Comments

  1. John Morales says

    garlipow, liches are powerful undead mages; you imagine they can’t morph as required?

  2. says

    Are other people getting proper scientific adverts? I’ve got one advertising lab equipment from Leica Microsystems. It makes a refreshing change from those wrinkle cure adverts, with pictures of Emperor Palpatine next to pictures of Snow White.

  3. Ogvorbis says

    mandrellian:

    Can’t help you there. I looked on line and there are no “Anti-Lich” creams listed. Sorry.

    Oh, and happy Thursday to all!

  4. Phalacrocorax, z Třetího Světa says

    Are other people getting proper scientific adverts?

    I’m not seeing any ads at all now, but, when I enter Pharyngula from a system without adblock, I don’t recall ever seeing anything that was properly scientific. The most peculiar ad I ever got was about a hotel full of shirtless men in Cambodia.

  5. says

    How did I not know you had Zombie Jesus threads, PZ?!? Saving for my collection. :D Thx!

    I’d like to humbly offer my own Zombie Jesus toons up for other collectors of fine Zombie Jesus references…

    I did the Jesus is a Zombie! Tractoon (tract + toon) in 2008 for a print publication (BENT Zine, Taos, NM) and recently repurposed it as a webcomic. It’s a complete 20-page satire of the Chick Publications Christian tracts like “Mohammed Had No Son!”

    Enjoy & Share! (There’s other atheist webcomics there too if you poke around.)

  6. Paul says

    TET is not supposed to go the way you’re taking it and I’ve done my dash.

    So people passive-aggressively reference SG to the point where those with no stake in the fight are uncomfortable and ask them to stop, but SG is the one “taking it” a way it’s not supposed to go? Funny how that works. Victim blaming for everyone!

    I’m ashamed of you. Didn’t we already establish that Jesus was a lich, not a zombie?

    But where is his phylactery?

  7. Paul says

    Whenever a round of SG-bashing comes around it feels much like the Laden-calling-SC-an-antisemite situation. It starts with mistaken rememberances or out of context quotes that paint a specific directed framework, then the accusations take on a life of their own and many people blame HIM that the topic is broached for defending himself, and come up with new justifications about how he’s the worst person evar and is totally ruining the environment. People that had no particular stake before walk in and see everyone ripping on one person and figure there must be a good reason, so they jump right in. Even after the initial examples are shown to have been overblown and presented in a very misleading way, people hold strong to the accusations without feeling the need to otherwise substantiate them. And it’s still SGs/SCs fault, even with that lack, because other people are still angry with them due to the initial accusations (whether or not it’s ill-placed is completely ignored).

    Just in case anyone else was around then and missed the resonance.

  8. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Following another broad boulevard of thought, I’ve been tearing up some black beans and corn for like three days now, And not getting sick of it. In fact, I don’t know why I have ever eaten anything else.

  9. Paul says

    Great combination. Made any homemade cornbread yet? It’s easy to do, and really good stuff if you like corn.

  10. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Paul…cornbread is far too advanced for me, I’m afraid.

    The funny thing is that I’m not all that crazy about corn or black beans by themselves. But put them together? Delicious emergent properties.

  11. Paul says

    Paul…cornbread is far too advanced for me, I’m afraid.

    If you feel that it’s something you want, there are package mixes that you just add corn to. The ones I’ve tried turn out rather well.

    Make sure you have some honey and butter to mix, or something similar. Yummy.

  12. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    I’ve never read Hugo, but…

    From the Pffft

    Some consider Javert misguided rather than evil, although his inflexibility and cruelty throughout the novel moves in parallel to Jean Valjean’s kindness. Those who consider Javert misguided believe that the distinction of pure evil in the novel more appropriately belongs to the greedy and treacherous Thénardiers. Others consider the Thénardiers dishonest, petty criminals, whose actual negative impact on the protagonists is minor compared to the significant levels of spite and mercilessness Javert inflicts on those he encounters.

  13. says

    Whenever a round of SG-bashing comes around

    Curious, that. Why does that come around? Are you suggesting somehow that Inspector Javert is completely innocent in eliciting the negative reactions?

    Also, the rest of your comment is incorrect: no, these aren’t people who have no idea who he is jumping on a bandwagon of bashing. He’s a very well known person among the commentariat, he has admirers and detractors, it’s simply not true that he is an unknown innocent getting mobbed.

    Also, before it comes up again, I see no one here arguing that he was wrong or dishonest in calling out the “tard” label; I also find it as offensive as “cunt”. So let’s not go down the primrose path of defending him because he is so true and just and honest…that isn’t and has never been in question.

  14. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Curious, that. Why does that come around? Are you suggesting somehow that Inspector Javert is completely innocent in eliciting the negative reactions?

    Here’s where it started:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/27/episode-cccliv-but-some-of-us-still-arent-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-414055

    I did nothing to elicit that. It came out of the blue.

    Also, before it comes up again, I see no one here arguing that he was wrong or dishonest in calling out the “tard” label;

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/27/episode-cccliv-but-some-of-us-still-arent-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-414144

    I think it was in the last Molly nom thread. Aquaria is a…forceful personality and she has a fondness for the word “Christard”. A while back, SG took issue with that, and in his usual style, showed up whenever she posted, no matter what she posted, and continually castigated her for it, indulging in continual harassment, derailing threads left and right, same old, same old.

    Aquaria decided she didn’t want to be part of Pharyngula anymore, as she couldn’t speak the way she wanted and was harassed every time she posted.

    I don’t blame her at all. While I have no problem with someone registering a protest over certain words or language, I think protesting it once is enough, unless the person being protested against wishes to argue the matter. Following someone around and harassing them should be something the people here disapprove of, but it seems it isn’t.

    And again, the suggestion that I argued with Aquaria in other threads about it is not true.

    Here are the examples of “harassment”:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/14/the-dawkins-challengedoesnt-even-get-out-of-the-starting-gate/comment-page-1/#comment-363886

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/13/faith-is-all-about-acquiescence-to-the-intolerable/comment-page-1/#comment-364321

  15. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ ixchel

    This isn’t a conundrum, though. It is just a definition of terms. That’s all that’s going on here.

    Hell, I arrived ready for a knife fight and yo’all are talking about the rules of chess?

    For instance, John Morales’s “compatibilist free will” is simply the ability to act when free from external coercion. This exists. Everyone here agrees this exists. We differ only on whether it’s worth calling free will.

    This does not look as interesting. More interesting would be: Given the JM “free will”, can we really speak of more than a single (inevitable) possible action?

    Which issue?

    You mean we actually understand the whole chain? (It is an issue if we do not.)

    If it’s contracausal free will, then it undoubtably does rely on something metaphysical, or meta-metaphysical…

    There is a third option. That the bonds to the material become more fluid as we ascend through levels of emergent phenomenon. (Oh fuck, now I am starting to sound like a Pagan. Oops!)

    Nurrr, they can be described by averages.

    The effects though due to averages or (at least for young tardigrades) discrete (indeterminate) events.

    mathematical description.

    Why ever not?

    ……..
    @ AE

    Hey, where are the pix/recipes?
    ….

    I would like to anounce the opening of the TZT hotel. (Rooms by the hour.)

  16. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ AE

    Thénardiers dishonest, petty criminals,

    Théophontes and Tardigraders

    Distant family. No real contact for years now...

  17. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Theophontes: no pix, as I haz devoured the evidence.

    Recipe: One can black beans. Small bag frozen corn.
    Thaw corn (this can be done accidentally in the back of your car overnight). Mix with black beans. Cover with hot-sauce (I like a green jalapeño sauce myself). Stuff into bean-corn hole while standing over sink.

    Also,

    Thénardiers dishonest, petty criminals,

    Théophontes and Tardigraders

    *eyes dangerously distended, clear view of uvula*

  18. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Giliell,

    If SG says that he’s being harassed then that needs to be adressed and a solution needs to be found.

    How about “don’t bring me up on TET regarding something on some other thread; bring it up on TZT”?

    Wait, here’s an even better idea: “don’t bring anyone up on TET regarding something on some other thread; bring it up on TZT”?

    +++++
    If it’s supposed to be a “lounge” for every commenter, without fighting, then how’s that behavior supposed to be okay toward any commenter?

    A few weeks ago Chas was castigated by Setar for responding to complaints about him that were dragged over to TET from another thread by Ing. I don’t think Ing necessarily should have been expected to foresee this, but Setar’s reply was unfair — if Chas is supposed to be as welcome in the “lounge” as anyone else, then it doesn’t make sense to complain about him there and insist that he shouldn’t reply.

  19. says

    ixchel,

    Ok, first of all, I must apologize for some bad wording there on my part (seems like it’s becoming a pattern). When I said ‘I do, however, have some problems with how he goes about adressing these issues.’ I was not talking specifically about Aquaria, which based on your links, you handled pretty well, I think.
    However, you do occasionally mistake honest mistakes for dishonesty and you can sometimes come accross as very agressive (because you often bombard people with lots of comments). Those are the problems I’m referring to. Now, as far as I’m concerned, you don’t have to take my opinion into account. I was just hoping to clarify why some people might feel intimidated and even harassed by your actions (even if you didn’t mean to harass anyone, and indeed, I don’t think you did).
    Again, in the case of Aquaria, she was wrong. You were right. And, in this instance, I don’t see what you said as harassment or as ‘starting a fight’.

  20. says

    If it’s supposed to be a “lounge” for every commenter, without fighting, then how’s that behavior supposed to be okay toward any commenter?

    I agree completely.

  21. says

    Yes, I can tell you what’s wrong with that.

    On a thread on Christian misogyny, your only contribution was to jump on Aquaria. I agree with you whole-heartedly that the “tard” nonsense is offensive and should stop, but you give the impression that your interest is solely on policing a few people who have offended you in the past — and Aquaria is definitely on your shit-list. So there’s a thread about women being told to stay in abusive relationships because the Lord says so…and the most horrible thing, the one thing that motivates you to participate, is there goes “Aquaria using mental retardation as an insult again”.

    Your comment at 171 stands out as an abrupt derail. From that point until the last comment, the entire thread is now about your point, which has nothing at all to do with the article. And this was shortly after Esteleth told her personal and relevant story, a point that was lost.

    You’re very good at turning all attention on your personal disagreement with some other commenter on the thread, no matter whether it is relevant or not. Again, I’m not disagreeing with you on the “tard” business…I’m saying you tend to badger threads into focusing on your affronted sense of justice to the detriment of other discussions.

    And that can get pretty damned annoying.

  22. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ AE

    *eyes dangerously distended, clear view of uvula*

    Actually “dishonest, petty criminals” is a relative complement.

    While we are all complaining, I would just like to complain about Owlmirror‘s behaviour on TZT. All that love and kindness, poetry, considerate and articulate writings … highly disruptive to the tone here!

  23. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    However, you do occasionally mistake honest mistakes for dishonesty

    Well, the only thing I think I can reliably do about this is try to stop talking about honesty altogether.

    Basically I think David has this right:

    …On this I agree. He seems to be one of the people (like Matt Penfold, as I pointed out somewhere yesterday) who expect others to think everything through, so he expects people to be aware of the contradictions between their stated opinions – and, well, if you knowingly hold contradictory opinions, if you knowingly say A = ¬A, you are lying.

    Most people’s minds are a mess that contain plenty of unexamined contradictions. I find it difficult to detect the ones I hold. ixchel appears to find that quite a bit easier – and then extrapolates from himself to others, as far as I can tell.

    I mean intellectually I know that’s not a valid extrapolation, but my theory of mind is not always complete.

    But it annoys the living shit out of me when I see Penfold doing it.

    So I think it may be possible for me to point out when “that is not true” rather than “that is a lie.” (But for the record let’s be clear, there have been some obvious lies about me.)

    and you can sometimes come accross as very agressive (because you often bombard people with lots of comments).

    In this case, though, the alternative is simply to not answer errors. I don’t believe I should do that.

  24. Louis says

    Ixchel,

    If it’s supposed to be a “lounge” for every commenter, without fighting, then how’s that behavior supposed to be okay toward any commenter?

    I saw it. My eyes rolled. I said nothing. I should have said something. I apologise.

    I definitely don’t agree with everything you do or say (be a dull old world if we all agreed) but my inaction was stupid.

    Mind you, the rights or wrongs of any specific thing, I think PZ’s request for you to reflect a little on how you do things here wouldn’t hurt anyone, least of all you. We can all do better.

    Louis

  25. Sili says

    I’m not seeing any ads at all now, but, when I enter Pharyngula from a system without adblock, I don’t recall ever seeing anything that was properly scientific. The most peculiar ad I ever got was about a hotel full of shirtless men in Cambodia.

    *frantically tries to remove adblocking*

  26. says

    So I think it may be possible for me to point out when “that is not true” rather than “that is a lie.” (But for the record let’s be clear, there have been some obvious lies about me.)

    yes, I do agree with that.

  27. Phalacrocorax, z Třetího Světa says

    The most peculiar ad I ever got was about a hotel full of shirtless men in Cambodia.

    *frantically tries to remove adblocking*

    It may not work here, though. I think you have to be in a thread about feminism where the word “menz” has been used a dozen times to see that.

  28. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    On a thread on Christian misogyny, your only contribution was to jump on Aquaria. I agree with you whole-heartedly that the “tard” nonsense is offensive and should stop,

    So are you saying I shouldn’t have replied to Aquaria?

    But it wouldn’t have stopped without my bringing that up.

    Look around and you will see that I am the only person here who has ever pointed out that the use of “Christard” is offensive. Other people only chime in after I say something in a particular thread.

    Other permutations of “tard” sometimes do get mentioned by others, but for some reason this one slides. I imagine part of the reason is that people who don’t like it expect that there will be equivocation — “oh it’s not a referent for mental retardation” — and they don’t want to have to argue the obvious point that it is such a referent.

    So there’s a thread about women being told to stay in abusive relationships because the Lord says so…and the most horrible thing, the one thing that motivates you to participate, is there goes “Aquaria using mental retardation as an insult again”.

    I address what other people do not address. I am not obliged to echo what has already been said. I don’t have infinite time to participate in the hivemind.

    Your comment at 171 stands out as an abrupt derail.

    Look at the timestamps. It was a 36-hour old thread which had quieted down. I popped in to look at it because I noticed interrobang’s comment in the Recent Comments sidebar.

    There had been only 9 comments on 14 June 2012, in a thread with 170 comments. The thread was over.

    Nevertheless, I conceded to John that I could have affirmed the non-ableist content of Aquaria’s comments, so that the message was not completely lost. I will endeavor to bring up the best as well.

    And this was shortly after Esteleth told her personal and relevant story, a point that was lost.

    That is unfortunate.

    So are you saying I shouldn’t have replied to Aquaria?

  29. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Mind you, the rights or wrongs of any specific thing, I think PZ’s request for you to reflect a little on how you do things here wouldn’t hurt anyone, least of all you. We can all do better.

    Reflecting.

  30. jakc says

    Man, I needed this poster to advertise my band Zombie Jesus in college. Plus, Zombie Jesus is in for a treat – I marinated my brain in brandy last night. Say, do you think that ZJ will be rapturing people up, not by how good a Christian they are, but by how big and tasty their brains are? Be afraid PZ, be very afraid!

  31. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    And this was shortly after Esteleth told her personal and relevant story, a point that was lost.

    7 hours later.

    It really doesn’t make much sense to suggest that my comment 7 hours after Esteleth’s was the reason why people didn’t address Esteleth’s, when only one person had addressed it in those 7 hours (containing a total of 4 comments).

  32. says

    I’ll take a break from my disengaging with you, SG, but I only have limited time on my hands, I’m going on a holiday tomorrow

    How about “don’t bring me up on TET regarding something on some other thread; bring it up on TZT”?

    Wait, here’s an even better idea: “don’t bring anyone up on TET regarding something on some other thread; bring it up on TZT”?

    First, it would have been nice if you’d left a hint that you took this to TZT, ’cause I usually don’t hang out here.
    Second, although I basically agree that it’s not OK, especially if you don’t name people, it only solves your problem.
    It doesn’t solve anybody else’s.
    Third, having that as a general rule without clarification misses the point that bringing things over to TET in order not to endlessly derail other threads often works quite well. Even with complaints.

  33. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    First, it would have been nice if you’d left a hint that you took this to TZT, ’cause I usually don’t hang out here.

    It would be nice, but I’m sure someone would have been regarded it as unacceptable.

    Second, although I basically agree that it’s not OK, especially if you don’t name people, it only solves your problem.

    No, like I just said, this has happened to Chas too.

    Third, having that as a general rule without clarification misses the point that bringing things over to TET in order not to endlessly derail other threads often works quite well. Even with complaints.

    Bringing things over to TZT in order not to endlessly derail other threads also works quite well.

    The problem with TET is that if people reply to the complaint, the person who replies is the bad one, not the person who dragged the complaint over in the first place.

  34. Cipher, OM, Sweetness and Fluff says

    Sure it was wrong. Sure I knew it was wrong.

    Why? Because I didn’t like the way the TET was going and I didn’t like to see what might happen. So I stepped in.

    Which, unfortunately, means I must I admit right, I was trolling him.

    Yeah? Well, you caused splash damage.
    Don’t fucking do that.

    On a thread on Christian misogyny, your only contribution was to jump on Aquaria.

    I am pretty sure there have been a lot of threads where my only contribution was to respond to (“jump on”) someone saying something incorrect or offensive.
    If I don’t have anything to add, I don’t see the point in saying anything.
    I didn’t realize that was a problem.

    The seeming inability of SG to respond to intentional provocation without being accused of derailing and told to take it to TZT makes me extremely fucking uncomfortable. In the “lounge.”

  35. says

    So you dug up a dead thread to carp about Aquaria? This makes it better?

    Look, you’re now rationalizing. You’re trying to find excuses to absolve yourself of all fault in these sporadic flare-ups of irritation with you. I don’t care. You can either try to address an obvious problem with your interactions with the community here, or you can pretend the problem doesn’t exist. And then when the problems erupt again, I’ll have to think about whether to deal with it in my heavy-handed way.

    Either way, the problem gets resolved eventually.

  36. says

    No, like I just said, this has happened to Chas too

    Yes, fine, but you’re missing the point: It doesn’t solve the problems people have with you.

    It would be nice, but I’m sure someone would have been regarded it as unacceptable.

    Passive-agressive

    The problem with TET is that if people reply to the complaint, the person who replies is the bad one, not the person who dragged the complaint over in the first place.

    True in some cases, not true in others. A call for consistency is definetly in order. Still misses the point that several people like me have big problems with you and your behaviour. Something you seem to think we just have to suck up. Which I cannot accept.

  37. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Here’s the example with Chas and Ing that I’m talking about.

    Again, I’m not saying that Ing did something which out to have been recognized as wrong. It wasn’t unreasonable. But in light of the fact that Chas was not granted the same leeway to reply, maybe we should in the future recognize bringing-the-complaint-to-TET as wrong.

  38. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    So you dug up a dead thread to carp about Aquaria?

    No, I clicked on interrobang’s comment in the Recent Comments sidebar to read the thread.

    This makes it better?

    Yes of course it makes it better. Your complaint a moment ago was that I had derailed the thread.

    It turns out I did not derail an active thread.

    Yes that is better.

    Look, you’re now rationalizing.

    Of course, that must be the only possible explanation for my disagreeing with you.

    You’re trying to find excuses to absolve yourself of all fault

    That is demonstrably not true:

    «Nevertheless, I conceded to John that I could have affirmed the non-ableist content of Aquaria’s comments, so that the message was not completely lost. I will endeavor to bring up the best as well.»

    «I mean intellectually I know that’s not a valid extrapolation, but my theory of mind is not always complete.

    But it annoys the living shit out of me when I see Penfold doing it.

    So I think it may be possible for me to point out when “that is not true” rather than “that is a lie.”»

    I don’t care. You can either try to address an obvious problem with your interactions with the community here, or you can pretend the problem doesn’t exist.

    A reading of the above quotes would demonstrate that I am trying to address what I can address honestly.

    Disagreeing with you about the particulars of one thread does not mean “pretending no problem exists.”

  39. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Yes, fine, but you’re missing the point: It doesn’t solve the problems people have with you.

    That’s not true. It would address a substantial portion of these problems, since the current problem is a direct result of ‘Tis Himself sniping at me in TET.

    It would be nice, but I’m sure someone would have been regarded it as unacceptable.

    Passive-agressive

    And probably true.

    Still misses the point that several people like me have big problems with you and your behaviour. Something you seem to think we just have to suck up. Which I cannot accept.

    Talk about facts, and I will address them.

  40. Owlmirror says

    So you dug up a dead thread to carp about Aquaria?

    It was 7 hours later, not 7 days. And he didn’t “dig it up”; that was interrobang.

    I think — in honor of Zombie Jesus — a thread should be inactive for 40 hours, at a minimum, before being declared actually dead.

    This makes it better?

    Was it the timing of the comment, or the content/tone/phrasing that bothers you the most?

    Look, you’re now rationalizing.

    I agree that he is. But I think you’re sufficiently annoyed at ixchel that you’re rationalizing as well.

  41. ChasCPeterson says

    Most Benevolent Evil Cephalodian Overlord Myers, I think you’re mischaracterizing the situation (no real surprise since you admitted at the outset that you don’t know what’s going on and don’t care to know). ‘Derailing’ briefly to call out oppressive language is normal everyday Pharyngula-thread behavior, practiced regularly even by those who find sg annoying. And people simply should not be permitted to lie about innocently and inadvertently misrepresent what somebody else has said without the usual requests for documentation and intellectual honesty, just because it happens in a thread that’s arbitrarily deemed the lounge.
    I’m serious. SG is not the problem around here.

  42. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Yes of course it makes it better. Your complaint a moment ago was that I had derailed the thread.

    It turns out I did not derail an active thread.

    Yes that is better.

    Compare, for instance, derailing of an active thread.

    Obviously the latter is much worse; it actually distracts from a discussion that other people are having.

  43. Owlmirror says

    The Thread dieth and the Thread liveth. Praise be the ways of the Thread.

    (*Gregorian chanting of the Black Mass goes here*)

  44. says

    Why ever would I be annoyed with Inspector Javert?

    You people are arguing with me on a settled issue. There is a recurring problem here, with Inspector Javert at the center of it. It keeps coming up. It exists. You’re not going to be able to argue it into nonexistence.

    I have delivered a warning. The warning is there. You also can’t argue it out of existence.

    I fully expect that without some effort to change on Javert’s part, this problem will arise again. As nice as it would be to have infinite patience, I don’t. There will be a breaking point, if this continues. That is also a reality.

    I’d rather you guys fixed the problem, because I’m lazy and hate this crap that keeps coming up. But if it does keep coming up, I will fix it, finally. And I know you’d rather I didn’t.

    So give me a reason to not lose patience that doesn’t simply involve arguing at me to close my eyes and pretend there is no conflict and never has been a conflict.

  45. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    You people are arguing with me on a settled issue.

    What I’m arguing with you about are specific claims.

    arguing at me to close my eyes and pretend there is no conflict and never has been a conflict.

    Of course, nobody has done this.

  46. Nightjar says

    Other permutations of “tard” sometimes do get mentioned by others, but for some reason this one slides.

    “Creotard” tends to slide a lot too, in my experience. Which reminds me, I did let it slide two days ago in the No Contest thread for no better reason than I got distracted by the thermodynamics section of some creationist websites and then kind of forgot. Which I realise isn’t exactly a good excuse. But I’m easily distracted, and creationism and thermodynamics can make for an interesting combination.

  47. marilove says

    Paul…cornbread is far too advanced for me, I’m afraid.

    If you feel that it’s something you want, there are package mixes that you just add corn to. The ones I’ve tried turn out rather well.

    Make sure you have some honey and butter to mix, or something similar. Yummy.

    I make EXCELLENT cornbread. If I can do it, anyone can! I actually bought a cast-iron pan just for that purpose, hah!

  48. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    “Creotard” tends to slide a lot too, in my experience.

    Recently, thankfully, a commenter noticed his own usage and asked about it.

    From that exchange, we get creasciolist. (There were some other suggestions in the comments, but this was very sniny.)

  49. Cipher, OM, Sweetness and Fluff says

    It seems that every time there’s a group of regulars getting exasperated and giving up on this place, there’s ixchel sitting placidly in the middle of it.

    This is not true, PZ.

    A group of regulars got exasperated and took a break just recently because of a fucking nightmare onslaught of misogynistic bullshit that has lasted for a goddamn year now. The final straw appeared to be two particularly nasty threads – the Savannah Dietrich thread (which pushed three commenters to the point of vomiting, several to tears, and me to having difficulty eating for several days) and the thread with lilandra (in which we were all lectured on our tone at great fucking length by people who ought to fucking know better). Ixchel certainly wasn’t sitting placidly in the middle of that.

    As for me, I got badly triggered last night during the first attempt at a night out I’ve had since I got home (my best friend came home and surprised me! yay!), spent a long time dissociating and going in circles, and it became pretty obvious that among other things, I needed another break from the strain of the Misogyny Wars. I was actually coming in here to respond to a few last things and say goodbye when I saw this shit. So that’s funny.

    Just so it’s even more obvious – ixchel has nothing to do with my taking a break. Ixchel (among other people, some of whom are currently upset with ixchel) is one of the reasons I’ve been able to hold off this long. Although watching this shit where he’s baited, responds predictably to baiting, and then gets blamed and scolded for making things about him play out once again is a pretty good incentive to make it a long break.

    Huh. My planned taking-a-break message was way mushier than this. There were going to be inspirational chords and everything. Oh well. See ya.

  50. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Cipher, will you still be on wiki? (Avoiding the “misogyny wars” article perhaps?)

  51. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Not to imply that you ought to. Just wondering. If not, obviously we’ll keep it in working order for when you get back. ;)

  52. Nightjar says

    From that exchange, we get creasciolist.

    I saw that on the Wiki. I quite like it.

    ***

    Cipher, take care. *hugs*

  53. says

    That’s not true. It would address a substantial portion of these problems, since the current problem is a direct result of ‘Tis Himself sniping at me in TET.

    It would address reoccurences of the current problem, which is only one of numerous incarnations of problems.

    Talk about facts, and I will address them.

    People have talked about facts over in TET, I’ve talked about your harassment of me and I’ve provided the evidence. the fact that you’re still arguing in a “Who, me?” style tells me that this is a futile endeavour. I’ve said everything I have to say.
    Feel free to go on and prove to somebody how you totally didn’t harass me when you kept addressing me in spite of my multiple statements that I want you to leave me alone, but I really, really won’t bother.
    Actually, I’m quite angry at myself that I’ve fallen for you again.
    Bye, have a nice life. I mean that, but I don’t want to be part of it in the slightest.

  54. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    It would address reoccurences of the current problem, which is only one of numerous incarnations of problems.

    This is too vague. What do you think you’re saying?

    People have talked about facts over in TET

    I’m getting to them. Some of them are demonstrably not facts.

    Others I have conceded.

    I’ve talked about your harassment of me and I’ve provided the evidence

    This is not true. I’ve never harassed you, and you haven’t provided any evidence. You linked to this, an ongoing disagreement on TZT. You were making absurd claims about who gets to respond to what and why. I challenged your absurd claims.

    the fact that you’re still arguing in a “Who, me?” style tells me that this is a futile endeavour.

    I don’t simply concede to false representations of what I’ve done.

    Feel free to go on and prove to somebody how you totally didn’t harass me when you kept addressing me in spite of my multiple statements that I want you to leave me alone, but I really, really won’t bother.

    I had an interest in ensuring that people engaged with SC sensibly on that subject. You were not doing so. I had every right to make my viewpoint known. You do not get to say whatever you want on TZT without me responding to you.

    Actually, I’m quite angry at myself that I’ve fallen for you again.

    Fallen for what? I dislike you and I’ve never given a hint of pretending otherwise. It’s not like I deceived you.

  55. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    [Ominously maroon]
    One clear error here is the assumption that I’m benevolent.

    Umm, nope. It’s the hope that you are fair that is in error. I say this realizing that you have no such obligation and that you are in charge.

  56. David Marjanović says

    Cipher: *blanket* *hugs* *chocolate with sea salt crystals and éclats de caramel*

    Some consider Javert misguided rather than evil, although his inflexibility and cruelty throughout the novel moves in parallel to Jean Valjean’s kindness. Those who consider Javert misguided believe that the distinction of pure evil in the novel more appropriately belongs to the greedy and treacherous Thénardiers. Others consider the Thénardiers dishonest, petty criminals, whose actual negative impact on the protagonists is minor compared to the significant levels of spite and mercilessness Javert inflicts on those he encounters.

    Where’s the conflict between these two interpretations? Why can’t the Thénardiers be more evil while Javert does more damage?

    So there’s a thread about women being told to stay in abusive relationships because the Lord says so…and the most horrible thing, the one thing that motivates you to participate, is there goes “Aquaria using mental retardation as an insult again”.

    …okaaaaay… maybe ixchel is at the same point on the autism spectrum as I am. (Would surprise me for other reasons, but bear with me.) First, I think I simply wouldn’t have thought as far as you just did; second, if all the other things that would have motivated him to participate had all already been addressed, “Aquaria using mental retardation as an insult again” is all that’s left! And somebody had to point that out anyway.

    But it annoys the living shit out of me when I see Penfold doing it.

    *blink* Huh. That’s a genuine surprise.

    So I think it may be possible for me to point out when “that is not true” rather than “that is a lie.”

    Yes, please!

    *insert attempt at “retroactively” joke here*

    I think — in honor of Zombie Jesus — a thread should be inactive for 40 hours, at a minimum, before being declared actually dead.

    :-D Seconded!

  57. David Marjanović says

    From the wiki article on creasciolist: “terms of amuse” :-D :-D :-D

    I really need to get back to contributing to the wiki at some point.

    Now I’ll watch some Star Trek: Enterprise.

  58. David Marjanović says

    LOL!!! Star Trek has, like, totally run out of imagination?

    There are Illyrians in Enterprise 3:19! X-D X-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

  59. hotshoe says

    “Creotard” tends to slide a lot too, in my experience.

    Recently, thankfully, a commenter noticed his own usage and asked about it.

    From that exchange, we get creasciolist. (There were some other suggestions in the comments, but this was very sniny.)

    WTF? That totally sucks as a coinage. It’s not very sniny, it’s not even a little bit sniny, it’s useless.
    That’s what you’re proud of accomplishing these days ? Well, bully for you.

    Thank God you can’t make me use it.

  60. Sili says

    Where’s the conflict between these two interpretations? Why can’t the Thénardiers be more evil while Javert does more damage?

    Indeed. As the mantra goes, “Intent is not magic”.

    There’s a Danish idiom referring to one of the fables about the dancing bear wanting to do his keeper a favour by smashing the fly on his forehead.

  61. Sili says

    WTF? That totally sucks as a coinage. It’s not very sniny, it’s not even a little bit sniny, it’s useless.
    That’s what you’re proud of accomplishing these days ? Well, bully for you.

    Thank God you can’t make me use it.

    Then don’t.

  62. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    David,

    …okaaaaay… maybe ixchel is at the same point on the autism spectrum as I am. (Would surprise me for other reasons, but bear with me.) First, I think I simply wouldn’t have thought as far as you just did; second, if all the other things that would have motivated him to participate had all already been addressed, “Aquaria using mental retardation as an insult again” is all that’s left! And somebody had to point that out anyway.

    Cipher’s response to the same is interesting.

    I’m not diagnosed and I don’t want to self-diagnose. rorschach asked me once if I was autistic. I couldn’t answer because I don’t know.

    I’ve long had the impression from your text that if I am autistic, we’re not at the same point. What I can say is that your reasoning here is what’s obvious to me; if stuff is already addressed then it’s addressed. This is a centerpoint of several conflicts between Josh and me.

  63. Owlmirror says

    I dislike you and I’ve never given a hint of pretending otherwise.

    I think that this sort of thing is one of the things you might want to consider changing.

    Do you really think that explicitly bringing up your own negative feelings is in any way appropriate or necessary?

    Do you think that explicitly bringing up your own negative feelings will result in a calm and rational response?

    Do you care if you receive a rational response, calm or otherwise?

  64. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    hotshoe,

    WTF? That totally sucks as a coinage. It’s not very sniny, it’s not even a little bit sniny, it’s useless.

    Huh. I disagree.

    That’s what you’re proud of accomplishing these days ? Well, bully for you.

    Me? No, I didn’t come up with it. I highlighted it because I liked it.

    Thank God you can’t make me use it.

    I … had no intention to?

    What is your problem?

  65. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Owlmirror,

    I think that this sort of thing is one of the things you might want to consider changing.

    Do you really think that explicitly bringing up your own negative feelings is in any way appropriate or necessary?

    In this case, yes. There was something in the implication of having “fallen for” engaging with me which seemed to suggest betrayal.

    I am forthright about these things. It has long been mutually understood by Giliell and I that we don’t like each other. So I resent the implication that I am somehow betraying her.

    Do you think that explicitly bringing up your own negative feelings will result in a calm and rational response?

    I don’t know. Frequently it does.

    Do you care if you receive a rational response, calm or otherwise?

    Calm or otherwise? Sure, yes, those are great. But I believe I was responding rationally.

  66. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    ‘Tis Himself,

    I’ve just wasted half an hour trying to find the exact comment but that’s how I remember it. Since my descent into senility* isn’t complete my memory is still pretty good.

    Your memory is of your original misreading, already answered, in the thread already linked.

    *I’m old enough I get a senior citizen discount at the movies so I can use the word senility. If you think that’s disparaging to old folks then you can fuck yourself.

    I think your weird preemptions of things I’ve never said are pretty stupid.

    +++++
    Pteryxx,

    I find your phrasing ironic. Comment 4 was essentially “I haven’t forgotten or forgiven this thing you did.” That’s basically what SG does to others. Do you consider the above comment “hurling extreme accusations” but what SG does is “calling out errors”?

    The accusation is that I did that thing. The accusation is an error.

    also note: comment 4 included willingness to drop the subject. Not something SG is known for;

    Pteryxx, why do you think these vague accusations are okay?

    Let’s consider one at the center of this dispute. There is the continually repeated, false claim that I’ve “harassed” Aquaria by following her around and starting fights with her over her use of ableist slurs in threads where she wasn’t being ableist. This is absolutely not true. I have never done that. I have responded in some threads where she used ableist slurs.

    And I have made clear my position: “Aquaria is perfectly capable of posting in every single thread she wants to without ever making insults against developmentally disabled people.” That would be perfectly fine by me. What I want is for the ableist slurs to stop. I am not interested in fighting her further about them if/when they stop.

  67. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Pteryxx,

    and SG’s quoted reply to the initial claim “I haven’t forgiven you for [x]” was not any sort of acknowledgement, say, ‘I understand your anger’ or ‘Let me know if you ever want to discuss it again’ (yeesh, I’m bad at this). His response was ‘I never did that.’

    Because I never did that.

    Chas had a similar reaction as ‘Tis Himself did at the time, and I acknowledged and apologized to Chas for being unclear.

    There’s a reason I don’t give the same consideration to ‘Tis Himself.

    ‘Tis Himself has falsely claimed that I called him a racist and an Islamophobe. I did not. After having this clarified, he falsely claimed it again.

    At that later time, ‘Tis Himself falsely claimed that I was calling Louis sexist. I was not.

    ‘Tis Himself snipes about me out of the blue, just to register his dislike of me. Him doing this again is the cause of this latest dispute on TET.

    I have no evidence that it is ever worth “understanding his anger” or otherwise engaging him.

  68. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    David,

    ** Like when he threatened to go after someone by all means short of physical violence.

    That’s not what happened.

    This was one (iirc, the first, years ago) of the times when people were telling me I owe them some special social consideration, that there were some social rules which everyone is obliged to follow. I said that was authoritarianism and that all I’ve consented to as a member of society, all I owe anyone, is not initiating physical violence.

    It was pointed out to me by onion girl (and maybe others, but her point is the one that stuck) that this sounds very close to something like “I’m on the verge of violence” or “you are on the verge of deserving violence”, and as such it implies a threatening undertone.

    I saw her point and I apologized for saying it. It was lingering vestiges of my libertarianism — “social contract? I didn’t sign no steenking social contract” — coming out in pure reactance. When she put it that way, I immediately understood why it sounded threatening.

    Again, I regret it, and it was wrong of me to invoke even the specter of violence in that context. It just wasn’t how you’ve characterized it.

    I don’t know if there’s a connection, but SC once said, IIRC, that you mustn’t publicly correct a friend before having contacted them privately…

    No, what SC said, in response to KG claiming there was something wrong with my mental health and that he was saying this as someone who cares, was specifically that KG’s public claim about my mental health was inappropriate, and if he was serious then he should have contacted me privately first.

    It is basically what I told Pteryxx on another occasion — it’s like saying to someone in public “you look like you’ve put on weight”.

  69. chigau (自分のサンドイッチを作ろう!) says

    The first thing the doctor said when she walked into the exam room was “Why’re you so skinny?”.

  70. says

    #80: I had the same thought. I’m done.

    I won’t be monitoring or in any way policing any of the comment threads around here for a while. I’m taking the opposite of Fincke’s approach: I’m turning you all loose. Gouge, kick, and slash each other, or achieve some sort of stable equilibrium — but don’t pester me to ban anyone, clean up any messes, or fix any bad edits, I’m leaving the comments section all to you.

    The sheriff is taking a vacation. The wild west is back.

  71. ChasCPeterson says

    I think it would be helpful if people tried not to post comments about ‘x said y’ or ‘z believes w’ without an actual quote or link. Many of the claims about SG (and me) that have been attacked as lies, dishonest, or untrue have been of this type. Somebody paraphrases something they think they remember reading, and it’s either misremembered or rhetorically spun on the retelling (consciously or not).
    This is sloppy at best, and sometimes (I believe) dishonest.

  72. ChasCPeterson says

    fortunately we still have Inspector Javert, a Self-Appointed Elf-Sheriff, and a bevy of specialty threadcops to pick up the slack.

  73. ChasCPeterson says

    jeez, wait, what do we do when it’s the self-appointed sheriff that needs sheriffed?

    (wait wait I know: go elsewhere; drink beer!)

  74. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Shit, Chigau. Have you been writing in elvish? I thought it was Japanese.

  75. Owlmirror says

    Meanwhile, I fixed up some bikes.

    Did you create a bike-helicopter hybrid? Or maybe a bike-giant-mechanical-spider?

  76. Esteleth, Who Knows How to Use Google says

    Antiochus, I can assure you that that is not Elvish.

  77. Louis says

    Ixchel (from #638 on current TET),

    I don’t know what “demonstrated they deserve” anything means.

    That is ridiculous to the point of being deliberately obtuse.

    And don’t go down the “plead ASD route”, no evidence of having such a condition and no desire to find out alone is reason not to try that, but any sufficiently intelligent person (which you demonstrably are) can at least grasp the concept intellectually if not emotionally.

    This was one (iirc, the first, years ago) of the times when people were telling me I owe them some special social consideration, that there were some social rules which everyone is obliged to follow. I said that was authoritarianism and that all I’ve consented to as a member of society, all I owe anyone, is not initiating physical violence.

    I don’t care about the violence angle, but I hate to break it to you, everyone owes people social consideration to a greater or lesser extent and it isn’t authoritarianism to think so. It’s pragmatism at worst. That’s not the same thing as saying social conventions and considerations should never be broken (which would be authoritarian), it’s saying that the degree of consideration is contextual, and dealing with someone (like Aquaria for example) who has a earned a great deal of social capital by participating largely excellently in a specific community is different from dealing with someone who hasn’t. Context matters, and you pretending it doesn’t, which is precisely what you are doing, is disingenuous at best. You’re not an island.

    Oh and you’ve repeated similar ideals recently IIRC, so it’s not misrepresentation to suggest that some remnant of this attitude persists.

    In the case of Aquaria and many others, regular and irregular, we have all (and it really ain’t just you that’s done this, so un-nail yourself from that cross. Your familiar refrain of “TEH DISHONESTEH!” is not the only reason, guess what, other people have lives and limits too, people miss stuff) pointed out instances of ableism and requested that they stop. Largely this has worked, it hasn’t in this instance for you. If your real goal is to stop it, perhaps try a different method. Your message might be right but not tailored to that individual. Of course if your real goal is to browbeat that individual into submission because of your personal issues…you do an excellent job. Keep at it.

    I don’t scream “FUCK YOU OLD LADY! THERE’S NO GOD!!!!!!! HAHAHA!” at my grandma on her death bed, like I might the most odious of odious homophobic street preachers, I can cope with that tiny dishonesty for the sake of a greater good; easing her as she dies. Sure it’s dishonest, in a perfectly rational world complete with perfect people we’d have a brief conversation about the boring nature of death, express a few fond regrets and she’d die.

    Last time I looked this wasn’t anything like a perfect world with perfect people, perhaps this means that in trying to achieve such a thing we occasionally compromise.

    What I want is for the ableist slurs to stop. I am not interested in fighting her further about them if/when they stop.

    This is bad. Really. This is exactly the sort of (I consider deliberate and convenient) blindness I am referring to. No one disagrees that Aquaria is wrong in her ableism. Everyone agrees that we want it to stop. Where we are disagreeing is how she is dealt with (or whoever, Aquaria is merely an example here). As hypocritical, as irrational, as odd as it may be, the social context matters. Humans are not rational robots, whirring purely deterministically through a series of Schopenhauer-esque Spock scenarios. We wouldn’t be better if we were. And that’s coming from me!

    Did it ever cross your mind that it could be possible Aquaria was in a vulnerable place for external reasons and your comments, however overtly calm and right (which they were), made her feel hounded unintentionally? I realise this is a hypothetical, but if we’re going to worry about language and triggers and how we approach certain topics, and you and I agree we should to some degree, then how we approach certain people, or people at certain times, also matters.

    This is simple pragmatic pluralism in one’s social interactions. It’s why things like the archetypical theist’s “Grandma Gambit” are wrong. No one, except it seems for you, is advocating an all scorched earth all the time policy.

    No, what SC said, in response to KG claiming there was something wrong with my mental health and that he was saying this as someone who cares, was specifically that KG’s public claim about my mental health was inappropriate, and if he was serious then he should have contacted me privately first.

    It is basically what I told Pteryxx on another occasion — it’s like saying to someone in public “you look like you’ve put on weight”.

    So enjoying the privilege of some aspect of social contracts is fine when it benefits you? Got it.

    In your leap for sanctimony, SGBM, you miss the key thing: real world results matter. Sometimes the scream works, sometimes it doesn’t. Smart people adapt to the context. Your approach is as mule-headed as the endless tone trolls who ask for everything to be “toned down”, you’re not happy unless everything is “toned up”.

    Frankly, and I have no evidence for this following belief other than the experience of dealing with (ha…BEING!) characters like this, you seem to me to be enjoying the disruption. I agree you should and can defend yourself, but sorry, the quotes from you above show you’re not interested in learning much in the process. This is more a two way street than you realise. I think you’re ignoring the social/biological reality of humanity in order to preserve some platonic ideal of rationality. The problem is that this is at odds with the facts. I also think you are doing so because it serves your purpose to do so. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am, and I think you’re far from alone in doing this.

    Louis

  78. Esteleth, Who Knows How to Use Google says

    Ing, I largely agree with you there.

    I have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who pulls out (as SGBM has) the “be rational! stop being so emotional!” card. Because I have seen it deployed way to damn much against women complaining of sexism.

    Emotions are valid. They cannot be denied, and I am very leery of any attempts to diminish them.

    Basically? Tell me to calm down and be rational, and my response is a resounding, “FUCK YOU.”

  79. Louis says

    Ing,

    Either people’s complaints about SGBM are ill stated or there’s a profound hypocrisy about tone.

    Dare I suggest a shade of grey?

    Tone arguments are not automatically wrong, what they are is context dependent (and all too often orthogonal to the argument, here, they are the argument).

    I don’t talk to my son the way I talk to my mum or the way I talk to my boss or the way I talk to the people who work for me or how I talk to a bloke in the pub. The differences in those relationships, the different degrees of responsibility and social capital modify my tone. I also modify my tone if someone is really not getting something because my tone is distracting them…well I try…I fail more than I succeed by a huge margin.

    It’s not hypocritical at all to observe that within this community of people Aquaria (for example) has earned more social capital, more consideration, than {insert troll of choice}. That should never affect our vigilance, but tone? I think we can sacrifice a little purity of tone for the sake of recognising a little bit of social capital.

    Louis

  80. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Louis,

    I don’t know what “demonstrated they deserve” anything means.

    That is ridiculous to the point of being deliberately obtuse.

    No, it’s the truth. Deontology is fundamentally incoherent. There is no such thing as desert based on behavior. This has been discussed here many times in many contexts and I’m convinced of it.

    I know that people think it means something, but they’re wrong.

    And don’t go down the “plead ASD route”,

    I never have. Don’t start accusing me of things I’ve never done.

  81. says

    Dare I suggest a shade of grey?

    Tone arguments are not automatically wrong, what they are is context dependent (and all too often orthogonal to the argume

    No but they are treated as such here.

    It’s not hypocritical at all to observe that within this community of people Aquaria (for example) has earned more social capital, more consideration, than {insert troll of choice}. That should never affect our vigilance, but tone? I think we can sacrifice a little purity of tone for the sake of recognising a little bit of social capital.

    SG seemed to accept that when I explained to him why I found his tone insulting last time we talked.

  82. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    I don’t care about the violence angle, but I hate to break it to you, everyone owes people social consideration to a greater or lesser extent

    No, definitely not to a greater or lesser extent. Desert, if it’s coherent at all, can only apply to everyone equally. That includes trolls.

    and it isn’t authoritarianism to think so.

    Why are you “breaking news” to me concerning a discussion from years ago?

  83. says

    No, it’s the truth. Deontology is fundamentally incoherent. There is no such thing as desert based on behavior. This has been discussed here many times in many contexts and I’m convinced of it.

    You have in recent memory treated a question from me in far less a generous way that many would expect from past interaction.

  84. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    You have in recent memory treated a question from me in far less a generous way that many would expect from past interaction.

    I make no claim to actually treating everyone equally.

    Only trying.

  85. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    it’s saying that the degree of consideration is contextual, and dealing with someone (like Aquaria for example) who has a earned a great deal of social capital by participating largely excellently in a specific community is different from dealing with someone who hasn’t.

    I disagree. Again, this is a loyalty argument, and I don’t accept any validity to its premises.

    But again, just exactly what did I say to Aquaria?

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/14/the-dawkins-challengedoesnt-even-get-out-of-the-starting-gate/comment-page-1/#comment-363886

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/13/faith-is-all-about-acquiescence-to-the-intolerable/comment-page-1/#comment-364321

  86. says

    @Ixchel

    The problem is that your attempt to treat people equally sometimes puts that equal at a setting people find insulting; you err on the side of negativity regardless of what others would think are past interactions that should inform reading otherwise. People seem to think you have a pachydermian memory of fuck ups and don’t make any note of positive interactions.

  87. Louis says

    Ixchel,

    Read things as a whole, attempt comprehension, don’t reply to tiny sections, follow an argument. You’re not doing those things.

    Oh and I wasn’t accusing you of “going down the ASD route”, I saw some comments upthread from people suggesting this possible “get out of jail free card”, I was heading it off at the pass. If you weren’t going to use it, great! Well done. But as I said, I’m less than fulsomely convinced of your good faith participation.

    By your own admission I, as a person, owe you, another person, no social consideration…why so serious?

    Oh and I am not advocating deontologocial ethics but more pragmatic ones (and deserts? WTF?). I also clearly separated “vigilance” from “tone”, and made it clear where I thought the “debt” applied. But don’t let tiny things like facts worry you. And I agreed with what you said to Aquaria, I’m merely trying to broaden your perspective.

    Louis

  88. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Louis,

    Oh and you’ve repeated similar ideals recently IIRC, so it’s not misrepresentation to suggest that some remnant of this attitude persists.

    It is clearly not an accurate representation; I’ve never said anything similar to what you’re saying here.

    In the case of Aquaria and many others, regular and irregular, we have all […] pointed out instances of ableism and requested that they stop. Largely this has worked, it hasn’t in this instance for you. If your real goal is to stop it, perhaps try a different method. Your message might be right but not tailored to that individual.

    Dude there are two cases of me trying to get through to her, 7 hours apart.

    Of course if your real goal is to browbeat that individual into submission because of your personal issues…you do an excellent job. Keep at it.

    What do you think you’re doing right now with me, having obviously not even read the two

    (2)

    — citations of me calling out Aquaria’s ableist rhetoric, before climbing up on your loyal steed?

  89. Louis says

    Ixchel,

    I disagree. Again, this is a loyalty argument, and I don’t accept any validity to its premises.

    Bullshit.

    You do when it suits you to:

    No, what SC said, in response to KG claiming there was something wrong with my mental health and that he was saying this as someone who cares, was specifically that KG’s public claim about my mental health was inappropriate, and if he was serious then he should have contacted me privately first.

    It is basically what I told Pteryxx on another occasion — it’s like saying to someone in public “you look like you’ve put on weight”.

    You are agreeing with SC’s comment to KG (and made an analogous point to Pteryxx) that KG should (an ethical consideration) have contacted you privately. You are seeking to benefit from some social consideration you feel is due to you whilst simultaneously denying you owe anyone a similar degree of consideration.

    There’s a word for that….

    Louis

  90. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    The problem is that your attempt to treat people equally sometimes puts that equal at a setting people find insulting; you err on the side of negativity regardless of what others would think are past interactions that should inform reading otherwise. People seem to think you have a pachydermian memory of fuck ups and don’t make any note of positive interactions.

    Why are we going over these vague criticisms of my alleged problem, when the reason for this argument is right here

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/27/episode-cccliv-but-some-of-us-still-arent-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-414055

    and I did nothing to instigate it?

  91. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Louis, you should read for comprehension.

    Bullshit.

    You do when it suits you to:

    Not true, Louis.

    I am not agreeing to what SC said.

    I am reporting it.

    What I said to Pteryxx was different. Do you want a citation?

    What I said to Pteryxx was that if a person is trying to communicate that they care, then saying “I’m worries aboyt your mental health” in public does not communicate that.

    That has nothing to do with loyalty.

  92. Louis says

    LOL Ixchel, nice try at the persecution card. Again: comprehension: read for it.

    I agree with what you said to Aquaria, I even agree that you said it calmly, hell I even bothered to defend you previously. And will do so again. I think you’re right.

    What I am trying to get across to you is a) why I think so many people are irritated with you (hint: it isn’t just them) and b) some of the, admittedly less flattering, observations I have made in this process.

    I confess, I was debating posting my #95 due to the sheer fact that, as I already am, I knew how you would fail to grok what I am saying. Do you really think you’re the only one with eyes and a brain?

    Now, how about you answer what I actually said instead of your rather twisted interpretations for a change.

    Louis

  93. Louis says

    Ixchel,

    What I said to Pteryxx was that if a person is trying to communicate that they care, then saying “I’m worries aboyt your mental health” in public does not communicate that.

    Yes it does, why doesn’t it? I think it was very nice of KG to publicly demonstrate his concern for you. Ever heard of an “intervention”? They can be quite public you know.

    Explain what is not caring about that.

    Louis

  94. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    You are agreeing with SC’s comment to KG

    Not true.

    (and made an analogous point to Pteryxx)

    Analogous, but different.

    that KG should (an ethical consideration) have contacted you privately.

    I said no such thing.

    You are seeking to benefit from some social consideration you feel is due to you

    Not true.

    whilst simultaneously denying you owe anyone a similar degree of consideration.

    Also not true.

  95. Louis says

    Oh and whilst I’m at it, again:

    ‘Tis was wrong to bait you originally, IMO. My eyes rolled and I said nothing. I was wrong to say nothing and I apologise again.

    Louis

  96. John Morales says

    ॐ, still at it?

    Your OCD is showing again.

    (And I thought your self-control was improving…)

    Me, I got a good night’s sleep.

    (Happy I am not to be like you)

  97. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    LOL Ixchel, nice try at the persecution card.

    Not true. Where did I say anything about persecution?

    You are making false claims now.

    Now, how about you answer what I actually said

    I am addressing what you actually said.

    Yes it does, why doesn’t it?

    Like I said, it is like telling someone in public “you look like you’ve put on weight”.

    It does not sound sincere, and therefore does not communicate care.

    I think it was very nice of KG to publicly demonstrate his concern for you.

    Who cares what you think?

    Ever heard of an “intervention”? They can be quite public you know.

    They’re frequently manipulative and abusive.

    Don’t act like you don’t know that.

  98. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Again, in any case:

    What I said to Pteryxx was that if a person is trying to communicate that they care, then saying “I’m worries about your mental health” in public does not communicate that.

    That has nothing to do with loyalty.

    Whether or not you agree with my argument to Pteryxx, it is not an argument about loyalty.

    You are wrong to claim that I ask for anything like loyalty. Your claims are false.

  99. Louis says

    Ixchel,

    So to insinuate “persecution” one has to say “persecution”? It’s a magic word obviously.

    And yes, interventions are frequently manipulative and abusive. Frequently =/= universally. Well done.

    Like I said, it is like telling someone in public “you look like you’ve put on weight”.

    It does not sound sincere, and therefore does not communicate care.

    But it sounds perfectly sincere to me. After all if I have put on weight and someone tells me this, why are they not sincere? What evidence do you have to doubt their sincerity? Their words were very clear, it’s just a statement of fact after all.

    Louis

  100. Louis says

    Ixchel,

    I didn’t use any word like loyalty. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

    What I said was:

    I don’t care about the violence angle, but I hate to break it to you, everyone owes people social consideration to a greater or lesser extent and it isn’t authoritarianism to think so. It’s pragmatism at worst. That’s not the same thing as saying social conventions and considerations should never be broken (which would be authoritarian), it’s saying that the degree of consideration is contextual, and dealing with someone (like Aquaria for example) who has a earned a great deal of social capital by participating largely excellently in a specific community is different from dealing with someone who hasn’t. Context matters, and you pretending it doesn’t, which is precisely what you are doing, is disingenuous at best. You’re not an island.

    Nothing about loyalty, stated or insinuated. I was careful to speak generally about social capital and pragmatism in social relationships.

    You do realise that saying what I have said is untrue doesn’t make it so, right?

    Louis

  101. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    So to insinuate “persecution” one has to say “persecution”? It’s a magic word obviously.

    One has to at least insinuate it somehow.

    What is the evidence for your claim that I insinuated it in any way?

    And yes, interventions are frequently manipulative and abusive. Frequently =/= universally. Well done.

    Right! Pointing out the existence of such is not evidence for or against any “niceness” (which I do not care about, but since you asserted it, we’ll talk about it as much as you want to drag it out).

    But it sounds perfectly sincere to me. After all if I have put on weight and someone tells me this, why are they not sincere?

    If they’re doing it in public, with lots of people around, it is quite likely to make the person feel bad about themself.

    That’s why if it’s worth saying, it’s worth saying privately — if the speaker does indeed wish to communicate sincerity.

  102. Louis says

    Oh and if it isn’t clear, I think YOU, SGBM, are also owed some social consideration here. You’re spending your social capital well, but then so am I doubtlessly.

    Consider it.

    Louis

  103. John Morales says

    ॐ, why am I not surprised your prescription for alleviating boredom is to go and do something really boring?

  104. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Nothing about loyalty, stated or insinuated. I was careful to speak generally about social capital and pragmatism in social relationships.

    This is a continuation of your explicit point that you “value loyalty”.

    You want to call it social capital, fine, I don’t care about social capital. It appears functionally indistiinguishable from loyalty, and if it’s not, I still don’t care. It is simply not the kind of thing I value.

    Pragmatism I can discern for myself, thanks. Not interested in your advice.

    You do realise that saying what I have said is untrue doesn’t make it so, right?

    The precise things I’ve said that were untrue were untrue. Some others I just don’t care about.

    Here’s an untrue thing which you still haven’t addressed:

    LOL Ixchel, nice try at the persecution card.

    One has to at least insinuate it somehow.

    What is the evidence for your claim that I insinuated it in any way?

  105. Louis says

    If they’re doing it in public, with lots of people around, it is quite likely to make the person feel bad about themself.

    That seems rather like consideration. Quite likely =/= universally. Why would someone be so irrational as to assume lack of sincerity or ill intent on behalf of someone trying to openly communicate their concern?

    Surely the context matters…

    Louis

  106. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Oh and if it isn’t clear, I think YOU, SGBM, are also owed some social consideration here.

    I don’t care. I disagree. You aren’t likely to talk me into deontology; I’m better at metaethics than you.

    ॐ, why am I not surprised your prescription for alleviating boredom is to go and do something really boring?

    :)

  107. chigau (違う) says

    John Morales
    If you actually think that ॐ has OCD, your comment was cruel.
    If not, you are trivializing mental illness.
    Be ashamed.

  108. Owlmirror says

    You know, I just did a search on “Aquaria” in TET in recent threads [site:freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/{month}/ aquaria inurl:episode], and I noticed that she seems to have not posted anything at all there for for a while.

    Not even while lilapwl was banned from there.

    Hm.

    She may be going through some stress, indeed.

    However, Louis, how exactly was ixchel supposed to know how vulnerable she was feeling? She is, generally, pretty tough, and I see in the Molly-return thread, people were posting in support of her.

    She doesn’t strike me as usually being that vulnerable to criticism, although of course, I don’t have that great of an idea of how she thinks and/or feels.

    Just to be clear, what are the options?

    1) ixchel should not have posted at all
    2) ixchel should have worded his comment differently (if so, how?)
    3) Something else?

  109. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    That seems rather like consideration

    Follow me carefully here, Louis.

    Iff the speaker cares about communicating sincerity and not making the person feel worse about themself, then it is preferable to say in private if it should be said.

    Iff.

  110. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Iff.

    Sorry. Got carried away there. The former might be wrong in unforeseen ways.

  111. Louis says

    Ixchel,

    Deontology=/=pragmatism.

    Last paragraph of your #110 btw, refers to my comment on about “browbeating” (a form of persecution n’est pas?). Do try to keep up.

    Better at metaethics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s so impressive when you puff your chest up. Nice. {Shrug} Think what you will. Not a single fuck will be given.

    As for your #133, Oh I got that. It ain’t me that’s behind the curve on this one. You did rather miss my point though…isn’t that rather descriptive of a social consideration?

    Anyway, to bed! I have better things to do with my time than waste it explaining reality to the hard of thinking.

    Louis

    P.S. Owlmirror, he wasn’t supposed to know. No one is, we’re not psychic. But what I am saying is that unlike “Troll X”, Aquaria had, within this little community, sufficient social capital earned to warrant the question (perhaps even privately, wouldn’t want her to feel bad about herself now would we) “Is something up? Usually you’re so hot on this stuff.”. Bear in mind I think Aquaria was wrong and Ixchel was right, I’m trying to get it into his thick head as to why his being right is wonderful and lovely but not sufficient in every context.

  112. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Deontology=/=pragmatism.

    The concept of “being owed” is deontology.

    Pragmatism has no such concept; pragmatism is just what greases the gears.

  113. Owlmirror says

    Of course, Aquaria might have been more sensitive to those criticisms than I might expect because ixchel has been calling out her use of “-tard” on threads outside of Pharyngula.

    Is this the case, I wonder?

  114. drbunsen, le savant fous says

    PZ:

    I’m done.

    I won’t be monitoring or in any way policing any of the comment threads around here for a while.

    Well, this is about the worst possible outcome.

    Right now, FtB as a whole is a target for the very worst the bowels of the internet have to offer. No sheriff = no safe space.

    I’m out.

    Well done, straw vulcans.

    xpo TET

  115. Louis says

    Ixchel, #136,

    For someone who is so much better than I am a metaethics, you appear strangely ignorant.

    From Wiki on pragmatic ethics:

    Much as it is appropriate for scientists to act as though a hypotheses were true despite expecting future inquiry to supplant it, ethical pragmatists acknowledge that it can be appropriate to practice a variety of other normative approaches (e.g. consequentialism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics), yet acknowledge the need for mechanisms which allow society to advance beyond such approaches, a freedom for discourse which does not take any such theory as assumed.[1] Thus, aimed at social innovation, the practice of pragmatic ethics supplements the practice of other normative approaches with what John Stuart Mill called “experiments of living”.[2]

    Oh and we were discussing an ethical question, so don’t try to equivocate.

    Have a nice night.

    Louis

  116. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Louis

    Last paragraph of your #110 btw, refers to my comment on about “browbeating” (a form of persecution n’est pas?). Do try to keep up.

    I certainly wouldn’t call it persecution, no. If that’s what you’re referencing that I think that’s very strange.

    In any case, it was only a trivial tu quoque to make you think. I’m not actually concerned about it.

    Better at metaethics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s so impressive when you puff your chest up. Nice.

    Yes, better at metaethics. Welcome to TZT.

    {Shrug} Think what you will. Not a single fuck will be given.

    The point, Louis, is that you are almost certainly wasting your time to try to talk me into concepts of desert-based-on-behavior. It has been dissected thoroughly here in the last 18 months or so, and was found to be empty.

    As for your #133, Oh I got that. It ain’t me that’s behind the curve on this one. You did rather miss my point though…isn’t that rather descriptive of a social consideration?

    What do you think your point is?

    Yes, it’s a social consideration which people may or may not choose to act upon.

    I haven’t insisted upon it for myself. Do you understand that?

    P.S. Owlmirror, he wasn’t supposed to know. No one is, we’re not psychic. But what I am saying is that unlike “Troll X”, Aquaria had, within this little community, sufficient social capital earned to warrant the question (perhaps even privately, wouldn’t want her to feel bad about herself now would we) “Is something up? Usually you’re so hot on this stuff.”.

    Whoa whoa whoa

    No.

    Usually Aquaria is not good on this.

    She has been doing it for years:

    http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/11/reasons-to-be-ashamed-and-not-fan-of.html#c7089800474091481728

    Bear in mind I think Aquaria was wrong and Ixchel was right, I’m trying to get it into his thick head as to why his being right is wonderful and lovely but not sufficient in every context.

    I haven’t claimed it is sufficient. I do have certain specific other considerations which matter to me. Yours don’t. I absolutely do not care about social capital.

  117. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Of course, Aquaria might have been more sensitive to those criticisms than I might expect because ixchel has been calling out her use of “-tard” on threads outside of Pharyngula.

    Is this the case, I wonder?

    99.999999% sure it’s not the case. I’ve seen her do it at Dispatches, but I don’t post there.

  118. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    can be appropriate to practice a variety of other normative approaches (e.g. consequentialism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics),

    Can be appropriate. (I assume this is what you think is relevant from your quote. Nothing else could possibly be.)

    Do you understand what this “can be appropriate” means in the context of pragmatic ethics? It’s descriptive.

    Here’s a nice primer on pragmatism, if you’re interested: http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SAAP/TAMU/P12.htm

    Oh and we were discussing an ethical question, so don’t try to equivocate.

    I don’t think you understand what you’re saying here.

    For someone who is so much better than I am a metaethics, you appear strangely ignorant.

    You’re amusing, but you don’t even know where you’re beginning from.

  119. Owlmirror says

    But what I am saying is that unlike “Troll X”, Aquaria had, within this little community, sufficient social capital earned to warrant the question (perhaps even privately, wouldn’t want her to feel bad about herself now would we) “Is something up? Usually you’re so hot on this stuff.”.

    But Aquaria isn’t hot on ableism. Or she wasn’t, as best I know of her take-no-prisoners rhetoric. Her use of the “-tard” suffix is/was . . . part of her typical idiom.

    Bear in mind I think Aquaria was wrong and Ixchel was right, I’m trying to get it into his thick head as to why his being right is wonderful and lovely but not sufficient in every context.

    I actually agree that he needs to change his rhetoric in some ways, but I’m not convinced that the comments to Aquaria were symptomatic of what I, at least, think needs to be changed.

    It looks to me, from this perspective, that Aquaria might well be having problems, and the comments from ixchel may well have pushed her past some emotional tipping point, but I’m still not sure what you think ixchel should do differently.

    Should he apologize? “I’m sorry I made you feel bad” doesn’t seem right at all (nor something that Aquaria would accept).

    Maybe “I’m sorry that my criticism of ableism seemed like I was attacking or belittling everything you say.”?

    Hm, meh.

    Or do you just think he should do something differently in similar situations?

  120. John Morales says

    chigau:

    If you actually think that ॐ has OCD, your comment was cruel.

    Of course I do, and no, it wasn’t.

    (I tailor my replies to those to whom I make them)

  121. ChasCPeterson says

    it’s a fabulous fucking flounce-fest around here recently.
    We’ll see.
    Take it from me: it’s not easy.
    (Or ask Ing.)

  122. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    chigau,

    Morales is at most trying to tweak me.

    I’ve already told him I’m not really concerned about him pointing this out. (It might have been cruel the first time he said it.)

    What I do take issue with is when it’s used as a form of silencing, as if saying “you have OCD” is a reason to not respond to or take seriously what someone is saying. This is hard to gauge with John, since he’s always trolling in any case.

    (I don’t know if I should object to it anyway, though. This gets complex if my indifference to the personal encourages others to try to do it hurtfully or for silencing.)

  123. 'Tis Himself says

    Thanks, asshole, for giving me a link to the bullying thread were you said:

    I can not believe the severity of violence against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids, at least not until I see some randomly sampled data.

    Is this or is this not you saying that you don’t believe geeky kids’ bully was not as severe, as violent, as fucking REAL as gay kids?

    You’re quite obviously saying that since I wasn’t gay, the bullying I got wasn’t good enough for you. FUCK YOU IN EVERY ORIFICE YOUR BODY POSSESSES! You do not have the right to question anyone else’s experiences and measure them against an arbitrary standard to see if they’ve met your satisfaction.

    I’m too angry right now to express the absolute HATRED I have for you. I hope you die an excruciating and lengthy death without anyone to care for you, because you’ve shown how little disregard you have for other people!

  124. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    What I do take issue with is when it’s used as a form of silencing, as if saying “you have OCD” is a reason to not respond to or take seriously what someone is saying. This is hard to gauge with John, since he’s always trolling in any case.

    Have you even slept in the last 24 hours?

  125. ChasCPeterson says

    yeah, you’re right John. Many people have just dropped out. Kseniya comes to mind.

  126. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    John,

    Have you even slept in the last 24 hours?

    Yes. You can go shuffle through the timestamps if you care to know when.

    +++++
    Ing, Chas might be saying that you appreciate how difficult it’s been for Chas to flounce. If that’s not what he’s saying, then it seems to be a claim that you’ve tried to flounce and failed, but I don’t remember that happening.

  127. Owlmirror says

    This is hard to gauge with John, since he’s always trolling in any case.

    Point of accuracy: While he does troll, and is trolling you, particularly, right now, he isn’t always trolling.

    That having been said:

    Have you even slept in the last 24 hours?

    Tch.

  128. chigau (違う) says

    I wonder what those in the flounce-fest expect to find when they “return”.

  129. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Tis: in that thread SG said

    I would have thought the explicit mentions of sampling and acknowledgement of counterexamples would indicate pretty clearly that what I’m skeptical about is any claim like the typical degree of bullying against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids. Nothing like “all bullying of queer kids is worse than all bullying of geeky kids.” There’s geeky straight kids who are dead because of it, while I’m still alive; I’m aware of individual variation.

    Seems like your hateful musings should be at least mitigated by record.

  130. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Point of accuracy: While he does troll, and is trolling you, particularly, right now, he isn’t always trolling.

    *kicks dirt*

    fooey.

  131. Owlmirror says

    I wonder what those in the flounce-fest expect to find when they “return”.

    Maybe I’ll figure out how to get positioning into HTML, and there will text all over the page saying “Resist the Tardigrade” in blinking colors, and like that.

    I’m sure that PZ will be absolutely delighted to have my thoughtful additions to his site.

  132. hotshoe says

    Thanks, asshole, for giving me a link to the bullying thread were you said:

    I can not believe the severity of violence against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids, at least not until I see some randomly sampled data.

    Is this or is this not you saying that you don’t believe geeky kids’ bully was not as severe, as violent, as fucking REAL as gay kids?

    You’re quite obviously saying that since I wasn’t gay, the bullying I got wasn’t good enough for you. FUCK YOU IN EVERY ORIFICE YOUR BODY POSSESSES! You do not have the right to question anyone else’s experiences and measure them against an arbitrary standard to see if they’ve met your satisfaction.

    I’m too angry right now to express the absolute HATRED I have for you. I hope you die an excruciating and lengthy death without anyone to care for you, because you’ve shown how little disregard you have for other people!

    I hear you.

  133. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    hotshoe can’t do stats either I guess

  134. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Alright, let’s quote some relevant quotes here so we can see how ‘Tis Himself is misrepresenting what I said.

    +++++
    [rutee@304] «You do realize this shit started amongst privileged white dudes after the “It gets better” campaign and stronger narratives against bullying that have primarily focused on anti-queer bullying, right? There is a reason I called it co-option, specifically.»

    [echidna@315] «No, I do not realise that, because it isn’t true. Talk about bullying among privileged white dudes has been going on for the decades that I’ve been following slashdot. And you know something? These privileged white dudes (and they most overwhelmingly are) deserve as much sympathy for the bullying they experienced as anybody else does. It was not a lesser form of bullying, it ran the full spectrum of taunting, broken bones, the works. These were the kids who didn’t fit the “jock” stereotype, they were the “nerds”. They didn’t fit the gender-stereotype.

    Bullying is wrong. It needs to be recognised and dealt with, without regard to what subgroup a person belongs to.»

    [me@316] «I’m one of those privileged nerdy white dudes who was always picked on for being a geek and a weirdo, and I never feared for my life until I came out as queer in high school.»

    [me@317] «So,

    It was not a lesser form of bullying, it ran the full spectrum of taunting, broken bones, the works.

    while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true, I can not believe the severity of violence against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids, at least not until I see some randomly sampled data.»

    [Chas@319] «Fuck the bullied Olympics.

    Have you only been truly bullied if you’ve reasonably feared for your life?

    Do you suppose that randomly sampled data on the subject will ever be forthcoming?

    all kinds of people get bullied in high school(s). For a huge variety of accurate, made-up, and twisted reasons. Vast macro- and microregional variation should be acknowledged and so of course ymmv. ffs.»

    [Josh@322] «

    Fuck the bullied Olympics.

    Have you only been truly bullied if you’ve reasonably feared for your life?

    How bout you go fuck yourself right after licking the soft shit out of your asshole in the morning, Chas? Think of it as self-soft-serve.

    I don’t see anyone claiming what you say they’re claiming. But I do see your egotistical ass making sure you’ve got something to complain about after you’ve flounced to the nth power.»

    [‘Tis Himself@324] «The shitstain who wrote:

    I can not believe the severity of violence against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids, at least not until I see some randomly sampled data.

    I was bullied in high school. I was beat up regularly and suffered broken bones. I was not accused of being gay, instead my sins were being non-athletic, intelligent, small, clumsy, introverted, and getting straight As.

    Sorry if reality doesn’t meet your fucking prejudices, fucker.»

    [me@325] «Chas,

    Fuck the bullied Olympics.

    I generally agree. I wouldn’t have spoken up if someone hadn’t indicated the degree of bullying is the same.

    I’m very much okay with saying it’s all worth caring about and it should all be stopped asap.

    I just don’t think it’s accurate to say the degree is the same.

    Have you only been truly bullied if you’ve reasonably feared for your life?

    No, and I don’t think I indicated otherwise. If I wasn’t clear enough: I was bullied for being a nerd before I came out as queer. And this was all throughout childhood and into mid adolescence, so I’m sure it’s fairly relevant to my fuckedupedness.

    There’s confounding factors in my case, I know — I was a queer nerd when I came out, and before that for several years I was often suspected of being queer.

    I’m just pointing out that it got much worse when I came out. I was already tormented both as a nerd and probable queer, and that’s what I’m comparing.

    Do you suppose that randomly sampled data on the subject will ever be forthcoming?

    I don’t see why not. And I wouldn’t turn up my nose at self-reporting.

    all kinds of people get bullied in high school(s). For a huge variety of accurate, made-up, and twisted reasons. Vast macro- and microregional variation should be acknowledged and so of course ymmv. ffs.

    I agree with all that.

    Chas, you’re one of the people here I give a hoot about, so I wish I had expressed myself in a way that didn’t strike you as minimizing other bullying. That’s not what I want to do.»

    [me@326] «‘Tis Himself,

    You deliberately chose to ignore this bit from me:

    So,

    It was not a lesser form of bullying, it ran the full spectrum of taunting, broken bones, the works.

    while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true,

    Considering that, when you say:

    I was bullied in high school. I was beat up regularly and suffered broken bones. I was not accused of being gay, instead my sins were being non-athletic, intelligent, small, clumsy, introverted, and getting straight As.

    this doesn’t surprise me at all, nor does it contradict my prejudices. You are no doubt one of those examples I already acknowledged.

    However, I can not believe the severity of violence against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids, at least not until I see some randomly sampled data.

    Is there some ambiguity in that statement? I would have thought the explicit mentions of sampling and acknowledgement of counterexamples would indicate pretty clearly that what I’m skeptical about is any claim like the typical degree of bullying against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids. Nothing like “all bullying of queer kids is worse than all bullying of geeky kids.” There’s geeky straight kids who are dead because of it, while I’m still alive; I’m aware of individual variation.»

    +++++
    ‘Tis Himself, you’re supposed to be an economist, right? Supposed to understand variance? I suggest reading Josh’s comment as if it were directed to you. It might as well have been (except for the last seven words).

  135. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    And oh Pteryxx,

    Is this or is this not you saying that you don’t believe geeky kids’ bully was not as severe, as violent, as fucking REAL as gay kids?

    You’re quite obviously saying that since I wasn’t gay, the bullying I got wasn’t good enough for you. FUCK YOU IN EVERY ORIFICE YOUR BODY POSSESSES! You do not have the right to question anyone else’s experiences and measure them against an arbitrary standard to see if they’ve met your satisfaction.

    I’m too angry right now to express the absolute HATRED I have for you. I hope you die an excruciating and lengthy death without anyone to care for you, because you’ve shown how little disregard you have for other people!

    Here is the anger you want me to understand and discuss.

  136. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    I love,

    love,

    love

    how both times

    (both times!)

    ‘Tis Himself chose to cherry pick around this bit:

    “while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true”

  137. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    I disagree. Again, this is a loyalty argument, and I don’t accept any validity to its premises.

    Then fuck off dude. If you can’t distinguish between “free pass for egregious behavior just because someone’s in the in-group” and “basic courtesy to someone who’s shown, or at least tried to show, good faith,” then stop talking to people. Seriously.

    Don’t even think of me, since we’re often at odds and have both been deliberately nasty to each other. Think of someone else. If you don’t get this basic rule of social interaction there’s nothing more to say. Why bother ever conversing with anyone? I don’t believe this place is the only venue where you’ve encountered this phenomenon.

  138. ibyea says

    John Morales
    I suggest you shut up and stop being a prick. Seriously, there was no need for the OCD comment.

  139. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Oh lord. I wish there were a reset button for life. I’d press it. I’m pretty sure I’ve lost perspective here and that a lot of us have.

  140. John Morales says

    ibyea, in return, I suggest that if it bothers you, then you should leave this pit of horror.

    Seriously, there was no need for you to express your concern.

  141. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Then fuck off dude. If you can’t distinguish between “free pass for egregious behavior just because someone’s in the in-group” and “basic courtesy to someone who’s shown, or at least tried to show, good faith,” then stop talking to people. Seriously.

    No. Basic courtesy cannot be dependent upon behavior. That is incoherent. If it attaches at all, it can only attach to everyone equally, including trolls.

    Don’t even think of me, since we’re often at odds and have both been deliberately nasty to each other. Think of someone else. If you don’t get this basic rule of social interaction there’s nothing more to say.

    I disagree with this alleged rule. It is immoral.

    Why bother ever conversing with anyone?

    I do just fine with people who also recognize the incoherence of desert-based-on-behavior.

  142. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    No, it isn’t incoherent. Coming at someone like an attack dog whether they’re known -at-least-trying or unknown-quantity isn’t productive (for your own purposes) or welcome (whether you care about that or not; simple statement of fact). This isn’t esoteric or weird.

  143. says

    On a thread on Christian misogyny, your only contribution was to jump on Aquaria. I agree with you whole-heartedly that the “tard” nonsense is offensive and should stop, but you give the impression that your interest is solely on policing a few people who have offended you in the past — and Aquaria is definitely on your shit-list. So there’s a thread about women being told to stay in abusive relationships because the Lord says so…and the most horrible thing, the one thing that motivates you to participate, is there goes “Aquaria using mental retardation as an insult again”.

    Your comment at 171 stands out as an abrupt derail. From that point until the last comment, the entire thread is now about your point, which has nothing at all to do with the article. And this was shortly after Esteleth told her personal and relevant story, a point that was lost.

    this is exactly how we got rid of gendered slurs. by derailing thread after thread to argue with dillweeds who wanted to defend their right to bigoted slurs.

    why the fuck does everyone seem to suffer from amnesia on this topic? wish the old comments were available, so I could link to the thread in which I was being Aquaria, and SC and (IIRC) Janine were being SG; because apparently I’m the only one who still remembers what pharyngula comment threads looked like pre-TET?

    You people are arguing with me on a settled issue.

    arguing implies interaction. I’m simply correcting the record.

  144. says

    “basic courtesy to someone who’s shown, or at least tried to show, good faith,”

    either it’s basic, or it’s something you earn for previous good behavior. not both.

  145. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    If it attaches at all, it can only attach to everyone equally, including trolls.

    THAT is incoherent. THAT is the major, obvious, uncontroversial guideline of social interaction that for some reason you do not get. Why—why?—do you think that no one should get any credit or any demerits for the reputation they’ve built up? This is so bizarre I don’t even know where to start.

  146. ibyea says

    @John Morales
    I don’t care that you guys have horrible conversations or whatever that is going on here. You are just trolling and trivializing mental health problems while at it. If you want to go down the level of youtube comments, suit yourself.

  147. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    either it’s basic, or it’s something you earn for previous good behavior. not both.

    Thank you for parsing my sentence within an inch of its life. I meant the latter (and the converse), which I don’t think was hard to grasp. Biting my tongue.

  148. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    No, it isn’t incoherent.

    Sorry, but it is. We’ve gone over this a lot here. It turns out that you happen to be wrong on this.

    If you want to understand why, start with Strawson.

    Coming at someone like an attack dog whether they’re known -at-least-trying or unknown-quantity isn’t productive (for your own purposes)

    I understand my purposes better than you.

    or welcome (whether you care about that or not; simple statement of fact).

    Welcome is rather far from morally right.

    This isn’t esoteric or weird.

    Oh, I agree. It’s just immoral in a predictable way, because: “shouting at the monkeys in the next tree, that’s what our brains were evolved to do”.

  149. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    ‘Tis Himself chose to cherry pick around this bit:

    “while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true”

    <snicker>

    You love it because, in your own way, you’re no less terrible than I.

    “while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true
    […]
    [what] I’m skeptical about is any claim like the typical degree of bullying against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids”

    Leaving aside it’s easier for a queer kid to pretend to be straight than for a geek to pretend to be a jock, Himself made no such claim of equivalence, but rather a claim that they were both in the category of bullying.*

    Chas also was correct in noting you were (and are) engaging in “bullied Olympics”.

    (Echoes of “Dear Muslima”)

    * You were equally obtuse when Dan Fincke tried to explain the concept to you recently, at his place.

  150. says

    I meant the latter (and the converse),

    and now explain how this is different from what Rationalia commenters insisted on when they whined about what a good guy pappa is.

  151. John Morales says

    chigau, you’re not really up to this*.

    What do you imagine the term ‘need’ refers to?

    * Did you even notice my parallel construction?

  152. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    It turns out that you happen to be wrong on this.

    If you want to understand why, start with Strawson.

    This is why I don’t believe you when you claim to be acting purely in the interest of honest discourse. You enjoy provoking. That’s fine, but you should admit it.

    I understand my purposes better than you.

    Of course. I only meant “If you want to accomplish the thing you say you want to accomplish,” not “I accuse you of some other agenda.” I’m sorry for being unclear.

  153. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    and now explain how this is different from what Rationalia commenters insisted on when they whined about what a good guy pappa is.

    Oh, come the fuck on. I have LIMITS. No one is extended an eternal free pass when they double down on fuckwittery. You’re seriously comparing my suggestion that, “Hey, don’t come out full blast in your very first comment to another commenter when that commenter is likely not to be a trolling shit head,” is equivalent to, “No matter what dumb shit this regular does Ima defend him to the death?”

    Really? Really?

    Fucking really?

    You’re doing it right now. Talking to me like I’m fucking addled and never made a lick of sense in my life.

    Jesus.

  154. John Morales says

    ibyea:

    You are just trolling and trivializing mental health problems while at it.

    This is TZT, and that you imagine I’m somehow trivialising mental health problems is your own problem.

    If you want to go down the level of youtube comments, suit yourself.

    Whyever do you imagine I need your permission, O concerned one?

    (Also, your attempted button-pushing is duly noted, and duly sneered-at, unless of course you honestly imagine my comments are at YT level, in which case you are pretty dim)

  155. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    THAT is incoherent.

    Sorry, you’re wrong.

    THAT is the major, obvious, uncontroversial guideline of social interaction that for some reason you do not get.

    I “get” it; I’m an ape too.

    I just don’t agree with it.

    Why—why?—do you think that no one should get any credit or any demerits for the reputation they’ve built up? This is so bizarre I don’t even know where to start.

    Because it amounts to virtue ethics, “under which people are deemed to deserve to suffer because they are what they are.”

  156. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Oh for God’s sake. Under your formulation no one should ever take anyone’s prior actions into account before formulating a response to them. Hiring someone for a job? References are superfluous. Auditing their taxes? Knowing they’re prone to arithmetic mistakes is no excuse when going for the maximum fine.

    How do you talk to anyone?

  157. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    John,

    Leaving aside it’s easier for a queer kid to pretend to be straight than for a geek to pretend to be a jock, Himself made no such claim of equivalence, but rather a claim that they were both in the category of bullying.*

    And I didn’t disagree with that at all.

    Note that the claim I was responding to was made by echidna, not ‘Tis.

    And I may have read echidna wrong, but that is why I said what I said.

    Chas also was correct in noting you were (and are) engaging in “bullied Olympics”.

    I don’t know. Maybe. But in any case I was responding to a claim which appeared suspect.

    * You were equally obtuse when Dan Fincke tried to explain the concept to you recently, at his place.

    Read again. It is clear that I understand Fincke just fine. I believe the categories should be separated based on other qualitative and quantitative distinctions than he prefers.

  158. John Morales says

    Jadehawk:

    … because apparently I’m the only one who still remembers what pharyngula comment threads looked like pre-TET?

    Nah, I remember how they were. Better.

    (Joyous times, those, before the creeping correctness ententacled the place and made it the pale shadow of what it was which it now is)

  159. Orange Utan says

    @ibyea

    I don’t care that you guys have horrible conversations or whatever that is going on here. You are just trolling and trivializing mental health problems while at it. If you want to go down the level of youtube comments, suit yourself.

    Says the person that used a gendered insult in their previous comment.

  160. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    I believe the categories should be separated based on other qualitative and quantitative distinctions than he prefers.

    There is no such ‘should’, at the categorical level; either something is bullying or insulting under some particular criteria, or it ain’t.

    (I did note your (relative) self-control there, FWTW)

  161. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    This is why I don’t believe you when you claim to be acting purely in the interest of honest discourse. You enjoy provoking. That’s fine, but you should admit it.

    I think you either have a false dichotomy here, or you’ve misunderstood me; I’ve never claimed that I don’t enjoy arguing. I publicly said so to John within the last day or so.

    Oh for God’s sake. Under your formulation no one should ever take anyone’s prior actions into account before formulating a response to them

    In judging their “deservedness” of anything, that’s correct — prior actions cannot have anything to do with desert.

    Hiring someone for a job? References are superfluous. Auditing their taxes? Knowing they’re prone to arithmetic mistakes is no excuse when going for the maximum fine.

    These are questions about predicting behavior. They can be evaluated independently of desert.

  162. ibyea says

    @John Morales
    Yeah, cause trolling is so not youtube level comment, right? C’mon, you were doing it in TET, trying to provoke a reaction from sg. And then when people criticized your trolling, you insist to go to tzt, when you know, if you wanted to pick a fight, you could have done it in the tzt, and if you had a beef with him, you could have told him directly what your beef was. That is a behavior I only expect from stupid youtube commenters.

    Yes, not all your comments are youtube level stupid. But your trolling was. The only difference was the usage of good grammar.

  163. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    OK. I’m gonna try to stick the flounce, though I’m a likely candidate for relapse, I admit.

    I’ve been concerned that in getting caught up with these fights I’ve been perpetuating and participating in cruelty to other people here. This is something I’m quite capable of, but it’s ugly and gross and I don’t like it one bit. It’s not OK.

    At the same time I can’t help feeling like somebody is gonna stick a knife in my back the minute I turn away, just for a brief second, and . . .no. I can’t have that. It makes me wanna cut them first.

    I’m gonna try to be out.

  164. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    There is no such ‘should’, at the categorical level; either something is bullying or insulting under some particular criteria, or it ain’t.

    Again, I explained why other distinctions were worth talking about (and got him to agree with me). If you want to object to something specific, why don’t you go over there and leave a comment. I still intend to reply to Fincke when this place cools down.

    (I did note your (relative) self-control there, FWTW)

    I was pleased when he said I was talking bullshit. I didn’t realize that was going to be okay. It felt very stuffy in there beforehand.

  165. chigau (違う) says

    (The other people in the room are watching a Police Academy movie.)
    From now on I will hear John Morales comments in the voice of Bobcat Goldthwait.

  166. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    (The other people in the room are watching a Police Academy movie.)
    From now on I will hear John Morales comments in the voice of Bobcat Goldthwait.

    BWAHAHAHA

  167. John Morales says

    ibyea,

    C’mon, you were doing it in TET, trying to provoke a reaction from sg. And then when people criticized your trolling, you insist to go to tzt, when you know, if you wanted to pick a fight, you could have done it in the tzt, and if you had a beef with him, you could have told him directly what your beef was. That is a behavior I only expect from stupid youtube commenters.

    You have some things right, there.

    If you look at the previous TZT, you’ll note I admit that I should have engaged ॐ here, not there. And I probably should have said something along the lines of “ॐ, you’re doing it again, it’s probably gonna piss PZ off again, and I don’t want that to happen”.

    Your last sentence there, however, just shows your expectations were wrong. Consider it a datum.

    Yes, not all your comments are youtube level stupid. But your trolling was. The only difference was the usage of good grammar.

    The only difference, eh?

    In passing, do you not see prima facie evidence of OCD in ॐ’s behaviour?

    (Am I here trivializing mental health problems?)

  168. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    ibyea,

    He’s doing it to you now:

    Your last sentence there, however, just shows your expectations were wrong. Consider it a datum.

    I can’t recommend nomming on him.

    It’s hardly ever satisfying.

    His squeaker is broken. It just goes ffffft fffffffft fffft.

  169. John Morales says

    chigau:

    From now on I will hear John Morales comments in the voice of Bobcat Goldthwait.

    <googles>

    Huh.

    Apparently, my cyber-persona is nothing like my RL persona.

  170. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    If you want to object to something specific, why don’t you go over there and leave a comment.

    Because unlike you, when I’ve said what I want, I can often resist the compulsion to keep reiterating.

  171. says

    You’re seriously comparing my suggestion that, “Hey, don’t come out full blast in your very first comment to another commenter when that commenter is likely not to be a trolling shit head,” is equivalent to, “No matter what dumb shit this regular does Ima defend him to the death?”

    neither of these things are what happened.

    what happened was that on the one hand, someone repeatedly says bigoted shit, but has accumulated social capital with you and so you want slack cut for them; on the other hand, someone made one very bigoted statement, and the people-who-aren’t-you with whom that someone accumulated social capital wanted slack cut for them.

    I see only two differences: to whom the social capital accumulated, and the fact that you ask for slack-cutting despite knowing she’s acting bigoted, while the dolts on Rationalia didn’t know any such thing, being dolts.

    Since that’s not much, and doesn’t really explain why Aquaria deserved slack-cutting, I wanted a better explanation of difference.

  172. John Morales says

    Jadehawk:

    Since that’s not much, and doesn’t really explain why Aquaria deserved slack-cutting, I wanted a better explanation of difference.

    Aquaria is OM quality and, back when Pharyngula wasn’t what it now is, was applauded for her attitude.

    (Every sin, no matter how trivial, is now anathema to (ahem) some)

  173. John Morales says

    chigau:

    It’s the voice that’s important.

    What, you internally vocalise when you read?

    (Must make for slow reading)

  174. says

    Aquaria is OM quality and, back when Pharyngula wasn’t what it now is, was applauded for her attitude.

    this is merely saying once again that aquaria had accumulated supposed slack-points with some pharyngulites.

  175. ibyea says

    John, how can you even diagnose him with ocd when we don’t even know whether he experiences obsessive thoughts. Second of all, taking a characteristic that everyone finds annoying (and trust me, I find that part of sg annoying)and calling it mental illness is silly. Otherwise, everyone would have mental illness. And remember, society has a tendency to call any behavior that doesn’t conform to expectations mental illness. They used to do that with women that “didn’t behave”, you know. And they are doing that with unruly kids at school. So yeah, it is trivializing actual problems.

  176. says

    I’m turning you all loose. Gouge, kick, and slash each other, or achieve some sort of stable equilibrium — but don’t pester me to ban anyone, clean up any messes, or fix any bad edits, I’m leaving the comments section all to you.

    Uhoh, that could get ugly quick. Sure it’s not better to close say TZT for a while instead? But yeah, look after your health PZ!

    And another group therapy session is in full swing, I see. Glad I’m at work.

  177. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Uhoh, that could get ugly quick. Sure it’s not better to close say TZT for a while instead?

    This place is the relief valve!

    Besides, where would joey go?

  178. says

    this is merely saying once again that aquaria had accumulated supposed slack-points with some pharyngulites.

    Agree completely with that assessment, FWIW.

  179. John Morales says

    ibyea:

    John, [1] how can you even diagnose him with ocd when we don’t even know whether he experiences obsessive thoughts. [2] Second of all, taking a characteristic that everyone finds annoying (and trust me, I find that part of sg annoying)and calling it mental illness is silly. [3] Otherwise, everyone would have mental illness. [4] And remember, society has a tendency to call any behavior that doesn’t conform to expectations mental illness. [5] They used to do that with women that “didn’t behave”, you know. And they are doing that with unruly kids at school. [6] So yeah, it is trivializing actual problems.

    1. I look at behaviour over time. He could be pretending, it is true.

    2. It may be wrong, but it ain’t silly; it fits quite well — and, notably, there has been no denial by the party in question.

    3. What makes you think we all aren’t?

    (You imagine somewhere there is someone with perfect mental health?)

    4. I am not society, and I have no such tendency in any case.

    5. So what?

    6. So, no, it ain’t trivializing actual problems — at most, it’s a misdiagnosis.

  180. says

    My comment to KG about private communications was very specific and contextualized. Despite possible appearances, it was not intended as a general statement.

    Sorry for any confusion.

  181. John Morales says

    Jadehawk:

    this is merely saying once again that aquaria had accumulated supposed slack-points with some pharyngulites.

    Well, you did ask “why Aquaria deserved slack-cutting”, and that is an answer. Neither her message, her attitude nor her language has changed since she was lauded, back in the day.

    I add that there is no such “merely”, it also indicates that it’s Pharyngula that has changed, so that someone who was once OM-worthy is now to be criticised for not having changed to suit, though the only flaw is she retained particular terminology.

  182. John Morales says

    fffffft fffffffffft fffft

    Gonna have to get you a bib, ॐ, if you’re gonna keep dribbling like that. :)

  183. John Morales says

    SC, well, yes.

    “So what?” was shorthand for “So what does that have to do with what I wrote?”

  184. John Morales says

    Jadehawk, fine. Then let my response be to an unasked question — simply my opinion on the matter.

  185. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    the Bobcat Goldthwait thing is killing me :D

    (‘Tis Himself will be happy to know)

  186. says

    “So what?” was shorthand for “So what does that have to do with what I wrote?”

    The point to which you were responding was about not just stupid diagnoses but socially unjust and authoritarian stupid diagnoses: “They used to do that with women that ‘didn’t behave’, you know. And they are doing that with unruly kids at school.”

    Such “observations” aren’t made in a vacuum.

  187. ibyea says

    @John
    There is a line between not perfect mental health and mental illness, even if the line can be quiet thick. I may not have the perfect mental health, but for people with, say PTSD, it can drastically reduce their quality of life. Whatever I may have, it is just an annoyance. For them, it can be misery. My point being, we don’t have enough on his life to determine whether he just has an obsessive kind of personality regarding discussions or it is bad enough that it is affecting his life. So far, all I know that he is doing is pissing people off in the internet with his persistence.

    Also, to suggest that your concept of normal has never been influenced by society is really silly. Are you telling me that all this time, you have been living in a cave alone with your computer? You are not society, but whether you like it or not, we are all are part of one, and it does affect the way all of us think. Your dismissal that you have no such tendency, therefore, rings false. And the way I view it, it seems like you are doing the same thing to sg.

    Finally, you don’t think that a)misdiagnosis can be harmful to the person and b)diagnosing mental illness due to the person having an annoying tendency is trivializing?

  188. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Esteleth,

    Ing, I largely agree with you there.

    Are you sure? The rest of your comment does not relate to what Ing said.

    I have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who pulls out (as SGBM has) the “be rational! stop being so emotional!” card.

    This is a false claim.

    I have repeatedly emphasized that rationality is impossible without emotionality. That is the short version of why I cite Damasio all the time.

    I have specifically emphasized that we cannot value anything without emotions. Beyond Damasio, this is why I frequently quote Hume: ”reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions”.

    And I have frequently tried to give people assurance that emotional appeals are valid. This is why I tell people about Rorty’s sentimentalism and Haidt’s elevation.

    You must be thinking of someone else.

    Because I have seen it deployed way to damn much against women complaining of sexism.

    Emotions are valid. They cannot be denied, and I am very leery of any attempts to diminish them.

    I have been saying this as long as I’ve been at Pharyngula.

    Basically? Tell me to calm down and be rational, and my response is a resounding, “FUCK YOU.”

    I say this all the time too. So, who do you have me mixed up with?

  189. John Morales says

    ibyea, I’m a terrible person, remember? :)

    Also, to suggest that your concept of normal has never been influenced by society is really silly.

    What does whatever my concept of normal may be have to do with whether someone exhibits a compulsive trait?

    (If everyone in the world were obsessively compulsive, it would mean that compulsivity was normal, not that they were not obsessively compulsive)

    Finally, you don’t think that a)misdiagnosis can be harmful to the person and b)diagnosing mental illness due to the person having an annoying tendency is trivializing?

    Yes, but both of those are irrelevant, here.

    (a) Why do you imagine this is society at large and I’m some authority whose opinion will affect ॐ’s welfare?

    (b) On what basis is OCD diagnosed, if not behaviourally?

  190. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    ibyea, I’m a terrible person, remember?

    It’s true; he is.

  191. ibyea says

    @John Morales
    It has to do with the fact that since sg’s personality is not something you find normal, you diagnose him with OCD. Being merely persistent does not constitute as a criteria for mental illness.

    It is not sg himself that it will affect. It is your attitude that will spread and allow such attitudes about mental illness to continue.

    There is a difference between personality part that is annoying and life ruining tendencies due to the brain misfiring. It has to severely affect the person’s life. (plus, OCD has to have the unwanted thought part) Otherwise, you are telling a person: You are weird/I don’t like you, so I am diagnosing you with mental illness so I don’t have to deal with you.

  192. ibyea says

    To expand on my points, it would be like diagnosing you of some mental illness because I find you having an obnoxious troll tendency.

  193. hotshoe says

    Otherwise, you are telling a person: You are weird/I don’t like you, so I am diagnosing you with mental illness so I don’t have to deal with you.

    Clearly, that is NOT what John is doing here. I don’t much like John, and I like even less people scolding him for sins he isn’t committing.

  194. John Morales says

    ibyea:

    [1] It has to do with the fact that since sg’s personality is not something you find normal, you diagnose him with OCD. [2] Being merely persistent does not constitute as a criteria for mental illness.

    1. Hardly — you imagine I think I’m normal?

    You imagine many here are normal?

    (If anything, I’m more abnormal than he is)

    2. Criterion, not criteria; and he’s more than merely persistent, he’s obsessively so, to the point he was the one and only one to ever be banned from TET.

    (You are in denial, if you refuse to notice that)

    It is not sg himself that it will affect. It is your attitude that will spread and allow such attitudes about mental illness to continue.

    You imagine TZT has wide societal influence?

    You imagine I go around willy-nilly diagnosing people?

    There is a difference between personality part that is annoying and life ruining tendencies due to the brain misfiring.

    Personality is a mental attribute and therefore a personality disorder is functionally a mental disorder, though it need not be a neurological disorder.

    Otherwise, you are telling a person: You are weird/I don’t like you, so I am diagnosing you with mental illness so I don’t have to deal with you.

    Does it seem to you like I’m avoiding dealing with ॐ?

    Have I used the claim to dismiss any claims he’s made, at all?

    (I made a comment in passing, I’m hardly going on about it — unlike you)

  195. John Morales says

    ibyea:

    To expand on my points, it would be like diagnosing you of some mental illness because I find you having an obnoxious troll tendency.

    Go for it. I’ll just snigger.

  196. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    ibyea, he’s not worth my time. In my humble opinion, he’s not worth yours either. Apologies if I’m stepping on your toes here; I want to say this once just in case you feel you’re troubling yourself on my account.

    +++++
    hotshoe,

    I don’t much like John, and I like even less people scolding him for sins he isn’t committing.

    Your hypocrisy is showing.

  197. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    ibyea, he’s not worth my time.

    Seems to me that since you can’t manipulate me, and you can’t bullshit me, and you can’t wear me down to your point of view, that you thus rationalise your failure to do so.

    Only the worthy merit your attention, right? :)

  198. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ ixchel

    I don’t care about social capital.

    Pierre Bordieu haz a sad :'(

  199. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Seems to me that since you can’t manipulate me, and you can’t bullshit me,

    Whyever would I want to?

    and you can’t wear me down to your point of view,

    No need to. I’ve argued well enough that you’ve said (without any external coercion ;) “PS I think you might be right @456.”

    Only the worthy merit your attention, right? :)

    Rather, engaging with your question and answer format provides you with behavioral reinforcement to continue it, which can be amusing against some sexist trolls, but rarely otherwise. This is why I avoid doing so as often as I can, which is more often than you might guess. Inshallah, et cetera.

  200. hotshoe says

    Ixchel,

    hotshoe can’t do stats either I guess

    You lying sack of leaking pus.

    There are no statistics to do – you said yourself you wished you had some “randomly sampled data”. You reiterated it after ‘Tis made his post to you.

    Now, you lie that it’s me who can’t do the stats, that you couldn’t do to begin with because they don’t exist.

    There’s something seriously wrong with you and I can smell it from here.

    Alright, let’s quote some relevant quotes here so we can see how ‘Tis Himself is misrepresenting what I said.

    [me@317] «So,

    It was not a lesser form of bullying, it ran the full spectrum of taunting, broken bones, the works.

    while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true, I can not believe the severity of violence against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids, at least not until I see some randomly sampled data.»

    Even though you admit you DON’T have the data, in your smug little world, you feel sufficiently justified by one datum (your own solitary experience) to NOT BELIEVE that “geek bullying” is equivalent to “queer bullying”

    Because you proclaim your tribe’s bullying is more severe – without any hard evidence, remember – you manage to trigger ‘Tis who had been bullied to the point of agony. Even though you were severely bullied and supposedly have some understanding of the pain, you refuse to show any empathy with his pain. It sure looks from the outside as if the reason for that is because ‘Tis is not of your tribe.

    Interesting, though, that you could take time to speak softly to a different person in the thread:

    all kinds of people get bullied in high school(s). For a huge variety of accurate, made-up, and twisted reasons. Vast macro- and microregional variation should be acknowledged and so of course ymmv. ffs.

    I agree with all that.

    Chas, you’re one of the people here I give a hoot about, so I wish I had expressed myself in a way that didn’t strike you as minimizing other bullying. That’s not what I want to do.»

    Notice you actually reply with some decency to Chas. You don’t say you’re sorry you fucked up, but you do at least say you wish you had expressed yourself better.

    Contrast that with how you respond to “Tis, whom you could not somehow force yourself to treat decently:

    [me@326] «‘Tis Himself,

    You deliberately chose to ignore this bit from me:

    Goddamn, you shit. How dare you say ‘Tis deliberately chose to ignore it. How could you possibly know what he ignored or what he just missed because he wasn’t hanging on every precious word that drops like jewels from your fingertips.

    So,

    It was not a lesser form of bullying, it ran the full spectrum of taunting, broken bones, the works.

    while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true,

    Nice job of patronizing .

    Considering that, when you say:

    I was bullied in high school. I was beat up regularly and suffered broken bones. I was not accused of being gay, instead my sins were being non-athletic, intelligent, small, clumsy, introverted, and getting straight As.

    this doesn’t surprise me at all, nor does it contradict my prejudices. You are no doubt one of those examples I already acknowledged.

    No doubt, yes, no doubt, you arrogant ass.
    Rude, goddamn rude and dismissive of the pain of someone who had been damaged by bullying and then hurt again, here, by your un-evidenced assumption that “queer bullying” is worse, somehow.

    However, I can not believe the severity of violence against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids, at least not until I see some randomly sampled data.

    Is there some ambiguity in that statement? I would have thought the explicit mentions of sampling and acknowledgement of counterexamples would indicate pretty clearly that what I’m skeptical about is any claim like the typical degree of bullying against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids.

    See, there, you’re doing it again. Even though you explicitly admit you DON’T have the numbers, you still insist on believing your tribe’s degree of bullying must be worse than other kinds of bullying, because, erm, they just can’t possibly be equivalent. They just can’t!

    Jesus.

    It makes me feel bad that I saw that happen last month, when I read the whole thread, but I decided not to respond because hundreds more posts had been added by the time I caught up.

    If I had realized at the time how much harm you were doing, I would have called you on it even though I was a day late. Here, it’s a month later, and you’re finally get called on being a selfish triggering minimizing creep, Be proud of yourself! You accomplished what you – no doubt – set out to do!

    +++++
    ‘Tis Himself, you’re supposed to be an economist, right? Supposed to understand variance? I suggest reading Josh’s comment as if it were directed to you. It might as well have been (except for the last seven words).

    And fucking doing it again. Still pretending that you have the stats, still pretending that there’s a graph of bullying which everyone should know about.

    You fucking liar.

  201. hotshoe says

    hotshoe,

    I don’t much like John, and I like even less people scolding him for sins he isn’t committing.

    Your hypocrisy is showing.

    Jesus fuck, ixchel.

    Haven’t you already done enough lying for one lifetime ? Now you have to tell more lies about me?

    Leave me alone, you creep.

    Go away. Just go away, anywhere but here.

  202. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    You lying sack of leaking pus.

    Lol.

    There are no statistics to do – you said yourself you wished you had some “randomly sampled data”. You reiterated it after ‘Tis made his post to you.

    But clearly stated is this: “while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true, I can not believe the severity of violence against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids, at least not until I see some randomly sampled data.”

    You know what the bolded part means, right? It means that there are no doubt some examples for whom this [not a lesser form of bullying] is true.

    Now, you lie that it’s me who can’t do the stats, that you couldn’t do to begin with because they don’t exist.

    If you’re agreeing with ‘Tis Himself — as it appears you are — that I’m “quite obviously saying that since [he] wasn’t gay, the bullying I got wasn’t good enough for [me]”,

    then you aren’t acknowledging variance.

    There’s something seriously wrong with you and I can smell it from here.

    That’s an abscess. Sorry.

    Even though you admit you DON’T have the data, in your smug little world, you feel sufficiently justified by one datum (your own solitary experience) to NOT BELIEVE that “geek bullying” is equivalent to “queer bullying”

    More than one data point, but yes.

    That’s right.

    I don’t believe that the typical degree of bullying against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids.

    (Nothing like “all bullying of queer kids is worse than all bullying of geeky kids.”)

    I say this because homophobia exists.

    Because you proclaim your tribe’s bullying is more severe – without any hard evidence, remember – you manage to trigger ‘Tis who had been bullied to the point of agony. Even though you were severely bullied and supposedly have some understanding of the pain, you refuse to show any empathy with his pain. It sure looks from the outside as if the reason for that is because ‘Tis is not of your tribe.

    Chas is not of my tribe either, and yet I do show empathy for him.

    Interesting, though, that you could take time to speak softly to a different person in the thread:

    It’s really not all that interesting.

    Notice you actually reply with some decency to Chas. You don’t say you’re sorry you fucked up, but you do at least say you wish you had expressed yourself better.

    I didn’t fuck up. I do wish I had expressed myself better.

    Contrast that with how you respond to “Tis, whom you could not somehow force yourself to treat decently:

    Again.

    Goddamn, you shit. How dare you say ‘Tis deliberately chose to ignore it.

    Because.

    Nice job of patronizing .

    What? It’s the truth. There are no doubt some examples for whom this is true.

    No doubt, yes, no doubt, you arrogant ass. Rude, goddamn rude and dismissive of the pain of someone who had been damaged by bullying and then hurt again, here, by your un-evidenced assumption that “queer bullying” is worse, somehow.

    It’s not unevidenced.

    Homophobia exists.

    See, there, you’re doing it again. Even though you explicitly admit you DON’T have the numbers, you still insist on believing your tribe’s degree of bullying must be worse than other kinds of bullying, because, erm, they just can’t possibly be equivalent. They just can’t!

    They probably aren’t.

    Homophobia exists.

    It makes me feel bad that I saw that happen last month, when I read the whole thread, but I decided not to respond because hundreds more posts had been added by the time I caught up.

    If I had realized at the time how much harm you were doing, I would have called you on it even though I was a day late. Here, it’s a month later, and you’re finally get called on being a selfish triggering minimizing creep, Be proud of yourself! You accomplished what you – no doubt – set out to do!

    Ahem. “How dare you” say I deliberately set out to trigger someone who wasn’t even part of that discussion discussion about bullying when I spoke up. Et cetera.

    Your assumptions are weird.

    And fucking doing it again. Still pretending that you have the stats, still pretending that there’s a graph of bullying which everyone should know about.

    So you don’t understand stats at all.

    Okay, let’s do this real slow.

    what I’m skeptical about

    is any claim like

    the typical degree of bullying against geeky kids

    is equivalent to that against queer kids.

    Nothing like “all bullying of queer kids is worse than all bullying of geeky kids.”

    There’s geeky straight kids who are dead because of it,

    while I’m still alive;

    I’m aware of individual variation.

    This last sentence is important.

  203. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Haven’t you already done enough lying for one lifetime ?

    Where am I lying?

    Now you have to tell more lies about me?

    I didn’t lie about you.

    You evidently endorsed ‘Tis Himself’s false claims:

    “You’re quite obviously saying that since I wasn’t gay, the bullying I got wasn’t good enough for you.”

    and the claim that I was “question[ing] anyone else’s experiences and measure them against an arbitrary standard to see if they’ve met your satisfaction.”

    I didn’t do those things, yet you evidently endorsed those claims.

    Leave me alone, you creep.

    Why shouldn’t it be you who leaves me alone?

  204. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    No need to. I’ve argued well enough that you’ve said (without any external coercion ;) “PS I think you might be right @456.”

    Fair correction; make it when you cannot argue well enough to convince me.

    Rather, engaging with your question and answer format provides you with behavioral reinforcement to continue it, which can be amusing against some sexist trolls, but rarely otherwise.

    Yes, because I wouldn’t have a sufficiency of it were you in particular not to bother so doing, and therefore your involvement makes some difference—which, by the way, you’re doing in that very comment—right?

    Cheer up, though: you are worthy of my time, when I can be bothered.

  205. John Morales says

    Two quotations from #246:

    1. “I can not believe the severity of violence against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids”

    2. “I don’t believe that the typical degree of bullying against geeky kids is equivalent to that against queer kids”

    I submit that the quantifier ‘typical’ in 2 means it expresses a different proposition to 1.

    In passing, I don’t see any hypocrisy implied by the link so claiming, upthread.

  206. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Fair correction; make it when you cannot argue well enough to convince me.

    But I like to argue well, John.

    You yourself have noted that I have picked up a few things from you.

    Yes, because I wouldn’t have a sufficiency of it were you in particular not to bother so doing, and therefore your involvement makes some difference—which, by the way, you’re doing in that very comment—right?

    Probably? It was a convoluted sentence, but it looks right.

    Cheer up, though: you are worthy of my time, when I can be bothered.

    I’m cheery, but still that’s nice of you to say.

    Would you like to be the one to point out my glaring, nearly obscene hypocrisies in comments #246 and #247, or will you pass them on for another? They’re all yours if you want.

  207. says

    Go away. Just go away, anywhere but here.

    Seems to me that he has the same right to being here as everybody else. Why don’t you just killfile him and get on with it, instead of demanding he leave the comment section of one thread on one blog just because he upsets you?

  208. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    I submit that the quantifier ‘typical’ in 2 means it expresses a different proposition to 1.

    I tried to clarify my meaning in the #326 referenced above. The original reference to sampling, though, should imply the typical.

  209. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    It was a convoluted sentence, but it looks right.

    I actually messed it up by a careless late addition; it should have been:
    “Yes, because I wouldn’t have a sufficiency of it were you in particular not to bother so doing—which, by the way, you’re doing in that very comment—and therefore your involvement makes some difference, right?”

    (You can probably guess what the late addition was)

  210. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Right, then. That was the meaning I inferred.

  211. hotshoe says

    Ahem. “How dare you” say I deliberately set out to trigger someone who wasn’t even part of that discussion discussion about bullying when I spoke up.

    Liar liar liar.

    I did NOT say you deliberately set out to trigger someone. Unlike you, who did state – completely without evidenece – that ‘Tis deliberately ignored you.

    Don’t lie about me. Don’t lie about what I said.

    Stop harassing me, you creep.

    Leave me alone, you creep.

  212. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    I did NOT say you deliberately set out to trigger someone.

    You didn’t? I must have misread you, then:

    If I had realized at the time how much harm you were doing, I would have called you on it even though I was a day late. Here, it’s a month later, and you’re finally get called on being a selfish triggering minimizing creep, Be proud of yourself! You accomplished what you – no doubt – set out to do!

    What was it you claim I set out to do?

    Don’t lie about me. Don’t lie about what I said.

    I’m not lying about you.

    Stop harassing me, you creep.

    I’m not harassing you.

    Leave me alone, you creep.

    Why shouldn’t it be you who leaves me alone?

  213. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    bork

    I did NOT say you deliberately set out to trigger someone.

    You didn’t? I must have misread you, then:

    If I had realized at the time how much harm you were doing, I would have called you on it even though I was a day late. Here, it’s a month later, and you’re finally get called on being a selfish triggering minimizing creep, Be proud of yourself! You accomplished what you – no doubt – set out to do!

    What was it you claim I set out to do?

    Don’t lie about me. Don’t lie about what I said.

    I’m not lying about you.

    Stop harassing me, you creep.

    I’m not harassing you.

    Leave me alone, you creep.

    Why shouldn’t it be you who leaves me alone?

  214. hotshoe says

    Go away. Just go away, anywhere but here.

    Seems to me that he has the same right to being here as everybody else.

    Sorry, rorschach,

    Ixchel should have been banned long ago. Shame PZ didn’t have the heart to do it the last time the subject came up.

    As long as none of us are banned, I have the same right to speak here as everybody else. And I choose to use my speech to oppose a creepy selfish bully who is doing harm to my friends and harassing me with multiple lies about me. (All the while, ironically, pretending that he is the one who is being persecuted and lied about. Ha ha.)

    I don’t want to plug my ears and pretend I don’t hear any longer. I did that for four years already, not opposing Strange Gods because so many of the regulars seemed to approve of his spite. No more. I won’t be silent any longer.

    I’m sorry if you are one of SG’s particular friends, as I have no wish to oppose you. We’ll have to see how it works out.

  215. hotshoe says

    I did NOT say you deliberately set out to trigger someone.

    You didn’t? I must have misread you, then:

    Yes, you did misread me.

    Now you owe me an apology.

  216. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    and harassing me with multiple lies about me.

    What are these lies?

    Do you believe lying requires knowingly saying something false?

    (Just checking.)

    (All the while, ironically, pretending that he is the one who is being persecuted

    False claim.

    and lied about.

    ? Am I accusing you of lying about me? Where?

    I don’t want to plug my ears and pretend I don’t hear any longer. I did that for four years already, not opposing Strange Gods because so many of the regulars seemed to approve of his spite. No more. I won’t be silent any longer.

    Here’s a question to ask yourself.

    Why didn’t ‘Tis Himself go after this comment too?

  217. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Yes, you did misread me.

    Now you owe me an apology.

    You won’t be getting an apology.

    What was it you claim I set out to do?

  218. says

    Ixchel should have been banned long ago. Shame PZ didn’t have the heart to do it the last time the subject came up.

    PZ asked him to leave TET. He never suggested he be banned completely. PZ owns this blog. I don’t want to sound harsh, and I am not as you suggest a “friend” in any way of SGBM, but if you can’t deal with the discussion, you should be the one to leave. You don’t get to order bannation on anyone here, neither do I(some people do try, and I think they shouldn’t). From your previous posts and your responses to SGBM it is not obvious to me that you are being harassed or bullied, seems like he just disagrees with you.

    That guy has driven me mad more than a few times, which if you have been here for 4 years as you claim you would be aware of, and given me indigestion and disturbed sleep in the past, but I never thought that him disagreeing with me meant that he had it out for me or wanted to harass me.

    It’s the internet, we’re anonymous, let him disagree, it’s not that he’s going to turn up at your house or work tomorrow. If you really feel this way, why not just find another blog to write comments on.

  219. John Morales says

    rorschach,

    PZ asked him to leave TET. He never suggested he be banned completely.

    PZ internally exiled him from TET as punishment, then after some time removed the restriction.

    ॐ is on final probation, as of the time of me writing this.

    [The previous is fact, the following is my opinion]

    This sucks for him, since he can be potentially be banned via others’ malice under PZ’s parole, and for that circumstance I have some sympathy, but I figure he should be quite safe being himself here on TZT. Shame, really.

    (That said, he brought this on himself, because he’d rather be right than be silent. Can’t make up my mind whether it’s some sort of martyr or crusader attitude, or merely obstinacy)

  220. says

    That said, he brought this on himself, because he’d rather be right than be silent.

    Wait a second. And here I was thinking that that was what the Gnus were all about!

  221. hotshoe says

    Ixchel should have been banned long ago. Shame PZ didn’t have the heart to do it the last time the subject came up.

    PZ asked him to leave TET. He never suggested he be banned completely. PZ owns this blog.

    Gee, rorsharch, tell me something I don’t already know.

    I don’t want to sound harsh, and I am not as you suggest a “friend” in any way of SGBM, but if you can’t deal with the discussion, you should be the one to leave. You don’t get to order bannation on anyone here, neither do I(some people do try, and I think they shouldn’t). From your previous posts and your responses to SGBM it is not obvious to me that you are being harassed or bullied, seems like he just disagrees with you.

    That guy has driven me mad more than a few times, which if you have been here for 4 years as you claim you would be aware of,

    yes, I am aware of the troubles Strange Gods has given rise to, over the years. A repeat offender, as you know. I never knew why anyone tolerated, much less admired, such a shit disturber …

    and given me indigestion and disturbed sleep in the past, but I never thought that him disagreeing with me meant that he had it out for me or wanted to harass me.

    It’s the internet, we’re anonymous, let him disagree, it’s not that he’s going to turn up at your house or work tomorrow.

    Jeez, don’t you think it’s a little weird that you’re mentioning my house or work? Really, we’re not talking about that kind of danger.

    If you really feel this way, why not just find another blog to write comments on.

    Multiple people have – in the last day – taken a “break” or left pharyngula altogether, partly as a result of the atmosphere created by the shit disturber SG. It may not be his fault, it may not be something he sets out to do, it may not be something within his control even if he wanted to try to control it, but it’s definitely something toxic about his presence in our community.

    There’s no reason for me and the rest of them to be the ones who have to leave.

    If he can’t or won’t leave pharyngula, he can at least leave me alone. If he can’t or won’t leave me alone, I’ll stand and fight. I was silent too long.

  222. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    yes, I am aware of the troubles Strange Gods has given rise to, over the years. A repeat offender, as you know. I never knew why anyone tolerated, much less admired, such a shit disturber …

    You don’t know why?

    You need only read. Multiple testimonies are on the current TZT and TET.

    Jeez, don’t you think it’s a little weird that you’re mentioning my house or work? Really, we’re not talking about that kind of danger.

    FWIW, I thought it was weird, but rorschach is a little weird.

    Multiple people have – in the last day – taken a “break” or left pharyngula altogether, partly as a result of the atmosphere created by the shit disturber SG.

    More directly caused by this comment.

    If he can’t or won’t leave pharyngula, he can at least leave me alone. If he can’t or won’t leave me alone, I’ll stand and fight. I was silent too long.

    Why shouldn’t it be you who leaves me alone?

  223. hotshoe says

    ॐ is on final probation, as of the time of me writing this.

    [The previous is fact, the following is my opinion]

    Is that still a fact? It’s my understanding based on the last announcement, that since PZ is no longer going to moderate threads, no one could be “on probation” as it were. That is, there is no “probation officer”. So, maybe there hasn’t been an official release of the probation, but it’s meaningless to say it’s still probation, since it can’t be violated.

  224. says

    Multiple people have – in the last day – taken a “break” or left pharyngula altogether, partly as a result of the atmosphere created by the shit disturber SG.

    I note your use of “partly”. People have left, or are leaving, as a result of burnout, of time constraints, of new interests, of being butthurt or exasperated all the time. I agree it’s a bit of a trend at the moment, and I’ve done the same in the past, gone away to take a breather, but I do not see how you can possibly put it all down to one person. Surely that’s simplifying things a bit too much.

    By the way, vowing to “stand and fight” at the same time as asking for your opponent to be banned, comes across as a bit hypocritical.

  225. hotshoe says

    Why shouldn’t it be you who leaves me alone?

    Because you’re a creep who is hurting my friends.

    And that’s the last I’ll answer about that. Feel free to harass me by following me around and repeating the question endlessly. Or not.

  226. John Morales says

    rorschach,

    And here I was thinking that that was what the Gnus were all about!

    Gnus are about atheism, he’s about his version of a social justice crusade.

    Gnus are about speaking out, not about doggedly harassing people until they recant their non-gnuness.

    Are you gnu? If so, do you every single time you notice someone being religious in some sense chide them for their religiosity, and tell them how they’re hurting people and society by it? And persist and persist and persist and persist and persist at it until that person gives up on you or someone steps in to stop you?

    I wouldn’t dream of asking him “how’s it working out for you?”, he’d probably reply “Swimmingly!”, but I would ask you to consider (no need to reply) “how’s it working out for Pharyngula?”

    As an aside, Himself has just announced on TET he’s taking a leave of absence.

  227. John Morales says

    hotshoe,

    Is that still a fact?

    Yes, it is.

    (That it may not be enforced for some unspecified length of time doesn’t change that status.

    Also, PZ was very, very clear and he has no history of bullshitting about such stuff.)

  228. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Because you’re a creep who is hurting my friends.

    So you should get to say whatever you want about me, but I shouldn’t answer you. Huh.

    Feel free to harass me

    I’m not harassing you.

    by following me around

    I’m not following you.

    I haven’t commented outside of this thread since you started apparently endorsing false claims about me here.

    and repeating the question endlessly.

    How about a couple of other relevant questions:

    Do you believe lying requires knowingly saying something false?

    Bonus: What was it you claim I set out to do [if not trigger ‘Tis]?

  229. hotshoe says

    By the way, vowing to “stand and fight” at the same time as asking for your opponent to be banned, comes across as a bit hypocritical.

    Goddamn, what is with everybody’s failure to read tonight ? Rorschach, look again, I did not ask for anyone to be banned. I did say it was a shame PZ didn’t ban SG earlier. Do you see that those two concepts are meaningfully different ? There’s a big difference between regretting a state of the world, and petitioning god to change it.

    I’m not ever going to ask for PZ to ban SG. That’s just dumb.

  230. hotshoe says

    As an aside, Himself has just announced on TET he’s taking a leave of absence.

    Damn, damn, damn.

    It’s all going to hell, isn’t it.

  231. hotshoe says

    Is that still a fact?

    Yes, it is.

    (That it may not be enforced for some unspecified length of time doesn’t change that status.

    Also, PZ was very, very clear and he has no history of bullshitting about such stuff.)

    Okay, John, thanks for clearing that up for me.

  232. says

    It’s all going to hell, isn’t it.

    Well, if we could drop the infighting for a moment and for example together go after vacuous vaporisers like this Vacula vanker, who knows what we could achieve!

  233. John Morales says

    rorschach, what you’d achieve is to stoke his ego.

    Thanks for trying, but no.

    He comes here or somewhere else I frequent, I’ll be all over the specimen, but otherwise… just, no.

  234. Wowbagger, Deputy Vice-President (Silencing) says

    Ugh, Vacula. Now there’s a real scumbag. The atheist ‘movement’ is going to stay mired in a regressive stupor as long as people like him are taken seriously.

  235. says

    Ugh, Vacula. Now there’s a real scumbag. The atheist ‘movement’ is going to stay mired in a regressive stupor as long as people like him are taken seriously.

    If I wake up in time and feel motivated enough I might just write something about this dimwit tomorrow. But maybe not.

  236. RahXephon, Waahmbulance Driver for St. Entitlement's Hospital says

    I can’t wait until SG achieves his goal, which is apparently to have the Pharyngula comment threads to himself, then SG can talk to SG about how SG is so rightity right, because being right is all that matters. That’ll be a great day. Have a good time with yourself, shitlord.

  237. ChasCPeterson says

    text all over the page saying “Resist the Tardigrade” in blinking colors, and like that.

    please make it so.

    Please?

  238. carlie, who has nice reading comprehension says

    Do you believe lying requires knowingly saying something false?

    That’s the crux of a huge piece of it right there. Ixchel, I see that for you an untruth is lying no matter what the intent was.

    But that’s not how pretty much everyone else anywhere sees it. The generally used definition of lying, the one that most people go by, is that lying requires intent to deceive. An untruth that is told accidentally is a mistake, not a lie. Being called a liar is being accused of deliberately attempting to mislead people in order to manipulate them, and when someone is called that on the heels of a mistake, it justifiably makes them mad because given the way that language is understood by the majority of people, they have been accused of something they are not guilty of. You keep saying people are lying, and to you that means they are saying something wrong, but to them you are saying they are deliberately trying to mislead, and that is wrong.

  239. Pteryxx says

    Peace to y’all who are taking breaks, leaving, and/or undecided.

    My 2c on all this: (rot13’d and crossposted to TET)

    Qvfphffvba bs zbqrengvat sbehzf pnzr hc n juvyr onpx ba Mina’f cynpr. Pbzzragf sebz gurer:

    Naq V’z fgvyy fyvtugyl va fubpx gung n sbehz zbqrengbe unq qvforyvrs gung bar crefba pbhyq ehva na ragver sbehz. V’ir frra bar qrgrezvarq crefba ehva n sbehz gung unq gubhfnaqf bs hfref naq lrnef bs guernqf.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/06/10/doing-away-with-drama/#comment-89229

    naq va ercyl gb gur fhttrfgvba gung onaf or cbfgrq jvgu qrgnvyrq fcrpvsvpf:

    Gung jbhyq bayl jbex sbe gur ener pnfrf jurer crbcyr jrer onaarq sbe n fvatyr cbfg, vafgrnq bs sbe n jubyr cnggrea bs qrenvyzrag, fgbarjnyyvat naq ershfvat gb ratntr gubhtugshy erfcbafrf, onq snvgu nethzragf, ybnqrq dhrfgvbaf, rgp rgp. Lbh ernyyl arrq gb frr gur jubyr qvfehcgvir cnggrea orsber lbh pna haqrefgnaq jul gur ona unccrarq.

    Naq senaxyl, vg’f gurfr cnggreaf bs orunivbe gung vf gur erny ceboyrz. Va gur pnfr bs gur fvatyr pbzzragf gung ner fb orlbaq gur cnyr gung gurl erfhyg va na vafgn-ona, vg vf hfhnyyl rnfl rabhtu sbe zbfg ivfvgbef gb haqrefgnaq jul gung jnf hanpprcgnoyr. Jung’f uneq vf gb fgbc gur gebyyf jub, yvxr fpubbylneq ohyyvrf, xabj rknpgyl ubj sne gurl pna tb jvgu rnpu vaqvivqhny vapvqrag gb znvagnva fbzr fbeg bs cynhfvoyr qravnovyvgl.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/06/10/doing-away-with-drama/#comment-89352

    Va nabgure cnenyyry, gurer’f n ernfba jul unenffzrag cbyvpvrf naq fgnyxvat qrsvavgvbaf vapyhqr ivpgvzf’ bja nffrffzragf bs gur fvghngvba NF RIVQRAPR. Vg rafherf gur cbyvpvrf pbire orunivbe gung ivbyngrf gur fcvevg bs gur ehyrf rira jura ab fcrpvsvp pyrne-phg genafterffvbaf pna or cebivqrq.

    Fb jura gurer’f na boivbhf cnggrea bs pbzcynvagf nobhg gur orunivbe bs na vaqvivqhny, gur rkvfgrapr bs n cnggrea VF rivqrapr va naq bs vgfrys. Guvf vf n pbzzhavgl shyy bs ybhq, pbzongvir, ubarfg crbcyr. Gurl ebhgvaryl qvfphff vasynzzngbel gbcvpf naq pnyy rnpu bgure bhg ba rirelguvat sebz snpghny reebef gb vafrafvgvivgl. Naq fbzrubj, zbfg bs gur gvzr, guvf qbrf abg erfhyg va qbhoyr-qvtvgf bs erthynef srryvat onqyl gerngrq naq univat gb gnxr yrnir, rkprcg qvfcebcbegvbangryl jurer guvf vaqvivqhny vf vaibyirq. Bgure sbyxf znantr nyy gur gvzr gb pnyy bhg qvfubarfgl naq onq-snvgu nethvat, pbeerpg rnpu bgure, cbvag bhg ovtbgrq guvaxvat naq rira rfcbhfr havdhr naq hacbchyne cbvagf bs ivrj jvgubhg qbvat guvf zhpu qnzntr.

    Gung’f jul V qba’g npprcg gur ulcbgurfvf gung bar vaqvivqhny’f orunivbe, vs orvat ZRERYL naq NCCEBCEVNGRYL crefvfgrag, ubarfg, naq pbzongvir, fgvyy pnhfrf n jubyr pbzzhavgl-shyy bs gur zbfg sbeguevtug, ubarfg, crefvfgrag, pbzongvir, naq nyfb pbzcnffvbangr, bcra-zvaqrq, naq ohyyfuvg-vagbyrenag vaqvivqhnyf V’ir rire frra, gb fbzrubj orpbzr qvfubarfg, gevony, ovnfrq naq jungrire ryfr FCRPVSVPNYYL JURER GUVF VAQVIVQHNY VF VAIBYIRQ. Gurfr fnzr crbcyr, vaqvivqhnyyl naq pbyyrpgviryl, nppbeq fbzr qrterr bs pbafvqrengvba gb hacbchyne ivrjf bs nffubyrf, gebyyf, fgenatref, erthynef, naq rarzvrf nyvxr. Vg’f abg ernfbanoyr gb nffhzr hapunenpgrevfgvp orunivbe ba gur cneg bs zhygvcyr vaqvivqhnyf jura bar crefba – abg bar cevapvcyr, gbcvp, punenpgrevfgvp, be vffhr, bar CREFBA – vf gur pbzzba snpgbe. Vg’f ernfbanoyr gb fhfcrpg gung gur vaqvivqhny’f orunivbe vf n znwbe pbagevohgvat snpgbe, naq vg’f snve gb rkcrpg gung crefba gb punatr gur orunivbe.

    Fubegre fnlvat: vs ybgf bs crbcyr xrrc univat ceboyrzf jvgu lbh, znlor gur ceboyrz vf lbh naq abg gurz.

    (Caps used for emphasis because rot13 messed up my italics tags.)

  240. says

    and he’s more than merely persistent, he’s obsessively so, to the point he was the one and only one to ever be banned from TET.

    How I hate this sort of thinking – viewing someone’s being mistreated or punished as evidence that they have a problem.

  241. consciousness razor says

    because being right is all that matters.

    Nah. Knowing is half the battle. The other half probably has something to do with killing evil people.

  242. carlie, who has nice reading comprehension says

    As I’m thinking about it, particularly wrt ‘Tis: another thing I see consistently with ixchel’s writing is a firm adherence to the purist dictionary definition of words (aside from just the word lie), and that also causes a lot of the fuss.

    Ixchel, you may be doing it on purpose for some specific reason, but you generally ignore the semantics, or idioms, (or whatever that word is to talk about the culturally agreed on subtext of what you say) in favor of the surface interpretation.

    So with ‘Tis, you think that saying “while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true” is acknowledging the situation ‘Tis had, which is technically correct. However, that is not the generally understood meaning of that sort of exchange. When someone tells a personal anecdote, and the response is to not acknowledge that directly but instead simply mention that there are exceptions to your point (that the person telling the story should conclude they are part of), the meaning that comes across is “you and your experience do not matter”.
    No, none of those words are there in what you said. But that is the idiomatic meaning of that particular version of following “type of statement x” with “type of statement y”.

    This kind of problem gets amplified in a written environment, because in person, body language and tone could partially indicate that acknowledgement. If you had said the same thing, but in a softer vocal tone with a nod and sympathetic glance towards ‘Tis, then it might not have been so inflammatory. But written down, it comes across as downright cold and absolutely dismissive. And I don’t know if that’s what you meant to do.

  243. consciousness razor says

    Pteryxx, I don’t understand why you’d use rot13, as it’s only harder to read, and there are no spoilers. You could give some kind of warning; but given the context here, that wouldn’t be necessary either. I will not bother coding it again.

    (I also don’t understand why you’d crosspost this to TET.)

    It’s reasonable to suspect that the individual’s behavior is a major contributing factor, and it’s fair to expect that person to change the behavior.

    No, I would expect that person to respond (appropriately or not) according to the way the group addresses their behavior. I wouldn’t simply expect them to change, nor does it imply they should change and that I could reasonably expect them to do what they should do.

    Shorter saying: if lots of people keep having problems with you, maybe the problem is you and not them.

    Ah, so maybe it is, but you would expect them to change because they are outnumbered, whether the problem actually is with the individual or not.

  244. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Pteryxx:

    Shorter saying: if lots of people keep having problems with you, maybe the problem is you and not them.

    The things that people seem to have a problem with are things that are de rigeur around here. Excessive engagement? Assuming that other commenters are arguing in bad faith? The main differences that I see is that 1) entering an argument, SG tends to win, 2) SG enters an argument regardless of the social capital of the opposition 3) SG is interested in discussing ethics, and therefore, his argument implies (or says outright) that something unethical is being said. And this makes people feel bad.

    It’s fine to make creationists feel bad. It’s fine to make wooists, PUAs/MRAs, god-botherers, trolls etc. feel bad. But don’t make a regular feel bad. And if a regular has been bullied in RL, they have the right to bait and insult others*, without any expectation of an untoward response.

    Undoubtedly, the culture of this blog is changing, and this spate of contention is necessary. But, it isn’t clear to me that anything other than scapegoating is afoot. It is kind of gross.

    *But not just SG, right?

  245. Ogvorbis says

    I spent a fair amount of time last night, lying in bed, trying not to go to sleep (no sleep, no dream), and, damnit!, what was said upthread about compromise is, possibly, a good place to start. Part of that compromise, to me (and this is only to me!), is that I need to remember that, for others, words and phrases may not mean the same thing that they do to me (my kids can carry on a long conversation and, though I can recognize the words being used, I cannot grok the context or the overall meaning).

    I try, very hard, when I read a comment that appears to be an attack, or a lie, or some other possibly objectionable statement, to, first, assume that I have misunderstood what has been written and, if it has significant impact on my own personal give-a-damn scale, I ask for clarification. I do not automatically assume bad faith.

    I am not (that I know of) making a claim for loyalty. I take the same tack when responding to a new, unknown, or lesser known commenter — if they appear to be supporting, say, the objectification of women or a war of extermination with Iran, I ask for clarification. Of course, in the case of some commenters, the history is already there so there is no point in asking for clarification.

    As was pointed out a few days ago (when I was in meltdown mode over childhood abuse), I wrote, incorrectly, that we don’t know each other here. But we do. This is a community. A community of all ages, nationalities, races, ethnicities, male and female, straight, gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, asexual, cognitive normal and not, you name it, we hang out here. Why? Because we all seem to like the brutal compassion that Pharyngula has come to embody.

    Communities have to make allowances. This does not mean giving a free pass to anyone, including me, who drops an ablist, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., slur or insult or joke into the mix. This does, to me, mean that we should take history into account.

    I wouldn’t know ixchel if I met him on the street. Same for Audley, Ing, Louis, everyone. You are meatspace strangers. But I also know you through your writings, through your passsions, your trials and tribulations. I admire ixchel’s uncompromising devotion to equality. I admire Louis’ ability to use biting sarcasm and humour to open a deeper understanding of reality (or the blindness of privilege). I admire all of you. This is, really, the only place on the web where I think that I fit in, that I feel comfortable. And the reason for that is you. All of you.

    And none of us is perfect. As can be seen on this thread, two people can look at the same text and come away with two different meanings. That’s easy to do. I do it all the time. Which is where the history of the community comes in to play. What did the person write? Is it possible that the writer, as I often do, was not clear or just made a mistake? Or didn’t see the way that what was written could be misinterpreted?

    The community of experience, education, vocation, avocation, intelligence and talent that has gathered here at Pharyngula is impressive. Perhaps we (me included) could ask for clarification before assuming an attack?

    (And damn, that sounded Pollyannaish. Take it for whatever it is worth. Or you think it is worth. And if any of it doesn’t make sense or comes across as an attack, please ask away.)

  246. birgerjohansson says

    “The community of experience, education, vocation, avocation, intelligence and talent that has gathered here at Pharyngula is impressive. Perhaps we (me included) could ask for clarification before assuming an attack?”

    Seconded
    — — —
    Theopontes
    “Hell, I arrived ready for a knife fight and yo’all are talking about the rules of chess?”

    (Birger enters, carrying a gatling anti-zombie-horde gun, looks around, shrugs and leaves)

  247. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Carlie:

    But written down, it comes across as downright cold and absolutely dismissive. And I don’t know if that’s what you meant to do

    It doesn’t come across that way to everyone. I tend to read things much more literally than that, for example. SG could be asked to try to insert whatever nuance is required to make people feel valued. That might not be easy. I don’t really know how to do that myself. But maybe we could try. Likewise, people could avoid the behavior that they accuses SG of: assuming bad faith argument.

    With a few exceptions, many of the most vocal of SGs detractors do this to a much greater extent than he has.

    On another topic. I can see how this all erks the SOL. He works hard to provide insightful posts, and writes the least bad (heh) blog that I have read. These internecine skirmishes distract from these posts. However, FtB is intended to be revolutionary in the culture of skepticism, atheism, humanism, and feeethought. Revolutions are rarely bloodless.

  248. consciousness razor says

    This does, to me, mean that we should take history into account.

    I think we’re in agreement on that, except perhaps in how it should be taken into account.

    As I said yesterday on TET, if they keep digging, that itself is part of their history. They also shouldn’t get special treatment because they’re doing other good stuff about other issues, or if they’re smart or funny or likable or comment here regularly. My closest friends and family don’t get that kind of treatment, and we get along very well. Commenters I hardly know on a fucking blog, even a special fucking blog like Pharyngula, are at best going to get the same from me. I see no reason to make it any better.

    And none of us is perfect.

    Exactly, so after in some way taking a person’s history into account, any of us could be very wrong and need a very strong and unambiguous correction.

  249. Ogvorbis says

    Exactly, so after in some way taking a person’s history into account, any of us could be very wrong and need a very strong and unambiguous correction.

    Being wrong is not a sign of bad faith. That was what I was so incompetently trying to point out. And failed. Again.

  250. consciousness razor says

    Being wrong is not a sign of bad faith. That was what I was so incompetently trying to point out. And failed. Again.

    Ah, sorry, I think I’m the one writing sloppily. If someone is acting in bad faith, that is “being wrong,” in the sense of morally wrong rather than factually incorrect. However, I’d argue being factually incorrect is sometimes a bit trickier and less innocent than some people make it out to be… but I’m still kind of tired so I’ll save that rant for another time.

  251. Ogvorbis says

    consciousness razor:

    I agree. Acting in bad faith, arguing in bad faith, is wrong. There is a tendency here (and I am guilty of this myself) to assume that being wrong (whether due to poor choice of words, or a slip, or unclear writing, or whatever) is evidence of bad faith. When one has made a mistake, that is not necessarily lying. When one has made a mistake, that is not necessarily an attempt to minimize. Which is why asking for clarification prior to ripping in with tooth and claw bared is, to me, anyway, a ‘good thing.’

    This is why I stressed the history of the community here. That history should show us whether or not a known commenter is acting in good faith and fucked up, or is acting in bad faith. There are some frequent commenters here who I know, from our history, have large blind spots about certain ideas and, even then, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when I ask for clarification. Often the response to the request for clarification is more than enough to show bad faith. Again, that is my way of dealing with things because I know just how often I misread meanings.

    Regarding someone being factually correct or factually incorrect, that is rarely what starts a fracas between regulars. Often it is a failure to grok meaning, a difficulty with choice of words, a misunderstanding. This is why I stress requests for clarification. Maybe a commenter really did mean to say something provacative or hurtful but I think it is incumbent on me, the reader and responder, to give that person the benefit of the doubt, based on our shared history, and ask for clarification. Or, as was said during the START negotiations back in the 80s, “Trust. But verify.”

    And I’m going in circles here so I’ll just shut up.

  252. consciousness razor says

    Which is why asking for clarification prior to ripping in with tooth and claw bared is, to me, anyway, a ‘good thing.’

    You may not be implying this, but I don’t think the response always need to given in the form of a question. (To put this in the form of a question, are you implying that?) You don’t need to ask for clarification. You can give your interpretation of what they said (taking their history into account to know what they might mean by it, as best you can) then explain why you think it is wrong. Of course, people don’t always express their ideas accurately, but might still believe what they’ve said is perfectly clear or not want to get into an argument about language.

    This is why I stressed the history of the community here. That history should show us whether or not a known commenter is acting in good faith and fucked up, or is acting in bad faith.

    I don’t think it should. That isn’t a property of a person in general, which reliably carries over to all or some of their other interactions. They may act in bad faith in one situation or a lot of them, but not another. Even with “the same” issue (e.g., racism), someone might generally have a good record, and that’s nice. Maybe we should send them a thank you card for it. But they may still have their particular, quirky way of saying bigoted nonsense on special occasions, dismissing certain kinds of racist shit as unimportant, or whatever the case may be. That needs to stop, and we don’t need to fall on our knees, thank them for all they’ve done and assume only the most charitable and improbable interpretations of what they’ve said, before we try to get them to stop it.

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the principle of charity, but I suppose some have forgotten that it only works if it works both ways (or perhaps some aren’t willing to let it work for people they don’t like). If I’m interpreting you uncharitably, assume that and only that, not that I’m trying to viciously attack you and am dismissing every good thing you’ve ever done.

    There are some frequent commenters here who I know, from our history, have large blind spots about certain ideas and, even then, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when I ask for clarification.

    Why would you do it even then, when you know they have that blind spot? That’s not a fair way to treat people.

  253. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    carlie,

    That’s the crux of a huge piece of it right there. Ixchel, I see that for you an untruth is lying no matter what the intent was.

    I am already doing this differently: ‘So I think it may be possible for me to point out when “that is not true” rather than “that is a lie.”’

    The reason I was asking hotshoe “do you believe lying requires knowingly saying something false” is because it appeared hotshoe’s answer was “no”, but nothing explicit was said to this effect. I certainly wasn’t “lying knowingly” about hotshoe, but if hotshoe wanted to use another definition then I would have to evaluate the claim differently.

    But that’s not how pretty much everyone else anywhere sees it. The generally used definition of lying, the one that most people go by, is that lying requires intent to deceive. An untruth that is told accidentally is a mistake, not a lie. Being called a liar is being accused of deliberately attempting to mislead people in order to manipulate them, and when someone is called that on the heels of a mistake, it justifiably makes them mad because given the way that language is understood by the majority of people, they have been accused of something they are not guilty of. You keep saying people are lying, and to you that means they are saying something wrong, but to them you are saying they are deliberately trying to mislead, and that is wrong.

    Well, what I’ve meant by it in the past is not just saying something incorrect, but saying something which basic intellectual honesty would have instead led them to say correct — like when all the evidence is right there in the text in front of their face.

    But again, I’m not going to do this anymore. I’ve been persuaded that it’s more trouble than it’s worth; and I’m able to convince myself that it is a clear violation of the principle of charity, which can be applied to everyone equally, regardless of their behavior, trolls and delurkers and regulars alike.

  254. consciousness razor says

    I don’t think the response always need to given in the form of a question

    Or did I mean “needs to be given”?

  255. smhll says

    It is one of the drawbacks of a medium that isn’t realtime interactive, that its hard to ask and wait for clarification, and it’s accepted to run with one’s own reading of someone else’s text and talk back to what one thinks was said.

    I’ve had some pretty long fights with my husband about things we don’t even disagree upon, because he starts with sweeping language, and to me the sweeping language literally includes some fairly objectionable cases, which I start objecting to. Much later we find it was our statements, not our beliefs, that were in opposition to each other.

    I agree with a couple of posters above that calling someone a liar is pretty inflammatory. It’s ‘nicer’ to tell someone they are in error. (I won’t ask you to be nice to trolls, especially if trolls have been toe stomping or gut kicking your, your friends, your allies, your peeps of origin, or your fellow human beings.)

  256. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    So with ‘Tis, you think that saying “while there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true” is acknowledging the situation ‘Tis had, which is technically correct. However, that is not the generally understood meaning of that sort of exchange. When someone tells a personal anecdote, and the response is to not acknowledge that directly but instead simply mention that there are exceptions to your point (that the person telling the story should conclude they are part of), the meaning that comes across is “you and your experience do not matter”.

    Note it was not just my response to ‘Tis which said “there are no doubt some examples for whom this is true”, that clause was in the original comment, and ‘Tis snipped it out when replying.

    With ‘Tis Himself I am only on the defense. The reason I feel I have to default to being precise — for my sake — is that nothing I say to him has any bearing on whether or not he make false claims about me.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/20/did-everyone-draw-mo-today/comment-page-1/#comment-341041

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/20/did-everyone-draw-mo-today/comment-page-1/#comment-341046

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/20/did-everyone-draw-mo-today/comment-page-1/#comment-341617

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/31/dj-please-fix-this-genuine-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-351433

    He only stops falsely attributing the most outrageous things to me after lots of other people make clear to him they aren’t buying it.

    His “I hope you die an excruciating and lengthy death without anyone to care for you” comment above is, I believe, exactly how he wants to feel about me.

    I don’t believe I can do anything to change this, and I’m not going to kiss his ass when I don’t believe his anger is a function of misunderstanding me.

  257. Ogvorbis says

    I don’t think the response always need to given in the form of a question

    I reread what I wrote. Yes, I repeatedly stated it as a requestion for clarification. Yes, that could mean that I paraphrase what the person wrote (or, rather, my reading of what was written) with an implied ‘is this what you mean?’ I did not mean to imply that one has to ask a question. You can do anything you damn well please. And I will do what I please within the boundaries of the existing community.

    Why would you do it even then, when you know they have that blind spot? That’s not a fair way to treat people.

    I’m sorry, I do not understand. If I give a person the benefit of the doubt, how is that unfair? If I ask, for instance, SteveO for clarification as to whether he is really in favour of a preemptive war with Iran, that is, to me, a fair question. Even if I suspect what the answer is, I am still allowed to ask for clarification, am I not?

  258. carlie, who has nice reading comprehension says

    I am already doing this differently: ‘So I think it may be possible for me to point out when “that is not true” rather than “that is a lie.”’

    I’m sorry; I hadn’t noticed that. It was redundant for me to say it, then.

    Well, what I’ve meant by it in the past is not just saying something incorrect, but saying something which basic intellectual honesty would have instead led them to say correct — like when all the evidence is right there in the text in front of their face.

    You are a much closer reader than a lot of us; I would guess that you often catch things in text that elude a lot of people. Not an issue of intellectual honesty so much as missing detail, I think. What’s obvious to you isn’t always obvious to others.

    I agree with a couple of posters above that calling someone a liar is pretty inflammatory. It’s ‘nicer’ to tell someone they are in error.

    I think it has more to do with accuracy. Calling them a liar is assuming facts not necessarily in evidence, i.e. that they are doing it deliberately.

  259. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ birger

    I think of the book by Irvine Welsh, where two philosophers are arguing their points of view in a local pub. The matter is only resolved when they take it outside and beat each other up. The winning philosophy, of course, belongs to the last man standing.

  260. Ogvorbis says

    The winning philosophy, of course, belongs to the last man standing.

    Aaaaaand I give up.

    Bye.

  261. says

    I jumped in last night (primarily because I wanted to clarify about my comment to KG, which was not about sg but about me) before I had a chance to read this whole exchange. That’s probably for the best, since I’m calmer today.

    Now I’ve read it. The victim-blaming of sg – a bullying dynamic PZ has contributed to and encouraged – is sickening. I concur with the objections of Paul, Jadehawk, consciousness razor, Chas, AE, and others. I’ve been writing about this recently, and it’s disappointing to see it playing out here (again).

    But, it isn’t clear to me that anything other than scapegoating is afoot. It is kind of gross.

    It sure is. I haven’t been reading or commenting much here recently, and I think I’ll go back to that.

  262. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    SC: Nice piece of writing. I would have said so there, but my wordpress account doesn’t seem to work on your blog.

    I was at Ohio State for a long time and I don’t recall ever hearing about Morgan. it’s a shame how this stuff gets buried.

  263. consciousness razor says

    I’m sorry, I do not understand. If I give a person the benefit of the doubt, how is that unfair? If I ask, for instance, SteveO for clarification as to whether he is really in favour of a preemptive war with Iran, that is, to me, a fair question. Even if I suspect what the answer is, I am still allowed to ask for clarification, am I not?

    Of course you’re allowed to do that, but if you give a person the benefit of the doubt when you know they shouldn’t get such a benefit, there’s nothing to doubt and no need for such a benefit. It isn’t fair because you’re letting some people benefit in ways they shouldn’t. It would be a fair question to ask anyone, but given the context you’re describing, you wouldn’t be treating people fairly. The fair way to treat bigots is like they are bigots; it’s not fair to pretend they’re not one (because that’s a nicer and friendlier thing to believe about them, or because they comment here a lot, or because it will derail a thread, or for whatever bullshit reason someone wants to conjure up).

  264. Ogvorbis says

    cr:

    To clarify:

    I know that, for instance, SteveO has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to Islam. He comments on other things and sometimes I agree, sometimes I do not agree. If he comes off with a comment (not involving Islam) which strikes me as bizarre, or threatening, or weird, or sexist, or whatever, I will ask for clarification though I am aware of his blind spot. If he starts to spout about Islam and a preemptive war, I will ask, once or twice, for clarification about the point being made and possibly how it fits within the current OP. This is my (probably misquided and stupid) attempt to steer him back into the discussion abou the OP before things become a major derail which, when it comes to Islam, is generally what he appears to desire.

    So, yeah, I guess I am totally unfair. Take me out back and shoot me.

    I knew I should have stayed out of this shit. I have nothing to add and, apparently, a shitload to remove from coherent conversation.

    I did what I thought was best. I really need to stop doing that.

    Bye.

  265. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    O: This is part of the trouble.

    cr disagreed with you on what is fair. Clearly, cr’s goal was no more to insult you than yours is to insult hir. Yet, by saying “take me out back and shoot me”, you have escalated this into something personal. Not necessary. Not conducive to what you yourself would prefer.

    I’ve said this before. If any disagreement about ethics can be interpreted as a personal affront, no conversation can be had. I don’t know if this is a technique in manipulation or not, but by belaboring your retreat from the thread, you are in a way holding yourself hostage. You have every right to do so of course, but it seems manipulative to me. I mean, what choice have you given cr? You have framed your reply as a defense when you were not attacked, and therefore frame your withdrawal in the context of an attack. You haven’t been driven off this thread, and yet seem to want to imply as much.

    I apologize in advance if this wasn’t your intent. I hope I have made a case of how it could be interpreted as such.

  266. Ogvorbis says

    No, I am not trying to manipulate anyone. I really am not. I am frustrated as hell! I make a rather (well, it seemed to me as) simple suggestion, going out of my way to make it obvious that I am not telling anyone what to do, and am being unfair. I have no clue what to say or do but I have this horrible feeling that, if I do continue to try to defend myself (I really do try very hard to be fair (which does not mean treating everyone the same way)) it will go down the drain fast.

    I do not feel driven off the thread (that would be my piss-poor communication skills on display). I do wonder how giving people a chance to back off from a possibly inflammatory statement is unfair, but I guess that claiming stupidity would, after my history here, be redundant.

    You, Antiochus, have shown that your interpretation of what I wrote was valid. I go back and read what I wrote with your interpretation in mind and holy shit did I fail. I was trying to show frustration (and failed) and also trying to show that giving people a chance to explain their apparent idiocy (as you are doing now) is the fair thing to do.

    So, consciousness razor, I apologize for my writing which could, no question, give the appearance of attempted malipulation. I am frustrated (and tired). That does not excuse my writings (though it may explain them?). Sorry. It will most likely happen again but I’ll try not to let it happen.

  267. Ogvorbis says

    And, DAMN! do I sound like I have personalized things and am on the defensive. Sorry.

  268. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    O: Sorry to contribute to your frustration. I would only argue that in general, you stray from fairness toward benevolence. The world would be a nicer place if every one did that.

  269. Ogvorbis says

    Antiochus:

    I don’t think you contributed to my frustration. You have nothing to apologize for.

    Benevolent? Me?

    1. Characterized by or suggestive of doing good.
    2. Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity.

    I don’t think that describes me. I don’t know if I do ‘good’. I try to do what I think is right without imposing my values and ethics on others (after all, I have no clue what my values or ethics are until they are challenged and even then they change over time). What I do do (that may be the clumsiest phrase in the English language) is assume that people are honest, mean what they say, and are not intentionally trying to hurt people.

  270. consciousness razor says

    This is my (probably misquided and stupid) attempt to steer him back into the discussion abou the OP before things become a major derail which, when it comes to Islam, is generally what he appears to desire.

    I would say what he appears to desire is the death of Muslims, and perhaps other brown people who don’t have “Western values” like his (if I recall, he’s British or Australian), values which apparently have something to do with murdering people.

    Anyway, what would you consider more important: keeping threads from being derailed in a major way, or objecting to Islamophobia, war-mongering and the like? I think I know the answer, so please consider that rhetorical.

    I do wonder how giving people a chance to back off from a possibly inflammatory statement is unfair,

    I more or less did say you should give them a chance to back off; but after they haven’t backed off, or if you know they aren’t going to, or if you otherwise have no good reason to believe they don’t mean what they’re saying, this business about giving people the benefit of the doubt can make things worse, if it lets people hide behind doubts or the most charitable reading one is willing to give them.

    (Not to Godwin or anything, but I remember vividly how much I hated being taught as a kid to listen to sermons and read the Bible charitably, because I clearly wasn’t too keen on some of the reasoning involved, much less things like genocide or slavery. Somehow I was supposed to find the nuggets of wisdom in there, or at least play along with everyone else. There was only so much bullshit I could stomach, until I just couldn’t do it anymore.)

    Often, it’s quite warranted to be confrontational to people you know and trust and love, even if it offends them. I know it makes some people uncomfortable, but sometimes that matters much less than the issue at hand. If they didn’t really mean what they said (as you interpreted it), they should understand why you misread them or correct whatever they didn’t mean to say. That’s usually pretty easy to resolve if you do agree on the substance of it; and in any case, there’s no real harm done to anyone. Misinterpretations are going to happen anyway, no matter what. However, if you tend to err on the side of assuming the best in people and misinterpret them that way, then it can be harmful, because they’re not getting the feedback they need to be better.

    So, consciousness razor, I apologize for my writing which could, no question, give the appearance of attempted malipulation.

    It’s okay.

    Praise Tpyos. (Honestly, I rather like “malipulation.” It could be a portmanteau of malevolent and manipulation, though that seems a bit redundant.)

  271. Tethys says

    Ixchel
    To be clear, I understand feelings. I don’t agree with your therefores.

    Their aren’t any therefores. “I disagree” is just plain worthless here at pharyngula, as you are well aware.

    It has been explained to you ad nauseum on TZT, and my mental health is much more important than “winning” an argument.
    The fact that I am having to explain that triggering people with PTSD is uncool to Mr. ableism is causing me head explody.

    I strongly resent your subtle passive-aggressive effort to engage me in further argument too, just so we are very clear.

    I will read TZT if you choose to respond, and might engage if I think it would be productive. Please don’t respond on TET, or try to goad me into arguing about it further. Just try to grok what several different people are telling you.

    Sometimes, people feelings are more important than being right, or winning an argument. It’s as simple as that.

  272. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Tethys,

    I strongly resent your subtle passive-aggressive effort to engage me in further argument too, just so we are very clear.

    This is a misunderstanding. You implied I don’t understand feelings. I wanted to point out that I do understand feelings. You can understand why I would want to correct that record, right?

    Had you said “I had to take yesterday off after it was obvious that trying to explain my position was not working at all” I would not have had any reason to dispute your characterization.

    It is not “subtle passive aggression” for me to clearly explain that your statement is wrong. I resent this claim.

  273. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Er, more accurately “I had to take yesterday off after it was obvious that trying to explain my position to SG was not working at all”

    (lost in the editing, sorry)

  274. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    There aren’t any therefores.

    There are some implicit therefores.

    “1. Arguing with a troll is different than arguing with a regular.”

    Since you characterize what you’re doing as “explaining feelings”, this appears an implicit suggestion that because regulars’ feelings matter, therefore regulars should be treated differently.

    “I disagree” is just plain worthless here at pharyngula, as you are well aware.

    I am well aware, but I got the impression it was not worth arguing about on TET, so I told you I disagreed and left it at that. That allowed you the option of pressing for more information or not.

    Since you are now pointing out that “I disagree” is insufficient, I direct you to my discussion above with Josh, beginning at #171 and continuing through #196, which should be a useful overview.

    It has been explained to you ad nauseum on TZT, and my mental health is much more important than “winning” an argument.

    That’s fine. Again, I disputed the implication that I don’t understand feelings. I do. We disagree on what to do about them.

    The fact that I am having to explain that triggering people with PTSD is uncool to Mr. ableism is causing me head explody.

    I imagine so. It’s not all pleasant over on my side either.

    I will read TZT if you choose to respond, and might engage if I think it would be productive. Please don’t respond on TET, or try to goad me into arguing about it further.

    “Please don’t” mischaracterize me on TET then. I will respond on TET if you mischaracterize me there. I will respond here if you mischaracterize me here. I do not like green eggs and ham.

    Just try to grok what several different people are telling you.

    I grok it just fine; I am an ape too. I just think it’s immoral.

    Sometimes, people feelings are more important than being right, or winning an argument. It’s as simple as that.

    Sometimes. The details of when may not necessarily be as you imagine, though.

  275. Tethys says

    Ixchel
    I am not bothered by your responding. I consider it only fair.

    I wrote a longish, thoughtful, carefully worded post to you explaining why some people are upset with you and don’t feel they can trust you. You choose to respond with “I disagree”. Rather than refuting my logic, you simply dismiss it.

    When I state on TET that I had to leave the argument because it was an exercise in frustration, you respond by essentially posting “Nah uhh, you’re wrong!”.

    Dismissive and goading is how I perceive your behavior to me on the subject, based on your responses. I am the sole arbiter of how something feels to me. Your intent isn’t magic.

  276. Paul says

    Now I’ve read it. The victim-blaming of sg – a bullying dynamic PZ has contributed to and encouraged – is sickening. I concur with the objections of Paul, Jadehawk, consciousness razor, Chas, AE, and others. I’ve been writing about this recently, and it’s disappointing to see it playing out here (again).

    It sure is. I haven’t been reading or commenting much here recently, and I think I’ll go back to that.

    Same. Not that anyone will notice, but I’m out too. I’ll still read Jadehawk and SC and some others if for some reason anyone wants to talk. This place serves a good purpose, but as long as SGBM is being scapegoated for being consistent in application of standards (if it was anyone else willing to call out the constant ableism from Aquaria, these same regulars would have been fucking cheering instead of lying about it and then using it as an excuse to pile on), this isn’t a place for me. I actually managed to forget that the last time I left, it was due to some of the same piling on, that drove Algernon away (although I’m sure she came back afterwards).

  277. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    I wrote a longish, thoughtful, carefully worded post to you explaining why some people are upset with you and don’t feel they can trust you. You choose to respond with “I disagree”. Rather than refuting my logic, you simply dismiss it.

    Ah. Yes, I understand why that was frustrating. From my perspective, responding in detail on TET at that time was not a good idea. But I’m sorry that my lack of engagement was frustrating. (Interacting with many people, it is hard to know exactly who wants more engagement and who wants less, especially as I haven’t argued a lot with you and am not accustomed to your preferences; my responding in sufficient detail is often called aggression by others.)

    When I state on TET that I had to leave the argument because it was an exercise in frustration, you respond by essentially posting “Nah uhh, you’re wrong!”.

    This?

    What I said essentially is that I don’t demand others treat me with empathy. I would like that noted.

    Dismissive and goading is how I perceive your behavior to me on the subject, based on your responses. I am the sole arbiter of how something feels to me.

    Likewise, and likewise. In any case, what I was responding to was the characterization that “trying to explain feelings to [SG] was not working at all.” Some obvious implications of this are false, and so I register my disagreement, citing particular evidence to the contrary.

  278. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    I actually managed to forget that the last time I left, it was due to some of the same piling on, that drove Algernon away (although I’m sure she came back afterwards).

    Off and on. Her participation has been sporadic since then.

    I’ll drop in and say hi to you at Jadehawk’s sometime soon, Paul. See ya.

  279. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Blech. Add my name to the list of not-exactly-regulars who feel a bit put off by this scapegoating SG business (quite a thing to come back to after a nice trip down south). I realize he has a history of getting into spats with people, some of which are miscommunications where he could have been more charitable (and he seems to be admitting he could do things better in the future), but how many of the regulars here can say they’ve never done the same? Even PZ is buying into the idea that SG must be at fault because he’s so often at odds with people. I guess it’s a lot easier than admitting there’s enough blame to go around.

    The only big difference I see is that SG doesn’t give proper deference to those the core group have deemed to deserve it. If this “harassment” over the use of tard had been directed at a godbot or a ‘pitter you would all be backing SG up but because it’s someone in the in group he’s crossed a line? No one objects when half a dozen people call StevoR a genocidal racist anytime he comments about anything. Should they? I’m pretty sure some of the same people attacking SG have also attacked StevoR in that way. How is that better than attacking Aquaria for using problematic language when she uses it? Why should her history entitle her to any benefit of the doubt in this case, when her (relevant) history is unabashed use of ableist terms?

  280. says

    Multiple people have – in the last day – taken a “break” or left pharyngula altogether, partly as a result of the atmosphere created by the shit disturber SG.

    I’m sorry but I believe this is very very false. I know I at least said that I was cutting back commenting because of DEEP RIFTS. If anything I would have liked to see SG actually in the last sexism thread, and I think it would do good of people to compare the behavior in that thread to his and see if there is that great a difference other than SG’s personal difficulty with people. SG occasionally annoys me too (though frankly the endless “is SG a problem is really what annoys me) but for some reason I never seem to have as big a problem with him. Maybe I’m biased there or something else but in the past he has responded to my specific complaints when I felt he was getting away from a conversation and into haranguing. But I can understand if people don’t see things the same way. It might help everyone to remember that reading, especially due to the lack of tone and other cues, is very open to bias, as evidenced by my snap judgement to Chas; which was doubly stupid because I just got done admitting that he actually hasn’t been doing anything I’d take offense to.

  281. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    And goddamn it, that’s what this mess now is about. Whatever history SG has, the current conflict is the result of Aquaria not being able to take criticism that would be leveled against any outsider without hesitation. Bringing SG’s past conflicts into this may explain why people are reacting so poorly, but it doesn’t excuse it.

  282. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Just a reminder in case the use of certain words might give a reader the wrong impression:

    How is that better than attacking Aquaria for using problematic language when she uses it?

    The “attacks” are very mild.

  283. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Didn’t mean to imply you were doing anything wrong in this case ixchel. Like I said, I’ve seen you take things too far (in my opinion, of course) but I don’t think this is one of those times and I think it’s unfair to hold your prior misteps against you here.

  284. ChasCPeterson says

    Did you-all see this?

    Official blog-wide anarchy for the comments. I can’t wait to see what happens.

  285. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Didn’t mean to imply you were doing anything wrong in this case ixchel.

    Yeah, I just worry that certain words have undesireable priming effects on a reader.

    Not to say the word is wrong, exactly; I just wanted to make sure the examples followed soon afterward.

  286. A. R says

    OK, so I’ve been busy lately, so if someone would be so kind as to explain what is going on (all of the flouncing etc), that would be wonderful! Hugs-by-wire are a possibility.

  287. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    A.R!

    I’m so embarassed.

    Sorry A.R and AE.

  288. Wowbagger, Deputy Vice-President (Silencing) says

    ChasCPeterson wrote:

    Official blog-wide anarchy for the comments. I can’t wait to see what happens.

    It will be an interesting* experiment.

    *No doubt for that same value of ‘interesting’ as used in the expression ‘may you live in interesting times’.

  289. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    Relentless means not relenting once you start, not ubiquity.

    Yeah, and it’s also not true.

    I posted one comment per thread, and then replied to replies to that comment.

  290. John Morales says

    ॐ:

    I posted one comment per thread, and then replied to replies to that comment.

    Precisely. So long as there’s a response, you will respond to that response.

    Relentlessly.

  291. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    John, there wouldn’t have a sufficiency of responses were you in particular not to bother so doing—and therefore your involvement makes some difference, right?

  292. Wowbagger, Deputy Vice-President (Silencing) says

    I’m pretty sure no-one’s vision of anarchy is ixchel and John Morales having a lengthy debate about what the word relentless means.

  293. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    I cooked my brain too too much today working in my attic, and I had to lie down. I had a dream that SG’s father showed up on the thread (somehow Zeus-like even in txt) and scolded the lot of us. And we all felt bad, and scuffed the ground in front of us, and said we’d do better, and please could SG stay. And then it was like Cat Heaven in here.

    Fucking weird dream.

    I really must have cooked my brain.

    Don’t worry though. I’m being attended.

    Antiochus Repiphanes.

  294. John Morales says

    John, there wouldn’t have a sufficiency of responses were you in particular not to bother so doing—and therefore your involvement makes some difference, right?

    Sure, but then, I’m a terrible person and make no pretence to crusaderhood.

    (Thing is, I can relent, as you may recall)

  295. carlie says

    I’m pretty sure no-one’s vision of anarchy is ixchel and John Morales having a lengthy debate about what the word relentless means.

    *spit-snort-take*

    Anybody comes in wielding a conch shell, I’m tackling their ass and tossing the shell in the ocean.

  296. hotshoe says

    I’m pretty sure no-one’s vision of anarchy is ixchel and John Morales having a lengthy debate about what the word relentless means.

    Oh, yes, that is exactly my vision of anarchy.

    Fascinating sight, don’t you think?

  297. Wowbagger, Deputy Vice-President (Silencing) says

    John Morales wrote:

    Wowbagger, welcome to TZT!

    You interpret my comment as a criticism, as opposed to a humorous response to the cries of anarchy?

    Odd, that.

    [yes, I’m being silly!]

  298. Tethys says

    My discussion with Ixchel started in TET, so I want to state it again in TZT that I am not supporting Aquaria’s use of ableist slurs. I most emphatically do not think he is doing anything wrong in this latest bout.

    I would prefer that people stop bringing Aquaria into the discussion. She isn’t here, and it is not helpful.

    My intent in addressing Ixchel is to try and explain how his style of debate has caused triggering.

    I’m pretty sure that, so far, we are in agreement that triggering PTSD in people is something that should be avoided.

    I also think we are in agreement that if you do trigger somebody, apologizing is an appropriate response and not amoral lying.

    I have considered the different standards of behavior for trolls vs. regulars and IMO the point is valid. I tailor my responses to what I know about various posters. A new troll can only be judged by what they post. They don’t usually share a lot of personal, private, and painful information. (unlike many horde members) Of course they are treated differently.

    If they do share that type of information, the horde is amazing in how fast they moderate their tactics. See Phil Gordiana’s major melt-down, and wiki entry for an example.

  299. says

    While I’m expressing my pissed-offedness, let me just say: Ixchel’s obsessive behavior here is exactly what I identify as destructive. 25% of this thread is Ixchel babbling. Every time I’ve seen that in the past, it has led to a ban.

    If I were doing any moderating of comments at all anymore, I would ban that asshole Ixchel’s fucking ass without hesitation.

    So now you can be relieved that I’m not.

  300. Wowbagger, Deputy Vice-President (Silencing) says

    We need a countdown clock for how long we think it will take for a ‘real’ troll to appear.

  301. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    My intent in addressing Ixchel is to try and explain how his style of debate has caused triggering.

    I’m pretty sure that, so far, we are in agreement that triggering PTSD in people is something that should be avoided.

    I also think we are in agreement that if you do trigger somebody, apologizing is an appropriate response and not amoral lying.

    I’m really not getting how ixchel’s style is “triggering” but everyone else is fine.

    If I were doing any moderating of comments at all anymore, I would ban that asshole Ixchel’s fucking ass without hesitation.

    Then you should probably ban me, Morales, SC, and anyone else who’s ever had an unpopular opinion around here. I guess it’s a good thing you’ve decided to abdicate all responsibility.

  302. Tethys says

    Rorschach

    It might be over at SB. It was during the height of elevatorgate.
    I have no interest in reading any of those threads right now, I’m not even sure if it has been restored yet, but I’m reasonably sure Ixchel is aware of the particulars without a link.

  303. says

    you should probably ban me…who’s ever had an unpopular opinion around here.

    Right. Fuck off. Like the only possible reason I might ban a tedious pissant who has posted 102 comments in this one thread since yesterday is that he “disagrees with me”.

    Inspector Javert exhibits all the pathological behaviors that would have gotten anyone else banned…but apparently he has the ‘social capital’ that entails giving him exceptions to the standards I apply to others.

  304. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    but apparently he has the ‘social capital’ that entails giving him exceptions to the standards I apply to others.

    Wait, are you fucking with me? I thought the core of this fight was that SG doesn’t respect the “social capital” of people like Aquaria when they want to use ableist slurs. Other commentors don’t hesitate to jump on this sort of language when it comes from “outsiders” so I’m having trouble seeing why SG’s criticism of Aquaria should be held to a different standard.

  305. Tethys says

    I’m really not getting how ixchel’s style is “triggering” but everyone else is fine.

    I have made no such claim. I have made every effort to discuss why there is ongoing conflict involving triggering directly and honestly with Ixchel, without blame. I do not think he is doing it deliberately, I think he just doesn’t notice until its too late.

    Blame is not productive or helpful, and this latest bout is being unfairly blamed on Ixchel IMO.

  306. John Morales says

    Tethys:

    Blame is not productive or helpful, and this latest bout is being unfairly blamed on Ixchel IMO.

    Wrong, and wrong. IMO.

  307. ChasCPeterson says

    Inspector Javert exhibits all the pathological behaviors that would have gotten anyone else banned

    *shrug* That’s an misimpression that comes from glancing at the numbers and ignoring the content.

  308. says

    No.

    We’ve had lots of insistent trolls who go on and on, absolutely certain in their righteousness. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish Javert from those trolls.

    Seriously. Rational human beings can let things go, and don’t feel that obsessive need to address every sentence that affronts them. When I see every other comment over hours and hours is by one person; when I see them making 3, 4, 5 comments one after the other, I know it’s time to slap someone down.

    Also, I certainly have seen enough of the content to know I’ve come to utterly detest the guy. He’s dead-eyed nitpicking poison on the page.

  309. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Rational humans tend to let bigoted slurs go when PZ starts banning for them. But I guess now with the new hands off policy “faggot” “nigger” and “cunt” are all A-OK. All hail the brave new world!

  310. says

    PZ, for the record, part of the reason that I stopped participating in TET was that, in addition to my not having the time to engage in a lot of serious dialogue there, over half of the notifications in my inbox were “Ixchel is saying that this person is his enemy; Ixchel is saying that that person is his enemy; Ixchel remembers that someone fucked up three years ago and is bringing it up.” That was enough for me.

    I liked the community here, and I will note that the Slimepit will infest. It’s your blog. I understand that. However, I would truly hate to see them win, and they will bring in a full-fledged infestation if this continues, and you will lose every decent commenter in favor of nothing but abuse. A few of the die-hard loyals may stay and duke it out with the Slimepitters, but there’s a limit to time and patience, and I learned a long time ago that my mental health is more important than fighting misogynists on the internet when I don’t have the time or internal resources. I hope that they do the same for themselves. Perhaps you are doing this kind of self-policing right now, and if that is the case then I support your decision and I hope you’re okay. But I don’t want to see this go downhill. I don’t want to see the comment threads turn into a place where we have nothing but Ixchel tilting after windmills and Slimepitters abusing you and anyone who dares to assert that women are people.

    As a former commenter who didn’t comment for long, I know that my opinion is not significant here, and I understand that. But I am a former commenter who was driven away partially by the exact behaviour that you have yourself identified as destructive. I know you didn’t start this site to accrue commenters, but you have acknowledge that you’ve managed to accrue some fine ones anyway. (I liked the Mollies.) It would be a genuine shame to see all of that go away.

  311. says

    No, there’s no question that the slurs were out of line. You don’t find anyone here defending them. What you are doing is dishonestly assigning a false reason to the problems that Inspector Javert causes.

    But yes, all those slurs are now available for you to use. Whereas before, of course, my enforcement of commenting practices had nothing whatsoever to do with their lack of use.

    See also #375. As someone who did scan every single goddamn comment here, one of the constant annoyances was the nonstop trivial recitation of every past barb Javert had received, ever, in a painful catalog of minutia. Yeah, he was good at documenting every single one, but who the fuck cares? It also meant that when he did have a good point, as in the case with the ‘tard’ comments, I had him mostly tuned out as noise.

  312. John Morales says

    Jennifer:

    I will note that the Slimepit will infest.

    Meh. They have nothing but attitude.

  313. says

    It is one of the drawbacks of a medium that isn’t realtime interactive

    jesus fuck, no. that’s one of its advantages. realtime doesn’t allow for taking all the time needed to think about what was said and respond thoughtfully.

    I actually managed to forget that the last time I left, it was due to some of the same piling on, that drove Algernon away (although I’m sure she came back afterwards).

    she did. and yeah, that’s pretty much the first time I eplicitly noticed the dynamic that’s now playing out against SG.

    In my recollection, the dynamic has played itself out against Algernon, SC, and SG most often; against me once, in a much more minor incident (and against some other people, at least one of whom wasn’t equipped to notice so it didn’t matter :-p ); and probably against Chas, though I’m unfortunately too biased to be able to confirm that either way.

    And on a side-note, I do think Pharyngula has gone on a trajectory of becoming a closed space. For example, Ryan got banned for basically being a young-Walton clone. The patience and tolerance to teach young dolts has gone out of the place, at least temporarily. Understandable I suppose, but regrettable.

    I’ll drop in and say hi to you at Jadehawk’s sometime soon, Paul. See ya.

    since I’m planning on spending much less time here at Pharyngula, I hope to be able to get back to writing more substantive posts more often in the near future. I’d be glad to host some of the contested/unwelcome discussions at my blog then :-)

    Official blog-wide anarchy for the comments. I can’t wait to see what happens.

    it is likely going to be an interesting social experiment, but right now I can’t bring myself to care.

    ANARCHY!!! I tell you!

    libertarianism, actually. free market of ideas, and all that crap.

    I’m really not getting how ixchel’s style is “triggering” but everyone else is fine.

    because “everyone else” was doing it to outsiders only. As much as I despise the whining by the slimepit-fellow-travellers like bluharmony, Miranda Celeste Hale, and Sara Mayhew, if what SG is doing to Pharyngulites is harassment, then what we’ve done to those women is also harassment.

  314. says

    And numbers, John. It doesn’t matter how devoid their arguments are of intellectual or moral content. What matters is that they have the numbers and the sheer pathological hate to flood any space that doesn’t ban them with swift fury. Maybe PZ doesn’t have that kind of time. I can respect that. But it’ll still be sad to me. I’d like to see more productive conversations than, “No, really, ‘cunt’ IS a gendered slur,” “No it isn’t!” “Yes, it is!” “Well, bitches have it coming!”

    I’ve engaged in my share of those debates, but I like spaces that are above that.

  315. A. R says

    PZ: Out of curiosity, why didn’t you ban SG if you felt that way? I know about the social capital and all of that, but you’ve done unpopular things in the past.

  316. Tethys says

    I find that I am much less infuriated by SG if I picture him as Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.

  317. says

    #380: In case you hadn’t noticed, I pay attention to what the commenters here say. And at the first mention that maybe this pernicious Ixchel dude was too annoying to tolerate, a bunch of people announced that they’d leave too, just as they have again in this thread.

    So I gave him the benefit of the doubt and let him stay. And stay. And stay. And continue his petty crusades. It was a mistake.

    Are you suggesting I should have been more autocratic?

    Jadehawk: Are you seriously talking about ryanwilkinson? Who had 304 comments here, consisting mostly of JAQing off, and who was only finally banned after he abandoned his restriction to TZT…and even then got in another 30 comments in various threads? He was tolerated at amazing length, and never progressed beyond his disingenuous ‘questions’.

  318. says

    if what SG is doing to Pharyngulites is harassment, then what we’ve done to those women is also harassment.

    That’s exactly the thing. It’s the argument from #FTBullies, that disagreement on the internet equals harassment.

    I find that I am much less infuriated by SG if I picture him as Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.

    Very slippery slope, that…

  319. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    PZ…first, pardon my I eloquence. I’m overcoming a little heat sickness…sweating freely again, but a little muddled.

    I started commenting here because I was tired of arguing with one hand tied behind my back. You provided the environment where I cold do that. Jesus. You said just the other day in your live discussion about humanism, that you wanted even your own children to challenge your authority. I believe it’s true, because you built a fan base to do just that.

    You built the shark tank and stocked it with sharks. This community is your fault.

    Look. This tiny goblin fish for one is glad that you are in charge. I just have no idea what you want. And as for entitlement, I don’t think I am assking for clarification above and beyond what is normal for a blog. But these games are confusing and our message is mixed.

    I mean letting the place go because some very small minority of your horde dares to question your judgement is a little like the termination of Sodom and St. Paul writ very, very, small. Or maybe you believe the place will right itself. I have no idea.

  320. says

    Aaargh. Do I need to say it again? Javert was not imperiled because he disagreed with anyone; in the case of the ‘tard’ comment mentioned earlier, he had near-universal agreement with his position.

  321. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Ger…and of course my premise is that SG does little that many others don’t find appropriate when they do them. He is just a little more effective.

  322. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Yeah, but he was imperiled for doing things that everyone else does.

  323. says

    Are you seriously talking about ryanwilkinson? Who had 304 comments here, consisting mostly of JAQing off, and who was only finally banned after he abandoned his restriction to TZT…and even then got in another 30 comments in various threads? He was tolerated at amazing length, and never progressed beyond his disingenuous ‘questions’.

    as if Walton was any better, when he cluelessly derailed abortion threads, poverty threads, and assorted other random threads to talk about how much more awesome libertarianism is? (Ask Ichthyic about that sometime. Walton was ridiculously annoying and pervasive in his annoyance, and so some people got pissed at him for it)

    That was my point: when walton showed up, people got pissed about derailments but didn’t do anything about them, nor did the causes of derailment necessarily get banned (esp. pre-TET, when pretty much every thread over 200 comments was derailed in some way or another, both in friendly and unfriendly ways).

    And yeah, I know the proximate reason for ryan’s banning was because he didn’t know the difference between TET and TZT. but that too is part of my point: such rules didn’t exist yet when walton was being a clueless JAQ’er, so one generally didn’t end up banned for accidentally braking complicated social rules.

  324. says

    So what do you want? Total freedom to be as sharky as you want, or sharkiness with someone who’ll clean the tank for you and treat the water for parasites and throw in chum now and then? Because I’m the one who gets all the mixed messages. When I see trouble coming down on the tank, I try to head it off…while you guys tell me “oh, no, that parasite is OK.”

    And if you think Javert was just like everyone else, why is he so often at the center of these social issues? He’s a constant irritant, unlike most of the commenters here. Recognize that. Even my earlier response to him the other day was a warning that he needs to be better aware of the strife he causes.

  325. John Morales says

    AE, I have very good reason to believe numerous people were quite upset by (you know who), many of them to the point of leaving Pharyngula, and I’m not speaking of this recent episode.

    And I’m not speaking of inferences, I’m speaking of believing credible people’s claims.

  326. John Morales says

    [erratum]

    and I’m not speaking of this recent episode.

    and I’m not just speaking of this recent episode.

  327. says

    That’s exactly the thing. It’s the argument from #FTBullies, that disagreement on the internet equals harassment.

    well, it’s a bit more than just disagreement. We are rather forceful assholes when we disagree. So the question is whether forceful, consistent disagreement is or isn’t harmful. If it isn’t, then it can’t be regardless of whether it’s used against regulars or against outsiders. If it is, it’s equally bad when used against outsiders as it is when used against regulars.

    So if this isn’t treatment Pharyngula wants to subject “regulars” to, Pharyngulites might want to reconsider whether non-regulars should be subjected to it, because otherwise it would just be tribalism. I mean, if people want to really make the argument that what SG did is triggering and harmful, then there’s no non-tribalist way to get around acknowledging that bluharmony et al. were triggered and harmed, too. Because they have the same ability to feel that Pharyngula regulars have. And if you add to that the fact that there’s only one SG, but many Pharyngulites, what outsiders experience would have to be considered worse than what regulars experience from SG arguing with them.

  328. Wowbagger, Deputy Vice-President (Silencing) says

    I think the frequency/regularity of posting might play more than a little part, given the numbers that PZ has cited.

  329. says

    And if you think Javert was just like everyone else, why is he so often at the center of these social issues?

    I already answered that: because he applies the Pharyngulite MO to Pharyngulites.

  330. Stacy says

    IMO as somebody who never comes here to TZT (and probably never will again):

    Why is an admitted totalitarian (who feels compelled to police everybody else) being defended here? ixchel’s brand of totalitarianism is OK because he leans left rather than right politically?

    Yeah, fuck that.

  331. says

    I already answered that: because he applies the Pharyngulite MO to Pharyngulites.

    No, he does not. The Pharyngulite MO, if there is one, is to slam someone hard with a forceful argument, preferably with some wit and insight. Sometimes it is a rugby scrum, sometimes it’s a hard fast tackle.

    The Javert MO is to natter on endlessly, shredding obsessively at each word. I’d be happy if he’d just give a good hard punch and move on…but he doesn’t. When he pushes the argument on and on when the other guy just wants to let it go, that isn’t disagreement…that’s actually harassment. This thread is a perfect example of the Javert MO.

    And seriously, I’ve always told you guys the big crime here is to be boring…and I assure you, when I get up in the morning and the comments start pouring into my machine for review, and it’s ixchel, ixchel, ixchel…goddamn but he’s boring.

  332. John Morales says

    Jadehawk:

    If it is, it’s equally bad when used against outsiders as it is when used against regulars.

    Pharyngulites might want to reconsider whether non-regulars should be subjected to it, because otherwise it would just be tribalism.

    Sometimes, you are unintentionally funny.

    I mean, if people want to really make the argument that what SG did is triggering and harmful, then there’s no non-tribalist way to get around acknowledging that bluharmony et al. were triggered and harmed, too.

    Yes, there is: they are bullshitting.

    Playing the victim card is just another feeble tactic they employ.

  333. says

    Because I’m the one who gets all the mixed messages. When I see trouble coming down on the tank, I try to head it off…while you guys tell me “oh, no, that parasite is OK.”

    Since this is your place, and since it is unlikely that the regulars will ever agree with each other completely in such matters, why not leave everything as it has been forever, in that you decide who stays or goes?

    I get that you are mighty pissed off, but why not just ignore what individual commenters here would like or not like to see happen? Worst case, lose a few, gain a few others. Everyone here has an opinion on how things should be, and who should be banned and for what reasons. I think you’re better off ignoring it all and just doing your thing.

    If it isn’t, then it can’t be regardless of whether it’s used against regulars or against outsiders. If it is, it’s equally bad when used against outsiders as it is when used against regulars.

    So if this isn’t treatment Pharyngula wants to subject “regulars” to, Pharyngulites might want to reconsider whether non-regulars should be subjected to it, because otherwise it would just be tribalism.

    Yes, agree 100%. And guilty as charged, too. But as Pharyngula evolves, so do its commenters, and I’m certainly more aware of this tendency now then I was say a year ago.

  334. says

    When he pushes the argument on and on when the other guy just wants to let it go, that isn’t disagreement…that’s actually harassment.

    bah. the reason so many threads explode to +500 comments is precisely because Pharyngulites don’t let go once they’ve gotten their teeth into a target.

    And it’s just not true that Pharyngulites don’t nitpick language. They just don’t nitpick each other’s language.

    And seriously, I’ve always told you guys the big crime here is to be boring…

    see now that is actually a consistent reason. OTOH… I don’t actually know why this only applies now. The arguments between walton and SG were mindnumbing to most people who weren’t them (or me), too. and much longer than the current argument. (though, ok, the Free Will discussion is extremely long, ongoing, convoluted, and probably more boring to outsiders than any conversation heretofore had on this blog)

  335. says

    Sometimes, you are unintentionally funny.

    sometimes, you miss the point. oftentimes, in fact. I did not use those words accidentally.

  336. says

    Why is an admitted totalitarian (who feels compelled to police everybody else) being defended here?

    because in the argument in question, he isn’t wrong? basically, what you just did is a true Ad Hominem.

  337. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    When I see trouble coming down on the tank, I try to head it off…while you guys tell me “oh, no, that parasite is OK.”

    We are a huge community and obviously are not in consensus about a great many things.

    And if you think Javert was just like everyone else, why is he so often at the center of these social issues? He’s a constant irritant, unlike most of the commenters here.

    We obviously don’t all agree on that either. It’s not obvious to me that the reason is Javert so much as the gradual influx of commenters who’s answer to being wrong is to flounce and scream for banning.

    The evidence is clear that SG didn’t hound Aquaria. Or harass her. Or do anything that wouldn’t have been applauded if he hadn’t done it to anyone else. Two fucking comments. The rest is in response to calls for his head. You can say much more about that, as you are on the receiving end of complaints.

    I don’t even know why I am arguing with you. It’s your blog. You have a decision to make. Not everyone will be happy about that decision, but so the fuck what, right? The majority of your commentariat are no longer sharks. You get to deal with the change in culture I guess. I sense that the reason that this is so vile to you isthat you care about each and every one of us precious snowflakes…you can’t disabuse me of this notion.

    I need to shower I think, as getting the sweat glands going again has left me drenched.

  338. Paul says

    Why is an admitted totalitarian (who feels compelled to police everybody else) being defended here? ixchel’s brand of totalitarianism is OK because he leans left rather than right politically?

    Oh, so anyone who has unpopular views is Fair Game?

    Fuck you, go join the Scientologists. I missed where we were defending totalitarianism here.

  339. says

    I give up. I can’t win. When I let the mindnumbing arguments go on and on, you wonder why I didn’t step in and stop them right away. When I give a warning after years of putting up with the shit, I’m told I’m intolerant and unfair.

    And now people wonder why I’ve told you all to just do whatever the hell you want.

  340. John Morales says

    rorschach, PZ is lancing a boil, I think.

    Jadehawk: Yeah, sometimes I miss the point.

    Not this time, but.

    But please be explicit: are you condemning tribalism, or not?

  341. says

    But as Pharyngula evolves, so do its commenters,

    well, I suppose that’s a good enough explanation for why things that were tolerated in the past aren’t tolerated now :-p
    but that was a stupid question anyway. I did just say above that pharyngulites (apparently including PZ) are on a shorter fuse than they used to be. And I’m not even asking for it to go back to the old days since it isn’t my blog, nor am I the boss of the commenter community. I’m merely noting the change, and noting that I don’t necessarily like it.

  342. Paul says

    Oh, and sorry for responding again. I just popped by to check if anyone had responded to me, and couldn’t let that one slip.

    And if you think Javert was just like everyone else, why is he so often at the center of these social issues?

    Possibly because other people aren’t willing to leave him alone? This entire fucking fight was started by people going off on him, without any of his input in the first place. And the earlier post on totalitarianism is possibly why Tis fixates on him. He’s gone on quite a few rants on Pharyngula (at least back when it was on sciblogs, possibly since) about how Maoists are without exception scum. People disagreed with SG on different matters elsewhere, so they’re more than happy to pile on even when he’s being openly fucking harassed.

    Anyway, since there were no other responses to answer, so long and thanks for all the fish. If anyone migrates elsewhere, maybe I’ll see you there.

  343. says

    When I let the mindnumbing arguments go on and on, you wonder why I didn’t step in and stop them right away. When I give a warning after years of putting up with the shit, I’m told I’m intolerant and unfair.

    well, rather ovbviously “you” in that case includes a fuckload of people. who don’t agree with each other. so you’re never going to get a consistent response out of your commentariat on this or other topics.

    Not this time, but.

    hahahahahah

  344. says

    How long have I put up with Inspector Javert posting here? Hard to tell, since the Sb archives are mostly inaccessible and he changes his pseudonym so often.

    How many years equal a “short fuse”?

  345. John Morales says

    Paul:

    I missed where we were defending totalitarianism here.

    The quotation you quoted was about defending a totalitarian, and you missed that implication?

  346. says

    I missed where we were defending totalitarianism here.

    actually what you missed is SG admitting some while back to some authoritarian positions I can’t recall right now. Stacy was one person who very freely spoke her opinion of authoritarianism back then, and she since then had an understandable dislike for SG.

  347. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    PZ: what do you expect? The Hivemind? You have how many hits a day? How many devoted readers? Did you expect or want consensus on anything?

    I’m interested to see if the whole mess will right itself. Emergent properties and what not. But I don’t pay any price if it doesn’t.

  348. says

    How many years equal a “short fuse”?

    the short fuse comment was about ryan vs. walton, specifically.

    and I suppose it’s possible that you’ve only run out of patience with someone who was boring you for years. didn’t think of that. I blame it on you only mentioning recent events as a cause for your dislike of SG :-p

  349. says

    It is the same people who are simultaneously complaining that I’m unfair or have a short fuse, and that poor Inspector Javert of the years of commentary hasn’t been properly evaluated. The same people who claim it’s not right to make special exceptions for members of the tribe, while demanding I make a special exception for this certain long-time member of the tribe.

  350. John Morales says

    Darn, I missed Paul’s flounce when I poked him before. :|

    Anyway, since there were no other responses to answer, so long and thanks for all the fish. If anyone migrates elsewhere, maybe I’ll see you there.

    Pretty good, to be honest.

  351. says

    And now people wonder why I’ve told you all to just do whatever the hell you want.

    I guess we wonder because it doesn’t really seem a practicable option on a Technorati top 100 blog with 3 million hits a month…

    I could try this with my 1.3 commenters, or jadehawk with hers, and we wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. It’s a bit different with Pharyngula.

  352. Stacy says

    Oh, so anyone who has unpopular views is Fair Game?

    Fuck you, go join the Scientologists.

    Fuck you. Where did I say “anyone who has unpopular views…”? And how the fuck far did you have to reach to get Elron’s “Fair Game” policy out of that?

    ixchel is a pain and his attitude and persona correlate with his goddamn worldview. Which is toxic.

    ~
    ~
    ~

    Jadehawk, you’re right. The truth is I just came by because I saw PZ was so annoyed by ixchel he’s ready to stop monitoring comments altogether. Wasn’t paying close attention to the argument that prompted the crisis. I’ll flounce now.

  353. Owlmirror says

    When he pushes the argument on and on when the other guy just wants to let it go,

    I’m not so sure that this has happened. I would have to review the comment exchange, though. Something is definitely going wrong, but it is not as simple as that.

    If people really wanted to let it go, they would stop, completely, talking to him or about him.

    But I think that’s hard for people, which feeds into the cycle.

    that isn’t disagreement…that’s actually harassment.

    There have been claims of harassment. And it may well be valid to say that people feel harassed.

    But I’m not quite sure, yet, that it counts as actually being harassment.

    ======

    Just to clarify, PZ: What you see as being ixchel’s biggest problems are:

    1) He obsesses over insults/slights/misrepresentations/confabulations of what he’s said.

    2) He comments obsessively and repetitively.

    (and maybe )
    3) The combination/intersection of those two traits where he comments obsessively and repetitively about those insults/slights/misrepresentations/confabulations

    Is that a coherent and complete summary of your perspective on him?

  354. says

    who exactly are those people? can’t be me, since I haven’t made any demands on you for how to moderate or run your blog (the closest I’ve come to that is to tell you that if you’re banning people based on a cost/benefit ratio of people leaving, you’d need to remember that some people will leave if you ban SG for this reason). and yet I’m the only one who mentioned “short fuse” in an argument at all. methinks “same people” are a null set.

  355. says

    or to put on of my points in this conversation a bit more clearly and succinctly: I make absolutely no demands on PZ for how he should run this blog. Most of my arguments regarding changes here relate to the behavior of the commentariat, and they are simply my personal opinions about the changes that have occurred in the atmosphere. One of these changes I find unfortunate is the “short fuse” thing about banning clueless younguns like ryan, because I had some hope of being able to talk him through, the way we’ve talked walton through. On the specific topic of banning SG, again, I’m not telling PZ what he should do. I just noted that making a statement that he will be banned for supposedly driving too many people away will result in me leaving*. If the stated reason for banning were, say, boredom, then that would be banning similar to the banning of Pilty. The statement and the banning would have different consequences on the commentariat-culture**, effect that probably wouldn’t make me feel like leaving.

    shorter me: y’all do what you want; I’ll do what I want as a consequence to your doin’ :-p

    – – – – – –
    *because such a statement will contribute to developments in the atmosphere on pharyngula I wouldn’t feel comfortable with/in

    **though ultimately any banning of SG might make me leave, if for example it would result in fewer discussions about certain topics, and fewer discussions in which walton and/or owlmirror participate. Depends. There are only maybe 3 or 4 commenters left who participate in interesting conversations, so the fewer of those there are, the less reason I have to participate in the comment section.

  356. John Morales says

    Jadehawk:

    I make absolutely no demands on PZ for how he should run this blog.

    Observations, suggestions, insinuations, yes; demands, no.

    There are only maybe 3 or 4 commenters left who participate in interesting conversations, so the fewer of those there are, the less reason I have to participate in the comment section.

    In your opinion.

    shorter me: y’all do what you want; I’ll do what I want as a consequence to your doin’ :-p

    You make a virtue out of necessity; no-one needs your blessing to do what they want.

  357. says

    (that was in response to 425, btw) I know better than to look up my blog search terms, not good for the blood pressure.

  358. says

    Jadehawk, warning about consequences is often a passive-aggresive way of telling other people what to do. I read it as such, as does PZ apparently.

    PZ, I am uncomfortable with your decision, and am sorry it has reached this point for you. I hope you will reconsider your choice. I know it sucks when people keep telling you what to do, and I am definitely not trying to do that (your blog, your decisions), but I find the overall community here, and its standards, worth preserving, and your current decision will unfortunately make this very hard.

  359. says

    Holy crap!

    what’s that addressed at? the search term from my blog?

    about half of the search terms I get aren’t actually people searching for stuff, but rather people trolling me by putting hateful (and often bigoted) comments against me in the search bar. death-wishes against me are common, too.
    oh, and stalkery comments, too. Ones that imply that the troll who’s doing this follows me around on pharyngula.

    so far I’ve not been taking that shit very seriously though. should I?

  360. says

    so far I’ve not been taking that shit very seriously though. should I?

    It does sound like a worrisome patern, so I would definitely keep an eye on it.

  361. says

    Jadehawk, warning about consequences is often a passive-aggresive way of telling other people what to do. I read it as such, as does PZ apparently.

    if so, I apologize. It wasn’t meant to do that. I really just meant to tell PZ that given the stated reason for banning, both banning and not banning SG would result in people leaving (I named me, because I know for sure that I would leave; with others, it’s just speculation), and to keep that in mind when he makes his calculation. Kind of moot I suppose, if PZ decides to ban him because of boredom, or for some other reason, though.

    Am I clearer now? (honest question, not sarcastic rhetorical one)

  362. says

    so far I’ve not been taking that shit very seriously though. should I?

    Not sure. I’ve had one serious problem with someone on my blog so far, and threatening that person with going to the police was enough to make it stop. Most of the search engine trolling seems to be done by immature wankers who think it’s hilarious to associate someone with various sexual or other frowned-upon or illegal activities, but they wouldn’t progress to real-life stalking.

    Probably as always, better play it safe and report it.

  363. says

    Probably as always, better play it safe and report it.

    hmm. well, I suppose as soon as I can walk again, I can stop by the police department and have a chat with the folks there about whether I should do something about this.

  364. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Can’t sleep.

    Case in point. Morales is just being a malevolent troll right now, and does so habitually. It’s irritating. It’s boring. Is anyone screaming for banning Morales? No, because John is easy to ignore. He’s not saying anything important or noteworthy, or that challenges ideas in a novel way.

    (This isn’t always the case, but clearly so right now.)

  365. says

    Morales is just being a malevolent troll right now, and does so habitually.

    Personally, I put him into my killfile a long time ago. But a major difference between him and SG, is that Morales doesn’t take over threads. This might be because he isn’t saying anything noteworthy, as you say, but it is also because he is not aggressive the same way as SG is. With Morales you can easily ignore him, with SG you feel pressured to defend yourself, or others.

    One major irritant with SG, for me, is the ever-changing ‘nym, so xe can’t easily killfiled.

  366. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ carlie

    Anybody comes in wielding a conch shell, I’m tackling their ass and tossing the shell in the ocean.

    Heh, no flies on you!

    ….

    Oh lawdy!

    What has happened to TZT? This was supposed to be a miserable wasteland of oppression. Now it has turned to Anarchy. Tardigrade Authoritarianism ™ is coming apart at the seams it seems.

    We were going to incarcerate trolls here and keep the other threads in Pharyngula on topic. Now there are no trolls in site and the whole of Pharyngula is Free-rein-gula.

    We all appreciate order when things break down, but resent it when we feel cramped by the necessities required to maintain it. The most interesting experiment for TZT is to see whether we can rise to the occasion of complete anarchy.

    ERV-pit is the result of an anything goes devil-take-the-hindmost attitude. It favours no-one but the most privileged and insensitive. This is not the “anarchy” we should have in mind.

    But who is to police such matters and apply policies that will prevent ERV-ication? Here, to-date, it is PZ who takes things in hand if the commentariat fail. But is that really fair to PZ, who must spend endless hours policing the vast cyberdomains of Pharyngula?

    If we are going to make the leap to an anarchic approach, we will have to apply some basic principles to our behaviours. (The anarchists in 30’s Spain were, for the best part, egalitarian, highly principled and non-sexist. Anarchy is certainly not a free-for-all.)

    Has the time dawned for us all to transform to the next level?

    I rather like the challenge.

  367. says

    Jadehawk, that’s definitely clearer.

    But I should probably add, that the whole concept of talking aout consequences of decisions in cases like this, is nearly always a passive-aggresive way of telling people what to do. No matter whether that’s intended or not.

    A better way would be to explain why you think SG shouldn’t be banned, and then leave it at that.

  368. John Morales says

    AE:

    He’s not saying anything important or noteworthy, or that challenges ideas in a novel way.

    Pretty high bar you set for comment merit-worthiness.

    (Do you hold yourself to that standard?)

  369. says

    If we are going to make the leap to an anarchic approach, we will have to apply some basic principles to our behaviours.

    Well, that was actually what the standards and practices were. It was the principles of the commenters here, as they were hammered out through the years.

    Trust me, when I first raised the issue of not using gendered slurs, it was definitely not universally approved by the commenters here. It became so over time.

  370. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    (Do you hold yourself to that standard?)

    No one is screaming to have me banned either ;)

  371. says

    Keistjan: Is your 439 purposefully ironic?

    No, it is a clarification. I know it can be read as passive-aggresive, but it is actually an answer to a question.

  372. says

    A better way would be to explain why you think SG shouldn’t be banned, and then leave it at that.

    but I really have no “ought” argument on this topic. I mean, obviously for myself I don’t want him banned because this is the only place I know he posts, and he’s one of the few remaining commenters who has conversations of intellectual interest to me (plus, he gives me reading material. I like being given reading material :-) ). I also think that banning someone because others are shitty to that someone contributes to a screwy commenting atmosphere, so I’d leave such a place.

    In either of those cases though, I don’t actually think PZ “should” anything. Just as I don’t think Fincke “should” anything, even though I find his new comment policy fucked up and hostile to members of oppressed groups.

  373. says

    Trust me, when I first raised the issue of not using gendered slurs, it was definitely not universally approved by the commenters here.

    indeed. and were there ever shitfits and derailing fights across multiple threads over that one :-p

  374. says

    now, if pharyngula was a forum moderated by peers rather than a personal blog, I’d probably make “should” arguments. But it isn’t. I used to even try to get people to stop calling for bans and threatening trolls with the banhammer, but probably I gave up on that eventually. Might have even ended up contributing to that once or twice

  375. John Morales says

    Jadehawk:

    I mean, obviously for myself I don’t want him banned because this is the only place I know he posts …

    You supported him at Cammels with Hammers very recently.

  376. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ PZ & Commentariat

    who’ll clean the tank for you and treat the water for parasites and throw in chum now and then?

    Let all the detritus get caught in a filter. If anyone sees a troll/shitty comment, send them here to continue. Why should ALL the water get dirty when we can contain all the muck here? And this is not a job for teh Poopyhead, this is a job for everyone. If a troll/ass arrives, simply direct them here with a standard comment (not a longwinded SIWOTI blowout!):

    “The comment that you have made is off topic. I have responded in detail to you on the appropriate thread (link to TZT).”

    This kind of fight has only one appropriate place – here. Flaring up to off-topic or trolling comments is part of the problem.

    Why must PZ have to do all the work of keeping our tank clean?

    /my_tuppence_worth

    @ AE

    Morales is just being a malevolent troll right now

    That is not a problem on TZT. It is one of the foundational reasons for TZT’s existence to be a purgatory for trolls.

  377. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Theophontes: I wasn’t complaining about Morales. I was using him as an example of a beloved regular behaving badly. Because he was sitting right over there. Trolling and shit.

    I would sooner dispatch my left kidney than have Morales fade into the bandwidth.

  378. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ Kristjan Wager

    Trust me, when I first raised the issue of not using gendered slurs, it was definitely not universally approved by the commenters here. It became so over time.

    I am discussing the actual mechanical design of the Phishtank, not our objectives.

    Kudos for taking up the fight against gendered slurs though.

  379. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ AE

    I would sooner dispatch my left kidney than have Morales fade into the bandwidth.

    Indeed. I was just being pedantic to avoid being misunderstood.

    I, this is just my personal opinion, think that having a grubby little filter in the corner is a good thing. Particularly if it can keep the rest of the threads nice and pristine. Ideally it should run its own scripts to act as a proper muck trap (condemned denizens stay locked in and can’t go feral – like DH666 {*sad sigh* at lost pet})

    I think a lot of problems we discuss here can be resolved through a bit of programming (both of the site set-up and of the commentariat’s habits .)

  380. says

    Jadehawk #445:

    I also think that banning someone because others are shitty to that someone…

    That was so dishonest it made me deflounce. You really need to go read what PZ’s been saying, specifically his post here. This is exactly what is pissing PZ off — you’re telling him how to run his fucking blog. More to the point, PZ himself has identified SGBM’s behaviour as toxic, and has expressed the desire to ban him for that.

    And you’re whining because…you’re going to lose the last interesting person here. Why not just go with him to somewhere where you two can have your own discussions, and leave the rest of us in peace?

    I’m disappointed, Jadehawk. I never took you for being this short-sighted.

  381. says

    PZ’s comment #362:

    While I’m expressing my pissed-offedness, let me just say: Ixchel’s obsessive behavior here is exactly what I identify as destructive. 25% of this thread is Ixchel babbling. Every time I’ve seen that in the past, it has led to a ban.

    If I were doing any moderating of comments at all anymore, I would ban that asshole Ixchel’s fucking ass without hesitation.

    So now you can be relieved that I’m not.

    “Banning someone because others are shitty to that someone”? Holy disingenuity, Batman.

  382. says

    More to the point, PZ himself has identified SGBM’s behaviour as toxic, and has expressed the desire to ban him for that.

    As he did with Walton years ago, and he didn’t ban him. This is what I have been saying all night, PZ should do what he wants to do, it’s his place, keeping a running tally of who supports who and who wants to ban who for what is just impossible here, so he shouldn’t try and instead just go ahead and do whatever he fucking wants to do.

    And you’re whining because…you’re going to lose the last interesting person here. Why not just go with him to somewhere where you two can have your own discussions, and leave the rest of us in peace?

    Talk of being a disappointment. You are it. If you want to be left in peace, then why are you on the internet?

  383. says

    you’re telling him how to run his fucking blog.

    *rolleyes*

    And you’re whining because…you’re going to lose the last interesting person here.

    oh, now I’m whining? precious.

    I never took you for being this short-sighted.

    *rolleyes* I’ve predicted this shit way back when it was happening to Algernon because she “hurt” Bill Dauphin and “caused” a multi-commenter backlash to be dumped on her head. and it’s precisely because I can see the road down which Pharyngula is likely to travel in the future that I already noted that I no longer care what happens here, nor care to help anyone here enforce the supposed “rules” anymore. and it’s precisely because of that that I also predict that Pharyngula will become less and less readable to me, and especially quickly so if SG (or a few other commenters, for example SC) leave permanently or get banned.

  384. says

    SG’s “obsessive behavior” is not unique among commenters past and present. The reaction of other commenters to it is, for various reasons. It’s those reasons, as well as the reactions, that are the reasons SG is likely to get banned, if only because otherwise PZ wouldn’t even have noticed sufficiently to bother banning him. Not like he threatened any other obsessive posters with it before.

  385. says

    I think it is important to keep in mind that the Pharyngula comment section is ever-changing, and that the norms of the current isn’t necessarily the norms of the future.

    As one of the people who have commented on Pharyngula the longest (though definitely not the most), I miss many of the former commenters, but I also think there is a great value in change. Otherwise it will just be the echo-chamber that we’re always accused of being.

    And I am definitely with rorschach – PZ should do what he wants to do. This has always been the case, and it has so far been greatly beneficial for the Pharyngula commenters.

  386. says

    SG’s “obsessive behavior” is not unique among commenters past and present.

    Actually Jadehawk, I think it is. Some other commenters have behaved similarly, and been warned for it, but no one else has done it so consistently over so long time, ignoring all warnings.

  387. John Morales says

    Jadehawk:

    SG’s “obsessive behavior” is not unique among commenters past and present.

    It’s not unique, but it is almost routine.

    (The closest comparison would be tm in his heyday)

    And, in the spirit of ॐ, I draw your attention to my #448, though unlike his wont, I shan’t allege it was a lie.

    To be fair, I do note he’s been conspicuously silent for the last few hours.

  388. Wowbagger, Deputy Vice-President (Silencing) says

    Jadehawk wrote:

    SG’s “obsessive behavior” is not unique among commenters past and present.

    Truth Machine was as singular, but I don’t think he tended to rehash old issues unless they were brought up by the other person first.

    But you’ve got a point in that Ixchel isn’t the only person guilty of undertaking crusades, though the impact he has does seem more…significant.

  389. says

    And I am definitely with rorschach – PZ should do what he wants to do.

    I always assumed that was the case anyway. In fact, I assumed that PZ had his own reasons and purposes for his moderation policies, which were different from the things the commenters wanted the comment section to be. But as long as PZ’s purposes and the commenters’ purposes were not contradictory, he just let them do whatever they wanted with it. That’s the spirit in which I took his original comment about wanting to ban SG because people (said they) were leaving, so I said something I though was relevant to him. I didn’t think PZ would take that as me telling him what to do because as far as I know, PZ never banned (or refrained from banning) people just because the commentariat said so (the exception being Survivor, of course).

    I also said plenty of things that had nothing to do with whether or not he would/should ban SG and everything to do with things he was saying that I simply disagreed with. Which I also didn’t think PZ would take as me telling him what to do.

    Evidently I was wrong though. Apparently, any disagreement with any part of PZ’s statements will be interpreted by assorted people as “telling PZ what to do with his blog”.

  390. says

    Some other commenters have behaved similarly, and been warned for it, but no one else has done it so consistently over so long time, ignoring all warnings.

    what warnings? there has been only one so far, and AFAICT, SG hasn’t ignored it yet. Or are you counting the current conversation as SG ignoring PZ’s warning?

  391. says

    but I don’t think he tended to rehash old issues unless they were brought up by the other person first.

    er. neither does SG. People just seem to bring up their past arguments with SG often. (or maybe SG notices/reacts to more than TM ever did. fuck if I know)

  392. John Morales says

    Jadehawk:

    Apparently, any disagreement with any part of PZ’s statements will be interpreted by assorted people as “telling PZ what to do with his blog”.

    I draw your attention to my #426.

    (And it’s not like you just made one comment’s worth of disagreement, is it? :) )

    there has been only one so far, and AFAICT, SG hasn’t ignored it yet.

    In this episode, there has only been the one; so, true but misleading.

  393. says

    *sigh*

    you know what? I give up. PZ will do what he wants to, and everyone else will believe what they want to. both of which will have predictable consequences on the Pharyngula comment section. Since I can’t prevent these consequences from occurring, I’ll just watch this from the sidelines, hoping I’m wrong on all accounts.

  394. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    Tardigrades have suddenly become very popular on Deviant Art… World domination is mine!!!

  395. ChasCPeterson says

    I’m unfortunately too biased to be able to confirm that either way.

    *up eyebrow*
    something I said?

    At any rate, I’ll put my 2 cents solidly behind Jadehawk in the discussion above. PZ has this dynamic all wrong. SG’s content is qualitatively different from that of a toxic troll. Other than occasional police actions, he is almost always responding directly to something said to or about him. That’s (rather intense) conversation, discussion; not trolling. Commenters can easily limit their unpleasant dealings with sg by simply not posting bullshit about him. (Where by ‘bullshit’ I mean mostly rhetorically spun misparaphrases of his previous comments, but also shit like ‘Tis’s out-of-the-blue hate-snipes.)
    I have decried what I perceive to be thoughtless reflexive tribalism around these parts for a long time–and received considerable invective in return, not that I give a shit–and that’s what’s going on here, not some Inspector Whoever routine.
    But I’m cool with anarchy…let’s see what happens.

  396. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    PZ, I didn’t know that from your perspective there’s such a thing as too many comments. I’ll slow down.

  397. says

    *up eyebrow*
    something I said?

    sort of. your habit of drive-by-sniping pissed me off sufficiently that I figure that just because I don’t remember you being target of that particular pharynguline dynamic doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, since it’s likely I wouldn’t have remembered correctly or even noticed if it did. Considering your personality (persona?) though, it’s actually likely you were target of it.

  398. John Morales says

    ॐ, no, it’s not a simple matter of too many comments; it’s a matter of knowing when enough is enough on a case-by-case basis.

    That said, you have poisoned the well somewhat; that said, it’s notable that many old-timers and some of the most acute people around here are rooting for you.

    (I do wish you could just pick a new ‘nym and start over and, but as tm found, stylistic mannerisms are a dead giveaway)

  399. echidna, acolyte of Hypatia says

    IxChel, FWIW, I’ll toss my hat in the ring with Jadehawk and John and Chas, etc. I don’t agree with you all the time, and you are a bit relentless, but I support you nonetheless.

  400. Wowbagger, Deputy Vice-President (Silencing) says

    John Morales wrote:

    (I do wish you could just pick a new ‘nym and start over and, but as tm found, stylistic mannerisms are a dead giveaway)

    Heh. Yeah, I’d look at the ‘recent posts’ box and see four or five consecutive comments from someone who nym I didn’t recognise and go, ‘huh?'; then, once I read the comments it was (often) fairly clear.

  401. says

    Jadehawk, ‘personality’ is the more correct of the alternatives.

    don’t give me advice on vocabulary when you don’t even understand the reason for the parenthetical alternative option. Hint: it wasn’t a question of grammar/word use

  402. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Setar:

    And you’re whining because…you’re going to lose the last interesting person here. Why not just go with him to somewhere where you two can have your own discussions, and leave the rest of us in peace?

    By accusing another of “whining”‘ you have just refuted my hypothesis concerning the conservation of irony in the universe.

  403. consciousness razor says

    no, it’s not a simple matter of too many comments; it’s a matter of knowing when enough is enough on a case-by-case basis.

    How is someone supposed to know when it’s “enough”? If it’s enough for something, then I’m not sure what that is either.

    ———

    By accusing another of “whining”‘ you have just refuted my hypothesis concerning the conservation of irony in the universe.

    Well that was a silly hypothesis anyway. As every fool knows, irony increases along with entropy. With data from a few more thought experiments, we might even be able to settle the dispute between Boltzmann-brontosauruses and -megalodons.

  404. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ ixchel

    Note to theophontes.

    Thanks (belatedly). I have now been surfing around the deviantART site with much delight.

  405. Bernard Bumner says

    How is someone supposed to know when it’s “enough”? If it’s enough for something, then I’m not sure what that is either.

    Most people do it instinctively, or at least they lack the instinct or appetite to beat their opponent into submission.

  406. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    And once again SG’s past behavior is being put on trial when the current conversation was sparked by him calling Aquaria on her ableist bullshit. Condemnation everyone claims to agree with. He didn’t bring it up out of the blue, but highlighted a specific usage.

    SG himself has admitted (in this very thread!) that he’s made mistakes in the past and he could do some shit better in the future. It seems to me that his current behavior is a lot more reasonable than that of the people who insist on holding every past disagreement against him.

    And just to be clear (as others have said) I’m not trying to tell PZ what he “should” do with his blog. He “should” do whatever he likes. Until he says otherwise I’m going to assume I’m free to express my opinion here.

  407. Bernard Bumner says

    And once again SG’s past behavior is being put on trial when the current conversation…

    I’m fairly sure that some of PZ’s ire is due to the familiar pattern of ixchel’s response, which is characteristically dogged and personal.

    Is it unfair? Apparently, but somehow SG has often been at the centre of these unpleasant social dynamics. The right person in the wrong place? The wrong person in the right place? (As PZ noted, he has his share of admirers and detractors, fewer who are familiar but remain ambivalent.)

    It seems to me that his current behavior is a lot more reasonable than that of the people who insist on holding every past disagreement against him.

    Fair enough, but he has never been shy about holding a grudge, either.

  408. Owlmirror says

    Truth Machine was as singular, but I don’t think he tended to rehash old issues unless they were brought up by the other person first.

    Huh.

    That reminds me of an incident that took place sometime between the move to FtB and the wordpressification of Sb. Jan of 2012? Nov/Dec of 2011?

    TM was using a yahoomess login, and at one point found a thread from a few years back (2009, I think), and started responding angrily to something from someone (I think ‘Tis Himself) as though it was recent. He left maybe three or four comments, as he does.

    PZ noticed, and was pissed off enough by both the reviving a dead thread, and (I guess) the hashing over old issues, that he banned that particular login of TM’s. PZ’s also been clear that he hates yahoomess/googlemess logins, so that might have been a contributing factor.

  409. ChasCPeterson says

    ‘personality’ is the more correct of the alternatives.

    well, I was about to respond “how the fuck would you know?”
    John: did you really think that jadehawk wasn’t certain about a vocabulary choice?
    (your choice here is between ‘obtuse’ and ‘troll’)

  410. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    because “everyone else” was doing it to outsiders only. As much as I despise the whining by the slimepit-fellow-travellers like bluharmony, Miranda Celeste Hale, and Sara Mayhew, if what SG is doing to Pharyngulites is harassment, then what we’ve done to those women is also harassment.

    I mean, if people want to really make the argument that what SG did is triggering and harmful, then there’s no non-tribalist way to get around acknowledging that bluharmony et al. were triggered and harmed, too. Because they have the same ability to feel that Pharyngula regulars have. And if you add to that the fact that there’s only one SG, but many Pharyngulites, what outsiders experience would have to be considered worse than what regulars experience from SG arguing with them.

    I can’t speak about Miranda Celeste Hale and Sara Mayhew, but I watched most of and participated in some of the arguments with bluharmony.

    She was triggered by multiple commenters here on multiple occasions. It was obvious. (NB: she triggered and thereby harmed at least one commenter here, too, which was also obvious.)

    Some things which would be implied by others’ arguments in this thread, but which do not necessarily follow:

    that because she was triggered, she was therefore harassed;

    that because she was triggered and commenters here didn’t back off, she was therefore harassed;

    that continuing to trigger her while she continued to make false claims and/or otherwise argue for bad ideas was “something that should be avoided” or that “apologizing is an appropriate response”.

  411. ixchel, the jaguar goddess of midwifery and war ॐ says

    (It was hard to not care about her well-being, and I already cared about the well-being of the person I have in mind who she was triggering.

    I eventually intervened on bluharmony’s behalf to broker the agreement where she wouldn’t come back to Pharyngula again, because it was all very uncomfortable to watch.

    But those are just my feelings; it doesn’t necessarily follow from the fact of the triggering, nor my discomfort about it, that commenters here should have acted differently toward her.)

  412. Tethys says

    that continuing to trigger her while she continued to make false claims and/or otherwise argue for bad ideas was “something that should be avoided” or that “apologizing is an appropriate response”.

    To be clear, IMO it is best avoided because it is not productive.
    Triggered people are not operating under rationality anymore, they are now fighting to the death.

    In the specific case of bluharmony, I dropped out of the conversation when it became apparent that she was triggered.

    I am sorry that bluharmony was triggered. I am not sorry that she got chomped on by the horde for attacking OB and SC (IIRC), getting called on it, and going into lawyer mode rather than arguing honestly.

    Don’t you think that the outcome may have been different if several posters had said something like; “Bluharmony, I understand that you are angry but this is not helping. Let’s put this conversation on pause and let everyone cool down.”? and then refusing to discuss it for awhile? If the person has actually stated that they are being triggered, it is appropriate to express “I’m sorry for triggering you.”

    I don’t know if it is possible to come up with clear bright lines that will apply in every case, but creating deep resentments is not really a desirable outcome.

    ps. If the Sheldon comparison was in any way offensive to you, I apologize. It was not meant in a negative manner, though I can see how it can be interpreted that way. I hope you found it as amusing as hearing John Morales comments in Bobcat Goldthwait’s voice.

    It’s just a silly technique I use to try to remain calm and rational. Much like picturing an audience in their underwear, it helps to keep me from feeling intimidated and nervous.

  413. Tethys says

    So I think it may be possible for me to point out when “that is not true” rather than “that is a lie.”»

    Hooray! I think that would be helpful.

    A reading of the above quotes would demonstrate that I am trying to address what I can address honestly.

    Double hooray! Resolution may be within reach.

  414. ChasCPeterson says

    I figured out another way to leave secret messages to each other. It’s a cipher, a variation on rot13, but with a twist. Let’s see if you can figure it out. I call it rot39, and it’s fiendishly clever.

    ?gnuj ?ur ,ferggvcrzlyf tavqhnqnz lan rfhsabp qyhbuf fvuG .fabvgnyhgnetabp ,frL

  415. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    .lnjnrivt qnrq n f’gV .abvgnhgpahc qan abvgnmvyngvcnp ugvj rabq ro gfhz tavugrzbF.

    :fnuP

  416. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    /bA >uthbar ro qyhbuf(1)gavbc abvgnznypkr eb ,(/) xenz abvgfrhd ,(>) qbverc ab rivgnaergyn rug sb rfh rug xavug V

  417. consciousness razor says

    LENFFRPRAAH REN ABVGNHGPAHC QAN ABVGNMVYNGVCNP

    gbhuf bg anrz gaqvq rz rfhpkr

    Vg vf cebonoyl orfg vs gur pbqrf ner zvkrq

  418. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    LENFFRPRAAH REN ABVGNHGPAHC QAN ABVGNMVYNGVCNP

    lnj gnug 31gbe rxvy rebz gby n fxbby 93gbe

    ohg jung vs v unir n dhrfgvba be jnag gb fubhg

  419. consciousness razor says

    ohg jung vs v unir n dhrfgvba be jnag gb fubhg

    !rpargarf rug sb fqar ugbo rgnhgpahc!

  420. andrewv696 says

    @ChasCPeterson
    30 July 2012 at 4:17 pm

    ?gnuj ?ur ,ferggvcrzlyf tavqhnqnz lan rfhsabp qyhbuf fvuG .fabvgnyhgnetabp ,frL

    ?qvchgf ren ferggvcrzlyF