Support a good cause this weekend! »« The anti-atheist+ boobs on Twitter

Justicar: liar

This is rather outrageous. The ever dishonest Justicar has created a video that claims PZ Myers Hates Faggots, an assertion he supports by making stuff up. His two pieces of evidence are:

  1. That I called Chris Stedman an “Uncle Mary”, a derogatory term for a gay person who works against the interests of the gay community; it’s a counterpart to “Uncle Tom”. Justicar flat out says I used the term. I did not. A gay man in the comments did.

  2. He then claims that I called Stedman a “tinkerbelle”, a belittling term for a “fairy”. Again, and this is completely predictable with Justicar, I did not. I was talking about how in interfaith efforts “it doesn’t matter what BS you believe, as long as you really, really believe”, and suggested that they promote “tinkerbellism”. I was not talking about Stedman at all. It was a reference that had nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with fairy tales.

I am astounded at how blatantly that dishonest jerk will lie.

Comments

  1. says

    When your argument is based on lies, it really says something. “I am a super hero leader of atheism everywhere” is not one of the things that is said by that sort of behavior.

  2. ChasCPeterson says

    I am astounded at how blatantly that dishonest jerk will lie.

    You haven’t been paying much attention then. (That’s probably best.)

    p.s. The Justicar is another who should consider the possibility that video is not his platform.

  3. Valindrius says

    “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on” and “the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed” certainly seem to apply here. He’s eagerly utilising sensationalism and the vitriol his ilk have stirred to garner attention on Youtube. How frequently do commenters there actually check facts? It’s an exercise in validating already held opinions and spreading misinformation to dupe others. With Thunderf00t favouriting his videos, it’s working wonderfully.

    There is absolutely no way that he could genuinely believe that he’s representing you accurately. I normally try to assume self-delusion but there’s just no plausible way in this case. I can believe that he thinks duplicity is permissible in service to a perverse form of greater good. However, I think it’s more likely that the accusations of creating controversy for blog hits were projections of his character and motivations. As a result, he may have manufactured controversy for personal gain. Wonderfully, you then get blamed for that controversy and he can enter the fray as a valiant knight of reason.

    Perhaps I’m giving a tad too much credit there…

  4. Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper says

    I’m not logging into YouTube for this:

    Justicar, you really could have written all that down. I couldn’t stand to watch you writhe and twitch, so I shut off the vid after a minute or so. Your followers may find that kind of disjointed incoherence to be similar to how their brains work, but it was bizarre and bloody slow.

    Justicar, you provided links that prove you wrong. Why did you feel the need to make this vid, even if you were right? You could have just let it go—did you feel threatened, or are you just needing to lash out? Your supporters are a hateful and confused lot, based on the comments I read while waiting for you to get a sentence out, and it seems you may be also.

  5. Waffler, of the Waffler Institute says

    Justicar flat out says I used the term. I did not. A gay man in the comments did.

    Is it not well established that all commenters are PZed sockpuppets? Checkmate, Hivemind.

  6. kosk11348 says

    In a comment, he acknowledges that he is lying about PZ saying these things, except it’s not really a lie because PZ one held Abbie directly responsible for the comments on her blog. Or something.

    Hrm. I’ve not lied about what he’s said; I’m using his standards against him.

    After all, Abbie Smith was held by him directly responsible for every word any of her commenters wrote. Mutatis mutandis, PZ said it.

  7. says

    Justicar, you really could have written all that down. I couldn’t stand to watch you writhe and twitch, so I shut off the vid after a minute or so. Your followers may find that kind of disjointed incoherence to be similar to how their brains work, but it was bizarre and bloody slow.

    QFFT
    I admit to having a bad head cold that makes things worse, but that was just completely incoherent.

  8. says

    I am astounded at how blatantly that dishonest jerk will lie.

    I’m not. Caine, Fluer du Mal Is A Lying She-hag, and other observations was the title of one of his ‘bitches lie’ screeds, from last September.

  9. samihawkins says

    I’d never heard of this guy before reading this post and it doesn’t seem like I’ve been missing much. How exactly is PZ a raging bigot for supposedly using the words ‘uncle mary’ and ‘tinkerbelle’ when he’s the one putting ‘faggots’ in the title of his video?

  10. says

    @butchpansy

    Dungeons and Dragons blasphemy! Tinker Bell is a “common fairy,” a vulgar tinkerer who specializes in the repair of (of course) bells. Barrie never called her a pixie, and the opinions of anyone named Walt should not be trusted in this matter.

  11. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Dumb-ass. I called Stedman an Uncle Mary and I meant it. I do not retract it. Dumb-ass hates PZ so bad he’ll stick up for a gay activist who sells queers out for political purposes.

  12. Brownian says

    p.s. The Justicar is another who should consider the possibility that video is not his platform.

    Of course it is. Gish Gallops don’t work nearly as well in writing.

  13. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I think it’s entirely possible that Justicar is just plain stupid.

    The lying is a given but he doesn’t come off as much of a thinker. A schemer maybe, but not a thinker.

  14. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    To call Justicar stupid is an insult to stupid people.

    This is true and I apologize.

    He’s much denser than just plain stupid.

  15. imthegenieicandoanything says

    I’d care more if whoever this asshole is was more than another asshole farting out asshole things in some who-cares online environment.

    I mean, he can fuck off, but then is better simply ignored. He’s not Ken Ham or some evil group with “family” in their title, after all.

  16. Gregory Greenwood says

    I honestly couldn’t sit through the entire video, but I managed to endure enough of it to get the general gist. The generous part of me would like to entertain the notion that Justicar is actually delusional enough to believe his own (for want of a better word) ‘argument’, but given the fact that his own links debunk the claims he is making, I have come to the conclusion that he knows full well that what he is saying is an outright lie, and he is banking on the fact that his followers are to lazy and/or stupid to bother checking his claims.

    I find it depessing that there are people out there in the wilds of teh intertoobs who would associate atheism with that jerk.

  17. Brownian says

    To call Justicar stupid is an insult to stupid people.

    I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs.

  18. says

    I love how butchpansy cuts through all the irrelevancies to correct the supposed mischaracterisation of Tinker Bell as a fairy.

    Alas, Barry himself described as a fairy:

    There was another light in the room now, a thousand times brighter than the night-lights, and in the time we have taken to say this, it had been in all the drawers in the nursery, looking for Peter’s shadow, rummaged the wardrobe and turned every pocket inside out. It was not really a light; it made this light by flashing about so quickly, but when it came to rest for a second you saw it was a fairy, no longer than your hand, but still growing. It was a girl called Tinker Bell exquisitely gowned in a skeleton leaf, cut low and square, through which her figure could be seen to the best advantage. She was slightly inclined to EMBONPOINT.

  19. Gregory Greenwood says

    Kristjan Wager @ 22;

    To call Justicar stupid is an insult to stupid people.

    I would say that Justicar’s intellect is on a par with that of your average intestinal parasite (and his posts certainly contain plenty of what one might expect from a creature living in such an environment), but that would be unfair.

    Someone has to stand up for the oft-maligned tape worms, afterall…

  20. oolon says

    For shame PZ don’t infringe on his free speech! His Hitler video has generated one of the easiest A+ is bad memes to take the piss out of. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hnOhRte41U

    I think he is a valuable resource in demonstrating the irrationality of his ‘side’ and should be ignored with the utmost care and love.

  21. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Justicar is like Newt Gingrich: he’s what stupid people think a smart person sounds like.

    ding!

  22. says

    p.s. The Justicar is another who should consider the possibility that video is not his platform.

    I could only take about 25 seconds.

    ***

    This is the difficulty. As I was saying earlier today, I detest their views, am uninterested in hearing from them, and would prefer a situation in which we could just leave them – all of them – to wallow in their dull hatred and stupidity. Like others, though, I see the need to expose misogynistic and threatening language and defend ourselves against lies. But since all these people have are these attacks and misrepresentations and their trolling, they’re not likely to stop. I wish we could issue some sort of collective statement condemning their views and actions and then just refer people to that in the future.

  23. a3kr0n says

    Oh crap, I clicked on the link not knowing who Justicar was. Now I know he’s the guy I can’t stand watching. If you want to find people like Justicar on YT just sub Christheatheist1. I don’t know how he finds them, but he sure knows how to slam them comment thoughtfully!

  24. jflcroft says

    Yeah, this is outrageous. I don’t like how you attack Stedman, making things extremely personal and sometimes posting flat-out untruths about him. But you have not posted anything that suggests to me you have an anti-gay bone in your body.

  25. clydey2times says

    Gotta love this place. Thread after thread of sycophantic backslapping and people agreeing with each other. It’s one giant circlejerk.

  26. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    jflcroft:

    citations, please.

    clydey2times:

    Oh, you are so right. We never, ever, ever in a million years would allow someone with a dissenting opinion to comment here.

    (by the by, that was sarcasm)

  27. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Gotta love this place. Thread after thread of sycophantic backslapping and people agreeing with each other. It’s one giant circlejerk.

    Yeah it’s really strange that a group of people who happen to agree would congregate.

    Weird.

    I also notice you’ve made no attempt to refute anything.

    No so weird.

  28. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Yeah, this is outrageous. I don’t like how you attack Stedman, making things extremely personal and sometimes posting flat-out untruths about him.

    Put up jlcroft. Links and citations.

  29. RFW says

    Don’t let it get under your skin. To do so gives that liar a form of power over you: “See, watch! I can control P-zed. Watch him react when I needle him.”

    Were you of a litigious frame of mind and had the wherewithal to pay the lawyers, a lawsuit for defamation might be in order. However, a wise man once said to say anything, do anything, sign anything, agree to anything, pay anything, but don’t go to law.

  30. nms says

    I fucking HATE it when people agree with each other

    It makes me so fucking mad that I have to comment on it

  31. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    I fucking HATE it when people agree with each other

    It makes me so fucking mad that I have to comment on it

    I agree. Pissed, I am.

  32. clydey2times says

    Why bother even trying to refute anything? The commenters here would just start hurling insults and calling me a tone troll. Arguments are not allowed to stand on merit.

    I’ve concluded that it is pointless actually trying to have a reasonable discussion on here. Everyone seems to be too emotional.

    In truth, I was originally of the opinion that Justicar had shot himself in the foot, given that PZ wasn’t responsible for the “Uncle Mary” slur.

    However, he has offered a reasonable response, if you check out his most recent video.

  33. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    jflcroft:

    Oh, holy shit. You’re right. That asshole PZed made a mistake, the mistake was pointed out, and he corrected it. How dare he do that. It’s almost as if he were, you know, human, prone to mistakes, and honest. That’s sickening.

  34. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Why bother even trying to refute anything? The commenters here would just start hurling insults and calling me a tone troll. Arguments are not allowed to stand on merit.

    They are if they actually have any merit.

  35. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    Why bother even trying to refute anything? The commenters here would just start hurling insults and calling me a tone troll. Arguments are not allowed to stand on merit.

    I do notice that you haven’t even tried to make an argument, much less back it up with evidence, so how will you ever know?

    I’ve concluded that it is pointless actually trying to have a reasonable discussion on here. Everyone seems to be too emotional.

    Damn. Where the hell did I put that Vulcanatheist?

    In truth, I was originally of the opinion that Justicar had shot himself in the foot, given that PZ wasn’t responsible for the “Uncle Mary” slur.

    Ah, so you are one of the sycophantic ones? You dare agree with PZed?

    However, he has offered a reasonable response, if you check out his most recent video.

    Did he admit he was wrong? And correct the mistake?

  36. clydey2times says

    @Rev

    Not in my experience. I tend to get overwhelmed by people calling me a misogynist and an MRA for using gendered pronouns.

    Like I said, everyone is too emotional. It is impossible to have a calm discussion, as the majority of commenters are immediately hostile to anyone with a different perspective.

    Are you really going to tell me that people (not regulars) can come on here and have a civil discussion? I think we both know that isn’t true.

  37. nms says

    Why bother even trying to refute anything? The commenters here would just start hurling insults and calling me a tone troll. Arguments are not allowed to stand on merit.

    I’ve concluded that it is pointless actually trying to have a reasonable discussion on here. Everyone seems to be too emotional.

    So you want to skip the part where you make an argument, and go straight to being correct? I can see why you’d want to avoid debate, cause you’re pretty damn terrible at it.

    See, despite your evasion, I can still hurl insults. So you might as well entertain us, and try to refute something now.

  38. jflcroft says

    I’m not a Chaplain.

    Reporting false and unsubstantiated rumors is not a “mistake”. It is a choice calculated to hurt the reputation of someone PZ dislikes. When the allegations were concretely withdrawn by the very person who made them it took PZ ages to make any edit at all. Then he dishonestly refused to note that he had made an edit, and made no apology at all for the slur. That is not honest, it’s not right, and it’s not defensible. The fact you defend it here is a representation of your double standard and nothing else.

    I have nothing more to say on the issue.

  39. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    Not in my experience. I tend to get overwhelmed by people calling me a misogynist and an MRA for using gendered pronouns.

    Now I know that I am not here nearly as much as others, but I don’t seem to recall anyone being called to task for using gendered pronouns. Gendered insults, yes. Pronouns? Do you have a citation with a link?

  40. Brownian says

    It’s one giant circlejerk.

    So shut your fucking mouth, and you won’t have to swallow any jizz.

    Christ, do I have to explain how everything fucking works to you social fucking morons?

  41. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    Go and watch the video, rather than making your mind up without having watched it.

    Who made up my mind? With my current slow internet connection, the video loads the first four seconds and stalls. Which is why I asked two honest questions based on what you have written.

  42. clydey2times says

    @Og

    Long time ago, Og. And I have my reasons for not wanting to link that thread.

    If you’re smart, you can figure out why without me having to spell it out for you.

  43. nms says

    If you’re smart, you can figure out why without me having to spell it out for you.

    I can think of two reasons!
    a) it was real embarrasing for you
    b) you’re lying right now

  44. Ogvorbis: broken and cynical says

    clydey2times:

    Okay, I’ll just go fuck myself for daring to ask a question.

  45. clydey2times says

    @Og

    Uh, there was no offense intended. I simply have a good reason for not linking to that particular discussion.

    My apologies if my reply came across as dismissive.

  46. John Morales says

    [meta]

    clydey2times, you’re clueless but opinionated, yet your desire to join what you characterise as a “giant circlejerk” bespeaks of your own character.

    (bah)

  47. says

    So I get slandered and put up a post about it, and Croft’s response is to whine that I’m a liar, too? Even when you can read that post and see my straightforward retraction?

    There’s a word for this: Derailing. Take off, Croft. You’re done here. Show up in this thread again and I’ll ban you.

  48. clydey2times says

    @Morales

    Think of it as me showing up to break up the circlejerk. Unless you think my criticism counts as participation? That would be illogical, mind you.

  49. says

    @clydey2times:

    So he makes another video saying that PZ does it, so it’s OK if he does it. Setting aside the fact that he has no evidence to back himself up. So if PZ kicked a puppy (or at least this guy claimed as much), would that justify this idiot vlogger kicking a puppy as well?

  50. says

    TerranRich,

    More like if someone accused PZ of kicking a dog once 15 years ago, it would mean that Justicar could kick any dog owners he likes for the rest of human history. And if you tell him not to kick people, it means you’re an authoritarian Nazi stripping him of his freedoms.

  51. says

    @clydey2times:

    You know, when you characterize something as “people calling me a misogynist and an MRA for using gendered pronouns”, all we have to go by is your personal, SKEWED version of events. People often make this claim, “All I did was [innocent action], but then [awful repercussions] happened!” And those people tend to skew events in their favor, when in reality it was more like, “I acted like a misogynist and said sexist things, and got called out on it! Wahh!”

    Show the evidence that somebody called you an MRA/misogynist for MERELY using gender-specific pronouns. Go ahead, I dare you.

  52. clydey2times says

    @Terran

    He was pointing out the hypocrisy. You cannot hold one person responsible for their commenters, but then argue that you are not responsible for those who comment on your blog.

    You can’t have it both ways.

  53. says

    @clydey2times:

    Please show me where integralmath provided evidence for any of PZ’s wrongdoings. I’m not doubting him, I just wish he’s put up or shut up.

  54. clydey2times says

    @Terran

    You’re right. Others probably do have a different interpretation of those events.

  55. says

    @clydey2times:

    All I see is a guy using dishonest tactics, then when he is called out on it, backpedals and says he was only doing what PZ supposedly does, to make a point. Then why wasn’t that point made in the original video?

  56. says

    @clydey2times:

    You’re right. Others probably do have a different interpretation of those events.

    All you have to do is point to just ONE thread where you were called an MRA or a misogynist (I’ll be nice and require only one, not both like you claimed) for merely using gender-specific pronouns.

  57. Aratina Cage says

    *shakes head*

    Hrm. I’ve not lied about what he’s said; I’m using his standards against him.
    After all, Abbie Smith was held by him directly responsible for every word any of her commenters wrote. Mutatis mutandis, PZ said it.

    ORLY?
    Justicar: Originator of the slur for Watson’s name.
    Abbie Smith: User of said slur and plenty of other outrageously misogynistic slurs and gross character smears, and administrator and creator of the Slimepit.

    Justicar seems unable to admit to being wrong, as typified by this exchange he had on YouTube:

    [Justicar, a.k.a. integralmath, in reply to Buntzums:]
    Everyone whom I ask their name is by definition a stranger. If I knew them, I wouldn’t need to ask their name.
    One of the ways one goes from strangers to not strangers is by talking, which very often entails asking someone’s name.

    [Buntzums in reply to integralmath/Justicar:]
    OK what’s your name?

    Which is hella funny. But instead of getting the point–that asking a stranger for their name in the situations that women were describing is creepy behavior–this is Justicar’s dodge and weave:

    [integralmath/Justicar in reply to Buntzums:]
    Is this the part where I say that asking my name indicates you’re a homophobe?

    The Mormon song from South Park comes to my mind now for some reason…

  58. John Morales says

    clydey2times, I note you don’t dispute that Justicar is a blatant liar, as PZ has noted in the OP.

    (Your own lies idiosyncratic mischaracterization of this place doesn’t change that fact one whit)

  59. clydey2times says

    @Terran

    I vaguely recall what he is referring to, so I’m looking for it based on a few keywords.

    You’re right, he hasn’t provided evidence. If PZ didn’t suggest that Abbie is responsible for those on the slimepit/ERV, the argument falls apart.

    I might ask him for a link.

  60. Brownian says

    Not in my experience. I tend to get overwhelmed by people calling me a misogynist and an MRA for using gendered pronouns.
    Like I said, everyone is too emotional. It is impossible to have a calm discussion, as the majority of commenters are immediately hostile to anyone with a different perspective.
    Are you really going to tell me that people (not regulars) can come on here and have a civil discussion? I think we both know that isn’t true.

    So to demonstrate your point, you showed up and called everyone a bunch of circlejerkers?

    Nice fucking work, Spock.

  61. nms says

    Neglected (for a while), not refused.

    As lowly atheists, you all operate on Harvard Humanist time. If you fail to complete the assigned task within the alloted timeframe, then you have failed for all eternity.

  62. says

    Please do so, so we can get to the bottom of this and untangle all these misconceptions, half-truths, and misunderstandings. Those are often the cause behind tangled claims like these.

  63. says

    @clydey2times:

    I will also be waiting for your evidence that somebody called you an MRA or misogynist for merely using a gender-specific pronoun. And not because, say, the conversation escalated to where you misconstrued somebody’s point and accused them of calling you something when they really weren’t, or anything. I feel like you’re giving us A and Z, and forgetting the rest in between. Details and context matter.

  64. clydey2times says

    @Terran

    There was only one. And my reason for not linking has been established.

    You don’t have to believe me. It wasn’t the reason I was banned. It merely led to things escalating.

    @John Morales

    He admitted that PZ didn’t make that comment. Could just as easily have been mistaken, rather than lying.

  65. says

    This will become a very busy blog if we’re going to have a thread for every dumb troll who lies on the internet. How is this drivel even worth paying attention to?

  66. says

    A portrayal of gnus as unconstructive bombmakers offering emotional appeals rooted in despair and gut-wrenching terror, who need to step aside,* from a guest post at Stedman’s blog – a “hugely informative and clear-eyed assessment of the state of the atheist movement” according to Stedman:

    A polemic is a deeply emotional appeal made not just with anger, but with rage; not just with sadness, but with despair; not just with fear, but with gut-wrenching terror.

    …There is a fear among New Atheists that moderating and dissenting voices are trying to erase the polemic as an avenue of approach. But that’s a polemical overreaction. No one is suggesting that we burn New Atheist books or silence their authors. Those bells have been rung. We can’t un-ring them, nor should we. The Four Horsemen of New Atheism did their work well, but they cannot help us clean up the battlefields they created. That’s not their job. The clean-up, the strategizing, the community rebuilding, the future imagining, and the alliance-making — this is not a job for bomb makers.

    …Dialectics can be just as fun as polemics (and they require just as much skill), but dialectics have the added benefit of creating community, building intelligent synthesis out of seemingly intractable positions, and teaching people how to manage – rather than merely weaponize – their emotions….

    *I still find the call for a dialectical movement hilarious. No unfortunate connotations there.

  67. John Morales says

    clydey2times:

    He admitted that PZ didn’t make that comment.

    Which makes him a liar who has admitted he lied.

    (As you have now also done, by this admission that he admitted that he lied)

  68. clydey2times says

    @Brownian

    I’ve learned that being civil is generally useless around here, with a few exceptions.

    Like I said, why bother coming on here and trying to have a reasonable discussion, particularly when you have been showered with abuse in the past and referred to as a “tone troll”?

    Admittedly, that term is a neat little invention. It allows you to be as hostile as you wish, while portraying the more polite participant as the guilty party.

  69. nms says

    He admitted that PZ didn’t make that comment. Could just as easily have been mistaken, rather than lying.

    Actually the argument made in the second video would seem to hinge on Justicar lying, rather than being mistaken.

  70. says

    Even if someone did call you an MRA for using a gendered pronoun I rather doubt that is a commonly held view around these parts. I just searched for “he” and found it was used 41 times in this thread alone.

  71. clydey2times says

    @Travis

    The situation was a little different. I’d rather not get more specific than that.

    It isn’t a commonly held view on here. One person picked up on it and things escalated from there.

  72. jamessweet says

    There is some irony in the fact that in the post where Josh, Official SpokesGay referred to Stedman as an Uncle Mary, the very thing he was commenting on was that PZ had wrongly attributed to Stedman something that was said by “one of his lackeys”.

    Nevertheless, PZ did correct it. If Justicar corrects the inaccuracy, he should be given some credit for that. Josh has it exactly right in the very comment in question, when he notes how easy it is for us (all of us) to believe the very worst about our enemies.

    I’m not trying to take away from the criticism of Justicar, it’s just deeply ironic to me that this whole kerfuffle basically involves people on both sides making the same cognitive error and mistaken attribution. Again, whether Justicar retracts will say a lot about his character.

  73. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Like I said, why bother coming on here and trying to have a reasonable discussion, particularly when you have been showered with abuse in the past and referred to as a “tone troll”?

    Dunno, you are the one who bothered to come here, ask yourself why and you will have the answer to your own question. ;)

    (Why do you ask us why you’ve done what you’ve done?)

  74. Gregory Greenwood says

    clydey2times @ 88;

    There was only one. And my reason for not linking has been established.

    OK – don’t link then. Simply provide the thread title and appropriate post number(s), and one of us will do the honours for you.

    If you are going to make an accusation such as;

    I tend to get overwhelmed by people calling me a misogynist and an MRA for using gendered pronouns.

    That people are calling you a misogyjnist for using gender specific pronouns, as opposed to recognised gendered slurs, then requests that you should back up this pretty extreme claim with some kind of evidence are only reasonable.

    Let us see the exchanges in question and their outcome, and judge for ourselves.

  75. says

    I’ve learned that being civil is generally useless around here, with a few exceptions.

    Like I said, why bother coming on here and trying to have a reasonable discussion, particularly when you have been showered with abuse in the past and referred to as a “tone troll”?

    Earlier…

    Gotta love this place. Thread after thread of sycophantic backslapping and people agreeing with each other. It’s one giant circlejerk.

    Yeeeaaahhh….

  76. nms says

    Again, whether Justicar retracts will say a lot about his character.

    Not so, because Justicar’s original claim seems to have been a set-up for some kind of Slimepit-related tu quoque.

  77. says

    @clydey2times:

    You come on here, insult people (and for some us it’s our first introduction to you as a commenter), make claims about past events, and we’re somehow supposed to instantly know your past history with this blog, or any other FtB blog?

    Do you really wonder why people lose patience with you? Back up your claims, or don’t make them. Simple as that.

  78. says

    I tend to get overwhelmed by people calling me a misogynist and an MRA for using gendered pronouns.

    You weren’t called out for using pronouns and you know it. You can keep on making stupid excuses for a failure to link, but you know the reason you won’t do it is because a link would make it quite clear as to who was a major asshole.

    Don’t keep up with your “can’t have a civil discussion’ here crap, either. You’re the type who says that and expects to be able to use words such as cunt and bitch in your ‘civil discussion’ and not be called on it.

  79. stanton says

    “PZ Myers Hates Faggots”

    That is so blatant a falsehood, the liar Justicar might as well say

    “PZ Myers Hates Cephalopods and Science”

    Either statement could not be more false without folding the totality of reality in on itself.

  80. says

    There is some irony in the fact that in the post where Josh, Official SpokesGay referred to Stedman as an Uncle Mary, the very thing he was commenting on was that PZ had wrongly attributed to Stedman something that was said by “one of his lackeys”.

    To be clear, the thing Josh was commenting on specifically there was Stedman’s own HuffPo piece about the response to the Sojourners (which I believe Croft did publicly criticize, incidentally).

  81. clydey2times says

    @Terran

    I already explained why I did that.

    I had no intention of actually getting into a lengthy discussion on here. Trust me, I was as polite as I could be last time. It led to me being called about everything you can think of, short of gendered slurs.

    So yeah, I came down to the general level of the comments here. If I’m going to come on here, I might as well start as things are likely to go on.

    Naturally, you won’t accept my explanation.

  82. clydey2times says

    @Terran

    As I said before, trying to be civil is pointless. I see things are already starting to escalate.

  83. says

    clydey2times,

    I had no intention of actually getting into a lengthy discussion on here.

    Odd, since you’re having a lengthy discussion about how you’re unwilling to have a lengthy discussion on the actual topic. This sort of trolling is indicative of the general level of discussion e expect from the obsessive antagonists that attack this site. Forget about civility, you’ve decided that making an on-topic point is pointless… and then when you’re attacked for being an obvious troll, you’ll inevitably claim it as justification for your initial trolling.

    You don’t score points by acting like a troll and then claiming to be a victim when you’re called out.

  84. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Oh, give it up clyde. This is boring and stupid for you and for everyone else. Put up or shut the fuck up and stop whining.

  85. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Justicar is so dumb* I don’t even know how he gets any traction even among the pitizens. And it isn’t even his willful stupitude that makes him such an unpalatable denizen of the internet.

    I don’t think I can give this a fair hearing. Or any hearing at all.

  86. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    *I’m not suggesting that being dumb is correlated with being vile, is what I meant to footnote. Just that Justicar is less clever than a pack of people who aren’t even clever.

  87. says

    clydey2times,
    Civil discussion happens here all of the time. I have taken part in very calm and interesting discussions on here, people do certainly disagree sometimes and there is little rancour when people are honest.

    Since you will not link to the previous discussion you brought up I can only go on what I see here and I will say this, the only reason the discussion is escalating now is because of you. You came in here swinging, you gave examples but are unwilling to back them up. I do not think many people remember you from other threads, I certainly do not, especially as no one seems to remember this gendered pronoun incident and therefore no one knows just what was said. Had you not come here and said:

    Gotta love this place. Thread after thread of sycophantic backslapping and people agreeing with each other. It’s one giant circlejerk.

    I doubt many people would be jumping all over you now. Of course, if you said something else that was stupid people might do that, but who knows how it would have turned out had you started this differently.

  88. Gregory Greenwood says

    clydey2times @ 92;

    I’ve learned that being civil is generally useless around here, with a few exceptions.

    Like I said, why bother coming on here and trying to have a reasonable discussion, particularly when you have been showered with abuse in the past and referred to as a “tone troll”?

    Admittedly, that term is a neat little invention. It allows you to be as hostile as you wish, while portraying the more polite participant as the guilty party.

    The term ‘tone troll’ denotes the posts and general behaviour of the kind of people who studiously privilege tone over content – who concern themselves with how something is said over what is actually being said.

    This becomes so problematic because, as I have noticed any number of times while commenting on Pharyngula, comments laced with a healthy dose of profanity can be also highly insightful. Such language is often simply an expression of the level of passion that the commenter feels about the topic in question, and cutting through the obsequious nicities to actually say what one really means can often be highly beneficial to clear communication.

    Equally, I have seen any number of comments that, while scrupulously polite in their form of words and without any harsh language in sight, still convey the most monstrously bigoted ideas that seek to casually dehumanise entire swathes of our species for aspects of themselves that they cannot control.

    Tone trolling obscures that which is most important – the content of the post – with irrelevant complaints about the notional worth of often empty and insincere ‘civility’.

    What is more hurtful and harmful? A post that involves a fair bit of swearing and calling out of an individual for their discriminatory statements – something along the lines of…

    “You bleeping bleep bleep, where do you bleeping get off with your bleeping bigotry? It may come as a surprise to you and your bleeping pea-brain, but women/GLBT people/ethnic minorities are actually people too. Now why don’t you bleep off you bleepity-bleep?”

    (edited for language)

    Or something that involves no profanity, but that expresses discriminatory and hateful attitudes such as…

    “You and your entire ethnic group/sex/gender identity group/sexual orientation group disgust me and all right thinking people. You are, by your very nature, perverse abominations against nature and all civilised laws and mores, and are utterly undeserving of the rights, freedoms and common respect that are to be afforded to all decent people. You are a blight on the face of humanity, and the world will be better off when the last of your diseased kind are cast into the eternal hellfire that most certainly awaits all such deviants.”

    Are these two statements equivalent? Is the latter one really preferable to the former merely because it contains no swear words (or their bleeping proxies)?

  89. says

    Something a bit meta for the trolls:

    I’ve come here and started off by saying something ignorant, and got jumped on and attacked. I’ve come back and said things that weren’t ignorant, and nobody attacked me because I was ignorant in the past. Sometimes I say things that people find questionable, and they call me out for it without hesitation, and I’ve seen people call out everyone from long-time commenters all the way up to PZ himself when they’ve said something considered to be out of line. But then a new conversation happens and if you don’t continue to be an obvious asshole the whole thing resets.

    So don’t fucking pretend that you can’t get a fair shake here, or that disagreeing or even being a low-level asshole gets you banned here. That’s a fucking lie, and I’ve been in enough fights here to know for a fact that you trolls are lying.

  90. says

    This will become a very busy blog if we’re going to have a thread for every dumb troll who lies on the internet. How is this drivel even worth paying attention to?

    Did you see my comment @ #34? Of course I want to ignore them entirely, but that shouldn’t mean having to ignore horrible lies about me or people I respect. Telling people just to ignore slurs, threats, or lies isn’t constructive. I don’t know what the answer is. I do know that it’s become intolerable and that we need a solution that allows us to address the problem and move forward without being silenced.

  91. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Like I said, everyone is too emotional. It is impossible to have a calm discussion, as the majority of commenters are immediately hostile to anyone with a different bigotted perspective.

    Fixed that for you.

  92. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I have nothing more to say on the issue.

    You’ve had nothing cogent to say on any issue, but say a lot anyway, boring the hell out of intelligent folks who see through your idiocy.

  93. joed says

    Here’s the deal with lying. It really works as Ken Ham and many others know.
    Reason, critical thought, is not a weapon against propaganda and lying. Perhaps the undebate is one of the few weapons that can be used against Justicar, Ham etc. but I doubt they will ever undebate.
    So what is left?

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
    http://thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_goebbels/

  94. John Morales says

    [OT + meta]

    joed, propaganda was invented by the Catholic Church.

    (Goebbels happened to have access to mass (heh) media)

    So what is left?

    Truth and ridicule.

    (Haven’t you read the OP? :) )

  95. Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

    clyde2times:

    Are you really going to tell me that people (not regulars) can come on here and have a civil discussion? I think we both know that isn’t true.

    If you’re not going to support your statements with citations, then it’s clear you’re not interested in discussion.
    You just want people to speak nicely to you.

    Oh, and yes, people-not regulars-can come on here and have a civil discussion. Without being selectively biased, can you support this assertion? Remember, you’ve got to look for *all* examples of new people coming to Pharyngula.

  96. joed says

    @113 Gregory Greenwood
    “Such language is often simply an expression of the level of passion that the commenter feels about the topic in question, and cutting through the obsequious nicities to actually say what one really means can often be highly beneficial to clear communication.”
    Hey right on Greenwood, btw I think you would fuck up a shit sandwich with your bullshit. I really like this passage about passion etc. so, fuck off.
    Is that what this passage means?
    I have seen too much of this kind of attack on folks that don’t deserve it. In fact I don’t think any commenter deserves to be attacked for what they post.
    After 2 or so posts it is going to be somewhat evident where a commenter is coming from. I don’t think there is any need to attack. do like they do to me and just ignore a poster if they can’t wont come up with evidence for example.
    But mean spirited attack is just wrong to me, that is wrong as in morally wrong. There is enough hate and venom and attacking and chaos in the world I don’t have to contribute to it.
    Thank you

  97. Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

    clydey2times:

    It allows you to be as hostile as you wish, while portraying the more polite participant as the guilty party.

    Why are you so focused on people being polite to you?
    I get the impression that when someone communicates with you, you feel politeness is more important than the actual ideas being communicated.

  98. John Morales says

    [meta]

    joed, your little rant is pure mean-spirited passive-agressiveness, but has fuck-all to do with the OP.

    (This ain’t an open thread, come to the Thunderdome if you want to just whine)

    I here remind the reading-impaired of what this thread is about:

    This is rather outrageous. The ever dishonest Justicar has created a video that claims PZ Myers Hates Faggots, an assertion he supports by making stuff up.

  99. nms says

    joed puts forth the hypothesis that, while rude language may or may not contribute to clear communication, neither its presence nor its absence is sufficient for clear communication.

    joed tests the hypothesis and it is found to be valid.

  100. Tinjoe says

    @ clydey2times #46

    However, he has offered a reasonable response, if you check out his most recent video.

    I’m sorry but that is not a reasonable response. Even granting the premise that PZ does attribute quotes from commenters to the blog owner, that doesn’t make it right.

    Justicar has no basis for pulling the same stuff because if he’s right he doesn’t need to compromise his argument to show us. What he has down is wallowed in shit and shown that he argues in as bad faith as we’ve granted PZ does.

    Now back to reality where I don’t think PZ does blame the author for what commenters say. It seems to me that Justicar has demonstrably lied when he attributed that comment to PZ. I can’t later listen to his justification without thinking “What if this is a lie to?” His credibility is done until he recognizes and retracts his known lie.

  101. consciousness razor says

    Hey right on Greenwood, btw I think you would fuck up a shit sandwich with your bullshit. I really like this passage about passion etc. so, fuck off.
    Is that what this passage means?

    Sure, why not? You clearly understand exactly what he was saying, because sarcasm is dead. Therefore, fuck off.

  102. Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

    joed:

    But mean spirited attack is just wrong to me, that is wrong as in morally wrong.

    That’s great.
    I hope you don’t honestly expect others to share your opinions.

  103. 'Tis Himself says

    But mean spirited attack is just wrong to me, that is wrong as in morally wrong.

    Pardon us, but you must have must have mistaken us for people who give a fuck about your opinion.

  104. Gregory Greenwood says

    joed @ 126;

    Hey right on Greenwood, btw I think you would fuck up a shit sandwich with your bullshit. I really like this passage about passion etc. so, fuck off.
    Is that what this passage means?

    The profanity isn’t the problem with your statement here – the fact that it is incoherant renders it difficult to understand.

    I have seen too much of this kind of attack on folks that don’t deserve it.

    I would appreciate it if you would explain how it is reasonable to characterise my post @ 113 as an ‘attack’ on anyone, rather than simply an explanation as to why the phenomenon of ‘tone trolling’ is problematic.

    In fact I don’t think any commenter deserves to be attacked for what they post.

    Are you seriously suggesting that criticism of the content of a post is somehow illegitimate? Even where the post is openly bigoted?

    Your definition of ‘attack’ seems to be so broad that following this injunction would seem to render all critique of a position one doesn’t agree with beyond the pale. I fail to see how any worthwhile discussion could be undertaken if every opinion expressed is to be treated as a ‘sacred cow’, and the preservation of the feelings of all participants (including those who are clearly seeking to derail discussion) is privileged above actually discussing the topic at hand.

    After 2 or so posts it is going to be somewhat evident where a commenter is coming from. I don’t think there is any need to attack. do like they do to me and just ignore a poster if they can’t wont come up with evidence for example.

    Ignoring those people who consistently put forward toxic and discriminatory positions is not effective. It can even create the impression that such positions are being tacitly endorsed, thus further contributing to an environment that is hostile to the victims of discrimination, and magnifying the silencing effect of the bigotry in question. If Pharyngula is to function as a safe place for mrginalised groups, then bigoted attitudes cannot simply go unchallenged.

    Equally, those tone trolls who ignore content to fixate on tone create cover for bigots, and so are part of the problem.

    But mean spirited attack is just wrong to me, that is wrong as in morally wrong.

    So, calling out tone trolling is ‘mean spirited’ and ‘morally wrong’, but the tone trolling itself is… what? Acceptable? The ‘price of doing business’?

    I think you may have your priorities backwards here.

    There is enough hate and venom and attacking and chaos in the world I don’t have to contribute to it.

    I don’t recall anyone asking you to call the tone trolls to account. Indeed, nothing is stopping you simply ignoring their posts. Equally, however, you cannot expect others to ignore their posts just to please you.

  105. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Sure, a case can be made for why a blog owner is responsible for shit that gets said in the comment section. And I do believe I have seen PZ angry at Abbie over some nasty comment about PZ’s wife that was said by one of the pitizens, though I don’t know how to even begin looking it up. The thing is, though, that context is still relevant. Unless one claims that Josh was being homophobic/bigoted when he called Stedman an “Uncle Mary”, PZ can’t be condemned for hosting his comment. On the other hand, a lot of the shit that was said in the Slimepit was misogyny and slander, in context, and went undisputed, encouraged even, by the blog owner.
    So even with extreme amounts of slack cut, Justicar is still full of shit.

  106. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    In fact I don’t think any commenter deserves to be attacked for what they post.

    What a fuckwitted concern troll who deserves all the abuse heaped upon it. Your OPINION is irrelevant. Show some evidence, or shut the fuck up.

  107. Tinjoe says

    That might be true but I don’t have enough information about him to know what his other lies are.

  108. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Unless one claims that Josh was being homophobic/bigoted when he called Stedman an “Uncle Mary”, PZ can’t be condemned for hosting his comment.

    Yes. And if anyone wants to make that claim: Bring it. Calling out queers who shit on other queers for political expediency isn’t homophobia; it’s righteous outrage.

  109. ChasCPeterson says

    The commenters here would just start hurling insults and calling me a tone troll.

    Asshole! Ha! Take that! Tone troll!!

    This will become a very busy blog if we’re going to have a thread for every dumb troll who lies on the internet.

    *gasp!* A busy blog?! But that’s, like, PZ’s briar patch!

    He’s calling himself THE Justicar now

    Oh, no. That long predates any internet notoriety he ever had. The thrilling saga tells of a WoW campaign that lasted 2 years and won him the ultimate sobriquet from his worshipping guildies, or something like that.

    All I see is a guy using dishonest tactics, then when he is called out on it, backpedals and says he was only doing what PZ supposedly does, to make a point. Then why wasn’t that point made in the original video?

    I’ve done some thejusticar-watching and it’s pretty obvious to me that it was, in fact, all deliberate from the get-go. A ridiculously outrageous title for chumming in the saps, intentional lies. Myers takes the bait, he springs one of his beloved tu quoque Gotchas, exposing yet again the risible hypocrisy of PZ Myers. This is what he does.

    The Justicar achieved some fame in the immediate wake of the Rebeccapocalypse by posting widely, often, and obnoxiously out of the gate. He and Abbie forged a meaningful friendship and partnership in working together to build the Monument. Then the slimepit dissolved because of Greg Laden (and, of course, Rebecca Watson and Myers), and though The Justicar valiantly waged the battle to tone-it-down-and-stay-at-Abbie’s it didn’t happen, and he had burned too many bridges to join the new and equally odious ‘pit. Now bereft of his accustomed audience, he noticed Thunderf**t getting the sort of attention he craved for himself. This appears to be part of a so-far pitiful attempt to re-invent his brand on Youtube and stir up some shit with himself at the center. He’s just clever enough to conceive this setup vid-payoff vid technique but he’s just not pulling it off, production-wise. (Is that, like, a sitcom playing tinnily in the background? Why is he standing in front of that door? And why isn’t he all zipped up this time?) He’s just narcissistic enough to not realize he’s not big-league internet-narcissist material. A sad specimen indeed.

  110. Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish says

    I wouldn’t agree that Justicar is stupid. A disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, bordering-on-evil scumbag who impresses hagfish with his sliminess, on the other hand…

  111. says

    Me, I assumed his use of the definite article was a way of reassuring the world that, not to worry, there’s really only the one of him out there. He’s not ‘a justicar’, with all the gorge-levitating implications the very phrase carries. He’s ‘the justicar’.

    Which is nice. That there’s a kindness. It really is.

  112. Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish says

    Antiochus Epiphanes wrote:

    Wowbagger: eye of the beholder and whatnot. I won’t quibble.

    Well, I suppose it come down to what the meaning of ‘stupid’ is. I’d agree the decision to do what he does makes him stupid in one sense, but not that he’s unintelligent – what is what I tend to think of stupid as meaning.

  113. Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

    Ok, now I’m nearly in tears. Michelle is moving me.
    It may all be empty speech. It may lead nowhere.

    But it speaks to the hope I have that things can get better for so many people.
    (and I love how she shows that she and her husband support family values).

  114. dontpanic says

    I’m going to speculate on a scenario where I think clydey2times can, in his own mind, feel that s/he is telling the truth and why they’re reluctant to actually link or give more info. My guess: that they insisted on using the wrong pronoun when referring to a transgendered individual against that person’s desired identification. Other, more enlightened, individuals pointed out that issue and I’ll bet that clydey2times dug in and refused. Things escalated to the point of banning or threat thereof. Thus in clydey2times’ view they were unfairly ragged on for `simply using a gendered pronoun’.

  115. Waffler, of the Waffler Institute says

    jlcroft sez:

    When the allegations were concretely withdrawn by the very person who made them it took PZ ages to make any edit at all. Then he dishonestly refused to note that he had made an edit, and made no apology at all for the slur.

    The original post went up at 2:27PM Dec. 14. The correction was made by 8:52AM on Dec. 15 (probably earlier) and then a footnote acknowledging the edit was added by 12:07PM on Dec. 15.

    Ages!

  116. butchpansy says

    I love this blog; I learn so much here! I am particularly grateful when the original source is cited in the schooling. Thank you all.

  117. says

    whatcha wanna bet clydey misgendered someone, had it pointed out that it’s unfortunate and potentially telling to assume a particular gender, and threw a (polite, I’m sure) hissyfit over that? you know, kinda like a certain Jamesmacdonald, who got ridiculously upset because the aggressive people talking to him turned out to be female?

  118. Brownian says

    Like I said, why bother coming on here and trying to have a reasonable discussion, particularly when you have been showered with abuse in the past and referred to as a “tone troll”?

    Then look yourself in the fucking mirror, and ask yourself what you think to to accomplish commenting here?

    So yeah, I came down to the general level of the comments here. If I’m going to come on here, I might as well start as things are likely to go on.
    Naturally, you won’t accept my explanation.

    You know what makes me good at this?

    I let you people have enough rope to hang yourself.

    It allows you to be as hostile as you wish, while portraying the more polite participant as the guilty party.

    That’s you, choking on the gallows, fucker.

  119. Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish says

    Josh wrote:

    Well, fuckers, you won. Jen McCreight is signing off because you’ve tormented her to the brink.

    Sadly, if they were the sort of people who had enough empathy to realise that driving one of the atheist community’s most determined, inspirational and hardworking bloggers to quit should be something to be ashamed of, they probably wouldn’t have acted that way in the first place.

    I really wish Jen hadn’t chosen to do this – but I certainly can’t blame her for it after what’s happened.

  120. Lyn M: Necrodunker of death, nothing but net says

    jflcroft #56

    When the allegations were concretely withdrawn by the very person who made them it took PZ ages to make any edit at all.

    Time of first comment concerning error 7:56. Time of correction 11:54. So time from comment to correct, 4 hours.

    Gosh, a measurable percentage of the life of the earth.

  121. Amblebury, I doesn't afraid of NOTHING! says

    I think Justicar is as thick as two short planks. Oblivious to his lack of intellectual resources, he just goes on and on and on, the same bilge in differing shades, seeping all over the interwebs.

    There appear* to be two sorts of liars. Those who believe their own lies, and those who think they have Magical Powers to make them believed. Justicar has a foot in both camps.

    *Not Real Science.

  122. Muz says

    Justicar’s a weird one. At times he seems fairly reasonable and argues passionately for the point of view he and others have about what they saw as, lets say, a problematic road PZ and others were taking. Logical at times and apt to make a case. Even disagrees with the others of that merry band and argues for moderation. I didn’t (and don’t) see the problem they all have, of course, but he’s made the odd effort that made me want to at least consider the position (if you can call it that). Then he just throws out shit for the lulz, almost like he can’t help it. He puts up the same intellectually righteous front at first but backpeddles and shifts goalposts when pressed. Now I see the guy and it’s amazing, I pictured that exact sort of little naughty boy smirk he gets in text and audio only (when arguing with Landon Cole once).
    He’s just basically (I want a stronger word, but ‘congenitally’ seems too much) insincere.

    I could have saved some space and said ‘he’s a troll’, I guess.

  123. Louis says

    1) I see this charming cohort of cockroaches has claimed a victim in Jen. Great work, scumbags!

    {Golf clap}

    2) Re: Josh and Joe at #119 and #120, I am a very violent person trying very, very hard to be a very, very, very non-violent person. These bozos definitely cause me to occasionally go and lie down in a darkened room with a cold compress and a copy of Fluffy Bunnies Weekly to think the Happy Happy Thoughts lest I rise up and slay them using a series of paper weapons crafted into origami swans.

    3) Justicar lies?

    Hush! Speak not with your viperous tongue upon the good name and fortune of Justicar, for mine ears will brook no such words. But just out of interest, is this the same Justicar who appears to think that moderate Warcraft prowess is an actual achievement? It is? Oh, you wound me! Hush this vile talk!

    Surely to god this cannot be the same Justicar who is a prime resident of the MRA hangout “The Slymepit? Again this is so? Ay! Ay! The agony, the ignominy!

    Please tell me this is not the same Justicar who is an exponent of some quite egregious misogyny and sexism defending across the internet? It appears I am well indeed informed, my lords and ladies, for yay, you tell me it is so.

    Hush! Where shall my moral compass be without Justicar? Speak no more! My heart has been rent asunder! Look at these tears that splash upon the ground to form a river of sorrow. For now I am in the void, devoid of my north, my south, my east, my west. The pillar of my moral temple has crumbled leaving my broken body beneath the rubble.

    [Hat tip to Mark Thomas]

    Louis

  124. says

    Well, fuckers, you won. Jen McCreight is signing off because you’ve tormented her to the brink.

    Must be all those #FTBullies getting to her. Or is it the well-established club of haters that our esteemed atheist collegues Blackford, Smith and Kirby are so fond of promoting and supporting? What’s their excuse, one wonders?

  125. John Morales says

    rorschach, in my experience and estimation, it’s when people you considered friends and/or allies attack you that it really hurts, because it feels like betrayal; strangers and obvious trolls are much easier to cope with.

  126. John Morales says

    Also, spare a thought for (off the top of my head) such as Rebecca Watson, Greta Christina, Natalie Reed and Stephanie Zvan who have been under similar (totally unfair and bullying) pressure recently.

    Kudos to them no less than to Jen for making a difference and inspiring people.

    (Also, some blokes too, but they do have it a bit easier)

  127. John Phillips, FCD says

    vaiyt, but we are course, I mean there’s even a ftbbullies hash tag which proves it.

  128. rookieatheist says

    Jesus, why did you link to that Justicar guy? My day was going just fine until I naively clicked on that YouTube link where I was subjected to his blackboard-and-chalk-screeching waffle. Yeah, I know, your blog and your rules, but fuck, have some pity on the weak link-clickers amongst your readers.

  129. joed says

    @128 John Morales
    Yes-you are correct.I will hopefully direct my rants to Thunderdome in the future. But sometimes I am compelled to speak out against what I perceive as aggressive violent unfairness by commenters to commenters. but Thunderdome is the place.
    And, staying on subject is most important, isn’t it!
    Thanks.

    @134 Gregory Greenwood
    I do read and enjoy your comments here. They are so proper-refreshing.
    However, your attempt to justify aggressive violent attacks on posters is not imho justified.
    I am bothered by the name-calling and unnecessary aggression of “shut the fuck up” that is so prevalent. If new commenters are not given a chance to find out how things work here then we are going to be left with a very special group of A+er’s. And perhaps A+er’s that thrive on violent agressive attacks on folks that wander into the Pharyngula trap looking for atheist discussion.
    So, I will take John Morales advice and rant in Thunderdome.
    Thanks for the great comments.

    @152/153
    This Jen McCreight thing is sad. Seems she is victim of violent, hateful, aggressive comments.
    Sorta like the comments some folks receive here at this site.
    So, I am off to Thunderdome

  130. vaiyt says

    @165:
    How many rape/death threats did you receive? Are you having your inbox clogged by hate? Did anyone threaten to expose your personal information? How many YouTube channels are filled with people from here doing nothing but flinging slurs at you and everything you stand for?

    You damn well deserve some scolding for this kind of dishonest comparison. Go fuck yourself and stop bawww’ing.

  131. joed says

    @166 vaiyt
    “You damn well deserve some scolding for this kind of dishonest comparison.”

    Well, the comparison is certainly hyperbole but not dishonest.
    See you at Thunderdome for the scolding!

  132. Aratina Cage says

    He and Abbie forged a meaningful friendship and partnership in working together to build the Monument. Then the slimepit dissolved… –Chas

    I guess I should feel lucky that I had no idea it had been moved offsite from National Geographic. Did someone finally intervene with Abbie Smith the way Jerry Coyne did for Wally Smith?

    @Tinjoe

    That might be true but I don’t have enough information about him to know what his other lies are.

    I did just show you a partial dialog where Justicar (in that part of the conversation) implied that asking a stranger for their name is A-OK. Yet, Buntzums showed that there are spaces where disclosing or declaring one’s name is not safe and in which one can feel endangered, threatened, or violated when their name is asked unnecessarily by a stranger. For many people, public transportation is such a place. For Justicar, the Web is such a place.

  133. ChasCPeterson says

    yes, the ‘pit moved more-or-less voluntarily from Smith’s blog (and all the original threads have apparently been memory-holed); there were complaints to NG and they were on principle unable to brook any hint of CENSORSHIP.
    It should be noted that The Justicar is not part of the new forum-based “Slyme Pit” and they mostly don’t like him at all over there. Welch is also MIA but erv herself is a frequent and enthusiastic participant.

  134. says

    kosk11348 @ 12:

    In a comment, he acknowledges that he is lying about PZ saying these things, except it’s not really a lie because PZ once held Abbie directly responsible for the comments on her blog. Or something.

    Hrm. I’ve not lied about what he’s said; I’m using his standards against him.
    After all, Abbie Smith was held by him directly responsible for every word any of her commenters wrote. Mutatis mutandis, PZ said it.

    “The comments on your blog reflect on what sort of space it is and what sort of discourse is considered acceptable” is not the same thing as “you are personally responsible for every word of every comment on your blog.” The first is a standard I’ve used, I think a standard many people use. The second is ridiculous, and disingenuous at best in relation to reclaimed terms applying to groups the commenter is in and the blogger is not.

    clyde @ 51:

    I tend to get overwhelmed by people calling me a misogynist and an MRA for using gendered pronouns.

    Running this through my Butthurt-to-English dictionary, I’m going to guess you knowingly and deliberately used the wrong pronouns.

    Though since people who may be more familiar with the incident than I am haven’t suggested this, I may be wrong.

    fontpanic @ 146:

    I’m going to speculate on a scenario where I think clydey2times can, in his own mind, feel that s/he is telling the truth and why they’re reluctant to actually link or give more info. My guess: that they insisted on using the wrong pronoun when referring to a transgendered individual against that person’s desired identification. Other, more enlightened, individuals pointed out that issue and I’ll bet that clydey2times dug in and refused. Things escalated to the point of banning or threat thereof. Thus in clydey2times’ view they were unfairly ragged on for `simply using a gendered pronoun’.

    That’s what I got too. Clearly we have the same edition of the dictionary.

  135. Louis says

    Chas,

    It should be noted that The Justicar is not part of the new forum-based “Slyme Pit” and they mostly don’t like him at all over there.

    Fuck, that means I’m wrong in the claim made in my comic florid hyperbole above. Oh well. In time I’ll learn to live with it.

    Louis

  136. Tinjoe says

    @Aratina Cage #168

    I’m not disputing that the guy is a dishonest jackass. I was simply narrowing my comment to things that I had seen first hand. I don’t doubt he has many lies that need retraction and apology.

  137. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Justicar isn’t the only former pitter to demand that antagonists reveal their identity…or more accurately, to claim that failure to do so is an act of cowardice, and that those who hide behind their nyms cannot be trusted to say anything true. Beyond being creeptastic, I always found that tactic to be super tedious.
     
    Good times.

  138. says

    Antiochus @ 173:

    Justicar isn’t the only former pitter to demand that antagonists reveal their identity…or more accurately, to claim that failure to do so is an act of cowardice, and that those who hide behind their nyms cannot be trusted to say anything true.

    People who hide behind names from Jewish lore certainly can’t be trusted.

  139. Aratina Cage says

    @Tinjoe

    @Aratina Cage #168

    I’m not disputing that the guy is a dishonest jackass. I was simply narrowing my comment to things that I had seen first hand. I don’t doubt he has many lies that need retraction and apology.

    My concern is that Justicar feeds off such ignorance as yours to turn people against each other. You would do well to read up on things the guy has written (he is all over the Web, just search for “Justicar” or “integralmath” or “Yellits”) and do your research on his statements (take nothing at face value until you have verified his accounts with original sources).

  140. ChasCPeterson says

    Louis: I wasn’t talking to you.
    For future reference, that’s always the case when I do not preface my comment with ‘Louis:”.
    Here, tell you what, whenever I’m talking to you, I’ll both preface and follow up my comment with “Louis” so you’re sure. OK?

    Louis

  141. says

    I just looked at those videos, and more illuminatingly, his reply to criticisms in the comments. All I saw were insults and misdirections and false accusations.
    That guy is a delusional goofball. Don’t give him any credibility. It is easy to see that he makes shit up and does not support his accusations, and he is extremely juvenile and bitter about something.
    It seems to me that you could charge him with defamation, specifically slander.
    To wit:

    Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one’s good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.

    To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.

    To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.

    You could pick among any number of comments to show he has created a false portrayal that others take seriously.

    I know you must know all this, and I’m pretty sure it’s not worth bothering with, and I’m 100% sure I’m not a lawyer. For whatever it’s worth! ;-}

  142. says

    You know, I’ve never felt more uncomfortable about discussing my sexuality among the atheists since Atheism + became a thing. If I point out something I feel is heterosexist am I going to get run out on a rail? This is getting weird.

  143. John Morales says

    joelhartman, what?

    A+ encompasses the spectrum of gender orientation.

    (The only issue is if you want to deny any group equal status on that basis)

  144. says

    I’m going to Thunderdome! Hey, guys, did you know I’m leaving here and going off to Thunderdome? That’s right, it’s Thunderdome for me! Yessiree, I’m going to leave here, never come back, and take my crap to Thunderdome! Thunderdome, Thunderome, Thunderdome! Thunderome, eveybody! Hey, did you hear me when I said Thunderdome? ‘Cuz I’m totally going to Thunderdome instead of here.

  145. Amphiox says

    I thought Joel was saying that the backlash made him fretful…

    To me it seemed like he was saying that because Justicar accused PZ of “heterosexist” comments and is receiving severe criticism for it, he is afraid that the same would happen to him.

    No, joel, you will not be run out on a rail for pointing out heterosexism if your criticisms are honest and justifiable, unlike Justicar’s which are not.

    Just be prepared, as with everything else, to defend the words you choose to write, if necessary.