might have been really crossed.

    An interesting admission that Dawkins does not share your purported view.

    As for your “Racism in the elevator” video, I’m certainly not going to view any piece of shit a scumbag like you links to.

  163. pj says

    @tiberiusbeauregard

    I strongly recommend you go read this blog post.

    It is written by a black atheist man who tears a new one for every moron that makes that false comparison you just did.

  164. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    As for your “Racism in the elevator” video, I’m certainly not going to view any piece of shit a scumbag like you links to.

    Amen brother. This toad has a few problems. Like logic, thinking, and empathy for its fellow men. I don’t believe it thinks women are its equal, or that rape is a problem. It is also obviously using Dawkins to deflect the thread from TAA and its misgynic fuckwittery.

  165. tiberiusbeauregard says

    @chigau
    Ouch, that was nasty

    @KG
    What a pity. And 9 million views can’t lure you into it? It’s really a pity, it might teach you a very valuable lesson about how similar racism and sexism are.

    Oh any yes, Mr. Dawkins is sometimes good for a face palm. I remember Mr. Frye gathering friends of the late Hitchens in front of a convention crowd, one of the friends telling about “word games” he and Hitchens played in the past.

    I was pleased to see that the friend did not tell the story about a particularly juicy version of the mentioned word game (~replace “heart” with “dick” in every story/saying), something Hitchens had told on few occasions.

    I appreciated the friend having the decency not to tell the audience about this rather titilating version of the game on that rather serious occasion.

    But when the camera swerved around and showed Mr. Dawkin’s enthusiastic face, I knew immediately what was going to follow next: Eager to contribute to the audience’s amusement about the harmless version of the game, he couldn’t help but telling the respectful audience about the exact same rather disrespectful version of the word game.

    That was worthy of a face palm and a silent “…why?”.

    @pj
    I actually read the article you refered to – common decency obligates me to do so – The overall notion is discussable, but it contains some obvious errors when offering conclusions based on the guy’s anecdotes (if these are worth anything to an argument).
    The worst part was probably the claim that black people do all sorts of things to make “whites feel comfortable”. That way of thinking reveals much more than I’m willing to dissect right now. In short terms: It doesn’t add up.

  166. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    @temeriusbodaggit

    I infer that one of the following scenarios must be an explanation for the months-long gap between elevatorgate and a moment this morning when you finally shared your analysis of the event with the world.

    1. You were prepared to do so months ago when you were in some kind of accident. By your struggle to express your thoughts in written form, I infer that this trauma likely damaged your brain. You were only wheeled to a computer this morning.

    2. No such accident befell you, and it has taken this long for you to craft the gem that you deposited unthread. Congratulations. You got that off your chest. I await your next missive attentively. Can we expect it by next summer?

  167. says

    So. Let’s see if I can sum up. Some of the atheist community exhibits outright misogyny. Rebecca Watson points this out, using a single example of casual, non-frightening (though very annoying) misogyny.

    The misogynists in the skeptic community get angry. Apparently, misogynists don’t like being called misogynists.

    But somehow, PZ’s post about it is an attack on Dawkins. Or all males in the skeptic community. I’m not clear which, since the claim is both.

    Me, I thought he was simply calling out all misogynists in the skeptic community. I know I certainly didn’t feel attacked or called out. But this isn’t all about me.

    It seems tiberiusbeauregard feels attacked, though. I wonder why that might be? Are there any hints in his post why he might feel a bit uneasy about the various posts by PZ and Rebecca and Crommunist and others in the community?

    “…mangina feminist…”
    “…Mr. Watson…”
    …rape apologia…

    Hm. I just wonder why he might’ve taken personal offense at people calling out misogyny in the skeptic community?

    Did poor widdle snookums gets his feewings hurt?

  168. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Me, I thought he was simply calling out all misogynists in the skeptic community. I know I certainly didn’t feel attacked or called out.

    Me neither. I had a clear view of who was called out and why.

    Did poor widdle snookums gets his feewings hurt?

    It appears so, even without the usual decaying porcupine application.

    Obviously tb has some problems, but he should find a good therapist and work on them off-line. Why it doesn’t do so is beyond the ken of mortal men…

  169. tiberiusbeauregard says

    @Antiochus Epiphanes

    Ok, THAT was a really silly post. I lamented about the whole Dawkins/Watson hurly-burly because I was called out on it, by Mr.Myers himself. He received the clarification he asked for and hasn’t been seen ever since.

    THAT’s the reason why I spent so much time on it, while my original intention was directed at something different – easily to be recognised from my 1st post.

    I think that’s sufficient. I unsub.

    Have a nice day.

  170. says

    tb:

    He received the clarification he asked for and hasn’t been seen ever since.

    He’s travelling, moron.

    I’m kinda curious how that was a clarification. I re-read the original post from which that quote was taken, and I still don’t see it as an attack on Dawkins.

    It must take an amazingly astute mind to recognize PZ’s real target is Dawkins, when it seems he’s calling out all misogynist skeptics in general.

    And for the record: Professor Dawkins should’ve been called out for his reaction to EG. He didn’t have to say anything, but what he said was politely oblivious and condescendingly patriarchal.

  171. says

    tiberius,

    enjoying rewriting history now, do you. I wish PZ had addressed Dawkins more directly. He just stated he disagreed with Dawkins, and then criticised misogynist atheists in general, especially those who attacked Watson in this vile way. But it was clear to most of us that this criticism wasn’t about Dawkins specifically.

  172. says

    Maybe you know it already – it’s really funny youtube video with the title : “Racism in the Elevator”. –idiot of the day, tiberiusbeauregard

    In which the man calls all women in elevators bitches and says that if they clutch their purses they are “provoking a savage attack”. In other words, it’s a malicious video and misogynistic and exactly the same kind of shit that TJ Kincaid pulled on Reddit with his rape threats. And it has over six million views–no wonder TJ is so popular.

  173. says

    tb:

    The things he said were nasty – but that’s exactly what you get if you keep on pressing someone with slurs and crap talk all the way.

    I’ve seen this defense of TAA a couple of times now. This is even stupider than the “he might be on the autism spectrum” argument.

    In effect, tb is saying, “He’s only misogynistic when he’s mad. He only threatens rape, and tries to trigger a rape survivor* when he’s angry. You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.”

    I just don’t get this argument at all. If he’s a misogynistic rape-threatener when he’s angry (and can’t control himself), that kind of implies he’s always a misogynistic rape apologist. He’s just usually better at hiding it.

     

    * “Except, TJ says there’s no such thing as a rape survivor, since everybody survives rape, those people who don’t notwithstanding. And what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, amiright?”

  174. chigau (違う) says

    Do you think tiberiusbeauregard really read the 1220 comments that went before his first comment?

  175. jijoya says

    Ace –

    He did pull the got rape t-shirts. It wasn’t a joke at the expense of rape victims, but understanding this required lots of context (meaning being one of the few thousand people that followed feud he got in) that wasn’t on the shirt and he pulled it when this was pointed out.

    I’m willing to concede I didn’t follow this nonsense, and might not be aware of important details. I’m willing to bet, however, that a man who is not inclined to make light of rape wouldn’t need to have anything pointed out to him to pull the t-shirt – he simply wouldn’t even consider making one. He’d make his statement or whatever that was in a way that can’t be interpreted as making light of rape, and isn’t risking to belittle or trigger rape victims who aren’t in on the (undoubtedly brilliant) point he’s attempting to make, but had the misfortune of seeing / reading about the shirt anyway.

    Based on his previous history, I think it’s fair to assume Coughlan’s view is that he’ll civilly deal with anyoen who will civilly deal with him, regardless of how repugnant their views are.

    You’re correct – that does indeed seem to be his policy. It is, in short, a weasely one.

    I think he’s not strong on women’s rights.

    Correct again. Another way to put it is “When a civil rights issue is unlikely to affect men, Richard Coughlan doesn’t care enough to be bothered”. Which makes him sexist, which he’s got even more free passes for than TJ because his brand of it is passive. There’s no “in your face, bitches” about it unless there’s a “joke” to be made, and with him being a comedian, well. Looking the other way gets easier even for feminists, apparently.

    He’s also made some videos with rather strong condemnations of transphobia more recently.

    In view of my previous paragraph, I’m not surprised – transphobia often affects men. Do not expect to ever hear him utter “rather strong condemnations” of misogyny, however.

    I do think he’s being way too easy on TJ here. … I can’t see him ever doing this with Pat Condell or Brett Keane.

    I can’t be sure of that so the following is admittedly speculation, but I suspect he’d have been way harder on TJ had he so spectacularly established himself as a pathological racist / homophobe. As he’s merely proved (yet once again) to be a misogynist, it’s easier for Coughlan to be magnanimous about his transgression. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe he would have chosen to be easy on TJ in any and all circumstances, provided TJ apologized to HIM at some point.

    Btw, what I find most ironic here is that to date, Coughlan hasn’t been called on his sexism by any youtuber I follow. (I realize there might be someone I don’t follow who’s done it, but that would have been an exception to the rule, same as with TJ.) What’s sad about this is some of the people on my subscription list don’t even like him so that excuse is out the window. My point being that yeah. I know quite a lot about misogyny not really being considered problematic in the YT atheist community. I’m so glad to have finally discovered this blog it’s starting to border on the ridiculous.

    Speaking of the YT atheist community, Thunderfoot has given me yet another reason to regret ever subscribing to him. He favorited a video by some guy bashing Coughlan’s input on TJ-gate (because TF hates Coughlan). However, to this day I’ve yet to see him utter a word or like / favorite a video dealing with the actual subject matter. Once again, it seems that militant misogyny displayed by one of the YT atheist icons clearly isn’t all that important (compared to petty personal grudges, for example), so a comment from the other YT icons isn’t really required. *shrugs*

  176. Ace of Sevens says

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/bring_me_the_heads_of_penn_and.php

    Ugh. I wish I had found this a few days ago. PZ defending Penn & Teller’s right to misogynist slurs against Mother Teresa. I won’t say he’s been consistently bad. Ian certainly has been consistently good, but I’m not imagining this trend of tolerance of abuse of acceptable targets.

    I can’t be sure of that so the following is admittedly speculation, but I suspect he’d have been way harder on TJ had he so spectacularly established himself as a pathological racist / homophobe

    That’s good. I’m going to ask him that.

  177. Ace of Sevens says

    On the “Got Rape?” shirt, IIRC it started because someoen said jokes about rape are never funny. Coughlan took the position that no subject is off limits for comedy, and gave an example of a routine he did about domestic violence. (I wish the channel weren’t closed so I could check this stuff.) His routine was at its root about mocking the ways abusers rationalize domestic violence. I believe he also condemned the guy who kicked off the discussion (I think the guy at ASSSSCAT who did a routine where the punchline was that he raped a woman who was passed-out drunk) for apparently thinking that rape was itself funny.

  178. you_monster says

    Ace of Sevens

    Ugh. I wish I had found this a few days ago. PZ defending Penn & Teller’s right to misogynist slurs against Mother Teresa.

    Bullshit. At no point in that OP does PZ “defend Penn and Teller’s right to misogynist slurs”. Please cite to where, specifically, PZ does what you say he does. Quote him. The OP has one paragraph devoted to Penn and Teller, and it is this:

    I can guess how Penn and Teller are reacting to this: with jubilation. They make a living by poking authority with a sharp stick, and there is no better response than a spittle-flecked denouncement from a pompous windbag who reacts to every slight with a flurry of press releases and angry demands.

    Not exactly an endorsement of misogyny.

    but I’m not imagining this trend of tolerance of abuse of acceptable targets.

    Is this supposed to be an example of this “trend” you keep going on about? Have any better/more examples? I’m not seeing it here.

    Penn is a libertarian fuckwit douchebag who thinks its cool to call women cunts. I see no reason to believe your claim that PZ defends that behavior. You just saying so doesn’t convince me. I’ll be waiting for some actual quotes.

  179. you_monster says

    Also, I haven’t been around Pharyngula for that long yet, but I think I understand the culture well enough to know that most here are finding your repeated insinuation that we ignore misogyny towards certain women quite tedious. Misogyny is not accepted here. Period.

    Some sexist comments do sometimes go uncriticized. Your claim that the comments going unchallenged may, more often than not, be directed at some of the more vile subjects of various OPs and discussions is one thing. But your accusation that there is any affirmative “defense” of misogyny, like you just claimed in #457, is doesn’t strike me as at all plausible based off my experience here.

    This,

    PZ defending Penn & Teller’s right to misogynist slurs against Mother Teresa.

    Is implying deliberate support for misogyny, and strikes me as ridiculous. Have you read this blog before?* Support your wild claims or don’t make them

    * I know in previous comments you said you’ve lurked for a while, but you don’t appear at all familiar with this place.

  180. Ace of Sevens says

    I don’t think it’s implying deliberate support, but is there any hint of condemnation of his talk about sharp sticks? It sounded like the opposite, especially if you’re familiar with his condemnation of accommodation. My point is, he gave it a pass. If he had a problem with calling Mother Teresa a “cunt,” he certainly didn’t say anything when reporting on that exact issue. It sounds to me like he mainly cared they were making fun of someone he doesn’t like and didn’t care about tactics.

  181. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Ace of Sevens isn’t wrong in this one. The usual opprobrium is missing from that post.

  182. you_monster says

    My point is, he gave it a pass.

    OK, then that is what you should have claimed. Instead of,

    PZ defending Penn & Teller’s right to misogynist slurs against Mother Teresa.

    You seem to very much want to believe that PZ and the horde “do not care about tactics”, and that we do not care when misogyny is directed at people we dislike. I/PZ/the horde do care about sexism per se, even when it is coming from our “allies” and directed at shitty people.

    Just fucking accept that this blog does not condone sexism coming from anyone. It is great that you have a keen eye for sexist statements going uncriticized. Use your skills to help out. See a statement going unchallenged? Call it out. You will be thanked for your valuable service.

    Or continue to have your only contribution to this blog be whining that PZ is not ferocious enough in his denunciation of misogyny. No one gives a a shit about your complaints because they are so obviously hollow. If PZ was soft on misogyny, then I (and many others, I am sure), would not still be here.

  183. says

    Except for one poster, even none of the commentariat addressed the issue.

    “Mother Teresa wanted people to live in impoverished conditions so she could identify with the people whom she was serving”

    Those are the words of BILL DONOHUE on Penn & Teller’s show. Any mockery deriving from that statement is more than justified. Penn’s “fucking cunts” statement referred to the lack of financial records from Teresa’s organization, Missionaries of Charity.

    And it seems though that this didn’t receive any response regarding the c-word. I wasn’t commenting in 2009, so I don’t know how vigilant people were back then. Now post-EG, people are much more on edge about these things, is my impression.

    But while PZ doesn’t condemn the word usage, he in no way endorses it. Every time he has lashed out at Mother Teresa, PZ has been very careful in what epithets he’d use.

  184. you_monster says

    Ace of Sevens isn’t wrong in this one. The usual opprobrium is missing from that post.

    I see that, and I agree with Ace of Sevens that the lack of condemnation of Penn’s “cunt” comment(s) is concerning.

    Just to clarify, I think there is a plausible argument to be made that sexist comments to get “passes” at varying rates depending on their source, and this is not acceptable. Sexism should be called out in all forms in all places. However, Ace of Seven goes to far when xe says that PZ was “defending” misogyny in that OP or in saying that PZ doesn’t “care about tactics”. I think if asked, he would give a firm “I do not approve”, not a defense.

    Not explicitly condemning Penn’s sexist language is lamentable, in my opinion, but not equivalent to a “defense” of “misogynistic slurs”.

  185. says

    I see Ace of Sevens has taken the troll bait from Tuvok of ERV:

    Ugh. I wish I had found this a few days ago. PZ defending Penn & Teller’s right to misogynist slurs against Mother Teresa. I won’t say he’s been consistently bad. Ian certainly has been consistently good, but I’m not imagining this trend of tolerance of abuse of acceptable targets.

    Tuvok (a particularly pathological troll) wants you to believe the conspiracy theory that we all follow PZ’s every whim and fancy. You are imagining a trend of tolerance of abuse of acceptable targets. It’s nothing more than a coincidence that nobody on that day in 2009 took Penn to task for calling a woman a misogynistic slur.

    And to address what pelanum says,

    while PZ doesn’t condemn the word usage, he in no way endorses it.

    As far as cunt goes, I think that is true.

    Every time he has lashed out at Mother Teresa, PZ has been very careful in what epithets he’d use.

    PZ has used terms that I and others at Pharyngula consider misogynistic before when it comes to Mother Teresa after being provoked by godbots. What he hasn’t done is forcefully declared that since he did it once then all the opposition to that kind of speech is totally wrong, nor has he said that words don’t harm people.

    Instead, he let the sometimes heated discussion about misogynistic epithets and what constitutes misogyny happen again and again and again on his blog. Many people have had their consciousnesses raised from those discussions. Others have realized that, on Pharyngula, it won’t just be them against a horde of misogynistic trolls if they speak up about a particular slur, leading many who wouldn’t have normally done so to raise their voices in objection. I’d say the climate at Pharyngula has become better in that respect over time–all with the barest of moderation (a few trolls had to be banned for their own good).

    Furthermore, rape threats are a whole nother level of misogyny compared to simple epithets. If TJ Kincaid hadn’t gone off and threatened to rape someone he thought was a woman, then he might not have warranted a mention here. That is a bold line drawn in the sands of comedy which he crossed and not something one can just shrug off. Bringing up an example of Penn calling Mother Teresa a cunt against the background of what TJ Kincaid did in order to impugn Pharyngula or PZ is just stupid and foolish and exactly the derail that Tuvok the troll wanted.

  186. eline says

    The ad banner informs me to get ready to serve god and get some tutoring in healing, deliverance and evangelism. O_O

    Anyway, just wanted to emphasise a point given somewhere above: PZ was quoting someone else’s paraphrasing of what was said in the show. Since the paraphrasing left out completely the context in which Mother Teresa’s helpers were called cunts, it would have been wildly inappropriate to start critisising words of Penn. You don’t just quote a secondary source, in particular a paraphrase, and then criticise what someone said. Just think about this action for a moment and you’ll see what I mean. Critique of this sort is given when quoting the original source. Which PZ could have done, but for whatever reason didn’t. I can understand; this posting’s topic didn’t focus on Penn in particular but on this other dude’s writings. It would better serve as a post of its own.

    I don’t know this show in question nor do I know who the people quoted are. I just noticed this nitpicking on the post and went to read it for myself, and thought the nitpicking is really not appropriate here for the reason explained above.

  187. says

    Aratina Cage:

    Many people have had their consciousnesses raised from those discussions.

    /nigel raises his hand.

    Yeah. That’d be me. Though I didn’t use them regularly, I would occasionally use the words “bitching” and “dick,” and not think twice.

    I, for one, am very glad for these discussions.

  188. says

    Aratina Cage,

    I’ll take your word for it, because what I said was only to the best of my memory, and there have been periods, for months at a time, where I didn’t read the blog.

    And I’ll second Nigel in saying that all of these discussions have raised my consciousness too.

  189. Ace of Sevens says

    I think the post speaks for itself. Saying a post that PZ wrote is irrelevant because you don’t like the guy who pointed it out (with plenty of reason) is just poisoning the well. If the claim was true (and the link shows it is), it doesn’t matter who pointed it out.

  190. John Morales says

    Ace of Sevens:

    Ugh. I wish I had found this a few days ago. PZ defending Penn & Teller’s right to misogynist slurs against Mother Teresa.

    Care to attempt to sustain your claim?

  191. Aratina Cage says

    I think the post speaks for itself. –Ace of Sevens

    Does it, though? As pelanum and others noted, nowhere in it does PZ endorse the terms Penn used. He only says that if he were Penn then he would be jubilant to have gotten such a rise out of child-rape apologist and anti-gay bigot Bill Donohue.

    Saying a post that PZ wrote is irrelevant because you don’t like the guy who pointed it out (with plenty of reason) is just poisoning the well.

    That troll was counting on there being at least one fool who would take up his obsession against PZ and come over here and derail this thread which you have now done. (And that troll, I might add, desperately wants things like cunting and twatting and rape threats to be acceptable in the online atheist community!)

    If the claim was true (and the link shows it is), it doesn’t matter who pointed it out.

    What claim? That you’re “not imagining this trend of tolerance of abuse of acceptable targets”? If that is the claim, then how can you identify a trend with one post? No, I’m afraid you haven’t seen the whole picture, only a biased snapshot that the troll fed you.

    Look, Ace, we’ve been through this before during the Intersection attacks from Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum when they gave a troll a platform at their blog from which that troll (Wally Smith, under the sockpuppet pseudonyms Tom Johnson, Petra, and more) dug through Pharyngula’s history looking for terms of abuse to castigate PZ and the readers here with for our alleged trend toward misogyny. It was bullshit then. It is bullshit now.

    I think you just need to do more research on your own and stop accepting what trolls say at face value. Go to the old scienceblogs.com/pharyngula site and search there for terms indicating that something misogynistic was written or that misogyny was being discussed and go through what both PZ says and what the commenters say. You will see that people here became increasingly aware of misogyny in their own behavior/language and that of others. What you won’t see is the kind of amoral and often immoral behavior/language being touted by the trolls at ERV (also on scienceblogs.com) and by self-made YouTube stars like Kincaid.

  192. says

    Aratina Cate:

    No, I’m afraid you haven’t seen the whole picture, only a biased snapshot that the troll fed you.

    I think it’s fair to point out that we’ve become, as a group, a lot more self-aware on this subject as well. We tend to police our own a lot better than we did even back in ’09 (when misogynist language still wasn’t acceptable, but slipped through unchallenged a bit more). We’ve even called out PZ, once to the point where he removed a video he’d posted.

    While you can be cynical and claim PZ only posts on feminist topics to get the page hits, I think he is more aware these days of sexism and outright misogyny. At least, he seems to be much more sensitive to misogyny than he was just a couple of years ago.

    Of course, that’s just my observations and interpretations. I could be wrong.

  193. cottonspore says

    TJs attack was disgusting and extremely stupid, but it was not unprovoked. He was responding to people who had chosen to mock his appearance and his sexuality, and he responded to incivility with more incivility. TJ puts on a tough front but it obviously does not take much to hurt his feelings, and when he is hurt he responds with the maturity of a 12 year old.

    I’m having trouble understanding why you guys think TJ wants to control people’s sexuality. I always saw him as someone who promotes sexual freedom. He thinks anything consensual is acceptable, and we should do what we want without bowing to pressure from society.

    “You are a stunted and impoverished human being if you look at half the population of the planet only through the lens of lust and sex; that’s probably the least important perspective on human relationships that you’ve got.”

    I am a woman and the Myers philosophy is the one that looks controlling to me. Myers thinks lust is “great,” yet if men express lust they are assumed to be so blinded by their erections that they are incapable of forming emotionally meaningful relationships? I don’t understand this.

    Myers acts like lusting after women and respecting them as human beings are mutually exclusive. this appears to be a common feminist attitude. TJ never said anything to imply that women are only good for sex and nothing else.

    “In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed, we extended to men the confines women had always endured.” – Dan Savage

  194. thepint says

    I don’t have the time to look up the complete context of Savage’s quote, and I’ve enjoyed him as a writer so I hope there’s more to it than the section quoted, but I’m going to address it as cottonspore’s presented it:

    “In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed, we extended to men the confines women had always endured.” – Dan Savage

    This seems to be making the argument that feminism, as it requires men to respect the boundaries of women when it comes to expressing sexual desire, is the same thing as “confining them.” This is a false equivalency and a reflection of straight male privilege. The argument that rape is not necessarily the fault of men because men can’t be expected to control their sexual urges in the face of “temptation” rests on the premise that male desire always trumps the boundaries of female autonomy. Traditionally, men have been allowed to let their desires override women’s right to bodily autonomy – asking men to not do so is not the same as telling them they have no right to express sexual desire at all. All it is limiting men to is expressing sexual desire when it is clear the woman desires it, and NOT when it violates her boundaries.

    In other words, men don’t get to rape and then claim it’s because they couldn’t help themselves (likely because the slut was wearing something “too sexy” for them to ignore, so it’s her fault anyway). Asking a guy to keep it in his pants instead of raping a woman is only an unfair confine if you think that a man’s desire for sex trumps a woman’s desire to not have sex.

    Likewise, feminism does not maintain that women are to be given the same license as men have enjoyed, to press their sexual desires onto men regardless of whether or not men want it. Feminism holds that there is nothing wrong with the expression of female sexual desire, that expressing a desire for sex does not make one “bad” nor does it make one responsible for becoming a victim of sexual assault or rape. It does not mean “women get to have sexy times now and disrespect male bodily autonomy while men must repress all expression of sexual desire and submit to whatever a woman wants regardless of his own wishes.”

  195. thepint says

    Also, this:

    TJs attack was disgusting and extremely stupid, but it was not unprovoked. He was responding to people who had chosen to mock his appearance and his sexuality, and he responded to incivility with more incivility. TJ puts on a tough front but it obviously does not take much to hurt his feelings, and when he is hurt he responds with the maturity of a 12 year old.

    is NEVER an excuse for this:

    I will make you a rape victim if you don’t fuck off.

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

    I’m going to rape you with my fist.

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

    Fuck you, liar. All night you douches have tried to shit on me and tear me down. Then when I do the same it’s like, “Whoa man! That’s too far. Calm down.” No. Fuck you. Go get raped in whatever orifice you have to get fucking raped in. I am sick of your shit. I regret nothing.

    That you seem to think it is shows a disturbing lack of priorities.

  196. Aratina Cage says

    @nigelTheBold, Abbot of the Hoppist Monks

    I think it’s fair to point out that we’ve become, as a group, a lot more self-aware on this subject as well. We tend to police our own a lot better than we did even back in ’09 (when misogynist language still wasn’t acceptable, but slipped through unchallenged a bit more). We’ve even called out PZ, once to the point where he removed a video he’d posted.

    For sure! In case I didn’t say it well enough to Ace of Sevens, what you have said, nigelTheBold, is what I meant he will find if he does go back and research Pharyngula. (Here is one from late 2008 that is a good reminder of that.) Contrary to what trolls would like others to believe, this has not ever been an echo chamber, and many of us have been learning better values from each other while here.

    (BTW, I was thinking that Tuvok was “andyet” after Tuvok linked to the thread on Lousy Canuck that Ace presented above because in that thread you can see andyet going on one of his infamous whinefests about PZ, but now I’m leaning towards Tuvok being “bilbo”. Never underestimate the length of time for which grudges are held by anti-Pharyngula trolls.)

  197. says

    TJs attack was disgusting and extremely stupid, but it was not unprovoked. He was responding to people who had chosen to mock his appearance and his sexuality, and he responded to incivility with more incivility. TJ puts on a tough front but it obviously does not take much to hurt his feelings, and when he is hurt he responds with the maturity of a 12 year old.

    Well he shouldn’t make fun of his own appearance and such that much in his videos if he doesn’t like others doing it! It’s totally provoking people!

  198. KG says

    I am a woman and the Myers philosophy is the one that looks controlling to me. Myers thinks lust is “great,” yet if men express lust they are assumed to be so blinded by their erections that they are incapable of forming emotionally meaningful relationships? I don’t understand this. – cottonspore

    That’s because you are grossly misrepresenting what he said. Whether this is just stupidity on your part, or deliberate, I couldn’t say.

  199. cottonspore says

    Thepint: The context of what Dan Savage said has nothing to do with rape. He was speaking about monogamy, specifically about how it used to be socially acceptable for men to have sex outside of their marriage. Today, rather than it being acceptable for women to have the same freedom, it is now taboo for both men and women to be non-monogamous. I should also mention that this is not a direct quote and is paraphrased from an interview with him. I got it from this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html

    Here is the context of what he said as it appears in a paragraph from that article:
    “The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitar­ian and fairsey.” In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”

    Maybe I am stretching things by extending Savage’s opinion about feminism and monogamy to feminism in general. However his opinions on monogamy seem to be influence by his perceptions of sexuality, and as this article clearly points out, his perception of sexuality is influenced by the fact that he is a male.

    It is very true that the old school sexual freedom for men used to include the freedom to rape and get away with it. That’s not the kind of sexual freedom I am intending to promote. Freedom to oppress obviously isn’t really freedom. I suppose in an ideal world both men and women would have the freedom to seek out and fulfill their desires without hurting anybody, and without feelings ashamed.

    When I quoted Savage I wasn’t discussing rape either. I was discussing sexual objectification, and whether it is mutually exclusive with considering women to be human beings. Most men objectify women with activities such as porn, but most men do not rape women. I think plenty of men are capable of drawing the line between experiencing lust and experiencing the desire to inflict violence. There are a lot of people who see feminism as a movement to take away their freedom to look at porn without being seen as potential rapists.

    By the way I DO NOT think that there is any excuse for what TJ said. That is why I described it as disgusting and stupid. I mentioned that he was attacked first to put what he said in some context and to explain my opinion on what he said. I don’t see him as a person who condones hating women, I see him as a person with a bad temper who supports sexual freedom. If you mention what he said without mentioning the circumstances that lead to that statement, it makes it more difficult to judge his behavior. I would judge him differently if he had a habit if threatening to rape random women on the internet every Tuesday. Instead I see him as somebody who has really terrible boundries in the context of a heated argument. The context doesn’t excuse his poor boundries, but it provides some insight into the motive for the statement.

  200. says

    By the way I DO NOT think that there is any excuse for what TJ said. That is why I described it as disgusting and stupid. I mentioned that he was attacked first to put what he said in some context and to explain my opinion on what he said. I don’t see him as a person who condones hating women, I see him as a person with a bad temper who supports sexual freedom.

    Except you just gave an excuse. What the fuck is wrong with you?

  201. says

    The context doesn’t excuse his poor boundries, but it provides some insight into the motive for the statement.

    No, bullshit. He’s given the motivation. “Oh I want to see if I can trigger you! HAHA”

    Bull

    Shit.

    So TJ if in an argument with a disabled person would push that person down the stairs? Or push them out of their chair? Or start shaking his fatass in their face proclaiming how awesome it is to be able to walk?

    Yeah. Bad person. Bullshit.

  202. cottonspore says

    “Well he shouldn’t make fun of his own appearance and such that much in his videos if he doesn’t like others doing it! It’s totally provoking people!”

    This doesn’t make enough sense for me to argue with. I get the impression that you are trying to make fun of me and I don’t feel like trying to guess what the joke is.

    “That’s because you are grossly misrepresenting what he said. Whether this is just stupidity on your part, or deliberate, I couldn’t say.”

    Please give me the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s stupidity. I’m trying to understand the conflict here.

  203. cottonspore says

    “No, bullshit. He’s given the motivation. “Oh I want to see if I can trigger you! HAHA”

    Bull

    Shit.”

    I don’t think trying to “prove that triggering doesn’t exist” is a good motivation. For the record I think triggering definitely exists.

    Using your hypothetical example: Making fun of a guy in a wheelchair is terrible. But isn’t there a difference between somebody who mocks the disabled unprovoked, and somebody who mocks a disabled person after that person calls them a fatass and a loser? Does provoking somebody into a senseless name-calling debate mean anything to you guys?

  204. says

    I get the impression that you are trying to make fun of me and I don’t feel like trying to guess what the joke is.

    Going by your advice of thinking of you as a moron; the joke is that I have watched Tj enough to know that he uses self deprecating humor thus the joke is two fold a) mocking your for doing the ‘they had it coming!’ which is bullshit and b) pointing out the hypocrisy of presenting someone confident enough to mock themselves yet going ballistic.

    It’s bullshit. He’s the big macho tough guy atheist intent bastard bully, not a wilting flower. He tried to hurt someone specifically because they had a weakness he could exploit. That isn’t because people were being mean to his feefees that was because he is not a good person.

    TJ himself was molested right? Did you note that not a single fucking person here, as mad as they were were tempted to start making jokes about that?

  205. cottonspore says

    Yes I saw the video where he said he was molested… I guess it is nice that nobody here mocked him for being raped, but I have seen plenty of people mocking him for his banana video. That video was posted without his permission to sexually humiliate him, and it has been constantly used against him. It would be pointless for me to argue that he is a good person, but I can’t help but have some sympathy for somebody in that situation.

    I see the disconnect between his attitude vs his behavior. He makes a big deal out people considers to be acting like victims, but he is not self aware enough to see that he acts like a victim. I have trouble seeing self deprecating humor as an invitation to mockery though.

  206. PFC Ogvorbis (Yes, they are) says

    but I have seen plenty of people mocking him for his banana video.

    Really? I saw one troll who kept bringing it up eliptically and, when others failed to rise to the bait (because they either knew better or they had no idea to what he was referring), he spelled it in ridiculous detail and then claimed that the many commenters were ridiculing his sexuality.

    Did you even read the preceding comments?

  207. says

    Oh, great. Another, “I can’t excuse TJ for what he said, but…” poster.

    Y’know, cottonspore, as soon as you add a “but” to a sentence, you’re essentially saying, “But I just lied.” As in:

    “I don’t want to start a flame-war, but Macs suck,” or, “I can’t say that you’re not that bright, but you’re the reason For Dummies books exist.”

    All you’re really saying is, “I’m not a complete asshole, but I’m about to say something that only a complete asshole would say.”

    And as far as the excuse that he was provoked: that doesn’t matter. He could’ve said other hurtful things, but he didn’t. He used the threat of rape as a weapon. That means he thinks triggering a rape victim is a valid tactic.

    That makes that bit of him, at least, completely vile.

    With no but.

  208. SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant says

    ‘Scuze me, but what the fuck kind of 12 year old makes rape threats when they’re upset? Only a sociopath or a virulent misogynist can be “provoked” into threatening rape and deliberately attempting to trigger a PTSD flashback, which is tantamount to making the rape victim re-experience his or her rape.

    You’re fucking full of it.

  209. says

    But isn’t there a difference between somebody who mocks the disabled unprovoked, and somebody who mocks a disabled person after that person calls them a fatass and a loser?

    So it’s ok to push the cripple down the stairs if they start shit?

    Which you know…TJ started by virtue of being a misogynist dumb ass if you even want to play that game.

  210. solal says

    I really like you PZ but some of your attacks are justified (like the rape-threats ones) and some are just straw-grasping… TJ can be ‘unlkikeable’, but you’ve gotta admit that he has got a point on quite a lot of issues, and you can’t just dismiss him because he acting like a dick at the moment. Men have rights too. An example:

    “The only control issue here is who gets to control sex: do women get to be in complete charge of their own sexuality, or should they hand it over to the whims of men?”

    Wow this is quite the false dichotomy. There are no in-betweens between this and that? Between a woman being all-powerful in anything sex-related and a woman being raped? How about taking a little of both peoploe involved into consideration.

    I understand the need to defend women’s rights. I also want everyone to be equal. And I fear that in this equation, one gender is going to be left aside.

  211. solal says

    I really like you PZ but some of your attacks are justified (like the rape-threats ones) and some are just straw-grasping… TJ can be ‘unlkikeable’, but you’ve gotta admit that he has got a point on quite a lot of issues, and you can’t just dismiss him because he acting like a dick at the moment. Men have rights too. An example:

    “The only control issue here is who gets to control sex: do women get to be in complete charge of their own sexuality, or should they hand it over to the whims of men?”

    Wow this is quite the false dichotomy. There are no in-betweens between this and that? Between a woman being all-powerful in anything sex-related and a woman being raped? How about taking a little of both people involved into consideration.

    I understand the need to defend women’s rights. I also want everyone to be equal. And I fear that in this equation, one gender is going to be left aside.

  212. solal says

    The full context of the remark was nothing to do with rape and everything to do with this strange new internet phenomena of “triggers.” People now ask for “trigger warnings” if you post something the least bit incendiary, because your dangerous words may be detrimental to those with debilitating mental issues or emotional trauama. I’m as sympathetic towards those who’ve suffered trauama as anyone else, but if you have such issues, it’s your responsibility to avoid triggers, not my responsibility to protect you from them. My comment was meant to make a point about how silly the concept of triggers is, and I made that clear several times in the thread when I said: “That was a joke, by the way. Did it trigger you? I hope it did.” Did PZ Meyers include that in his article? Of course not. I may be an insensitive asshole, but I didn’t legitimately threaten to rape someone. That is just stupid.

  213. John Morales says

    solal:

    “The only control issue here is who gets to control sex: do women get to be in complete charge of their own sexuality, or should they hand it over to the whims of men?”

    Wow this is quite the false dichotomy. There are no in-betweens between this and that? Between a woman being all-powerful in anything sex-related and a woman being raped?

    You think being complete charge of their own sexuality and not being complete charge of their own sexuality is not a dichotomy?

    (Maybe you can clarify what is in-between being in complete charge and not being in complete charge)

    The full context of the remark was nothing to do with rape and everything to do with this strange new internet phenomena of “triggers.”

    To what remark do you refer?

    My comment was meant to make a point about how silly the concept of triggers is, and I made that clear several times in the thread when I said: “That was a joke, by the way. Did it trigger you? I hope it did.”

    So you hope something that you disbelieve is possible occurred.

    (You’re a joke, alright)

  214. albertjacobson says

    Come on TJs comments were hilarious !
    I laugh at dead babies, rape victims are just small fish. Lighten up, white knights !

  215. twooffour says

    “It’s the sad wankers who meet strange women and think “great rack!” instead of “I wonder what she’s got to say?” that have the real problem.”

    Just found this quote to be utterly hilarious (probably just poorly phrased) – yes, a dude saying this out loud is, indeed, a “problem” (discussions about whether a woman openly remarking on a guy’s nice butt in public is the same of “problem” or not – intuitively, it feels more like “not”), but hey, what do I think when I see men on the street?

    I often think “hey, this one looks cool”. Sorry, I can speculate about what they work or study, but as long as they don’t open their mouths, thinking about their looks is kinda of more on the surface.
    Same (except, naturally, a bit more) with women. (I’m straight, btw.)

    There’s nothing wrong with going through the street and thinking (wow, she’s hot! dude, she’s hot) as long as you don’t disregard women like this in, you know, “real life”.

    So that sentence was really clumsy. What can I say?
    Yes, “triggers” is a debatable topic – should every piece of dark humor on the internet now have huge trigger warnings on it?

    But that goes for “public stuff everyone can read”, like satire. Purposefully employing “triggering” language in a direct comment to someone claiming to be a rape victim? A FUCKING NO-GO.

    “You are a stunted and impoverished human being if you look at half the population of the planet only through the lens of lust and sex”
    Interestingly enough, any video you see him responding to a woman about a different topic other than sexism, porn or feminism (you know, where stuff like this will inevitably come up), he just responds to their arguments like any other person.

    “This guy jokes about rape, threatens rape, and doesn’t seem to recognize the line between consensual sexual activities and the violent act of rape.”
    A shock joke is a shock joke, as distasteful and inappropriate as it is.
    Maybe it wasn’t clear that he wasn’t serious (or trying to induce a trauma) at first, but after his disclaimer, that’s the least that should be clear (or at least probable – anyone can backtrack and lie, after all). Maybe should’ve included that in your rebuttal?

    Like, you know, RedLetterMedia do plenty of really dark stuff about serial killers, and some people will be hurt by that, but they’re JOKING.
    Maybe they shouldn’t (the debate will go on), but the least they do no not do is ENDORSING MURDER.

    So um, yea, plenty of cheap shots and dishonesties by Myers here, as well.
    Nice quote-mine by TJ there, he’s got plenty of nonsense on his side, too, plus he’s definitely in the wrong as far as that reddit drama is concerned.

    All-in-all, the most interesting kind of internet drama to wade through – unfortunately, no time :((

  216. twooffour says

    he’s a raving MRA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Nw3zyYpvs#t=590

    So he pretty much states he has nothing to do with “masculinism”, and he’s against the idea of “focusing just on one gender” – isn’t that what the MRA’s do?
    Is there any evidence that he’s a secret member of an MRA forum? Or has he stated to belong to such a group (i.e contradicted himself)?
    Just curious.

    Anyway, what he states in this particular video is that he considers both feminism and “masculinism” to be one-sided. So he’s wrong about feminism being one-sided or unfair? Everyone on this board seems to think that the MRAs are all sexists, while those seem to consist of different groups ranging from misogynists to guys saying stuff about domestic violence and false accusations or whatever.
    And RationalWiki at least seems to agree…

    So why is he called an MRA, huh? Opposing to Rebecca Watson doesn’t count (if you watch his video, he didn’t get the part that the creepy elevator situation was the main problem, not just that he hit on her), saying feminism is stupid doesn’t count (“feminism” isn’t synonymous with “gender equality” – it’s not a given that a movement claiming to represent a certain ideal, actually does that accordingly; and it’s possible to be ignorant about the specifics of a movement without disagreeing with their actual ideals).

    His reddit stuff makes him a DICKWAD, since he just decided to start trolling without any consideration because he thought that “triggers are bullshit”.
    Sexist or not, how does that make him an “Men’s Rights Activist”?

    Are all rapists and serial killers MRAs, too?

    So, I suppose MRA’s have become the Boogeyman of this community. Anyone saying questionable things, or even reprehensible things, is “one of them”.
    Again, sorry for my ignorance if Kincaid actually IS one, but, you know, given the overall sloppiness of this article, this is kinda what seems to be going on.

    and if ever she said “no” to a man, she must be demeaned and detested. Or possibly raped, just to teach her a lesson.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqU9JFbtucU 6:45

    So I don’t agree with the video overall, but someone here missed the word “consensual”.

    The reddit stuff, from what I get, was trolling in response to insults and talk about triggers, not because he made a proposal and a woman said “no”.
    Am I correct? Or not?

  217. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    twooffour, from your rambling and idiotic posts, you seem to have fallen under the mistaken impression that someone here gives a fuck what your ignorant ass has to say. I’m sorry to inform you that no, no one does.

  218. twooffour says

    “what your ignorant ass has to say”

    Just reread the Atheist Experience link, forgot that it mentioned TJ posting on MRA subreddits.
    Wading through links now…

    Thanks for the motivation!

  219. twooffour says

    “I am a biological organism that got here because my ancestors loved to fuck, and fucking starts with lust.”

    So under puritanism / Catholicism / Sharia law, people were born, too, right?
    It seems like almost anytime when an extremist ideology or religion puts the most absurd restrictions on sexual matters, a window for sufficient reproduction (which can easily mean a family with multiple children) is left open.

    So why does he rave against this “restriction of the natural urges” imposed by those evil ideologies from the perspective of reproduction?
    Isn’t the “sex is only for reproduction” thing one of the most obnoxious tropes by all the annoying puritans and fundamentalists?

    But also, I really, really despise the naturalistic fallacy.

    It’s funny how TJ sees through the naturalistic fallacy like through glass when it comes to homophobia, but whenever it’s about sex or porn, he argues that it’s “natural”, “biology” and/or “normal”.
    A lot of people respond to puritan-style restrictions on sexuality with “sex is something normal”.

    Why? I mean, it’s not even the real naturalistic fallacy. Natural Remedies vs. Unnatural Chemistry is the naturalistic fallacy.
    These examples are just cases of people not thinking far enough and misusing terms – the religious mean “natural as designed by God; God designed the nature, sin corrupted it”, and the sex-positive mean “natural like eating, or laughing; good, normal things; basically, natural AND positive”.

    But both are too naive / dishonest, so they just say “natural”. It’s stupid as fuck.

    The “my ancestors fucked, so I’m for sexuality”, no matter in what form, goes a step further of course, and is, ESPECIALLY in the form presented by TJ, just fucking stupid.
    TJ is someone who often stresses the importance of consent, and how freedom should only restricted by harming of others; then he goes on a rant threatening people with rape, and in light of all that, he spews this nonsense about his ancestors fucking.

    There are no words to describe just how stupid that is. (A fucking shame, given how sensible the above video is; you watch it and think “this guys sees through this issue; he gets it”, but no.)

  220. kympoxon says

    Statement:
    As someone whose family is riddled with aspergers, I can confidently say that aspergers people feel emotions, and empathise with others and feel compassion for fellow humans. I would like to ask that aspergers does not get any further mention in future comments, as it has no relevance to the issue at hand.

    Question:
    TJ the Athiest mentioned his interest in submission etc. I wonder if some of his preferred activities include the simulation of being raped? It is possible that someone who has a fantasy for submission/humiliation, and consequenty rape, would take offence to those who express a dislke of rape, as it is rejecting their fantasies and implying that there is something wrong with the person who fantasies about being raped. I also question this desire for submission. Has something happened in TJ’s past. Was he abused by a female member of his family? This could develop into a real/love hate relationship with women. He could have only learnt to enjoy women when they treat him badly, and at the same time he has also learnt to hate women. There could be some real issues here that have percolated into a pustulous boil on his psyche. This question is asked with a genuine interest and desire to understand TJ. There is no vitriole in my question.

    Further considerations:
    That much venom in someone, to me, indicates a lot of pain and hurt.

    And with reference to whether or not TJ is a psychopath, my understanding is that psychopaths are usually masters of understanding and manipulating people. It would not be in a psychopath’s interest to openly state their position against women, as this would interfere with their ability to manipulate them. Whether or not he is a sociopath, that I am not sure about.

  221. says

    TJ the Athiest mentioned his interest in submission etc. I wonder if some of his preferred activities include the simulation of being raped? It is possible that someone who has a fantasy for submission/humiliation, and consequenty rape, would take offence to those who express a dislke of rape, as it is rejecting their fantasies and implying that there is something wrong with the person who fantasies about being raped. I also question this desire for submission. Has something happened in TJ’s past. Was he abused by a female member of his family? This could develop into a real/love hate relationship with women. He could have only learnt to enjoy women when they treat him badly, and at the same time he has also learnt to hate women. There could be some real issues here that have percolated into a pustulous boil on his psyche. This question is asked with a genuine interest and desire to understand TJ. There is no vitriole in my question.

    FFS It was really so important that you just HAD to write this elaborate narrative to cast him as a victim? Go fuck yourself

  222. A. R says

    kympoxon: Why the fuck are you trying to revive an old thread with borderline rape apoligia?

  223. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Rape victim and submissive here. You can fuck off. You can absolutely fucking fuck off.

  224. says

    CC:

    Rape victim and submissive here. You can fuck off. You can absolutely fucking fuck off.

    Rape victim and dom here. Loudly seconding the You can fuck off. You can absolutely fucking fuck off.

  225. 'Tis Himself says

    Cis-hetero, not into any aspect of BDSM, who also wants kympoxon to fuck off.

  226. A. R says

    Ing: I’ll use the LOLstar to irradiate the thread and clean out the troll.

    {\Speaks to minion: Power up the radiation beam projector, [Dr. Evil voice] one million Sieverts![/Dr. Evil voice]}

    {Minion Speaking: Commence Primary Ignition}
    –Buzzing–

    {WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ZING-BAM!}

    {A. R checks sensors} Shouldn’t be anything left Ing. You can check if you like

  227. A. R says

    Ing: Hmm, I’ll have my minions install one on the LOLstar. I just upgraded the hangars to accommodate an entire fleet of LOLdestroyers, so I might be able to slip it in under the same work order.

  228. says

    Nigel:

    Encephalophiliac

    I think this is applicable to the whole Horde™. Which is just one reason that non-cognitive elites like kympox aren’t extended an invitation to hang around.

  229. twooffour says

    Okay, let’s be clear here: there was ZERO “rape apologia” in kympoxon’s post.
    He/she was mainly discussing TJ’s statement about “submission being his thing” in bed, in his response to PZ; the rape threats on reddit haven’t been rationalized or justified anywhere, he merely questioned whether that could be called “psychopathy” (yes, “evil asshole” doesn’t equal “psychopath”, but I’ll let other argue about the definitions).

    So all the angry responders here should calm down and go to the corner. Trying to “analyze” someone’s douchebaggery (or the reasons for it) have nothing to do with making, or painting the douchebag “as a victim”. Whoever doesn’t get the difference, is an idiot and should fuck off.

    Having that said…

    “It is possible that someone who has a fantasy for submission/humiliation, and consequenty rape, would take offence to those who express a dislke of rape, as it is rejecting their fantasies and implying that there is something wrong with the person who fantasies about being raped. I also question this desire for submission. Has something happened in TJ’s past. Was he abused by a female member of his family?”

    … this attempt at psychology is quite inane.

    First of all, TJ expressed “dislike of rape” in his videos all the time. And the reddit fiasco had nothing to do with him “getting offended at people opposed to rape”, he started tossing rape threats in response to some kind of weak abuse, and then got butthurt when people started calling him an asshole – not because they were against rape, but because he thought he was justified to behave like that and saw himself as the victim.

    But fact is, in his videos, he’s strictly anti-rape, anti-misogyny, anti-homophobia, anti-racism. Whether the reddit statements were an act of trolling / shock “humor” / an ignorant
    attempt at “disproving triggers”, or his actual darker side coming out, is something you can write your dissertation on if you like.

    Also, many people dig BDSM, and consensual “rape fantasy” is a completely different thing from actual rape. It’s just what some people like, there’s nothing “wrong” or “sick” about it, and there doesn’t necessarily have to be some kind of “history of abuse” behind it – so how about you try and stop being a condescending douche, eh?

    And yes, apparently he got abused in his childhood, or something. And concluded that because he “got over it”, others should do, or some nonsense like that – if I’ve ever seen that video, it’s been long time ago. So whatever.

  230. twooffour says

    Butcherede Sentence:
    “Trying to “analyze” someone’s douchebaggery (or the reasons for it) has nothing to do with making excuses, or painting the douchebag “as a victim”.”

  231. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    So all the angry responders here should calm down and go to the corner.

    You fucking obnoxious piece of shit, don’t fucking patronize us. The asshole poster apologized for TJ’s shitty behavior, while also babbling inanely about the psychology of submissives. That’s fucking offensive. If you feel the need to talk down to people who have every reason to be angry, you can get the fuck out of here too, you condescending douche.

  232. A. R says

    FUCK! The radiation didn’t work! The trolls have become resistant! Work on the new weapons systems must be sped up!

    More directly though, what the new troll doesn’t realize is that yes, it is borderline rape apologia, as the first troll was apologizing for fucking rape threats.

  233. says

    Okay, let’s be clear here: there was ZERO “rape apologia” in kympoxon’s post.

    Oh, let’s be perfectly clear here: kympox was definitely spewing rape apologia. We know it well. Do you think this is the first time we’ve dealt with a douchetart rape apologist? By golly, it isn’t. Imagine that.

    Your idiocy is no more welcome than that of kympox, who I assume is capable of coming back to defend/retract/clarify/double down their idiocy. Unless there’s a scent of socks in the air, “twooffour”.

    If you’re fuzzy on how any of the commentariat feel about TJ or what he did, try reading all the comments. That tends to be helpful. You see, all this ground was covered 3 fucking months ago.

    So all the angry responders here should calm down and go to the corner.

    Learn the first rule of holes, fuckwit. Have a decaying porcupine, dear. Be sure to shove it where you keep your brain.

  234. twooffour says

    “The asshole poster apologized for TJ’s shitty behavior”
    That’s the point, though, he didn’t ;)

    Had you read my whole post instead of just that one sentence (and kympoxon’s post, for that matter), you’d have got that by this point.

    “while also babbling inanely about the psychology of submissives”
    Which annoyed me, as well. Again, not a long way to scroll up to my post.

    “who have every reason to be angry”
    Again, no they don’t.

    He posted some armchair psychology nonsense, and people mistook it for “apologia”.
    If you disagree, feel free to use quotes. ;)

  235. says

    twooffour:

    Trying to “analyze” someone’s douchebaggery (or the reasons for it) have nothing to do with making, or painting the douchebag “as a victim”.

    What analysis? There was a lot of implication, a ton of supposition, several leading questions, but zero analysis.

    Or by “analysis” do you mean, “pretentious wankery?”

  236. says

    But fact is, in his videos, he’s strictly anti-rape, anti-misogyny,

    The first thing I saw out of TAA were actually his ridiculously misogynist tweets. And I’m pretty sure he’s the asshat I saw with a misogynist elevatorgate video, so I’m reasonably sure you’re pulling this straight out of your ass.

  237. says

    FUCK! The radiation didn’t work! The trolls have become resistant! Work on the new weapons systems must be sped up!

    More directly though, what the new troll doesn’t realize is that yes, it is borderline rape apologia, as the first troll was apologizing for fucking rape threats.

    Bah! I told you your puny sub atomic particles wouldn’t be enough dakka. I say we add mass driver batteries in addition to my planet sculptor!

    He posted some armchair psychology nonsense, and people mistook it for “apologia”.

    armchair psychology like that, ie coming up with ‘excuses’ and ‘reasons’ for someone’s actions out of thin air just because, is fucking apologia.

  238. A. R says

    That much venom in someone, to me, indicates a lot of pain and hurt.

    How is that not attempted apologia? All of this was discussed three months ago by people with much more experience and intelligence. Now here’s a porcupine, Caine gave you an idea of what to do with it. Now leave before I fire up the LOLstar again.

  239. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    That’s the point, though, he didn’t ;)

    Don’t fucking wink at me, you fucking slime. Your dumbass post, regardless of the fact that you apparently recognize idiotic armchair psychobabble when you see it, did not fucking make the point you wanted to. First of all. Second, idiotic armchair psychobabble about submissives is offensive to me as a submissive. When you combine it with a claim that the fact that someone is submissive makes them more defensive of rape, it’s also offensive to me as a rape victim. Don’t fucking tell me what I’m fucking justified in being angry about, you condescending fucking twit. Fuck off, and get the fuck off this fucking site.

  240. says

    twooffour:

    If you disagree, feel free to use quotes. ;)

    Ing did at #504.

    It was an attempt to cast TJ as a victim. Pure and simple.

    I don’t mind attempts to try and humanize people who are otherwise hard to understand. But to throw out a bunch of armchair psychology nonsense in an attempt to sympathize with TJ is, in effect, excusing TJ’s advocation of rape.

    That’s rape apologia, near as I can tell.

  241. A. R says

    Ing: Yep, installations of your planet sculptor, a new superlaser module, several mass drivers (one for LOLcats as well, the old system just wasn’t efficient), and a special surprise weapon are are in progress. The unused space in the lower hemisphere is getting used up pretty quickly.

  242. says

    I don’t mind attempts to try and humanize people who are otherwise hard to understand. But to throw out a bunch of armchair psychology nonsense in an attempt to sympathize with TJ is, in effect, excusing TJ’s advocation of rape.

    And note that if you do want to humanize someone otherwise insufferable; it is insanely irresponsible to SPECULATE.

    If you want to present Hitler realistically, actually look and see what his life was like, you don’t make shit up to make him sympathetic because; hey someone that fucked up right?

    This is the difference between portraying a nuanced even portrayal of Mao…and speculating that he was a virtuous man who was possessed by a demon.

  243. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    P.S. I read your dumbass post before I responded to it, you fucking imbecilic trolling fuckwad. Not one fucking sentence of it justified being a condescending douche, nor did it convince me that you are qualified to decide when other people ought to be angry. You’re a fucking asshole, and you’re not particularly likely to redeem yourself anytime soon, so it’s in your best interests to fuck the fuck off.

  244. twooffour says

    “it is borderline rape apologia, as the first troll was apologizing for fucking rape threats.”

    There’s no “borderline”.

    “People often use psychology and difficult childhood as a tool to make excuses for the perpetrator, or paint him as the victim.” =/=> “Any attempt to discuss the psychology or difficult childhood of a perpetrator is done with the intention to make excuses.”

    It’s a fallacy, and you’ve fallen into the trap. It’s as simple as that.
    If the above conclusion were valid, the entire body of psychology studying violent behavior and the causes behind it, is nothing but violence apologia.

    Oh, let’s be perfectly clear here: kympox was definitely spewing rape apologia. We know it well. Do you think this is the first time we’ve dealt with a douchetart rape apologist? By golly, it isn’t. Imagine that.

    And here comes the fallacy again.

    “We’ve dealt with people like that before. They start talking circles around psychology or childhood abuse, and it always ends up in rape apologia (=we only remember the cases where it did). Therefore, this bloke who can’t be quoted on engaging in rape apologia, is still engaging in rape apologia, because he used bullshit psychology.”

    Sorry – no. Doesn’t cut it.
    If you wanna argue that he “definitely used rape apoogia”, feel free to quote directly, please. Otherwise, fuck off.

    If you’re fuzzy on how any of the commentariat feel about TJ or what he did, try reading all the comments. That tends to be helpful. You see, all this ground was covered 3 fucking months ago.

    If this was covered 3 months ago and no one’s allowed to post anymore, then what are you doing here? ;)

    Not sure what I’m supposed to be so “fuzzy” about. TJ’s behavior was inexcusable and vomit-inducing independently of what you think about it, and no one argued against that position in, um, the recent 3 months or so?

  245. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    twooffour, did you miss the part where nobody fucking wants your type of scum here?

  246. A. R says

    Ing: All eight tributary beams can easily be adjusted in relation to the primary, so that shouldn’t be a problem. Sometimes I wish there were a mechanism for regulars to ban obvious trolls like these.

  247. says

    twooffour:

    If the above conclusion were valid, the entire body of psychology studying violent behavior and the causes behind it, is nothing but violence apologia.

    Bullshit.

    There’s a huge fucking difference between the study of violent behavior, the attempt to understand things like rape, and posting on a forum using the language of psychology to cast someone like TJ as the fucking victim.

    One is legitimate research. The other is rape apologia.

    I’ll leave it as an exercise to the student to figure out which is which.

  248. says

    twooffour, do fuck off. You aren’t welcome here, as you decided to crawl out from under your rock to take a shit in a 3 month old thread. Didn’t anyone teach you that it’s impolite to shit in public? Or are you too stupid to take that on board?

  249. kympoxon says

    An attempt to understand something is not an attempt to justify it, or apologise for it.

    It is simply that…an attempt to understand.

    One way to hopefully prevent a particular problem recurring again and again is to understand it, so that the cycle can be broken.

    twooffour, thank you for your response, and enlightening me where I did not understand.

    As for everyone else…not everyone that you come across is a troll or out to cause harm. They are ignorant perhaps…which is why they ask questions.

    My error was to presume that if a question was asked, that I would get responses written in the same spirit that my question was asked in. Unfortunately my inadequate expression of questioning has upset some people. I apologise for any negative feelings caused.

    I will seek answers elsewhere.

  250. A. R says

    If you wanna argue that he “definitely used rape apoogia”, feel free to quote directly, please. Otherwise, fuck off.

    Did ya see the comment where I directly quoted him? Apparently not.

  251. says

    Nigel:

    I’ll leave it as an exercise to the student to figure out which is which.

    Oh. In that case, the non-cognitive is never going to figure it out. Best to simply tell them to fuck off. Remember, creativity counts!

  252. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    As for everyone else…not everyone that you come across is a troll or out to cause harm.

    Intent: It’s fucking magic!

    My error was to presume that if a question was asked, that I would get responses written in the same spirit that my question was asked in.

    Your error was to ask a shitty set of questions predicated on offensive and nasty assumptions about people. Don’t fucking try to lay that on us.

    Unfortunately my inadequate expression of questioning has upset some people.

    It’s not your fucking expression that is the problem.

  253. A. R says

    My error was to presume that if a question was asked, that I would get responses written in the same spirit that my question was asked in. Unfortunately my inadequate expression of questioning has upset some people. I apologise for any negative feelings caused.

    Are the LOLstar sensors detecting a hint Majikal Intent/”I’m Just asking questions” here? I think so…

  254. says

    kympox:

    My error was to indulge in rape apologia while deluding myself I was doing something else. Rather than actually realize where I went wrong, I’ll go write my apologia where it will be accepted, ’cause that poor, poor, TJ, he’s such a victim. Only victims threaten people with rape, ya know!

    Fixed that for you, Cupcake.

  255. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Are the LOLstar sensors detecting a hint Majikal Intent/”I’m Just asking questions” here? I think so…

    And more than a hint of “I’m sorry if you were offended” too.

  256. says

    I mean, do we really KNOW that Hitler KNEW about the camps? What if he was just an over zealous wannabe general whose ambitions and insecurities from being beaten by his father exceed his competencies and he let horrible things happen without his knowledge because of how distracted he was with the war?

    I mean…yes Godwin, but trying to show you. Making shit up about people and conjuring up motives and intents and secret pain like some fucking Star Trek Councilor Troy? WTF?

  257. says

    kympoxon:

    It is simply that…an attempt to understand.

    What attempt to understand?

    You were attributing traits to TJ that are essentially unknowable with the information available here. You were posing stupid questions in an attempt to understand why TJ threatened rape, without any real idea of who TJ is. Your attempt at deep understanding was naive and misdirected, at best.

    But ultimately, TJ fucking threatened rape. Try to understand that all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that he fucking threatened rape.

    I will seek answers elsewhere.

    What the fuck kind of answers were you after? Your questions required pure speculation to answer, speculation you felt obliged to provide. You weren’t seeking answers. You were stroking your own ego, trying to show off how much you understood TJ.

    This isn’t about answers. Otherwise, you’d ask questions that could be answered with the knowledge at hand.

  258. says

    Caine:

    Oh. In that case, the non-cognitive is never going to figure it out. Best to simply tell them to fuck off. Remember, creativity counts!

    Damn! I was being too subtle again, wasn’t I?

    I gotta remember, just because it works in my head doesn’t mean it works on paper.

  259. A. R says

    You know what else I want to know? How did kympox find this thread? And even better, how the fuck did twooffour find it so soon after to provide his piss poor defense?

  260. Amphiox says

    My error was to presume that if a question was asked, that I would get responses written in the same spirit that my question was asked in.

    Your error was the presume that if a question was asked, it would not get responses written appropriate to the odious CONTENT of the “question”.

    “Spirit” is irrelevant here.

  261. says

    My error was to presume that if a question was asked, that I would get responses written in the same spirit that my question was asked in.

    in what “spirit” can one possibly speculate about whether submissives and/or people who have rape fantasies are pro-actual-rape and/or have been abused?

    fucking bigoted asshole.

  262. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    …so I notice that suddenly this thread is heating up again, and it is because of this?

    Kympox, as someone with Asperger’s, I gotta say the memes of “unemotionless” and “incapable of understanding other’s reactions” are tied for winning the prized trophy of Shit Esteleth Hates.

    Oh, and twooffour, have a porcupine. And a hedgehog. And a duck-billed platypus, just for good measure.

  263. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    Well, you can tell that I’m pissy, I’m inventing random-ass gobbledygook like “unemotionless.”

  264. says

    A.R:

    You know what else I want to know? How did kympox find this thread? And even better, how the fuck did twooffour find it so soon after to provide his piss poor defense?

    It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that they showed up here with an obvious agenda to spew. If that wasn’t the case, they would do what most intelligent people would do upon finding a 3 month old post and thread which interested them: they’d bloody read it, including all the comments. That way, they would have discovered all their “concerns” were already addressed, multiple times.

  265. says

    Esteleth:

    Well, you can tell that I’m pissy, I’m inventing random-ass gobbledygook like “unemotionless.”

    Inventeth away! That was my favorite part of your post, aside from the duck-billed platypus.

    I just can’t even say platypus without smiling.

  266. A. R says

    Caine: Yeah, very true. I guess people just waste time looking for threads like this to do this shit on.

  267. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    Nigel, I was near-serious regarding the platypus. Thems is vicious animals!

    Not only can they electrocute you, their venom covalently bonds to your nociceptors.

    (oh, and they’re fucking purple waddly things with duck bills)

  268. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    Cute as fuck babies that will make you chew your own arm off to stop the pain, Nigel.

    Trufax.

  269. says

    Nigel:

    Much easier just to wander off and mutter pseudo-psychology under your breath and be surprised when people answer you.

    Yes, however, when one does that, no one falls for their brain, because of all the empty.

  270. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    I am a total encephalophiliac. MMMMM.

    Not to say that I’m into encephalophagia. Gross.

  271. Amphiox says

    If you disagree, feel free to use quotes.

    If you want quotes, Mr. Stalward-Defender-Of-The-Indefensible, here you go:

    It is possible that someone who has a fantasy for submission/humiliation, and consequenty rape, would take offence to those who express a dislke of rape, as it is rejecting their fantasies and implying that there is something wrong with the person who fantasies about being raped.

    Seriously, you are trying to defend this? This? THIS????

    First, anyone who would HONESTLY ask such a question, would have found plentiful answers JUST BY READING, no not even reading, JUST BY SKIMMING, BRIEFLY PERUSING, this 500+ post thread. And then that hypothetical HONEST questioner would have his answer, and would have realized not only that there was no need to post this anymore, but also HOW INAPPROPRIATE a comment it really would be in the context of this thread.

    So to even SEE this posted is an indication, right off the bat, that the poster is either not presenting an “honest” question, or is a lazy fool who stepped onto a landmine by failing to do the due intellectual diligence of reading even just a little bit of the thread he wanted to comment on.

    Secondly, the implication that “submission/humiliation” is “consequently rape” is BY ITSELF reprehensible, and worthy of the fiercest, most vitriolic response. What ethical human being would even think to suggest such a thing?

    Thirdly, the suggestion that someone would take offence at others expressing a dislike of rape (come on, RAPE?!) because he construes it as a rejection of rape fantasy is utterly absurd. Rape sexual fantasy might exist, but the WHOLE POINT OF IT is that IT IS FANTASY. Even if that were truly the reason someone might engage in rape apologia, it doesn’t change one bit the odiousness of the rape apologia. To raise it as a defence of someone threatening rape (REAL, NON-FANTASY rape) is simply unconscionable.

  272. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Now, now, Amphiox. Shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility that by speaking out generally against war, we hurt the feelings of people who like paintball?

    ^that was sarcasm

  273. twooffour says

    Gonna post the rest of my responses later, but this… this just has to be addressed:

    Seriously, you are trying to defend this? This? THIS????

    First, anyone who would HONESTLY ask such a question, would have found plentiful answers JUST BY READING, no not even reading, JUST BY SKIMMING, BRIEFLY PERUSING, this 500+ post thread. And then that hypothetical HONEST questioner would have his answer, and would have realized not only that there was no need to post this anymore, but also HOW INAPPROPRIATE a comment it really would be in the context of this thread.

    Here’s my first post today:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/08/the-not-so-amazing-atheist-self-immolates/comment-page-2/#comment-310266

    As you can see, I directly rebut, and rip apart the passage you just claimed I was “defending”.
    In fact, half of my motivation to write that post was to rebut this stupid bullshit he wrote.

    But I understand it must be difficult to JUST READ a half-page forum post (if you put it in word, you’ll get half a page), instead of just SKIMMING and BRIEFLY PERUSING it, and embarassing yourself in the process, right?
    Jackass.

    So yea, don’t waste your breath on explaining the difference between fantasy and violence, I’ve already long covered that.

    Other bullshit responses will be covered later – I haven’t got all day, you know.

  274. A. R says

    twoffour: OK, lets just throw out everything not related to your first sentence. Because that first sentence is enough to warrant you a decaying porcupine. You were defending rape apologia. I have clearly demonstrated that kympox was engaging in rape apologia in previous comments, with direct quotes from their comments. Also, how did you find this 3-month-old thread anyway?

  275. twooffour says

    Because that first sentence is enough to warrant you a decaying porcupine. You were defending rape apologia. I have clearly demonstrated that kympox was engaging in rape apologia in previous comments, with direct quotes from their comments.

    If you’re referring to this:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/08/the-not-so-amazing-atheist-self-immolates/comment-page-2/#comment-310277

    Then, um, no, you haven’t demonstrated shit. Saying that someone having “lots of pain and hurt” is (or can be) a cause for a violent crime, isn’t the same as saying that it also serves as a justification.

    So still no rape apologia I’m afraid – try a little harder. In fact, it’s hard to fathom how stupid you must be for thinking that quote was even in the ballpark of proving what you claim it does.
    And that was it for today!

    PS: With regards to you question how I found this thread – how did you? ;)
    Seriously. °_°

  276. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    In fact, half of my motivation to write that post was to rebut this stupid bullshit he wrote.

    The rest of it, presumably, being your intense need to patronize rape survivors and tell them to “calm down and go to the corner” because they failed to treat the “stupid bullshit” with sufficient civility and deference for your obnoxious ass.

  277. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    On finding the thread revived, regular readers see the most recent comments in the sidebar. The question is how did someone obviously not a regular find it.

  278. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    To those keeping score at home, since twooffour is clearly too fucking stupid to ever get this, you don’t actually need to say “SO RAPE IS JUSTIFIED” in order to be engaging in rape apologia.

  279. A. R says

    Very well, I’ve tried to be polite with you, but even I cannot put up with your idiocy anymore. Let me explain what rape apologia is: Rationalizing a person’s reasons for committing or threatening to commit rape. This is what kympox was doing. He was rationalizing rape threats with ill-informed armchair psychology. Are there situations in which people can be psychologically impaired enough to not recognize that rape is bad? Possibly, yes. (Does it make rape less traumatic to the victim, less immoral, less wrong? The answer is no.) But that does not give kympox, who presumably has no psychological or psychiatric qualifications, the right to assume that this is what is at play here. We’ve dealt with rape apologists before, and we know what it looks like. And kympox was engaging in rape apologia, whether you can comprehend it or not. As for how I found this thread, I found it like most people find threads, on the front page of the blog when it was posted, not three months later. How did I know kympox was spewing rape apologia on this thread now? When an old thread shows up in the recent comments, it’s a fairly good be that it’s a troll. Now kindly pack up your assorted decaying metazoans and leave us in peace.

  280. says

    In fact, half of my motivation to write that post was to rebut this stupid bullshit he wrote.

    Rebuttal, you’re doing it wrong. You might not even have a grasp of what that word actually means, Cupcake.

    In fact, we really don’t need any more examples of just how dimwitted you happen to be.

  281. twooffour says

    The rest of it, presumably, being your intense need to patronize rape survivors and tell them to “calm down and go to the corner” because they failed to treat the “stupid bullshit” with sufficient civility and deference for your obnoxious ass.

    Of all the commenters here, I think only one (maybe two) have said to be rape survivors.
    Since this isn’t a support forum for victims but an open discussion/education blog, the posters on here are, by default, contributers sharing their thoughts, not victims of rape / racism / violence.

    And as such, they can be called out on posting dishonest bullshit, when they do. And that’s what I called them out on, posting dishonest bullshit and misreading simple text, not some nonsense about “civility and deference”.

    How PATHETIC of you to use the “rape survivor” shield as an excuse, especially for baselessly accusing others of rape apologia.

    _____

    “The question is how did someone obviously not a regular find it.”
    SUBSCRIPTION, dumbass. I’ve posted on this post before, and subscribed to the thread in the process.

    “you don’t actually need to say “SO RAPE IS JUSTIFIED” in order to be engaging in rape apologia.”
    =>Whenever you don’t say “rape is justified”, you engage in rape apologia.

    Great troll logic there, dipshit. “Just because the nose is fake, doesn’t mean she ain’t a witch”.
    Yes, if there’s nothing in a text indicating rape apologia, you’ve got no fucking reason to claim there is.

    _______

    Let me explain what rape apologia is: Rationalizing a person’s reasons for committing or threatening to commit rape.

    Ah, you see, “rationalizing” is such a convenient word! On the one hand, it kind of means “trying to make sense of”, i.e. “being rational”, “looking at it from a rational perspective”, so it’s convenient to apply to his post.

    On the other hand, of course, it means “justifying”, which is obviously NOT what he was doing.

    Fucking wordplay? Does it get any lower than that?

    “We’ve dealt with rape apologists before, and we know what it looks like.”
    It’s called paranoia.
    “Rape apologists have used these phrases” => “Using this phrases means you’re a rape apologist, even when you’re not.”

    “And kympox was engaging in rape apologia, whether you can comprehend it or not.”
    Proof? Since your previous “quote” obviously doesn’t qualify?

    “How did I know kympox was spewing rape apologia on this thread now? When an old thread shows up in the recent comments, it’s a fairly good be that it’s a troll.”

    What, more insane troll logic?
    “Posting on a thread 3 months too late” => “poster is a troll” => “if the poster is a troll, and he says some stuff I think sounds like rape apologia, it’s rape apologia”.

    What the HELL?

    I myself subscribed to this thread when posting here several months ago, but nvm that – SOMEONE COULD’VE SEARCHED FOR INFO ON TJ’S ESCAPE ON GOOGLE AND FOUND THIS THREAD. IT’S PRETTY MUCH UP THERE IN THE SEARCH RESULTS.

    Fuck, why am I still here? It’s like I’m addicted to stupid.

    Rebuttal, you’re doing it wrong. You might not even have a grasp of what that word actually means, Cupcake.

    Strange, I thought it was something along the lines of “disprove”, or “debunk”, but I guess I’ll have to read up. And you go read my post again.
    Dipshit.

  282. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Wow, I haven’t had a decent popcorn thread in a while. Think I’ll go put some on the stove…

  283. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Of all the commenters here, I think only one (maybe two) have said to be rape survivors.
    Since this isn’t a support forum for victims but an open discussion/education blog, the posters on here are, by default, contributers sharing their thoughts, not victims of rape / racism / violence.

    First of all, learn to fucking read. Two in direct response to the comment you defended/”rebutted”. Second, this is a place where people have made an effort to make a safe space for victims, and there are a great many of us here.

    And as such, they can be called out on posting dishonest bullshit, when they do. And that’s what I called them out on, posting dishonest bullshit and misreading simple text, not some nonsense about “civility and deference”.

    What exactly was dishonest about anything we said? Your complaint was about our anger, cupcake.

  284. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    How PATHETIC of you to use the “rape survivor” shield as an excuse, especially for baselessly accusing others of rape apologia.

    How disgusting of you to call it an excuse, especially for being angry at rape apologia.

  285. A. R says

    twooffour: OK, so you can’t read for comprehension, understand what the word rationalize means (it means making excuses too). Oh, and have you ever heard of “If it quacks like a duck” before? Thought not. Also, how, exactly, does attempting to rationalize (remember, that word can also mean “to make excuses for”) TJ’s rape threats with armchair psychology, as evidenced in my quote, not qualify in any way? Now let’s talk about rape survivors. There are actually quite a few of them here (at least five that I know of) and we try to make this a safe place for rape victims. Thus rape apologia is not well tolerated. OK, so now on to your bizarre claims of “troll logic.” Firstly, it’s pretty hard to be a troll on a blog if you’re a regular, secondly, I feel you have been misinformed about real troll logic, since you’re using it right now. If you really want to leave, please feel free to at any time. Really. We don’t want you here.

  286. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Yes, if there’s nothing in a text indicating rape apologia, you’ve got no fucking reason to claim there is.

    Baseless armchair speculation about how the person making rape threats is probably actually just a victim with a troubled past is rape apologia, you fucking dumbass. Or at least rape-threat apologia. But hey, if you’re too fucking stupid to read the 16 posts between the rape apologia and your response to it (which included the condescension to “all the angry responders,” of whom 2/6 referred to themselves directly as rape victims in those posts), maybe I shouldn’t expect you to be able to figure that shit out.

  287. says

    How PATHETIC of you to use the “rape survivor” shield as an excuse, especially for baselessly accusing others of rape apologia.

    Well, it didn’t take long for your true colours to show, now did it, Cupcake?

    Whether you like it or not, Pharyngula is a safe space for all kinds of people because the commentariat has made it that way. Just because all the people who have been raped haven’t shown up just so you can have a head count doesn’t mean there aren’t a whole lot. There are, men and women.

    Now, back to Pharyngula being a safe space for a moment. Seeing as you’re extra-special stupid, this is a bit from the Pharyngula Standards & Practices:

    This blog has been around for about 8 years and has a horde of active commenters, and the whole bloody mob has shaped expectations for what is in-group behavior and what is out-group behavior. Pay attention to the culture here.

    Now, see the bit in blue above? Use your mouse to click on it. Then read. It will take you a while, but do your very best to comprehend every single word.

    Now, there were no accusations. There was rape apologia, and it was pointed out in no uncertain terms. What you’re doing now is attempting to shame CC and myself. I’m sure there are ways to be a more loathsome, disgusting, vile creature, however, you might wish to consider not trying to hit the bottom of the pit so fast. I suppose there’s a possibility you might turn into a human being. Consider finding that possibility and paying attention to it. This does require a working brain rather than a smooth lump prone to temper tantrums. Good luck!

  288. says

    A.R:

    There are actually quite a few of them here (at least five that I know of)

    There’s one hell of a lot more than that. A whole lot more. Those threads were before your time here, though.

  289. A. R says

    Caine: Oh, I was not aware that there were that many victims here. I certainly hope I didn’t offend anyone.

  290. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Oh, I was not aware that there were that many victims here. I certainly hope I didn’t offend anyone.

    I doubt you did :) On the one hand, it’s really very upsetting how many there are. On the other, I’m so glad we have this place and each other. It really does help, for a lot of us.

  291. Pteryxx says

    Oh, I was not aware that there were that many victims here. I certainly hope I didn’t offend anyone.

    A.R, the stats run around 20-25% just for women. There are that many victims EVERYWHERE.

  292. says

    Pteryxx:

    the stats run around 20-25% just for women. There are that many victims EVERYWHERE.

    Yeah, that’s not even counting all those who were raped when they were children. Lots of people here who had that happen, too.

  293. A. R says

    Pteryxx: I can believe that without a doubt. I suppose so many people don’t know about this because of the stigma attached to rape victims. Because according the MRAs it’s your fault if you get raped. Jesus Christ I’m angry right now.

  294. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Ah, you see, “rationalizing” is such a convenient word! On the one hand, it kind of means “trying to make sense of”, i.e. “being rational”, “looking at it from a rational perspective”, so it’s convenient to apply to his post.

    LOL, you perceived that as “looking at it from a rational perspective”? Your bar, she it set low.

    Talking, from a research perspective, about circumstances that turn people into sexual predators is not rape apologia, or at least it doesn’t have to be.
    But taking a specific instance of aggression and totally making up reasons* for what supposedly caused it, and promoting sympathy-inducing “reasons” over alternatives without theoretic or evidential justification, is likely to be rape apologia.

    “you don’t actually need to say “SO RAPE IS JUSTIFIED” in order to be engaging in rape apologia.”

    =>Whenever you don’t say “rape is justified”, you engage in rape apologia.

    Nice troll logic, moron.

  295. Amphiox says

    twooffour still defending the indefensible, I see. Steam-drilling its hole all the way into the solid iron core….

  296. says

    Amphiox:

    Steam-drilling its hole all the way into the solid iron core….

    Yes. My admonition, supra, to learn the first rule of holes was most definitely ignored. Tsk.

  297. eline says

    Hooboy. I had forgotten about this, but then I got 200 emails all of sudden… now I see why. The troll just doesn’t get it does it? Oh well, at least it has something to ponder about.

  298. John Morales says

    twooffour:

    Fuck, why am I still here? It’s like I’m addicted to stupid.

    <snicker>

    (TSTKTS)

  299. Louis says

    {Stops. Looks. Listens. Sniffs. Pukes}

    I scent the heady aroma of cluelessness and rape apologetics disguised as “just asking questions” and being “objective”. Yum!

    Okay, first I’ll be controversial.

    It’s entirely possible to analyse the behaviour of someone, let’s use The Amazing Atheist as the current example, and not be excusing it. I doubt there is a single soul here who would deny that. We’re all well aware that analysis and explanation are not the same thing as excusing, justifying or apologising for.

    In fact, if TAA were to go before a qualified psychoanalyst who took a full (and obvious honest on the TAA’s part) history and study of TAA’s psychology, I don’t doubt this could be done very effectively. Perhaps this process, over the months, would lead to a fuller understanding of why TAA has behaved in precisely the way he has.

    Now I’ll be less controversial.

    Whilst this is undeniably possible, IT IS ALSO QUITE FUCKING CLEAR THAT THIS HAS NOT FUCKING HAPPENED IN THE COURSE OF ONE FUCKING COMMENT ON A BLOG THREAD!

    Now I realise that might be a subtle distinction for some people. I am willing to explain it at length with a 2 by 4 if needs be.

    Four things:

    1) In the absence of evidence of abuse motivations for or specific victimhood of TAA these are very unlikely reasons for his behaviour. The simple claimed enjoyment of one paraphilia is insufficient. Male victims of female sexual abuse are of course real but rare in comparison to the huge numbers of men who are simply sexist by virtue of being raised in a sexist environment. The vast majority of men have not been sexually abused by women, and whilst being abused can lead onto further forms of abusing it is by no means some form of manifest destiny. Ask any of the non-raping, non-abusing rape survivors here present. The overwhelmingly likely reason behind TAA’s misogyny and rape apologia is the fact that he is a misogynist. There is no need for pseudo-psychological claims of victimhood. We have an existing, powerful misogynist-making social system in operation already. So I object on the grounds of parsimony.

    2) Mental health abuse. AGAIN! A-FUCKING-GAIN! Person A has done something bad, therefore person A must have something wrong with them mentally, which is totally like not their fault. The fact that “it’s like totally not their fault” is not indicative of compassion. It’s false concern. It’s sickening sweetness.

    Come closer to the screen everyone. Come closer. Closer. Press your nose right up against the screen. That’s it. Closer.

    SANE PEOPLE DO FUCKING EVIL THINGS ALL THE FUCKING TIME

    Did we all get that? Good.

    This endless armchair psychologist speculation that because someone has done something naughty they must have some form of mental illness is damaging to those people who really do have mental illnesses. It’s equating bad actions with mental illness. It is reinforcing and creating social stigma around mental health. This is a Bad Thing.

    No evidence exists to the best of my knowledge that TAA is suffering from a relevant mental illness. Whilst it’s POSSIBLE he could be, it is again not the most parsimonious assumption. And even then, mental illness is not the same thing as lack of responsibility. A mentally ill person can be quite aware of the differences between right and wrong for example. The presence of mental illness is insufficient to demonstrate insanity to the degree of not being culpable for one’s actions. Necessary of course, but not sufficient.

    3) Armchair psychology. I realise we are swamped with fucking pseudo-scientific and pseudo-psychological explanations for every damned thing, so it’s easy to fall into the trap. Try to avoid it unless you have the relevant qualifications and some evidence. Proper evidence. Otherwise you will look like a hand waving arsehole engaged in apologetics. Some mean people like me might mention this to you using words like “fuck off shitheel”.

    4) The appropriate reaction when someone shits in your drink is “Dude! Do not shit in my drink!”. It is not “Quick, let us form a navel gazing forum for full analysis of potentially why this guy is shitting in my drink. Perhaps his mother abused him during potty training. I should drink the drink and ignore the turd otherwise I am lacking compassion.”. TAA is clearly a functioning adult. It may be that his misogyny has some deep, dark psychological underpinning, but the way to draw his attention to that underpinning is point out that his actions are unsuitable and to encourage him to pursue modification of them. It is not for us to say, in the absence of evidence and in the face of overwhelming evidence for a more parsimonious explanation, that his bad behaviour must be (or is likely) due to a specific underlying psychological condition. Doing so in the absence of evidence is not simply discussion or potential reasons. It is quackery. Quackery that is all too common when making apologia for the actions of odious people. And if it walks like an apologist, quacks like an apologist…

    So please, after all that, allow me to add my most fervent and sincere FUCK DIRECTLY OFF RAPE APOLOGISTS to the pile.

    Louis

  300. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Oh thank FSM for Louis. I’ve been waiting for someone to stomp the crazy-blaming equivalence of evil with mental illness. Louis came through with flying colors.

    I repeat: thank FSM.

    To repeat the most import parts:


    SANE PEOPLE DO FUCKING EVIL THINGS ALL THE FUCKING TIME

    and thus…

    FUCK DIRECTLY OFF RAPE APOLOGISTS

  301. Ogvorbis: Insert Appropriate Appelation Here says

    . . . whilst being abused can lead onto further forms of abusing it is by no means some form of manifest destiny. Ask any of the non-raping, non-abusing rape survivors here present.

    Thank you.

  302. Louis says

    TO THE ELECTRO-DUNGEON!

    Promises promises. But I’ll complain if there’s not Advanced Sexual Torture With Spoons.

    LOuis

  303. Amphiox says

    The sane are in fact much more likely to do evil than the insane. A significant proportion of the insane, by virtue of their handicaps, do not possess the cognitive and executive capacity to envision and carry out truly evil acts.

  304. hongtian says

    “That’s a lot of bullshit.”
    Actually, it’s a lot of truth.

    “The feminism I embrace is sex-positive.”
    Sex-positive feminism is bullshit, sorry.

    “He really, really hates uppity feminist women”
    Those exist?

    “I do want to seriously address one part of it, though, because it’s a claim I often seen these freaked-out misogynist kooks make.”
    Give it a rest with that word, “misogynist”. It’s like the word racist only feminist version. Just because someone criticizes feminists doesn’t make them a misogynist. What TAA said there was true, feminists DO try to control sexuality, even you “sex-positive” feminists(whatever the fuck that means). The people who make those claims aren’t misogynists, they’re just being realistic. A feminist calling other people freaked out kooks is like the pot calling the kettle black. Hypocrites.

  305. A. R says

    hongtian: Here’s a decaying porcupine. Please insert into your bodily orifice of choice sideways and thrust rapidly.