Michael Nugent doesn’t much like PZ Myers. After writing 32 posts, 350 pages and 75,000 words to that effect since September, he’s now roped in his national org Atheist Ireland, whose ‘executive committee’ (never hitherto mentioned on the group’s website) cosign what reads like blog post 33.
Unlike Nugent’s own posts, the statement doesn’t provide any actual sources, so – for the sake of ethical conduct – I decided I’d add them and let people come to their own judgements. Admittedly, I see why his colleagues might have opposed embedding links. Once you insert them, the whole thing looks like a thicket of more complex points, less dramatic when viewed in context – not to mention a little… obsessive?
Atheist Ireland publicly dissociates itself from the harmful and hateful rhetoric of PZ Myers
Atheist Ireland is publicly dissociating itself from the hurtful and dehumanising, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of the atheist blogger PZ Myers. The final of many, many straws were his latest smear that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is ‘happily exploiting atrocities’, and his subsequent description of Atheist Ireland’s chairperson as ‘the Irish wanker’. We are also asking all ethical organisations and individuals to consider how you can help to reverse his harmful impact on both individuals and the atheist movement generally.
Atheist Ireland promotes atheism, reason and ethical secularism. Our policies are based on a respect for human rights, upon which we can build a just society based on natural ethical values. We meet with and lobby the Irish government, Irish parliamentary meetings, the media, and international human rights regulatory bodies such as the UN Human Rights Committee, the Council of Europe, and the OSCE. We are proud to work nationally with other human rights and social justice groups, and globally with colleagues in Atheist Alliance International, and the International Campaign Against Blasphemy Laws.
Our shared work in all of these areas, at national and international level, is important for the development of an ethical secular world. This work is undermined by rhetoric that associates atheist and secular advocacy with hateful, violent and defamatory speech. Such rhetoric is also unjust to the individual people who it targets.
Atheist Ireland has previously given PZ Myers public platforms in Ireland, both at the World Atheist Convention in 2011, and at our international conference in 2013 on Empowering Women Through Secularism. We now apologise for doing this. We believe his behaviour is unjust to individuals, increases prejudice against atheists, and is harmful to the promotion of an ethical society based on empathy, fairness, justice and integrity.
Some examples of his hurtful and dehumanising rhetoric
He said that ‘the scum rose to the top of the atheist movement’, that it is ‘burdened by cretinous reactionaries’, that ‘sexist and misogynistic scumbags’ are ‘not a fringe phenomenon’, and that if you don’t agree with Atheism Plus, you are an ‘Asshole Atheist’. He agreed that science fetishism reproduces the ‘white supremacist logic of the New Atheist Movement.’ He said ‘I officially divorce myself from the skeptic movement,’ which ‘has attracted way too many thuggish jerks, especially in the leadership’.
He said Richard Dawkins ‘seems to have developed a callous indifference to the sexual abuse of children’ and ‘has been eaten by brain parasites’, Michael Nugent is ‘the Irish wanker’ and a ‘demented fuckwit’, Ann Marie Waters is a ‘nutter’, Russell Blackford is a ‘lying fuckhead’, Bill Maher’s date at an event was ‘candy to decorate [her sugar daddy’s] arm in public’, Ben Radford is a ‘revolting narcissistic scumbag’ and his lawyer is ‘J Noble Dogshit’, Rosetta scientist Matt Taylor and Bill Maher are ‘assholes’, and Abbie Smith and her ‘coterie of slimy acolytes’ are ‘virtual non-entities’. He called Irish blogger ZenBuffy a ‘narcissistic wanker,’ after she said she has experienced mental illness.
He described Robin Williams’ suicide as ‘the death of a wealthy white man dragging us away from news about brown people’, said that a white lady who made racist comments ‘looks like the kind of person who would have laughed at nanu-nanu’, then added: ‘I’m mainly feeling that I should have been more rude, because asking me to have been nicer about the dead famous guy is completely missing the point’. He said of other dead people that Charles Darwin was a ‘sexist asshat’, Richard Feynman was a ‘reprehensible asshole’, and Christopher Hitchens was a ‘bloodthirsty barbarian’ and a ‘club-carrying primitive’.
Some examples of his hateful and violent rhetoric
Among the many people he publicly ‘hates’, ‘despises’ or ‘detests’ are philosophers Alain de Botton and Harriet Baber, interfaith activist Chris Stedman, comparative religion author Karen Armstrong, pastor Lee Strobel, columnist Richard Cohen, attorney Debbie Schlussel, creationists Ken Ham and Fred Phelps, broadcasters Bob Beckel and Rush Limbaugh, and authors Ben Stein, Bryan Appleyard and Dinesh D’Souza. Just last month he said that his ‘contempt’ for US President Ronald Reagan has vastly increased.
He also employs hate speech against Christians (‘I left the theatre filled with contempt and loathing for Christians’), apocalypse-mongers (‘they make me furious and fill me with an angry contempt’), ‘your average, run-of-the-mill Christian’ (‘I despise Karen Armstrong almost as much as I do Fred Phelps’), and several people who were organising a prayer initiative (‘Jesus Christ but I hate these slimebags’ who are ‘demented fuckwits every one.’)
He uses violent rhetoric. He said ‘I’ve got to start carrying a knife now’ to kill Christians if they pray instead of helping him while he is dying. He said about a meal: ‘Don’t show up to pick a fight or we’ll pitch you off a pier.’ When a Brazilian priest died in a charity ballooning accident, he said ‘my new dream’ will be shooting priests out of the sky from an aircraft. When a Christian shopkeeper apologised for offending atheists, he refused to accept the apology, saying ‘No. Fuck him to the ground.’ He would rather debate William Lane Craig in writing ‘where I can pin him down, stick a knife in the bastard, and twist it for a good long while’. He praised a blog post that ‘shanks Thunderf00t in the kidneys and mocks him cruelly’.
He has encouraged his blog commenters to ‘rhetorically hand [critics] a rotting porcupine and tell you to stuff it up your nether orifice’. They in turn have told people to ‘put a three week old decaying porcupine dipped in tar and broken glass up your arse sideways’, to ‘fuck yourself sideways’ with a ‘rusty chainsaw’, ‘red-hot pokers’ or a ‘rusty coat hanger’, and to ‘go die in a fire. slowly. seriously’. More recently he said of ‘faux-Vulcan shit’ that he encourages his commentariat to ‘draw their knives and flense it so thoroughly the dispassionate ass is feeling the pain in every nerve ending’.
Some examples of his unjust and defamatory rhetoric
In his latest smear just last weekend, he accused Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who lives with constant security protection against threats on her life, of ‘happily exploiting atrocities to justify continued injustices’, and of ‘using the threat of murder elsewhere as a club to silence those who strive for respect and dignity in their lives’. He based this smear on a misleadingly edited quote from Ayaan’s keynote speech to the American Atheists Convention.
PZ did not challenge commenters who said Richard Dawkins is a ‘racist misogynist piece of shit who thinks child molestation doesn’t count unless there’s rape or murder’, that ‘if he’s not actually a child molester he’s dangerously close to wearing the uniform of one’, and that ‘Dawkins and his rape cheerleaders can fuck a power socket’. But he did ban a commenter who defended Richard, telling him: ‘Goodbye. We don’t need your petty resistance to any dissent from the sacred position of your great heroes around here. Fuck off.’
When Michael Nugent highlighted the harmful effect of his behaviour, PZ responded by publicly accusing him of ‘defending and providing a haven for rapists’, saying the evidence for this was people who comment on Michael’s blog. He has since refused for six months to withdraw and apologise for this defamatory smear, adding that Michael also ‘supports rapists’, and is a ‘demented fuckwit’ and ‘the Irish wanker’. His blog network, FreeThought Blogs, has now refused for three months to even respond to repeated emails asking them to address a complaint about this issue.
Conclusion
These are only some examples of his harmful rhetoric. He also regularly accuses others of sexism without applying the same judgment to his own behaviour over the years, and he has accused a named person of committing a serious crime without employing the journalistic ethics expected in reporting on such an allegation.
It might be possible to interpret any one example of this behaviour charitably, if he was normally charitable himself and was misinformed or writing in anger, or if there was a particular context, or if he was willing to change his behaviour. However, the relentlessness of his abuse and hatred and smears across so many contexts, and his reluctance to even consider changing his behaviour, create the extra problem of the cumulative impact of his behaviour as a pattern.
Ironically, the sheer quantity of his harmful rhetoric can seem to minimise the harm of each example, as each example can hide behind a wall of other examples. It is easy for us to become desensitised to the harm caused by this gradual undermining of reasonable discourse. We can disagree robustly about ideas and behaviour, including using strong language that some may be uncomfortable with, but without unjustly attacking the people we disagree with.
Many within the atheist movement have been concerned about his behaviour for years. Some have responded by publicly ignoring it, either to avoid giving him the credibility of a response, or to avoid becoming his next target. Some have responded by attacking him back using similar rhetoric, thus adding to the problem and enabling him to deflect attention away from his own behaviour. Some, including Atheist Ireland, mistakenly believed that privately asking him to change his behaviour might eventually be productive.
So Atheist Ireland is now publicly dissociating ourselves from his hurtful and dehumanising, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric. We are asking all ethical organisations and individuals to consider how you can help to reverse the harmful impact of his behaviour. We look forward to continuing to work with others to promote an ethical secularism based on robust inquiry, empathy, compassion, fairness, justice and integrity.
Atheist Ireland
Executive Committee
7 April 2015
My comment went into moderation on the Atheist Ireland “letter”. In order to document my concern, I have included the comment below in case others know where on the Atheist Ireland website mention the names of the Executive Committee?
Is there some reason you didn’t link to the handgrenade article ? (AKA accused a named person of committing a serious crime without employing the journalistic ethics expected in reporting on such an allegation.)
Seems like referencing Shermer is crucial in this case, since that’s what got TIW up in arms about PZ and started his obsessive screed-writing (unless I’m missing something here). RD was also an important part of this, just as AHA is, but having the temerity to publish reports of Shermer’s behaviour was really what started it.
“Actually, it’s about ethics in
gamesrape journalism.”And the comments section is full of so many of the usual suspects I’m surprised they didn’t include an “FTBullies” tag at the end.
Brilliantly done, Alex. Besides providing us with a definitive “Greatest Hits of PZ Not Kissing the Asses of Atheist Leaders,” your links undermine the hell out of their statement, which pretty much boils down to: “Mommy! That man called us bad names!” Christ, Nugent is detestable.
Is it dehumanizing to call someone a “pissant”? Because that’s what Nugent appears to be.
‘defending and providing a haven for rapists’
Funny Nugent, uh.. the executive committee, left out the whole phrase, which was: “harassers, misogynists, and rapists” I’m sure that was an accidental oversight.
That is some obsessive cherry picking. Nugent seems to also be obsessively following everything PZ Myers says
By “employing the journalistic ethics expected in reporting on such an allegation”, I assume he measn that PZ’s correct response should have been “Bitches be lyin'”, like Shermer and all the rest of his buddies?
By the by, your dastardly attempt to paint PZ in a good light by linking to his own words has been soundly and resoundingly debunked by this:
See! PZ keeps using dirty, nasty, angry words! That’s what’s wrong. If PZ only said sorry and
prayed ten Hail Marysapologised in person to The Irish Wanker™ (he obviously likes this one, he quoted it three times) Nugent , it would be ok. PZ has to realize that it’s the sheer volume of dirty words he’s saying that is breaking the internet, despite any particular example being attributable to emotion or a charitable interpretation of his words!What that actually sounded like to me was an attempt to justify a Gish gallop.
I won’t add to the name-calling pile-on here (though it’s very entertaining and appropriate ) … I’ll just say that I don’t read Nugent any more, ever. It’s a big, big world and his “thinking” doesn’t warrant any time spent.
Avicenna-like verbose buffoon, obsessive “sea-lion” and Vagina-worshipper Mike Nugent apologizes for giving Vagina-worshipper PZ a platform at EWTS. LOL I am enjoying this
Bwahahaha! It comes right out and says, “We’re condemning him because he called our leader a wanker.” Hahahahahahahhahhah! *wheeze*
I just noticed that Michael Nugent buried the lede at the bottom of his latest polemic
This whole campaign of ‘defending and providing a haven for rapists’ by Nugent to get a public apology from PZ Myers is beyond the beyond. I really what to speculate about the reasons, but I know that type of behaviour is not allowed on FtB. Yet…..to involve Atheist Ireland where a lot of the members may not be aware of the backstory of
– ElevatorGate
– FtB focusing on feminism and social justice and banning individuals who could not abide by the new focus
– The origins of the Slymepit and the banned commenters finding refuge there
– History of TAM and the Skepchicks
– FtB and others pushing for code of conducts at conferences
– “Dear Muslimina” by Richard Dawkins
– Ranking rape and abuse as the worst and the less worst with a focus on ‘get over the less worse’ rapes, abuses, and harassment
– Rapey-rapey people in the Skeptic movement and the hand grenades exposing such behaviour with other skeptical and atheist “leaders” like Atheist Ireland’s own Michael Nugent who defends the ‘rapey rapey’ leader because the rapey-rapey is a big name in THE SKEPTICS(tm) community.
– Skeptical “leaders” within the skeptics community who say things like “it’s more of a guy thing” and not understand the implications
– Skeptical “leaders” who use illegal and unethical means on members of the skeptic community in order to make money and then not apologize when caught and jailed for committing felonies
– Skeptical individual in a big National Skeptical organization filing a lawsuit with the same individual subsequently posting revenge porn containing his lawsuit’s target
Basically, the letter by Michael Nugent is a continuing attack because PZ is a big poopyhead for exposing the underside of the Atheist / Skeptical / Humanistic communities and holding all ‘leaders and members’ to a set of ethical standards.
PZ, I say this in all fairness, you are just a big, giant cephalopodic dick for standing up to THE HEROS ™ who accept the above behaviour. I give Atheist Ireland, and all of its members that Michael Nugent speaks for a huge 8-middle finger salute.
“We believe his behaviour is unjust to individuals, increases prejudice against atheists, and is harmful to the promotion of an ethical society based on empathy, fairness, justice and integrity.”
Here’s the issue I’ve had with this (since Nugent has made similar remarks in the past) — OK, when PZ says mean things about people who aren’t atheists? There may be a point to this. But so many examples involve PZ saying mean things about other atheists. It would seem that if they’re truly concerned about prejudice against atheists, etc, they should care about whether or not PZ’s claims have any validity to them. It would seem to me that having sexists and assholes in the atheist movement would also “increases prejudice against atheists, and be harmful to the promotion of an ethical society based on empathy, fairness, justice and integrity.” But it seems to just amount to “PZ said mean things!” OK…that’s tone policing. And if you’re not going to say anything about the sexists, assholes, etc, then that leaves me to doubt that they are even interested in “promotion of an ethical society based on empathy, fairness, justice and integrity.” That remark becomes little more than an empty platitude that only makes them feel superior without actually having to put in the effort to be so.
That statement about promoting an “ethical society” becomes even more of joke when they criticize PZ for “publicly ‘hating’, ‘despising’ or ‘detesting’” the likes of Ken Ham, Fred Phelps, Rush Limbaugh, and others. Really? So…we shouldn’t detest these people??? How are we supposed to feel toward them? That’s the question I’d like answered. (I also wonder how Nugent would describe his feelings toward PZ considering that “detest” is apparently a no-no.)
There’s also a bit of an entertaining part that shows a complete lack of awareness: “PZ did not challenge commenters who said…” (and then goes on to list horrible things said). Funny. That’s essentially what PZ was saying about Nugent “providing a haven for rapists” (and the other things that they left out of the quote as pointed out @7 by Marcus Ranum). But I guess PZ used the Wrong Words to say essentially the same thing…making PZ the bad guy.
Uggg…that’s all the more I can stand to say. I’m just so done with movement atheism anymore. I still enjoy reading FTB, though, so thanks for this, Alex.
@Donnie (#15): FYI, there are no site-wide rules for commenters at Freethought Blogs. You can read my personal comment policy here.
#17: Sorry Alex. You are correct. I apologize my implications which were not my intention.
I lurk around Pharyngula so my point was meant to refer to the Pharyngula’s commentaries prohibition about making general speculations, assumptions and motivations of an person’s behaviour (i.e., Michael Nugent’s behaviour) on your blog. That is, I felt it would have been derailing your post without providing any positive contributions.
I am hoping that numerous members of Atheist Ireland follow the link that was posted to Atheist Ireland’s letter from the “Executive Committe” to blog post linked with context and facts. My post was merely to augment your post with discernible events with the skeptic / atheist movement so that anyone can Google the key points in the creation of the deep rifts ™ that Michael Nugent is leading Atheist Ireland into. Hopefully, AI members can decide for themselves which side of the rift actually promotes, endorses, and follows through with ensuring an ethical society.
Which, includes, naming rapists, sexual predators, and rape apologists and provides a voice for the victims of sexual abuses by members within the skeptical / atheist community.
Are they defending “apocalypse-mongers” and “creationists”? I thought this is Atheist Ireland. We’re not supposed to be mean to apocalypse-mongers???
Like I understand them using examples like Dawkins and Hitchens because that causes division in the movement or whatever. But Ben Stein? D’Souza? Rush Limbaugh? Lumping these people in with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and such really undermines their whole point.
Is there really an Atheist Ireland outside of the ultimate brown noser Michael Nugent and the even more pathetic few who have decided their road to fame is to obsessively brown nose a brown noser?
doublereed, 19
Yes but it’s all about how meeeeeeeeeeeen PZ is. He’s the meanest poopyhead around and AIE can prove it! He uses naughty words and he’s just SO MEAN!
Posted too soon. I also wanted to say excellent work, Alex. Stellar. Let people read the actual words PZ used in the context within which they were used and see the lies for themselves. Or not, and join the Slymepit. Either way’s good for me, makes it easier to know who to avoid.
Yeah, fuck atheists like Nugent. And not merely because PZ called them out, but because of their whining and fucked up reactions to being called out.
Double-down, circle the wagons, expel the whistle-blowers, gaslight, shoot the messenger, victim-blame, cry about tone and civility, it’s all just too amazing, these paragons of hyper-skepticism and pure rationality.
Thanks, Nugent, I think I’m going to stop calling myself an atheist, because I know it’ll piss off Dawkins or Silverman, who claim to fight for atheists and atheism while giving us a shitty name and throwing minorities and women under buses at every available opportunity.
They try so hard to prove they’re no better than the religious: “we can be rape-apologist conservative reactionaries with double standards who try to dismiss the concerns of women and minorities, and we can even war-monger and reject all attempts at progressivism or humanism, just like the worst religions do!”
“After dismissing your valid concerns with ‘Dear Muslima’ concern-trolling bullshit, we’ll cry “witch-hunt” or cry about how everything is censorship like a bunch of idiots whenever we’re criticized via blogs, utterly ignoring historical context or, you know, observable reality. We can even be faux-martyrs like Christians, and even do the ‘persecution complex as we persecute others’ act!”
Oh, good job, atheist assholes! We’re not better than the religious on any level, just more full of self-righteous shit about our own “rationality” rather than our spirituality! Point proven, now go fuck yourselves!
Can you be less self-aware?
I’m sure it’s theoretically possible, but man, Nugent is sure trying hard to top all the examples I’ve ever seen.
Yeah, I used to be an atheist Ireland member. No longer though. I can’t support an organisation that is headed up by such a tedious bore. His fawning over the current atheist “hierarchy” is sickening, not to mention hypocritical given his own statements criticising the RCC for the same thing. His obsessive hounding of PZ is frankly embarrassing, pathetic even. And now, roping in the rest of his organisation to support his creepy crusade… nope they won’t be seeing another cent from me given the way they so willingly allowed themselves to become embroiled in the petty (mostly unfounded) personal squabbles of an obsessive sealioning hypocrite.
So, Mick Nugent is to Atheist Ireland as Bill Donohue is to the Catholic League?
doublereed @19,
What other possible explanation could there be for including them? We think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Straight up defending and advocating on behalf of Ken Ham, Harold Camping, Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D’Souza, Ben Stein… Simply amazing.
=8)-DX @2,
Not sure who TIW is but it does seem that Michael Nugent espouses some kind of bizarre notion that allegations of serious crimes ought not to be reported through blogs and that those who are accused are due some kind of protection and consideration.
He also seems to feel that Professor Myers ought to adhere to proper journalistic standards. The real problem with that is that those so-called journalistic standards are starting to be used as a club by anti-feminists ideologues to discredit good reporting on important topics such as rape culture and the prevelance of rape on college campuses. See Rolling Stone for a recent example.
Heh. Touché.
It’s telling how much of the inexcusable bad behaviour dates back to a time when Nugent was still best pals with PZ. Apparently it wasn’t that abominable back then…
Also, Nugent shouldn’t really accuse other people of not moderating their comments…
Greta Christina wants to shun The Amazing Atheist. Atheist Ireland wants to disassociate from PZ Myers. Different strokes for different folks.
In some places atheists frown on rudeness and naming men accused of rape. In others threatening rape victims is considered distasteful. This blog is the latter sort of place.
What a pathetic creep Nugent has turned out to be.
[meta]
Alex, I’m impressed with (and appreciate) the amount of work it took to mark up that post!
—
=8)-DX @2,
Alex marked up what was there to link to the source material, no more — therefore the reason apparently is that it was not mentioned in the post itself.
I generally agree with PZ’s central arguments on matter, but find his gobshite rhetoric tiring at times. He deserves a poke in the chest every so often. That “Irish Wanker” comment was not cool, for example. I’ll be charitable and presume “Irish Wanker” has softer connotations in Minnesota, I don’t know? Say that in public across the Atlantic, and you’ll likely find yourself collecting your stuff to leave, and labelled a bigot for the rest of your days. Bad choice of words. Just call him a wanker in future.
That said, the rest of Nugent’s post is ridiculous and nose snortingly entertaining. By the point PZ is calling Nugent a ‘demented fuckwit’, someone else a ‘revolting narcissistic scumbag’, and yet another dude ‘J Noble Dogshit’ I was cheering him on!
Also PZ, apparently showed contempt for Fred Phelps, ‘attorney Debbie Schlussel’ and that well know ‘broadcaster’ Rush Limbaugh. Good.
Anyway, that Michael Nugent. What a wanker.
karmacat @8,
I doubt that; he has at least one entire board of people dedicated to doing that for him.
(It’s their hobby)
@Alex Gabriel 11
That was exactly my thinking. A textual Gish gallop. This is just a more condensed version of another post he made where he does the same thing.
But no matter how many posts he or related individuals make the one thing that is needed to be convincing is missing, the reasoning and logic over why those things are bad. This reasoning is that PZ is making people uncomfy so they might have trouble doing politics. There is no reasoning about why the statements are a problem other than *gesticulates wildly in PZ’s direction*
I’m not sure I want to be doing politics with the sort of people who would be outraged by this because I don’t know how many of them are uncomfy because of similar reasons that someone like Shermer, Dawkins or Nugent are currently uncomfy.
Alex Gabriel @31,
Treatening rape victims? That is truly disgusting. You ought to name and shame the culprits at the very least. There should be no safe space for those who threaten others and that kind of awfulness needs to be called out when and where it happens.
You’ve done the world a service adding those links, Alex. In context, PZ looks about 5% less hateful.
Leo @16 :
when Nugent whines about PZ’s words contributing to prejudice against atheists he means “he’s opening the closets and dragging all the skeletons out for everyone to see, now they’ll hate us even more!”
It’s a bit like how Grothe whined that Rebecca Watson talking about harassment that has been happening is just scaring women away from TAM, so lower female attendance is all her fault.
Plethora @37 :
I’m relatively certain that was in response to Gemmers false equivalence; if so, that particular culprit has been named and shamed, which is what Gemmer thinks is comparable to Nugent’s pissy whining.
Also, let’s talk about porcupines for a moment.
1. Did the Horde invite people to shove rotting porcupines up their ass?
Yes.
2. Did the Horde abandon that habit ourselves?
Yes.
3. Did Nugent whine about the porcupines at that time?
Nope.
Let me elaborate a bit more on questions 1 & 2:
The event known as 2D4K (2days, 4000 comments), aka “Dear Muslima” changed a lot of things and made a lot of people aware of things and made them think. The people on Pharyngula are no exception. We used to happily employ language that alleged sexual assault and we hide behind “ah, you see, I’m inviting you to do so, I’m not threatening you to do so” and it was wrong. We came to the conclusion that it was wrong. We stopped it. In short, we did exactly what we’re always asking of other people.
Yes, Pharyngula has become a different place. It’s become fiercer in a lot of ways, it’s become softer in others. But if you want to condemn PZ or the Horde for mistakes they admitted themselves and fixed, while stil happily employing sexist, racist, ableist, homo- and transphobic language, while you whine about the wellbeing of rapists, I’ll call you a big fat hypocrite
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- #40
Fully agree with that estimate, but I’d make a few comments on the viewpoint of external observers:
Firstly, many of the people posting on pharyngula/ FTB have opinions that PZ or “the horde” (i.e. a consensus of the regulars) don’t agree with. So in that case it is still common to see comments with dubious language/ideas which are usually called out or denounced by other commenters, giving the lie to the idea that PZ bans anyone who disagrees with him, but meaning that it’s very easy to find quotes (even recent ones) from pharyngula comments threads that advocate violence/ use degrading language.
Secondly, I’m note sure the horde is as lenient towards others as you’re describing here Giliell: there seems to be no problem calling out people for sexist, ableist homo- and transphobic language that happened years ago, that the individuals in question apologised for and “fixed” or explained they were misunderstood. I’m sure Sam Harris for instance considers he “fixed” his wrong statements concerning the #EstrogenVibe, and so it does feel a lot like in-group defensiveness and bias: commenters with bigotted notions aren’t considered part of the horde, while bad actions of the group can be erased because apologies are accepted. (notpology distinction aside)
Thirdly (and I consider this one of its great values), the combined intelligence of the horde includes the input of people from pretty much all walks of life: gays, lesbians, bi, genderqueer, trans*, poly, asexual, young, old, middle-aged, various sized, able-bodied/minded or not, various ethnic and racial backgrounds, and mainly a significant number of scientists and professional or ardent activists. It’s really odd to expect all the privilige-blinded and variously biased people out there to be able to express themselves to that degree of precision, sensitivity and with that level of constant feedback and clarification as is often the result of a pharyngula comments thread.
So yeah, I agree with your estimate, but fully see why anyone from outside may see things completely differently.
I don’t know about this place, but PZ gleefully compared Richard Dawkins to a member of NAMBLA for the grave sin of talking about being sexually abused as a child. And it’s that place we are talking about, right?
@42: please stop lying. Nobody condemns Dawkins for talking about his abuse. Plenty of people condemn him for his attempts to minimise other people’s abuse, and for his telling them to stop talking about it and concentrate on the scary brown people far away.
[meta]
Edward @42, actually, what PZ wrote was that the idea that mild pedophilia is excusable and does no lasting harm “sounds like something out of NAMBLA”.
(But hey, why let facts get in the way of your gleeful vilificatgion, right?)
Edward Gemmer #42
Liar.
Edward @42, actually, what PZ wrote was that the idea that mild pedophilia is excusable and does no lasting harm “sounds like something out of NAMBLA”.
(But hey, why let facts get in the way of your gleeful vilificatgion, right?)
Sure, in the context of Dawkins talking about his feelings about what happened to him. If that difference means a lot to you, then have at it.
Edward Gemmer #46
Liar. Again.
Edward Gemmer @47
From the article:
There is a gap between what you think Dawkin’s said and what Dawkin’s actually said (my emphasis added to highlight the difference). Do you feel this gap undermines your defense that Dawkin’s was only commenting on his own experience of “mild pedophilia”?
Edward Gemmer #46
Dawkins wasn’t just talking about his own feelings. Here are a few quotes:
(source)
And
(source)
“I don’t think he did any of us any lasting harm”
Fuck you, you dishonest little shit.
@Edward Gemmer
Compared to the original,
Are you able to answer this better than I have gotten out of many others of your side of the rift? Because these distinctions matter and so far I’ve seen nothing but squirming, denials and outright ignoring of these points being brought up.
You just claimed that PZ compared the person of Dawkins to the person of someone from NAMBLA. PZ’s quote is unambiguously comparing Dawkins’s words to the words of a person from NAMBLA. You just conflated the quality of a statement with the quality of a person.
I guess Edward did answer it at #47. But simply declaring the point unimportant when this is a very common pattern is not even remotely persuasive.
I wonder what the Venn diagram for “people cheering Nugent’s latest wankery” and “people lambasting the BBC for firing Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear” looks like.
And to preempt disingenuous slymers who thinks the inverse works as a gotcha: 1) punching up vs. punching down; 2) physical assault.
Fascinating, the comments explicitly giving credit for the various material in this letter to Slymepit “research”. Because it does make sense: it is a massive list of de-contextualized “gotcha” remarks that is very much what you would expect from ‘pitters. Whine as Nugent does about PZ’s accusation, in “defending” himself he has clearly chosen some interesting allies to associate with.
Are you able to answer this better than I have gotten out of many others of your side of the rift? Because these distinctions matter and so far I’ve seen nothing but squirming, denials and outright ignoring of these points being brought up.
You just claimed that PZ compared the person of Dawkins to the person of someone from NAMBLA. PZ’s quote is unambiguously comparing Dawkins’s words to the words of a person from NAMBLA. You just conflated the quality of a statement with the quality of a person.
Imagine you have a friend you know as raped, and she talks about it. She says, “I was raped, but you know what, it happened and I’m over it. My rapist has bigger problems anyway.” Is an appropriate response: “That sounds like something a rape supporter would say!”
No, that’s not an appropriate response to what you made her say. What your hypothetical friend said, however, is not analogous to what Dawkins said. If she said this:
“I was raped, along with a few other girls when we were children, but it was a different time and I don’t think it did any of us lasting harm”
Then it would be appropriate to tell her “wow, that sure sounds like soemthing someone who supports rapists would say”.
Then it would be appropriate to tell her “wow, that sure sounds like soemthing someone who supports rapists would say”.
Why?
Because it sounds like something a rape supporter would say. Saying “it didn’t do any of us lasting harm” means it wasn’t that bad, certainly not bad enough to do lasting harm to anyone. Are you sealioning or just really this dishonest?
I’m super confused about the disconnect here. You guys have been extremely clear imo. Referring to your own experience is obviously different than dismissing other people’s experiences, yet somehow he’s acting as if there is no distinction.
I must conclude that Edward Gemmer is just being totally dishonest. Quite strange.
I am sure Edward Gemmer was one of the poster sea lions for the sea lion cartoon. I suspect that he has left us alone for bedtime, and he will return before breakfast in order to continue his wankery of obtuseness.
Because it sounds like something a rape supporter would say. Saying “it didn’t do any of us lasting harm” means it wasn’t that bad, certainly not bad enough to do lasting harm to anyone. Are you sealioning or just really this dishonest?
No. “It didn’t do us any lasting harm” means “it didn’t do us any lasting harm.” Research certainly corroborates that many people who have been sexually abused do not suffer “lasting” physical or mental harm. This is a good thing – the meme that people who have been sexually abused are “ruined” is something worth throwing in the garbage.
Twisting these facts to conclude that sexual abuse is somehow ok is an idea that should also be thrown in the garbage.
@Edward Gemmer
“It didn’t do us any lasting harm” means speaking for all victims of said abuser. There’s nothing wrong with speaking of one’s own experience, but to claim that your fellow victims had the same experience is to potentially downplay their experiences. That Dawkins felt he was not harmed is fine, as far as that goes. But to say none of his fellow students were harmed suggests he’s saying “it wasn’t that bad” and “I got over it, and so should everyone else.”
Do you understand now?
Citation needed.
It has nothing to do with being “ruined” and everything to do with the fact that many people, (although clearly not Dawkins) suffers mentally because of the sexual abuse perpetrated against them. And Dawkins doesn’t get to say how other people react to the sexual abuse they suffered together.
Wait, maybe Gemmer thinks that Dawkins was using the pluralis majestatis!
What other explenation besides dishonesty is there for his blunt refusal to see the difference between “it didn’t do ME any lasting harm” (i.e. I was lucky) and “it didn’t do ANY OF US any lasting harm” (i.e. it’s not something that potentially greatly harms children)?
No but Giliell, he has science which sez sexual assault really is not that bad. Of course, I’m not actually seeing said science, but we can believe Gemmer, because he’s not dishonest or anything.
@Yellow,
“It didn’t do us any lasting harm” means speaking for all victims of said abuser.
That’s not how I took it. In his story he talks about the other kids he talked to, and it makes sense that he is referring to them, not everyone on earth. Further, it was an explanation as to why he felt the way he felt, not some sort of justification of child abuse. There is no reasonable interpretation of his words that is a defense of child abuse. I assume this is one reason people are tired of Myers.
@ Gen Uppity,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
There is no reasonable interpretation of his words that does not show that he defends child abuse. He called it “mild pedophilia”, for fuck’s sake, and then said ““I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.””
So no, he wasn’t reporting what the other kids were telling him about their own experiences. He was literally speaking for them, without knowing jack shit about how it affected their lives, and just assumed that it didn’t do them lasting harm because why should it?
Oh, and did you even read your own link? I mean seriously, even the link title (“CONTROVERSY”) says it all. There are many other studies, with no CONTROVERSY surrounding them, which shows that sexual abuse causes lasting harm.
That study is considered to be bogus and is often used by shady people to justify childhood sexual abuse. On second thought, no wonder you quoted it.
Just a correction of my post: CSA doesn’t cause lasting harm in everyone. Just wanted to clarify that. But you don’t get to say that it didn’t cause lasting harm to Dawkins’ classmates because the study shows that CSA doesn’t cause lasting harm, because that’s simply untrue and *gasp* dishonest.
Gemmer
He spoke for THOSE CHILDREN. Nobody took it to mean all children ever. He spoke for those children without actually knowing and it was wrong for him to do so. From his own experience he extrapolated that what happened there was not harmful. Yes, sexual abuse of children. Not harmful.
He spoke for THOSE CHILDREN. Nobody took it to mean all children ever. He spoke for those children without actually knowing and it was wrong for him to do so. From his own experience he extrapolated that what happened there was not harmful. Yes, sexual abuse of children. Not harmful.
Fine, whatever. If you twist his words long and hard enough, you can criticize him for talking about his friends’ feelings without consulting them. That said, what he didn’t do was compare them to members of NAMBLA. That’s what Myers did. If you think it’s wrong to talk about your feelings and others you knew who were victimized, then it is about a thousand times worse to compare child abuse victims to NAMBLA members. I’m not sure why it’s ok to compare child abuse victims to NAMBLA members but wrong to talk about your friends’ experiences with being abused, but then, I’m not the one defending it.
When you are saying “mild pedophilia” “didn’t do anyone of us lasting harm”, yeah, you’re in NAMBLA territory, who also say that mild pedophilia is not so bad and doesn’t do children harm so should be allowed.
It’s really not hard to see.
It doesn’t matter that the person who said “mild pedophilia” “didn’t do any of us lasting harm” is himself a CSA victim, he’s still wrong on this and still making it sound like “mild pedophilia” “doesn’t do lasting harm”.
No twisting of words required. Only your dishonesty refuses to let you see this.
Goodness, Gemmer, can you get a bit more dishonest?
I don’t need to “twist his words”. They are right there for everybody to see. He spoke for those people without having any knowledge about how this actually affected them.
Again, just for you:
That doesn’T even make sense and is nowhere near what PZ said. He compared Dawkins’ words to those of a NAMBLA member.
Let’s just turn it around, let us introduce Master X, NAMBLA member:
Sounds horrible, doesn’t it?
I’m going to type this slowly so maybe you’ll understand it:
Nobody ever said it was wrog for Dawkins to talk about his own experiences or feelings. It was wrong for Dawkins to:
A) extrapolate from his feelings to those of the other children.
B) make a comparison between sexual abuse and belief in hell and deem sexual abuse to be less severe.
C) Thereby making clear instances of child sexual abuse seem harmless.
Because that’s not what happens. Not even remotely. Nobody is comparing child abuse victims* as such with NAMBLA members as such.
*Please, make up your mind. Is Dawkins right in saying it was harmless or is he a victim of abuse and should therefore get a pass? Really, you do like to have your cake and eat it.
Gemmer refuses to admit that he’s wrong, despite all evidence showing this. Gemmer doesn’t want to admit that the hated PZ Mehyere and the FTBullies might have a point because if he did then he’d be cast out of the Slyme Pit, never again to wallow in their misogyny and general hatred of Social Justice. Such a fate would be intolerable to a wanker like Gemmer.
@ Gilliell,
*Please, make up your mind. Is Dawkins right in saying it was harmless or is he a victim of abuse and should therefore get a pass? Really, you do like to have your cake and eat it.
Dawkins, being quite the expert on his own life, is right to say it did him no lasting harm, and right in saying he was a victim of abuse, and right in not condemning his abuser.
@ Al Dente,
I have no problems saying anyone might have a point. Myers had no point here, and seemed to just revel in abusive language based on someone’s recount of their sexual abuse. Relevant, given Gabriel’s statement.
@Edward Gemmer 56
The answer you coward is that I would do what my friend needed, and I would continue to support other things independently.
Now how about you answer my question without appealing to anything else but the situation at hand? Fuck but you assholes have no idea how to actually confront reality.
And had if Dawkins stopped there, no one would have criticized Dawkins. We all fucking agree in this.
The fucking point that we have been drilling into your obtuse brain is that Dawkins proceeded to extrapolate and said “us”. That us indicates Dawkins was speaking on behalf of others who experienced sexual assult and the criticism from PZ Myers
Are you so lost in Slymepit group think that you cannot parse the difference between Dawkins speaking on his own experiences then transitioning to others?
Seriously? I recommend taking a break from the Slymepit and its Irish outpost and start to use your own critical thinking skills.
“PZ hates Richard Cohen! Shun him!”
Anyway: Mr. Gabriel, thanks for this. Also, you might be happy to know that this post finally inspired me to subscribe to FtB. Not because it’s a good post (although it is), but because following all those links and having the ads crash my browser three times made me throw in the towel and send you guys $30. Fortunately, I like most of you.
@Cressida (#78)
I know, right? Imagine being a blogger here. Imagine how maddening the ads would be then. (Thanks for subscribing!)
1. Did the Horde invite people to shove rotting porcupines up their ass?
I don’t particularly like the characterization of a “Horde” existing; at best it could be called an amorphous collective – you know, like gamergate. Other than people who clearly identify themselves as “horde” there are plenty of people such as myself who’ve been regular commenters since the scienceblogs days but who didn’t participate in the porcupine bullshit (I thought it was stupid, didn’t contextualize it as sexual assault, though…) Anyhow, I don’t feel like someone should be apologizing for (or criticizing) an amorphous collective. Of course, that causes problems if someone in turn wants to tar gamergate with a single brush (which I also think is stupid) but that’s also not my problem.
I recall maybe a dozen or two dozen commenters talking about porcupines. That’s not even a majority of the usual commenters.
I don’t understand why referring to Nugent as “irish wanker” is a big deal. I don’t see someone saying “irish are wankers” – the “irish” is thrown in there to distinguish Nugent from other, non-irish wankers, of whom there are plenty (including Gemmer the wanker) It seems to me to be pretty advanced wanking to get into a high dudgeon over “irish wanker”; I guess that’s the point.
(I wouldn’t normally use “wanker” as an insult; since I don’t see anything wrong with masturbation and have certainly enjoyed it, myself. I think if someone called me a “wanker” I’d nod, “yes.” In fact, I’m 1/2 Irish and a wanker. So PZ might want to disambiguate a bit more, though clearly he wasn’t criticizing all irish wankers, just “the” irish wanker.)
@ Donnie,
Are you so lost in Slymepit group think that you cannot parse the difference between Dawkins speaking on his own experiences then transitioning to others?
Seriously? I recommend taking a break from the Slymepit and its Irish outpost and start to use your own critical thinking skills.
My attitude on this has nothing to do with the Slymepit. I have been guardian ad litem or attorney for many abused people, mostly children. I’ve also represented many abusers, and I’ve also represented many who are both.
The idea that someone feelings about abuse that happened to them are somehow open season for attack is outrageously offensive to me. I see nothing in PZ’s attack that had any value at, and I found it harmful to victims, as if there is one appropriate response for victims to have. It’s disgusting. I can’t imagine ever telling any of my wards that their thoughts about their own abuse is akin to what someone in NAMBLA felt.
Jesus fucking Christ on a fucking graham cracker, Gemmer, no one is attacking Dawkins over how he felt or what he said about HIS OWN abuse! We’re having an issue about how he dictates what OTHER PEOPLE should feel about their abuse.
It is made clear to you time and time again, yet STILL you lie about it!
And before you continue your lies, here’s what PZ actually said wrt the NAMBLA thing, with Dawkins’ words in quotation marks:
So there. Lie again, please. You’re proving your dishonesty with every post, and why it’s useless to engage with anyone who is a slymepitter, since all you do is lie and lie and lie.
Poor kids.
Possibly in more ways than one, Jafafa Hots. It could explain why Gemmer is so desperate to blur the lines and feign ignorange around sexual assault, to the point of openly contradicting himself. As he’s a lawyer, though, he doesn’t think he’s capable of contradiction and will simply walk past it, over and over again. At one point I actually wrote these words, in the linked thread:
So you might want to reconsider engaging with Gemmer; he’ll just play the hyper-skepticism card until he’s removed his ability to learn anything.
Possibly in more ways than one, Jafafa Hots. It could explain why Gemmer is so desperate to blur the lines and feign ignorange around sexual assault, to the point of openly contradicting himself. As he’s a lawyer, though, he doesn’t think he’s capable of contradiction and will simply walk past it, over and over again. At one point I actually wrote these words, in the linked thread:
“
I have provided evidence and arguments that demonstrates you doubt a claim in inverse proportion to its resemblance to sexual assault. If it is so wildly different from what you believe that you can dismiss it with a single word, then it must be a trivial task to show a false premise or logical misstep.
Will you do so? Or will you yet again run away, as you did from my challenges in comments 145, 253, 294, 339, 356, and 359?
So you might want to reconsider engaging with Gemmer; he’ll just play the hyper-skepticism card until he’s removed his ability to learn anything.
Wow.
How come that Gemmer is totally able to use the italics tag but not the
tag?
Man, Nugent is really hung up (or should it be hanged up?) on how many people have noticed that, despite his impeccably
EnglishIrishgenteel demeanor, he’s an impotently self-important douche. What a loss we suffer from this oh-so-deep riftening.Edward Gemmer @87:
Nope.
Oh, so when Gemmer said that he represented abused clients, he actually meant he defended abusers in court. Well that makes a lot of sense.
Oh my word. It’s quite a bit worse than what I said in 91, isn’t it? Now it really does make sense why it’s so important for Gemmer that a.) sexual assault lines stay blurry and b.) people not take issue with things like “mild pedophilia” and “(sexual assault) didn’t do any of us lasting harm”, to the point that he would blatantly lie the way he’s done here and elsewhere.
Wow. Very elucidating reading, thanks HJ.
@Giliell,
How come that Gemmer is totally able to use the italics tag but not the
“
blockquote
tag?
In my defense, I’m holding a newborn in one arm and typing with the other.
@Gen,
Oh, so when Gemmer said that he represented abused clients, he actually meant he defended abusers in court. Well that makes a lot of sense.
No I meant what I said. I’ve represented various people in various roles.
Thank you for providing the links for clarification on the context of these examples. It is indeed important that people view each individual case, and although I haven’t read through the entire litany, in some instances the context does ameliorate Myers’ language: others are dubious and probably undeserving of mention, but I do think many are warranted.
Examples which I believe are unfair/superfluous :
1. The Ronald Reagan reference, while a bit acerbic, wasn’t particularly bad. Expressing an opinion of heightened “contempt” for an individual isn’t really something I’d criticise someone for.
2. The “Nanu Nanu” link. I’m struggling to understand why this was included in the litany. From what I can see “Nanu-Nanu” is a phrase from the 1970’s sitcom “Mork and Mindy”. Perhaps this has negative connotations which I’m unaware of, but I don’t understand why this was deemed offensive/inflammatory.
3. “Virtual non entities”. This is probably the most dubious of all. Why is this noteworthy ? I mean perhaps it’s mildly derogatory, but it’s inclusion is a bit silly and just seems superfluous.
Examples which I believe are partially ameliorated by context :
1. The remark from the “I’ve got to start carrying a knife now” post , although still very strongly worded, was used in response to an unlikely hypothetical. I still don’t agree with the rhetoric, but the context does ameliorate things somewhat.
2. The Christopher Hitchens post. P.Z was actually fairly balanced here, acknowledging Hitchens’ positive attributes while strongly criticising those which he found disturbing. “Bloodthirsty barbarian” is a strong and acerbic description, but given the context, not as bad as it would otherwise appear. That is, if PZ gave an accurate summation of Hitchens words. For example :
“The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.” ( PZ’s description of Hitchens’ argument ).
Examples which I believe are fair criticisms :
1. The Bill Maher reference was a fair inclusion , and criticisms were voiced by several commenters on that particular thread. Describing Maher’s date as arm candy and claiming that he was her “sugar daddy” was disrespectful to both individuals in the absence of evidence that he was dating her simply for status / she was dating him simply because of his fame/wealth. What did PZ know of Maher’s relationship with this woman, or his reasons for dating her ? I suppose it’s not unnatural for those sentiments to come to mind when a wealthy older man dates an attractive younger woman, but it’s unfair and disrespectful to make those unqualified observations absent sufficient evidence.
2. The “Irish wanker” comment was also insulting. Whatever about using “wanker” as a pejorative , adding a suffix based on nationality gives it a sharper sting.
3. The Robin Williams post. I thought Myers was callous and disrespectful in his wording ( although I did note that he began his post with a respectful expression of regret ), but I do understand that his frustration stemmed from a source not without legitimacy; celebrity lives, or in this case sadly a death, do garner a large amount of attention, and that can come at the expense of matters which are of great importance.
In addition to the mean language, factoring in race and wealth here was irrelevant. Robin Williams’ death garnered attention because he was a very famous and much loved comedian/actor. I don’t see why Myers’ needed to bring ethnicity/income to the argument. If Eddie Murphy or Samuel L.Jackson had died I’d imagine the reaction and media attention would have been of similar magnitude.
Brief tangent. Even though some may not agree with the attention given to celebrities, that attention can have very positive effects on people’s lives. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson recently posted details on Facebook about a recent encounter with a fan; he’d just left the gym and was driving away when a car signalled from behind A young guy got out, ran towards his car, embraced him and related that he’d been battling Hodgkins Lymphoma, and that Johnson had inspired him to fight through the illness, the chemotherapy and the stem cell transplants. Now I don’t know if the man in question was inspired by Johnson himself, his in ring persona, his many film characters, or some combination of the aforementioned, but it’s quite possible that his movie roles and WWE wrestling persona played some part in that.
4. The Brazilian priest post was offensive. Expressing pleasure at someone’s disappearance is mean spirited, and the addition of “And as long as I’m dreaming, I’ll imagine myself with an ultralight aircraft and a BB gun” to a dream scenario in which he envisages the world’s priestly population floating themselves in a similar manner to the man in the story, is inflammatory and violent given the implications.
Overall I think this long litany does need, in a number of cases ( if not all ), to be viewed in context, and I’m glad you’ve done what Atheist Ireland should have ( i.e provided links to the posts in which Myers’ comments were made ). Although there are some pretty dubious examples, I think many are valid, and if I do join movement atheism, this type of rhetoric isn’t something I’d be comfortable with or supportive of .
Anyway, there was another reason I wandered by.
Alex Gabriel @11:
While that’s a good way to describe it, I think there’s a better one floating out there.
Or as an Amazon reviewer summed up,
By cramming in so many claims that required a lot of context to sort out, and failing to provide links (even though he had them. Odd, that…), Nugent made it impossible to keep the entire argument in your head and thus protected it from falsification. The same logic applies to him, of course; these giant lists reassure him he’s the correct one here, and the rest of us are blind to the evidence.
Thank you so much for doing this, I just spent several hours reading through old posts. This version should become the official one for people to read.
And thanks corvidd @94 for taking the time to type pretty much what I would have. My biggest ever disagreement with anything I’ve read by PZ is his handling of Robin Williams’ death. Mainly because it was framed as Robin Williams giving a gift to the media, rather than the media exploiting a tragedy. I also don’t think the media cared whether it was moving attention away from brown people, their motives were likely related entirely to profit.
I must say about the “I’ve got to start carrying a knife now” post, I’ve had to do a lot of first aid for various jobs and this plot device always infuriates me. If an accident victim is still talking to you, they’re pretty far from dead. When they close their eyes and go limp, still almost definitely not dead. Even if you can’t do CPR, at least call 911!!! God’s Not Dead is certainly not alone in doing it, but I suspect that TV/Movie trope kills a lot of people in real life.
I just deleted a small novel and I’ll replace it by saying, I wonder if Atheist Ireland actually read the posts referred to in that letter. There are absolutely some things I disagree with but, for the most part, I think his criticisms are spot on. Is it the swearing? I am very happy that the porcupine thing is over with (by deliberate action).
Also, regarding the public face of atheism, there have been multiple occasions where a Christian has attacked me with some Dawkins statement and I’ve had to agree with them (e.g. “It would be immoral to bring [a child with Downs’ Syndrome] into the world if you have the choice.”). Richard Dawkins was very inspiring to me at one time but there are a number of important areas where he’s a complete douche. He can also be very insulting to Christians (not something I generally have a problem with). Hey, isn’t he a fellow at that thinking place?