Every movie is improved by kazoos and cardboard »« How to talk about transgender people

No sympathy. None at all.

I have been harassed by Dennis Markuze/David Mabus for going on 20 years, and I have an imposing collection of filters in my email to block him. At the peak of his mania, he was dunning me with 20-30 emails a day, all repetitive, all totally nuts, and he was sending death threats and other attempts to intimidate me…which were remarkably ineffective, since everything he wrote was twisted and bizarre.

Now he’s found a way to get past my filters: he had a friend write to me!

Written on Behalf of Dennis Markuze by an old friend. Here he presents his SIDE and I think you will agree that he is right!

“I was never approached to offer me my side of the story. Here are the FACTS not the faulty information fed to you by a gang of atheists and drama producing police. Hopefully you can do an article taking my side. I am a odd character, a unique individual, who has been turned into a media monster for my strange ideas, BUT I’M RIGHT!

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

On November 16, 2012, I was arrested in my own house for being on a chat room and apparently harassing Tim Farley. He tweaked and twisted my words to make them appear threatening because he knew that for me to be simply on the Internet was a crime. He reported me to the police and made fraudulent and out of context remarks on what I said. He took harmless banter and converted it into hostile hate speech. Overnight the police got a search warrant and raided my house, seizing property. Again, simply being on the internet was enough. No threats were made and no violent acts committed. He suffered no injury. He suffered no financial loss. He suffered no loss in credibility. But I have suffered all these things and more. I have no history of violence in my past. I’m a writer who engages in debate with the power of words not force of arms. I debate, sometimes hotly, with skeptics and atheists to disprove their ideas. Farley doesn’t like what I have to say about him and his organization, the James Randi Foundation. He wants to silence my right to state my ideas on religion and politics, and he and his gang have called the police whenever they suspect I’m on the Internet. All they want to do is deprive me of my freedom so as to discredit my ideas. I am being ganged up on, bullied, and marked by atheists and skeptics, and even the media is taking their side, not once asking for my side of the story. True, some of my words may be rude or tasteless such as, “I will crush you,” or, “I will be rid of you etc.” My actual ideas center upon the utter waste of intelligence used in the ideology of atheism and the importance of peace and disarmament for the planet, and the terrible costs of war. My real words can be found here not the broken fragments they produce to use as lies to condemn me:

Please spend the time to read, watch, and hear what I have to say here:

http://storify.com/deltoidmachine/how-we-won-the-james-randi-dollar-1-000-000-parano

Dennis Markuze
Montreal
January, 21, 2014″

His “old friend” is now also blocked. And no, I am not convinced. That he is having a lucid moment (and good for him, maybe he’s getting better) does not offset tens of thousands of obsessive, ridiculous emails.

Here’s one he sent as [email protected]:

I have you by the BALLS…

Dumb, right? “Harmless banter”, you think? He sent that to all of my students in my classes that term.

Or how about this one, from [email protected]?

you have NOTHING TO DO WITH CRITICAL THINKING join the socialist faith
how about you keep this one up as a TESTIMONY FOR THE TRUTH
rich millionaires with their heads up the arses
I think this qualifies as a DOS attack… for RATS IN A TRAP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHs0vM3gRTA
you can thank RANDI
now for some SYMBOLIC TWO-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS!
on the TIMELINE
0 min 33 sec – Randi in the RED SHIRT – signifying the *bl..dy deed* that is about to happen
1min 18 sec – Banachek talks about respect for the claimant and then they mock “these kind” of people in the final part
3 min 20 sec – the test of the power bracelet that increases a person’s energy and balance. Notice our challenge is all about POWER & BALANCE, proving the existence of a HIGHER POWER
5 min 15 sec TEST BEGINS. Skeptics one by one stand in CRUCIFIXION POSE
1 hr 10 min 21 sec Test is ended in failure
1 hr 10 min 30 sec request is made to make change in the PROTOCOL
1 hr 10 min 51 sec Applause is made by all those who wanted him to fail from the very beginning
1 hr 25 min 39 sec Now they talk about the Nightline clip that was filmed in Manhattan, also the scene of the 9/11 event
1hr 28 min 42 sec – They talk about make-shift tests. They think that because no one can win the prize that psychic phenomena does not exist
1 hr 29 min 45 sec Banachek says “the majority of *these* people.’” A contemptuous reference that occurs repeatedly
1 hr 31 min 53 sec The reference to envelopes. Remember the 911 in Angel’s envelope!
1 hr 37 min 11 sec Swiss says he is not worried about a paranormal event happening. Little does he know what is actually taking place
1 hr 39 min 50 sec The mocking of SPIRITS!
1 hr 40 min 27 sec Reference made to the TERROR of witnessing a supernatural event, i.e, the blood leaving the face
1 hr 41 min 15 sec Reference to “these people”
1 hr 41 min 40 sec Belief in the supernatural is claimed to be a psychological defence mechanism to cope with reality. Swiss talks about how desperate the psychics become when debunked. Little does he know what is happening to the skeptics!
1 hr 42 min 11 sec WHEN PROPHECY SUCCEEDS! KABOOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gHbYJfwFgOU
which WORLD-VIEW will not exist, sh*thead?
____________
5000 whining atheists vs the Great Prophet
how the divine pen of Michel Nostradamus crushed the international atheist movement
http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34862
________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s3lwG4MytSI
one applicant right here…
get the POINT, Randi….
__________________________

for lies on top of lies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbmXpNEFipE

do you think you can threaten my right to FREE SPEECH?
what if I told you that I am not who you think I am….
Not Dennis Markuze – but a FAN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvatDdOWcLw
you’re not the center of the universe!
____________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yRpSNIOwA4
a dishonest liar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruQFh_TkPto
WHINE WHINE WHINE
________________________
Best Clips on Atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V6B9D1S4xQ – JUST A TINY SMIDGEN OF A GAP! JUST A TINY SMIDGEN OF A GAP!
______________________________

a vitally important essay dealing with the new age of madness that poses as ENLIGHTENMENT!
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm
they speak for those who cannot speak…
_____________________
outside the doors of the Loto Quebec Building
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wwWr-zwUHqA
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1967/violence.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1967/questions-answers.htm

That’s what he calls a debate. He sent me dozens of copies of that one week; in addition, he sent that same incoherent screed to my university’s department of admissions, to the chancellor, to every single faculty member on my campus. And that’s not an exceptional email; that’s pretty much the tone and content of every single goddamn rant he’s ever sent me.

And now he thinks a single paragraph in which he whimpers that he was just stating his ideas will somehow make me forget decades of spam and lies and babbling nonsense and harassment of not just myself, but of my students and colleagues? It was persistent spam under a parade of fake email addresses.

Harmless banter. Fuck you, Dennis Markuze, never send me another email, and don’t have your asshole friends act as your proxy, either.

Comments

  1. busterggi says

    It He has a friend? i don’t believe it.

    [Fixed that for you. Don't make me have to do it again, or I'll decide you're too much trouble to keep around. --pzm]

  2. Jeremy Shaffer says

    Given the abuse against them displayed in that defense I hope the words “truth” and “fact” have less problems getting law enforcement to help them than the people in the atheist/ skeptic camps.

  3. Vall says

    This important point: “because he knew that for me to be simply on the Internet was a crime” sailed right over his head. Maybe a little introspection is in order.

  4. vaiyt says

    @busterggi

    You don’t even need to consider it. Sockpuppeting should be the default assumption when people like Mabus call “friends” to testify for them. Especially when said friendd are just as deranged as Mabus and write just like him.

  5. b. - Order of Lagomorpha says

    I was honestly hoping that he was actually getting some help; he’s in desperate need of it.

    This line:

    He tweaked and twisted my words to make them appear threatening because he knew that for me to be simply on the Internet was a crime.

    (bolding added) shows me that his thinking processes are still, to use a technical term, borked. Farley didn’t need to do anything to DM’s speech since the simple fact that he was violating a court order was sufficient. DM also appears to have not figured out that “hot debate” doesn’t include threats of violence; cyber-stalking; making libelous statements about his opponent, or spamming huge swaths of uninvolved parties in an attempt to belittle, demean, embarrass or otherwise harm his opponent.

  6. flakko says

    “True, some of my words may be rude or tasteless such as, “I will crush you,” or, “I will be rid of you etc.”

    And I suppose the decapitation threats were simple epistemology metaphors that the recipients just did not understand…

    But to send emails to students! That is unquestionably sociopathic.

  7. says

    So he is the one “being ganged up on, bullied, and marked by atheists and skeptics”? Cry me a fookin’ river. I doubt he is experiencing even a miniscule fraction of the abuse he dished out to PZ alone, and almost certainly would again if he could. Not that bullying or abuse is okay when it’s directed at him (it’s not), just that the behavior he—oh wait I’m sorry, his “friend”—is whining about here is neither bullying nor abusive.

    I too hope he gets the help he needs. But mental illness is not an excuse for being a hypocritical, unrepentant asshole.

  8. says

    It has a friend? i don’t believe it.

    If the cops who arrested him sent him for a psych evaluation, he could have met a like-minded perp in the same queue.

  9. says

    flakko #6:

    But to send emails to students! That is unquestionably sociopathic.

    I question whether it is sociopathic. Unless you are his examining psychiatrist you are in no position to say. People do harmful and obsessive things to others for lots of reasons, and not all of them boil down to sociopathy.

    Emailing PZ’s students (and colleagues and administrators…) is unquestionably abusive and bullying, though.

  10. David Marjanović says

    Especially when said friendd are just as deranged as Mabus and write just like him.

    Written on Behalf of Dennis Markuze by an old friend. Here he presents his SIDE and I think you will agree that he is right!

    SIIIIIDE!!!!!

    Plus, I never got my FINISHED

    + 1

  11. congaboy says

    If he is still on probation and if the terms and conditions of his probation prohibit him from using the internet and or contacting victims and witnesses, then he is violating his probation by contacting you. It is still a violation of his probation to use “friends” to send email or make contact with protected victims and parties. Also, his “friend” is now complicit in his violations and could face possible criminal actions. Perhaps you should report this contact.

  12. David Marjanović says

    1 hr 42 min 11 sec WHEN PROPHECY SUCCEEDS! KABOOM

    I got curious. What prophecy might he possibly think succeeds there?

    So I went to 1:41 and watched for a while.

    1:42:11 is when one of the two people on the stage says “When Prophecy Fails”. He’s talking about the book of that title.

    Get this. WHEN PROPHECY SUCCEEDS! is Markuze’s way of stomping his feet and shouting no, no, no, it doesn’t fail, it succeeds!!!!!, and the KABOOM expresses just how hard he stomps his feet, just how loudly he shouts, just how insanely angry he is.

  13. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    It has a friend? i don’t believe it.

    God dammit, the first damn comment…

    “It”? Not cool.

  14. Cuttlefish says

    I got a small fraction of the threats PZ got–I think about 2,000 or so over the years. These included death threats to me, and to my family. In one particularly memorable bit of timing, he threatened death to all my family members… while my brother was, in fact, dying in a hospital bed.

    There is reason that “simply being on the internet” is illegal for Mabus. I do have sympathy for him–I want him to get the treatment that will ease his condition. Part of that treatment, though, is staying the fuck off of the internet. It’s in everybody’s best interest, his own included.

  15. doubter says

    Since he’s based in Canada, things may soon become a lot more difficult for Markuze. A new Federal law on cyberbullying is expected to be introduced later this year. While the main intent of the law seems to be punishment for people who distribute revenge porn, it may cover his activities as well.

    I’m not a fan of the current government, and I hope they don’t overreach in this new law. Still, it might bring Markuze’s compulsive harrassment to an abrupt end.

  16. says

    HE is also a human being. Please don’t dehumanize him.

    It feels like no comment section is complete without some dehumanization and othering. You would think those commenters would learn but it never seems to happen.

  17. rickk says

    Just wondering – how abominably must a person behave before you can begin to discount their humanity?

  18. Dave Bauer says

    [The asshole friend who was acting as a proxy for Mabus? Guess who -- it was Dave Bauer. Bauer is now banned. --pzm]

  19. says

    @23: First mention == first encounter? Really? If you Google “dave mabus” the first hit is to the RationalWiki entry on him, which says (with link) that PZ has been getting crap from him since 1993. And I’ve seen Mabus spew on various fora, well, older than 2008 anyway.

    So feel free to decide that PZ is making it all up, but when you flunk the most basic level of Google-fu…..

  20. says

    rickk:
    Humans have the capacity for amazing displays of compassion, kindness, and empathy. We are also capable of selfishness, violent rhetoric and harassing behavior. For all his faults, Markuse is still a human being. His behavior is not something otherworldly and unfathomable. He is acting like a human being. Granted his actions are deplorable (though we still sympathize with his mental health problems), but he is still a human being. Dehumanizing anyone has the effect of treating human rights as arbitrary. As history can attest, robbing people of their humanity too often leads to atrocities. Also, dehumanizing people is ‘othering’ them. The problems facing humanity are all too human problems and we must look to ourselves for solutions to our problems. ‘Othering’ people , viewing them as less than human is not helpful in solving OUR problems.

  21. says

    Just wondering – how abominably must a person behave before you can begin to discount their humanity?

    The question doesn’t make sense. Everything a human does is by definition 100% human. (Because humans are a species of animal, it’s also 100% animal.)

  22. rickk says

    @26

    Ok, fair enough. I was probably wrong to raise the question. Markuze is a mild case. There is certainly behavior that is sufficiently inhuman that it strains my ability to view the perpetrator as a fully functional member of the race. But you are right that it is a line that should not be crossed.

  23. Azuma Hazuki says

    The reason the line can’t be crossed is more for our sake than his honestly, same way forgiving someone who wronged you is more about your own mental well-being than anything else.

    By refusing to “other,” it’s an acknowledgement that the potential for the same and worse exists in all of us. It’s a moment of humility akin to looking into a mirror and, in a flash of lightning, seeing your own skull, dripping and bloody, grinning at you and threatening to eat your children alive.

    We all have horrible things inside us. Some of us can’t, for whatever reason, keep it under control as well as others. We can protect ourselves best, and inflict the least moral injury on ourselves, by acknowledging this and remembering the humanity of one who cannot even as he rips and tears at us.

  24. says

    @29: fully functional member of the race

    This is confused. Every human is by definition a “member of the race”. But I don’t think anyone disputes that some humans (such as Markuze) are not “fully functional” — they can’t get along in anything like a normal way with other humans, can’t communicate coherently much of the time, can’t critique their own beliefs *at all*, etc. And some people cannot be equal participants in our common moral community — we imprison them, or require that they undergo medical treatment, or otherwise impinge on their power to direct their own lives. We do this only at necessity, for our own protection, but also (hopefully) for their good as well. And we still need to keep in mind our common humanity.

  25. chigau (違う) says

    No.
    Marzuke is not a ‘mild case’. He is extreme.

    ‘fully functional’ excludes

    wow

    lots of people

  26. cicely says

    This may count as a derail, in which case everybody Ignore ME!!!, but rickk, how would you define a “fully functional” human being? And on what do you base your determination?
    -

  27. Stacy says

    Marzuke is not a ‘mild case’. He is extreme

    Well, I hope rickk will forgive my presumption for stepping in here, but I think I know what he meant. There are people who torture, rape, and kill, simply because they enjoy doing those things. For me at least, those are the people whose humanity it is tempting to deny.

    Obviously Markuze’s behavior is appalling and I don’t want to in any way belittle the effect that behavior has had on PZ and the other targets of DM’s confused ire, but–he’s not in that class.

  28. says

    Even a small-time blogger like me has an extensive collection of DM garbage, including a charming assortment of death threats. A seriously sick man.

  29. says

    Stacy

    For me at least, those are the people whose humanity it is tempting to deny.

    Tempting? Yes!
    OK? No!
    Many things are “tempting”. Trying to solve a problem by punching the other side is surely tempting some times. I still don’t do it because I know it’s wrong.
    Whenever people look at people who do horrible things, try to imagine them as a baby:
    Was that an evil baby?
    Was that a non-human baby?
    If you answer “no” to those questions then things must have happened to them on their way to adulthood. This isn’t meant to absolve them of their personal responsibility, it simply acknowledges the fact that humans are complicated creatures who are neither intrinsically good nor evil, but both, agents and products of society.
    There are probably true sociopaths and psychopaths, people born without the ability to take other’s POV, interests and needs into account, in which case we should consider them disabled and treat them with compassion, and not as “not truely human”

  30. says

    The problem with “discounting” or calling into question or what have you a human’s humanity isn’t that it’s mean, unethical, or socially or politically dangerous. It’s that it’s nonsense. A human can’t commit an inhuman act, by definition. Human animals forced people into gas chambers, and a human animal painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. There’s no scale of humanness on which individuals can rise or fall or human acts can be measured. It’s impossible for a human to be “not fully human” or to disqualify themselves from the species. It’s nonsense.

  31. says

    The problem with “discounting” or calling into question or what have you a human’s humanity isn’t that it’s mean, unethical, or socially or politically dangerous. It’s that it’s nonsense.

    Yes, because when somebody just got beaten up or has been denied an important opportunity because of dehumanising, they will be the most upset about the fact that this behaviour was based on a false premise…

  32. says

    Right, it makes much more sense in blog comments to debate over and over in each individual case whether someone is “fully human” or whether such a thought should be expressed rather than to point to the nonsensical and oppressive nature of the concept itself. Just like when someone is attacked for not being a “real man” or a “real woman,” we should debate over multiple comments how offensive and harmful it is and whether the classification applies without challenging the idea that there’s such a thing as a “real man” or “real woman” or a “real man” or “real woman” scale on which people and actions can be evaluated. Very reasonable and productive.

    As my links above suggest, my concern isn’t only with the humans harmed by these ideas, but also with the billions of other animals harmed. Saying it’s offensive and harmful to think of or treat humans as inhuman or subhuman or less than fully human while treating these concepts as meaningful is not only wrong but helps to perpetuate the existing system of speciesist oppression. (This in turn feeds back into human oppression.)

    Even if only humans were involved, we need to address the fundamentally bad thinking at the heart of these classifications to make a real difference, and it certainly doesn’t help to argue about the correctness, appropriateness, or harm of classifying someone as “not fully human” while tacitly accepting the idea of “not fully human.” Blasphemy shouldn’t be prosecuted for a number of reasons, but an inarguably central reason is that the concept and the system of religious beliefs on which it’s based are nonsense.

    You continue to be tiresome, Giliell, particularly in your intent to take an ad hominem line in response to reasoned arguments (“Your arguing X means/reflects that you don’t care about victims/me/my family/other hypothetical beings, so no one needs to address the content” – which is, sadly, all you seem to have), so this will be my last response to you on this subject. My point has been made, in any case.

  33. says

    This might muddy the waters, but the word “inhuman” means lacking in empathy, compassion and suchlike qualities. Problem is it has a secondary meaning of “non-human.” A better word to use might be “inhumane.”

    The problem with this, though, is that the meaning of both “inhuman” and “inhumane” stems from the same incorrect root: the same ideas I discussed at my links above. The idea that empathy and compassion are more “human” than coldness and cruelty and that displaying them somehow makes a human being more human(e) is fundamentally nonsense. The ideas are also rooted in very oppressive hierarchical thinking about humans and other animals – people are more human(e) to the extent that they’ve moved further away from other animals and from their (vicious, cruel, uncaring) animal aspects, to the extent that they’ve become, it’s generally implied, more civilized and godlike.*

    Historically, animals and humans have been ranked on scales of value from animal to god, which has determined how they’ve been treated. Women and colonized people haven’t fared so well.** (Harriet Ritvo, in The Animal Estate, describes how “humane” movements of the 19th century saw things in these terms – treating other animals “humanely” was seen, in a bleakly ironical turn, as a mark of how far the humane activists had “progressed” away from animals.)

    Not only can the qualities and acts we value and those we reject be discussed on their own terms, without reference to bogus and implicitly (or explicitly) hierarchical classifications like human(e), masculine, feminine, civilized, primitive, animal, godly,… These classifications are false and arrogant and they contribute to systems of oppression.

    * This seems to be the conservative idea at the heart of Pinker’s Better Angels.

    ** Nor have atheists, who are often described by religious people and apologists as not “fully human.”

  34. says

    SC #42

    I get what you mean, re the root of the words, but I do think there is a difference between humans and (most?) other animals: we can make a choice to be more or less cruel and so forth, both on an individual and a societal basis.

    That said, I’m not particularly personally bothered by the the historical roots of the word. “Humane,” whatever its roots, now means compassionate, empathetic, etc. Under that definition, we can be humane both to other humans and to animals not of our own species.

  35. says

    Incidentally, the standard for the ideal human is fairly fluid, depending on the ideal for white men. At some points, the ideal human is someone who can be “hard” and keep his empathy and compassion in check (or overcome them); women are then denigrated as less human for their “softness,” sentimentality, and “animal pity.”

  36. says

    @SC #42:
    When it comes to relations with other animals, humans have been doing all the talking, for obvious reasons. Wich makes the comparison with women, non-white races, disabled people, or any other marginalized group that has long been producing their own discourse on the subject… let’s say, problematic.

  37. says

    I get what you mean, re the root of the words, but I do think there is a difference between humans and (most?) other animals: we can make a choice to be more or less cruel and so forth, both on an individual and a societal basis.

    This would be relevant if that ability invariably led to empathy and compassion. But in reality the fact that we can make a choice – not as stark or qualitative difference as you suggest – in no way means that humans are less vicious and cruel than other animals.* As Mark Twain argued, we come off pretty badly as a species in terms of our relations with other species and other members of our own. No other animal systematically and unnecessarily enslaves, tortures, and kills billions of other animals. No other species is as willfully and consciously cruel. No other species is driven by ideas to commit genocide. And in turn many other nonhuman animals show compassion, kindness, and gentleness. So the idea that a lack of empathy and compassion is somehow “inhuman” doesn’t make sense. Our abstract reasoning capabilities can lead, and have often led, to the thwarting and rejection of compassion and empathy, as we see in religious and political ideologies. In any case, these (morally ambiguous) capabilities are entirely animal – they evolved like any other human capacity. They’re just some aspects among many of how our species developed.

    That said, I’m not particularly personally bothered by the the historical roots of the word. “Humane,” whatever its roots, now means compassionate, empathetic, etc. Under that definition, we can be humane both to other humans and to animals not of our own species.

    Again, the problem is with the ideas underlying the concept and word “humane.” We can and should be empathetic, compassionate, respectful, and kind both to other humans and to nonhuman animals. And we should advocate that behavior. But it’s contrary to that project to accept and promote these false hierarchical categories that inherently denigrate nonhuman animals and human qualities or behaviors associated with them. Our coldness and cruelty are 100% human and 100% animal, whatever in someone’s psychology has led to them, as are our empathy and compassion, whatever in someone’s psychology has led to them. The classifications I listed above – including “humane” – are false, harmful, and unnecessary.

  38. says

    Foz Meadows posted a nice piece along those lines, just this morning.

    Thanks for that link. I liked also that it related to what I was saying @#44 – that the standard of superior humanity can be quite cruel.* Meadows replies:

    …I find it extremely disturbing that you class torture and dismemberment as inherently male characteristics, strong enough to be evident even in childhood…

    …Little boys are not universally sociopaths in training: nurturing and love are not exclusively feminine traits. But that’s what they can sometimes become, if, as so many people do, you assume that boys are naturally monstrous, and consequently neglect to teach them the empathy, kindness and respect for others you’ve already decided they’re incapable of learning. And so male brutality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if boys will be boys, then why bother to teach them otherwise? Easier far to excuse their aggression with a single pat phrase, and blindly hope they don’t grow up to become rapists or abusers….

    Yes to this. I’ve saved the post. This actually relates also to the moral choice aspect discussed above. I posted recently about a great book chapter confronting the idea, very much in keeping with the notion of “humane,” that respecting the rights of other animals is the result of overcoming our animality and responding to civilized, intellectual, abstract arguments. (As the chapter describes, the whole argument is very patriarchal.) It really gets to the heart of the problem.

    * It was also interesting how he referred to himself as a (possible) “sexist pig” and “reactionary dinosaur.” :)

  39. says

    To bring this full circle, Theodor Adorno wrote: “Auschwitz begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals.” I thought of it when I noticed that Markuze linked to Horkheimer and Adorno in his rant.

  40. Al Dente says

    One thing on which I think we can all agree: James Delingpole is one creepy assclam.

    Delingpole told Sir Paul Nurse that he had never read any peer-reviewed papers because that wasn’t his job. His job was to sneer at the people who write those papers. So my vote is that Delingpole is an ignorant, creepy assclam.

  41. Jim Dominic says

    “David Bauer” is turning up elsewhere. FWIW, the IP address being used by “David Bauer” is listed in the SpamHaus CBL because that IP, or a machine associated with that IP, is infected with Conficker.

  42. says

    There’s a reason this latest tirade was brought on this week.

    Back in November the detective contacted me and had me file an updated statement of the threats Markuze made toward me. This is in conjunction with his second arrest in November 2012 – at the time of that arrest he verbally threatened both the detective and myself. (Ironically there is now a court order in place in regard to those threats, and I no longer see any of these emails directly).

    In November the detective was concerned that Markuze & his defense were not properly addressing his situation and were trying to get the charges dropped. She felt (and I agreed) that only the real threat of jail time would get Markuze and his family to take his case seriously and make sure he sticks with his treatment.

    His most recent court appearance was on Monday, January 20 and I’m guessing that my updated affidavit was filed with the court at that time. That means it was shared with his lawyer, which means he got to see it too. He spammed this email out to the press the next day, and the use of the word AFFIDAVIT and the focus on me is pretty clearly a response to my statement to the court.

    The hearing on Monday was yet another in a long series of procedural hearings, but they have now scheduled a 2-hour hearing for March 13 according to my sources in Montreal. So we may get some more substantial news in the case at that time, as it may be a preliminary hearing for a trial.

    For anyone not fully familiar with the case, I blogged the story of his first arrest and his second arrest in gory detail over at my blog. And for what it’s worth, I seriously doubt “Dave Bauer” is Markuze’s friend, to me it sure looks like him adopting yet another online identity.

    –Tim Farley

  43. says

    SC

    You continue to be tiresome, Giliell,

    Ohhh, now the naughty child has been talked down to and sent to her room. Guess there will be no cookies for dessert either

    particularly in your intent to take an ad hominem line in response to reasoned arguments (“Your arguing X means/reflects that you don’t care about victims/me/my family/other hypothetical beings, so no one needs to address the content” – which is, sadly, all you seem to have),

    Which is kind of funny, because that’s exactly what you’re doing here “Giliell is a one-trick pony, therefore I don’t have to address her”

    so this will be my last response to you on this subject. My point has been made, in any case.

    If only…

    To bring this full circle, Theodor Adorno wrote: “Auschwitz begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals.”

    As somebody whose family members died in concentration camps: Fuck you, Adorno and the high horse you rode in on.

  44. David Marjanović says

    * This seems to be the conservative idea at the heart of Pinker’s Better Angels.

    In any case it’s the idea at the heart of its title.

    Foz Meadows posted a nice piece along those lines, just this morning.

    Best part:

    Does this make me sound like a complete sexist pig?

    It does, because you are. I’m sorry to break it to you, but the ability to ask a rhetorical question about whether or not you’re a sexist pig is not some magical proof against actually being a sexist pig.

  45. vaiyt says

    Theodor Adorno wrote: “Auschwitz begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals.”

    Who would know? Vast swathes of humanity are Nazis!