Unethical and sleazy?

Now the anti-feminism faction in atheoskepticism is attacking Katha Pollitt. Who’s next? Barbara Ehrenreich? Rebecca Goldstein? Susan Jacoby?

The Nation ‏@thenation Sep 26
What is wrong with the men at the helm of the Atheist movement? http://thenat.in/1vlCOue

Miranda Celeste Hale

.@thenation Nothing. & Now it’s my turn to ask a question: why did you run this sneering, unethical, & ideologically-motivated attack piece?

iamcuriousblue ‏@iamcuriousblue 14h
@mirandachale Probably the same reason @thenation ran this sneering, unethical, ideologically-motivated attack piece http://www.thenation.com/article/179147/why-do-so-many-leftists-want-sex-work-be-new-normal …

Miranda Celeste Hale ‏@mirandachale 13h
@iamcuriousblue What a nasty & reactionary article. I’m not familiar w/much of Pollitt’s work but what I’ve read has been unethical & sleazy

Ian N ‏@IanNieves 13h
@mirandachale @thenation Katha Pollott is an ideological hack who festers in innuendo, smear & smut. The Nation is shit sans Hitchens.

Unethical and sleazy. Really? I have a feeling what Hale means by “not familiar w/much of Pollitt’s work” is “completely ignorant of any of Pollitt’s work except for this one piece.”

At least Katha actually is all the things she calls herself in her Twitter profile, unlike some people.


  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    Improbable Joe… @ # 1 – Note that Hale did not claim to find anything “false” in that article.

  2. Anthony K says

    So, anything that reflects poorly on their idols is by definition false and unethical to discuss in public? Isn’t that convenient for them.

    Did you read MCH’s tweets to Adam Lee? Repeating the same vague assertions over and over is what she does. Adam wrote:

    This is the debate tactic of a creationist: make sweeping, vague accusations (“You’re lying!” “About what?” “About everything!”). Then, when asked to substantiate this, just refer back to the original accusations as if they constituted proof, and refuse to clarify or add any more detail. I’d guess that this is what happens when you follow someone so slavishly: Dawkins said I was lying, so his devotees say it must be true, but because he didn’t say what he thought I was lying about, they can’t explain it either.

    Substitute ‘unethical’ for ‘lying’ and you have her latest ‘argument’.

  3. Joseph Solomon says

    I love the “ideologically-motivated” at the end, to soften the fact that “sneering” and “unethical” are so highly subjective. So apparently it’s bad to have an ideology that motivates you. If that ideology is “the wrong kind of feminism.”

    Here’s a hint: It doesn’t matter if a statement is ideologically motivated, all that matters is the reasoning used to arrive at that statement. If an Athiest stood up and said “We need to stop the clergy from covering these child abuse scandals and talk about them in the open, because it’s harming our children.” and a Christian retorted, “You’re just ideologically motivated by your Atheism.” The Athiest’s reply should rightfully be, “So what? That has no bearing on my argument.”

Leave a Reply

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