1. unclefrogy says

    I can see disagreeing with what someone has to say I do it all the time sometimes I have to watch out that I do not blurt out what I’m thinking. Sometimes it is in the wrong place or time. I can not understand the nerve of someone telling anyone what they should say or how they say it. Who the hell appointed them god or den mother. I would not expect anything else from anyone but to say what they want say.
    There is something in me that is very likely to say more of what you don’t like if you tell me not to!
    uncle frogy

  2. Cinzia La Strega says

    Thanks for sharing this PZ. Young women like Rebecca Watson are truly an inspiration to me.

  3. gog says

    I remember when the whole elevator incident became big Internet drama, there was a discussion about it at my atheist social group. My question was what could be done to make people (read: women) feel safer at conventions; additional security personnel? A more sincere approach to address, investigate and rectify complaints of harassment or worse? The dialogue more or less was along these lines:

    Those policies and systems are already in place. There’s no need for any of that.

    Then why are so many people saying that there’s an issue that needs to be addressed?

    I don’t know. I think that she was being overly sensitive. The guy didn’t do anything overtly threatening as far as she told the story. She’s overreacting.

    She’s overreacting. She’s being emotional. She’s not being rational. Women do that; they let emotion cloud their judgement. They let their fight-or-flight reflex get in the way of their assessment of the situation. That’s their answer? “You misread the situation” is not an answer to “this happened and it really shouldn’t.”

    These guys at the atheist group: they’re the liberal white guys that don’t want to hear about feminism. They don’t even want to hear about it from another white guy unless he’s towing the line. Even the women (what few even attend) don’t want to hear about it. If you bring it up, the conversation steers toward the poor vilified leaders. Shermer, Krauss, and the rest of them; no, they’re not bad guys. They would never do the awful things of which they’ve been accused. Character assassination. The Internet is simply full of kooks that would like to damage the reputation of these good men that do good things for and in the name of Skepticism. Feminists are ridiculous and fracturing the movement.

    I don’t care what they’ve done if it’s not related to skepticism. That’s right folks: the expression of the individual morals and ethics of our skeptical heroes is not relevant to the Movement.

    I don’t know if I can go anymore. I don’t know if I can associate with people that suffer from such utter blindness to their own privilege and in-group bias. They’re the atheists that I know in my area; we have some beers and we laugh. But then I go home and wonder if I’ve somehow unwittingly given a silent approval of Certified Skepticism and all of its glaring institutional failures. I wonder if I’ve been part of the problem.

  4. Muz says

    Feminism cops a disproportionate amount of this, of course. But there’s a wider effect that it’s a part of it seems. It’s these people complaining that you, internet dispensary, are failing to enable the blinkered compartmentalisation of their lives. “I come here for Science/Games/Home Brewing/Sports/TV Shows. It thoroughly disrupts my day if you talk about women/gender/social issues/poverty/politics/religion/anything I deem vaguely distasteful or contentious. I insist you desist immediately!”

    It’s as though people were hoping new media behaved pretty much like the old only more fragmented so they could sift and sort to get only what they want. Alas no, dear whiners. The fragmenting and resorting along irregular lines works on both ends of that exchange.

  5. says

    The idea that men are more rational, less emotional than women makes me wonder if some of the people claiming it have ever spent any time with men.

  6. ChasCPeterson says

    sometimes it’s enough to piss the jerks off.

    One certain way to do that is posting a vid by Rebecca Watson, so…congratulations.

  7. anuran says

    Sometimes all that gets you through the day is knowing that not making it would give bad people satisfaction.

  8. Khantron, the alien that only loves says


    You’re only talking about bad reviews, what about reviews like this:

    Let me start off by saying this. I’m a guy that hated PZ Myers at first. But this albums mature sound caught my eye and I like it! My music taste ranges from metal to hard rock to soft rock, indie, folk, pop, rap, etc. I admit I liked N’Sync and thought PZ Myers was too bubble gum pop and no real man should go anywhere near their so called music. But then I heard the song “Story of my Life” and I couldn’t resist the mature pop sound of it. I told myself that was the only PZ Myers song I would ever like. Then I started reading reviews for the album. People were calling it more mature and rock sounding. The core audience liked it a lot less and people who didn’t like PZ Myers started to listen up including me. So I gave in and purchased my first and probably only PZ Myers album, telling the guy at the register it was “for my sister”, but he knew….he knew. Here is a track by track review.

    1. Best Song Ever: I heard about this song, and heard snippets of it in commercials, but I dismissed it as just another lame 1D song before I actually listened to it now. It does have an obvious The Who influence in the beginning. It’s a feel good party song and its undeniably catchy, but not the best thing ever. Still good for this boy band standard. I will say that the verses remind me a bit of The Police, in a good way! 9/10
    2. Story of My Life: This is the song that turned heads for many. At first I thought it was a new OneRepublic song before finding out the truth. Definitely the best song this boy band has put out so far. Very mature and the chorus will have many girls swooning and guys singing along while thinking of that special girl. The folk pop sound of it really is a game changer for this group. 10/10
    3. Diana: There is a sort of 80s influence on this song. Again I will say the verses remind me of Sting just slightly. The chorus was too poppy for me at first, but then it grew more and more on me and now I think it’s very catchy. Girls named Diana must be in love with this song. Around 2 minutes into the song the bridge steals the show before the final chorus and shows more of the growth of the band musically. 9/10
    4. Midnight Memories: Theres an obvious rock n roll influence on this song. The chorus has a big stadium sound. Not one of my favorites, but the last minute of the song is great! 8/10
    5. You and I: Slower song, but definitely one of the better ones. At first I thought it was too corny, but then I remembered the group I was listening to and gave them a pass. The chorus is very catchy and emotional. Good song to listen to with your girlfriend/boyfriend. I see a sunset in my mind when I hear the chorus. The guitars in the final chorus are perfect and the vocals get bigger. This could be a single. 9.5/10
    6. Don’t Forget Where You Belong: The vocals and song structure immediately remind me of Ryan Teddar and his band. I know its being said too much, but this is another example of the maturity the group is reaching! Definitely a feelgood song. 9/10
    7. Strong: The plucking guitars really give this song a 90s feel. I have to hand it to these guys for singing greatly in their chorus’s. Of course the bridge part of this song is just musical candy to the ears! The chorus had me singing along in my head by the end and its very infectious. 9.5/10
    8. Happily: The guitars in this song continue the trend on the album to bring out a more pop rock sound. Another song to listen to with that special someone. Very upbeat and fun! Toward the end the song begins to take a folk pop sound in good fashion to end the song with. 9.5/10
    9. Right Now: The Ryan Teddar comparisons are prominent especially since he produced this song! I just have to say that the harmonies in the chorus are just perfect. This is anthem worthy. 10/10
    10. Little Black Dress: The guitar riff of this song definitely sounds like a lost hit from the 80s! Though the songs lyrical content is definitely more for the ladies, it’s still catchy and the guitars make it sound more hard rock than the rest of the album! 9/10
    11. Through the Dark: The folk sound is there again with Mumford and Sons sounding plucking. The chorus has a slight Of Monsters and Men vibe. This song makes me want to chase after the girl of my dreams through the dark. See what I did there? 9/10
    12. Something Great: This song is really something great. The chorus is so corny in the best way. Try not to feel the music when you hear it. I don’t know what to say, this is the definition of a good pop rock song. 10/10
    13. Little White Lies: Obviously one of the more poppy songs on the album. But still better than their tween sound from previous albums. This could grow on me. 8.5/10
    14. Better Than Words: A whistling song. This song really combines most of the sounds of the album to sum up an ending. The corny lyrics make it perfect to listen to when you wanna get the message to your lover that they are ‘better than words’. I’d say this was a good close to the album from this growing boy band. 9/10

    So all in all, this album really is more mature than expected from the group. I’ve never listened to the first two albums, but I’ll take most peoples word that they were mainly for the teenage girl audience. I never thought I would be listening to this group, but here I am enjoying their latest album. The rock elements are a really nice touch. I would say they have exited Justin Bieber territory and entered manhood with this album. Fellow men, don’t be ashamed to like this album! This is their first and only album I’m gonna buy unless they make another more mature one next. But if you do only ever buy one 1D album, let this one be it.

  9. says

    What do people have against masturbating?
    Why do they think it’s a bad thing to do and possibly a personal failure?
    In other words: What’s wrong with those people? Why don’t they have a healthy sexuality themselves that apparently each and every single one of their conversations needs t be about the sex life of virtual strangers?
    Dear Internet Dude who spends too much time wondering about how often other people have sex with themselves: I’m sorry for you. Please masturbate some more. First, it feels great and second, it gets your hands off the keyboard, which would be something to look forward to for the rest of us.

  10. Velvet Heart says

    I’m all for feminism. Society, as it was and in many ways still is, has some severe problem treating women as equals. I’m not just talking about the obvious ones like rape or discriminatory hiring practices, threats and other cruelties, but also those little, subtle behaviors you might not even notice in yourself until someone points them out to you.

    But then, this particular complaint she mentions isn’t exactly about that. It’s about how she basically generalized all male atheists as being horrible misogynists who can’t go a day without spewing hateful insults towards women, and then basically tries to pass it off as a joke in later videos like this one. Take a moment to actually look at the youtube movie in question and you’ll notice she isn’t being entirely honest in this one.

    With a statement so broad that it includes the people like PZ here who are firmly in her corner as ‘being unable to go for too long without calling a woman a cunt’, otherwise their balls will ‘tuck up inside them, forming what many call a ‘mangina’.’

    Women fighting for equal rights, great!
    Women lying and being as sexist as certain extreme right-wing Fox-news pundits? Well, I agree with that just as much as I would if a man did the same.

    So, one request I have for her, should she ever read these comments: “Please use less-broad strokes when using insults. I know you’re fighting for something worthy of fighting for, but why turn to sexism to fight sexism? If you’d have worded it differently, perhaps as ‘sexists pricks on youtube’ instead of ‘atheist men’, you would’ve specifically targeted those worthy of mockery.”

  11. says

    Velvet Heart: Yeah, you’re all for feminism…except when it makes people uncomfortable.

    As one of those “atheist men,” I take it as a challenge to be better, and the last thing I’m going to do is tell someone who makes a valid point about the state of the atheist movement that she needs to make it all about me and reassure me that I’m OK.

  12. Maureen Brian says

    So, Velvet Heart? Woman gives a totally dead-pan account of something a bit worrying which happened to her. A touch of ennui in the tone, nothing more.

    She gets death threats. Nearly three years later she’s still getting death threats.

    And now you want to impose a rule that she’s not allowed to generalise. Why? Do you have proof that all those hundreds of threats are from just one person? For fucks sake, man, logic!

  13. Ishikiri says

    I think privilege causes a disconnect between message sent and message received. What people like Rebecca are saying here is “this is some bullshit that some men in atheist circles are engaging in,” but what a lot of guys are hearing is “all men are assholes.” I used to have that knee-jerk reaction myself, until I realized that it wasn’t all about me. Criticism of your group is not a personal attack, unless you’re also engaging in the bad behavior.

    I don’t see where people get the nerve to tell her what to talk about, though. It’s her damn YouTube channel.

  14. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    @18 Velvet Heart

    In any other situation, you’d be perfectly capable of understanding that, if you don’t engage in the behavior someone is referencing, that they’re not talking about you. It shouldn’t be necessary for her to specify that she doesn’t mean 100% of atheist men do those things because that’s not an expectation we have otherwise. Suddenly when the subject is some kind of bigotry, we just can’t figure out how generalizations work.

    Fuck of with your “if you must complain about the misogyny you endure, please do it without implying that any group with which I personally identify is engaging in it” bullshit. If you really care how women are treated, get the fuck out of here complaining about how Rebecca Watson phrases her complaint and go start telling the “sexist pricks on youtube” to stop being sexist pricks.

  15. unclefrogy says

    I just meant to post the link as usual but instead it went whole hog!
    uncle frogy

  16. azhael says

    The idea that men are more rational, less emotional than women makes me wonder if some of the people claiming it have ever spent any time with men.

    The kind of men that would think that way are the kind of men that do spend time with other men, but that time is spent pretending to be perfect avatars of machismo, lest that time count as “gay time”.
    These men genuinely behave different in the pressence of other men….their arseholes are so tight, microscopic diamond dust flies away when they fart.

  17. bittys says

    I would love to see her stop talking about harassment and sexism, but only because that would mean that the harassment and sexism has stopped, and that would be a happy day for us all.

    Until then, however, it’s not a problem that will ever be solved by victims shutting up and hoping it will go away

  18. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Pissing off the jerks is the reason why my parents are still registered Republicans. They haven’t voted for a Rethug since Nixon (first time–they learned). They’re pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, favor raising taxes… When a fellow Rethug asks they what the hell they are doing in the party, they point out politely, “We were here first.”

  19. says

    I’ll all for Velvet Heart. Really. 100% behind him. Totally and unquestioningly in support. Count me among his fans. He’s just the best.

    But then, everything he writes is stupid and not worth reading. Whenever he’s on the internet, my brain cells start committing suicide. He’s no better than any of the people he criticizes. In fact, he’s much worse. Reading through his post here, I can’t help but wonder if he’s actively trying to ruin all civilization and culture. Anyone who writes such things has a distain for humanity.

    So, one request I have for him, if he actually wants to understand why his post is so easy to parody: “Read about empathy. Also, learn how quotation marks work.”

  20. rorschach says

    In 8 years I can not remember one instance of PZ patrolling the place at 330am, that’s what the Antipodean night shift is for!! Must be dire circumstances. Or the flu.

    confused troll @33,

    You like dehumanising people, equating people who disagree with you to slime. Adolph Hitler blamed the jews, Herr Myers blames the slymepitters.

    This one has so many lies and false assertions and equivalences that I have to pick it apart a few words at a time.

    You like dehumanising people

    While you’re at it, define what you mean by dehumanising. Hint: “Proving someone wrong and quoting them in Comic Sans” does not qualify.

    equating people who disagree with you to slime

    Are you dumb or wilfully obtuse? Slyme, as in the
    webforum that hosts 10s of thousands of posts of people who will never let rationality get in the way of hating PZ(including occasionally, you know, dehumanising him)

    Adolph Hitler blamed the jews, Herr Myers blames the slymepitters.

    Whoever at Wiki is maintaining the “false equivalence” entry might look to this contribution as an example of how not to do it. Hitler wrote blog posts arguing against his foes using the tools of logic, rationality and skepticism, while Myers had millions of innocents killed.

    Oh, wait.

  21. Louis says


    …I take it as a challenge to be better…

    from PZ is bang on. We all fuck up. I do it, even, shockingly, some of you do it too. I know, I know, horrendous of me to notice. The trick is not in never fucking up, it’s in how your react to a fuck up.


  22. Louis says

    I have often thought that PZ is very like Hitler. No wait, I have reasons.

    Reason one: Facial hair.

    …erm, that’s about it. CURSE YOU AND YOUR FACIAL HAIR!!!! The full beard is a big front. If you shaved it almost all off, leaving just a toothbrush moustache, then you’d have a toothbrush moustache JUST LIKE HITLER!

    See. I’ve run rings around you logically.

    You won’t publish this comment because of my frozen peaches or something. Ban me now etc. We’re not all Slyme. Women are a bit poo. Curse you feminism for making my peepee soft and my feefees hurt.

    How did I do?


  23. says

    I think you know what you’re doing here, I know what you’re doing here, everybody else knows what you’re doing here and nobody is interested except for you.
    So take your ball and leave.
    Also: Alert sent

    I think that Velvet Heart, a responsible dog owner, is also in favour of sidewalks free of dog poop. But when people who have no dogs but use sidewalks complain about dog poop and assholes who let their dogs shit on the sidewalk without cleaning up, velvet heart gets quite upset and starts to complain that not all dog owners are like that and that people should stop talking about dog owners like that. And when people then tell velvet heart that nobody said that and that velvet heart should please STOP so that people could actually get something done about the problem of dog poop on the sidewalk, and that this is part of the problem, velvet heart will get really upset, because good dog owners like velvet heart are the real victim here.

  24. opposablethumbs says

    kryten9001, cupcake, you do know that the people who identify with the slymepit were the ones who came up with the term “slymepit” themselves, don’t you? As their own name for their own place?

    Which makes your complaint almost funny. Only almost, though. You need more original material for a successful comedy routine.

  25. Louis says


    You need more original material for a successful comedy routine.

    Oh I disagree…

    …waaaaaiiiit…waaaaaaiiiiit. Shit. {facepalm}

    I like self deprecating humour. Pity I’m not very good at it.*


    *Not mine. Good though. Can’t remember whose it is.

  26. rorschach says

    Which makes your complaint almost funny. Only almost, though.

    Come on now. I’m not here that often anymore, might as well have fun with a random toy every now and then! Admittedly, this one is a little simple. But yeah, if it annoys PZ, happy to have it purged along with my responses to it….

  27. Louis says

    I have often thought that PZ is very like L Ron Hubbard. No wait, I have reasons.

    Reason one: A massive boat and the occasional tendency to ban people who act like utter fuckwits on his blog. WHICH IS EVIL. And nautical.

    Reason two: Facial hair.

    …erm, that’s still really about it. CURSE YOU AND YOUR FACIAL HAIR!!!! The full beard is a big front. If you shaved it all off, leaving a clean shaven face, then you’d have a clean shaven face JUST LIKE HITLER L RON HUBBARD!

    See. I’ve run rings around you logically yet again. I RULE TEH INTARWEBZ!

    You will publish this comment because of my thawed apricots or something. Ban Slyme now etc. We’re not all me. Women are a bit poo. Curse you misandry for making my feefees soft and my peepee hurt.

    Why didn’t I don’t?


  28. Louis says

    Cupcake? Me? Awww how sweet! Geddit?

    You, my lovely little sausage, can insult me as much as you like. Fill your boots. You can even advocate that I be raped with a dead animal. I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. Don’t let minor details like the general commentariat here deciding that the porcupine thing was way out of line and we (if I might include myself briefly) shouldn’t use it, and were wrong to have used it, get in the way of a good bit of team nonsense. I realise inconvenient facts would ruin the “them vs us” narrative for you and might tax your tiny mind.

    So, have you got anything good, or just snipy crap as per usual?


  29. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    kryten, honey, when you show up and sound exactly like a slyme pitter, there’s really no point in protesting that you’re not one of them. You are in spirit and that’s all that counts.

  30. rorschach says

    Even before PZ eventually purges kryten’s limp efforts at relevance I have entirely lost interest in its utterings at this point.

  31. playonwords says

    Keep going Rebecca and keep going PZ. With luck you may cause an outbreak of mass apoplexy in the manosphere.

    @ kryten9001 Awwwww didums Kryten. It’s Slymepit – note the s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g (you do know what spelling is, don’t you?) Then there are your pitiful little attempts to patronise posters here which just marks you, not as a nasty little shit stirrer, just one of the lumps that floats to the top (and that is an insult, not a title) BTW complaining that I cannot spell “patronise” just means you don’t know your Onions

  32. Anri says

    kryten9001 @ 49:

    As much as it might ruin your adolescent melodrama, you do know you can’t actually be lynched over the internet, right?

    Unless, of course, you’re unclear as to what lynching actually was.

    To make the situation perhaps clearer for you, if you visit someone’s house and shit on their rug, you might get asked to leave.

  33. Louis says

    HAHA! Kryten, do you really think that analogy maps at all? Honestly. In all seriousness do you think that what you have said in #49 bears any relation to what Seven of Mine said in #48?

    I realise asking someone who is quite obviously trolling for laughs and a ban a serious question is likely an exercise in futility, but do you think you could articulate the chain of logic behind your astonishingly erroneous and bewilderingly racist attempt at analogy?

    Would I be right in guessing that you just got a little kick out of using the most obvious and odious racial slur in a blog comment, and that was really the point of doing it?


  34. nich says

    Ya know there are ACTUAL dungeons out there where you can get off in a clean, safe environment with a pro-dom rather than come here and waste PZ’s time with strange ban-fetishes. I’d imagine an actual pro-dom with actual chains and whips is much more satisfying than a metaphorical banhammer wielded by a bored college professor in his completely metaphorical dungeon. With his recent heart troubles and advancing age, I doubt he metaphorically wields the banhammer with the same gusto as he did back when he was driving nails into JC’s transubstantiated body and banhammering angry Catholics left and right. I believe he even got rid of the completely metaphorical dungeon, too. I hear there are some places out on the interstate. Google Maps is your friend.

    Seriously, there are better ways to get your fap on people!

  35. David Marjanović says

    I just meant to post the link as usual but instead it went whole hog!

    Uh, it does that. Every time someone posts the naked URL of a YouTube video, FtB embeds the video in the comment. Has always been that way.

    At least it’s not as bad as advocating being raped with a dead animal as was common here not so long ago.

    LOL, are you trying to berate us for having stopped that?

  36. David Marjanović says

    I believe he even got rid of the completely metaphorical dungeon, too.

    Yep, in an attempt to make slymepitters stop coming here just to get banned and then pointing at their dungeon cell as a badge of honor.

    Not sure how well it has worked, but it’s evidently not quite perfect.

  37. Anri says

    kryten9001 @ 56:

    Dear Leader will be here soon to purge all the forbidden comments. Things will be ok again in the People’s Democratic Republic of Pharyngula…. till next time :)

    Perhaps I’m slow, but if you could just explain – if you’re not actually here to engage or make an argument, why exactly should you be given the bandwidth?

    I’m seriously asking here – if you’re just trolling, you’re not actually a martyr, are you?
    And if you’re not, why haven’t you actually made a point?

    If you think you’re trying to make a ‘point’ about people being too sensitive about competing ideas… and then fail to present any ideas, you’re not really succeeding, are you?
    I’m thinking you could have worked this out better beforehand. It’s kinda sad.

  38. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    @49 kryten

    Oh snap. Shots fired.

    Let me see if I can clear this up for you kryten, honey.

    Are you dead at the hands of a mob of people for the perceived crime of not being white? If not, you’ve definitely not been the victim of a lynching.

    Get it?

  39. says

    Hey, Velvet Dog? You are worse than krysten and harrison and all the scumbags sending rape and death threats. If you had watched the video, you would have realized that Rebecca Watson specifically called out your particular brand of mealy-mouthed half-assed support for women’s rights and equality that specifically throws women under the bus the minute they start discussing things that affect them. You prioritize your comfort over her struggle, and you provide aid and comfort to the people harassing her (and me and all of us).

    Like she says in the video, the rape threats and the slymey hyperbole, whatever. They are what they are. They would, in fact, be incredibly easy to deal with if it weren’t for you and men (mostly men, a few women) like you. If we didn’t have to stop and soothe the ego of every dude who’s distressed that apparently the social training given to people with his gender and skin color predisposes them to awfulness, we’d be a lot further along in this fight.

    Get it together.

  40. pentatomid says


    Does it fill you with pride, being a general shitstain like that? Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
    You make me sick. Piss off.

  41. pentatomid says


    Called a dog with his/her points being twisted and strawmanned.

    Twisted and strawmanned? Really? Where exactly did that happen?
    Fuck off, dishonest troll.

  42. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    @62 kryten

    Do tell. Explain to us how we’ve misrepresented poor Velvet Heart. None of this vague handwaving and name dropping of logical fallacies. Spell it out for us.

  43. says

    You know, slymers have tells. There are certain words and phrases that only come from people who frequent that forum, and another giveaway is that they come here to berate me for sins that are amplified to the nth degree at the slymepit. Why would anyone in their right mind get upset that I’m mean to people while defending the hateful tactics of the slyme?

    Bye, kryten9001. Maybe now you’ll have the free time to police that forum, rather than whining here.

  44. says

    While cleaning up the mess, I checked the spam filters…and there was kryten9001, trying a combination of different pseudonyms and registering under half a dozen different email addresses, flailing madly to get past the filters, and failing every time until he learned to avoid slymepitter hallmarks.

    kryten9001 and harrisonfjorde are the same person, by the way. The same disingenuous liar and slymepit fan.

    Isn’t it amazing how invoking the dread name of Rebecca Watson provokes idiots into raging fury?

  45. Anri says

    kryten9001 @ 62:

    Look at how Velvet Heart, (who made some reasonable points in a respectful way), has been responded to. Called a dog with his/her points being twisted and strawmanned. Standard operating procedure here.

    You know what?
    If you’d wanted to make an argument defending Velvet Heart (who, BTW, wasn’t banned, they just didn’t repeat post – you noticed that, right?) you could have done that.
    You didn’t.

    So – now that you’ve been banned, do you feel satisfaction or regret?

    If the former, you didn’t really want to argue any substantive point to begin with, did you?
    If the latter, you could have actually argued what you wanted to argue, couldn’t you?

    To put it another way, either you stupidly got yourself banned while very poorly trying to argue about something you only mentioned in passing once,
    you are being dishonest.
    In either case, ask yourself if you’re worth someone else’s bandwidth.

  46. says

    Isn’t it amazing how invoking the dread name of Rebecca Watson provokes idiots into raging fury?

    It’s her superpower—one reason among many that she is a hero to me.

  47. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    kryten9001 and harrisonfjorde are the same person, by the way. The same disingenuous liar and slymepit fan.

    Nice to see them taking the high road.

  48. gog says

    Sockpuppetry: the last refuge of shitty, boring, pointless Internet trolls that have a too high opinion of themselves.

  49. pentatomid says

    kryten9001 and harrisonfjorde are the same person, by the way. The same disingenuous liar and slymepit fan.

    *groan* Figures.

  50. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    I remember being a teenager and hearing this quote from Elvis Costello: “My ultimate vocation in life is to be an irritant, someone who disrupts the daily drag of life just enough to leave the victim thinking there’s maybe more to it all than the mere hum-drum quality of existence.”: and thinking “Holy shit, that’s me!” And while I’ve grown a lot since then (I hope), I still take enjoyment from occasionally being a little speck of dust in a jerk’s eye.

  51. Dexeron says

    Posting a Rebecca Watson video… hell, even mentioning her… is like turning on the mysoginistic-douchebag-signal. It’s just like the Bat-signal, except the people who show up are terrible and don’t even wear tights.

  52. paulambos says

    Yes: Slightly more tasty and with improved mouth feel. But still not worth going off your diet.

  53. Ishikiri says

    “What’s the difference between you and me?”


  54. profpedant says

    Gee, maybe if Rebecca Watson did a scientific study of harassment that would enable everyone to be happy! With numbers and graphs and statistical sampling! (She could even go a step further and publish one version with her name on it and another version with a Masculine! pseudonym and generate lots and lots of scientific data for a second paper with more numbers and graphs and statistical sampling!)

    Paraphrasing one of Ms. Watson’s summations of her critics, if someone declares that ‘what we need to effect social change is for everyone to learn the scientific method’ then surely when disconcerting-to-that-person information is presented scientifically the truth of it surely must be grasped….. (I think that must be one of the most irony-rich sentences I’ve ever written.)

  55. harbo says

    Guilty……if not on line,(possibly) but in my head(occasionally)
    Thank-you for, me , my daughters, my son,
    I am such a product of my culture, that in the seventies I thought I was a “feminist”.
    When I was merely a twat.
    Thank-You again.

    I promise to try harder

  56. says

    opposablethumbs @39: kryten9001, cupcake, you do know that the people who identify with the slymepit were the ones who came up with the term “slymepit” themselves, don’t you? As their own name for their own place?

    Did they really? As I recall, it started as comment threads on ERV, then eventually got its own place. I don’t know who originated the term, though I’d assumed it was one of their detractors, and the Slymers just decided to own it.

    Of course, I also recall the term “baboon” coming the other way, at around the same time. Shall we argue about “dehumanization” now?

  57. Gregory Greenwood says

    I find myself put in mind of Martin Luther King’s famous letter from Birmingham Jail;

    I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

    I imagine that Rebecca Watson (and many people like myself who who understand the power of her argument) is feeling gravely disappointed in the liberal, atheist, skeptical male right about now.

    If I may take the grave liberty (and with profuse apologies to Martin Luther King, who was many of orders of magnitide more eloquent than I can ever aspire to be) of a little modification, then the paragraph can easily be applied to the issue of contemporary misogyny;

    I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate liberal atheist/skeptical man. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s the woman’s great stumbling block in his her stride toward freedom gender equality is not the White Citizen’s Counciler ranting MRA or the Ku Klux Klanner fanatical, religiously motivated misogynist, but the white moderate liberal atheist/skeptical man, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action open discussion of feminist issues and preparedness to publicly address the widespread injustices done to women“; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s person’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro women to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

  58. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Eamon Knight @81:

    As I recall, it started as comment threads on ERV, then eventually got its own place. I don’t know who originated the term, though I’d assumed it was one of their detractors, and the Slymers just decided to own it.

    Of course, I also recall the term “baboon” coming the other way, at around the same time. Shall we argue about “dehumanization” now?

    Keep in mind that calling a place where a group of people hang out a slimepit expresses a certain judgement on who those individuals choose to associate. It does not, in any way, shape or form, state that they are not human. For me to say, for instance, “He wallows in a pit of intellectual mud with great pleasure,” does not dehumanize the hypothetical him. Were I to, instead, say, “His is a baboon,” does actually dehumanize the hypothetical him. One refers to the perceived qualities of the place/group a person decides to hang out, the other states, flat out, that someone is not human. References are also made about “Free from Thought Blogs,” on occasion, which is not dehumanizing. Make sense?

  59. says

    @83: It does not, in any way, shape or form, state that they are not human.

    That had also occurred to me, but I do not know, as a matter of history, whether the “slime” epithet was applied first to the people (then by extension the place), or first to the goings-on there, or what. Yes, I am bending over backwards to give way more benefit of doubt than is likely deserved.

  60. weatherwax says

    I’ve been following the Skepchicks since it was just The Skepchick Rebecca and her original blog. There was no real feminism at the time. I love actual skeptical articles, and was happy to read a site that looked at new things, not just bigfoot and UFO’s. And frankly I was put off by the feminists I was associated with at the time, and Skepchick was happy to examine their claims critically.

    Then the Skepchick organization expanded, and it was great, and they started including more work by woman scientists, both current and in history.

    But as a follower of the blog I wasn’t aware of everything going on behind the scenes. I remember all the marriage proposals, and thought it was kind of cute, and I guess Rebecca did too, for a while. But I didn’t know about the emails to The Skeptic’s Guide telling them to get “That Woman” off the show. I didn’t know about the non-stop propositions at conventions, or the groping.

    Then came Elevator Gate, and a simple request for men to try to be aware of and, Chtullu forbid, respectful of women’s feelings, other peoples feelings in general, really. And the shit storm that followed really caught me off guard.

    So huzzah to Rebecca and all the Skepchicks. I’m not sure I could keep going through all the shit thrown at them, but I’m sure glad they do.

  61. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Nice. Justin Vacula just performed what could be considered an interesting variation on the Dear Muslima composition. Rebecca Watson has gotten threats. So has he. And when he gets threats he takes action. Therefore, R. Watson’s threats are either minor or non-existent.

    So, threats against Vacula, big deal and he deals. Threats against Watson? He doubts they exist.

  62. ChasCPeterson says

    I find this phenomenon of “hey, you insulted me personally if indirectly by painting with too broad a brush” really puzzling. It smells like narcissism. I mean, if the shoe don;t fit, then why put it on? Or why imagine that some evil Watsonian metaphorical shoe-clerk is trying to force it on your foot (or down your throat, which is where the metaphorical forcings seem to happen more often).
    It’s actually easy enough to shrug off direct, vituperative bullshit that’s directed directly at one by name, if it’s bullshit.

    Watson’s wrong about one thing: at this point the opprobrium would not cease even if she stopped talking about feminism altogether and concentrated on science only. They’d just switch to credentialism. Sad but true.

  63. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Ogvorbis, please remember that Vacula is allied with AVfM. And what is one of the main messages that AVfM stresses? That it is men who are under attack. And Vacula follows the script. It is not just that the threats to Rebecca does not exist. It is that she is lying in order to troll men like Vacula.

    And Vacula has to try to laugh off Watson claim that those who want her to be silent are worse than the trolls who send rape and death threats. To even acknowledge that would mean that he would have to concede the fact that Watson has been harassed daily for years. And that does not fit into the narrative that men are under attack in this society.

  64. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Chas, they already use credentialism against her. No need to switch.

  65. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Is this the same old slyme? Making use of the tired slyme talking points.

  66. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Does the concept of false advertising mean anything here?

    Yep, which is why your inane accusations are treated with the highest skepticism. That is based on your previous inane attempts are trying to be funny, but falling flat on your face.

  67. weatherwax says

    Hermann’s spittle a awoken me to the truth. Slymepit to Steinpilz? Only a genius could conceive of such brilliant wordplay.

  68. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Nerd, there was humor to be found in that load of spittle?

    Well, it was too over the top, which made it was pathetic. The ‘pitters need to learn subtlety. *snicker*

  69. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    What’s the matter, Nerd. Are you becoming senile?

    Nope, but you are, if you think your post is anything other than drivel from somebody who’s opinion should be dismissed on sight, as no cogency there.

  70. says

    How do these people not see how utterly deranged they look? What kind of person obsesses over someone to this extent? Do they realise what they’re doing or do they actually think they’re on the right side here? Do they really believe their own lies? Do they have any moments of doubt, any moments when they question how emotionally invested they are in this and and how much of their time they spend attacking someone obsessively? For some of these people this seems to have been a major focus of their lives for the last 2-3 years, and that’s terrifying.

  71. says

    Now Steinpilz. Same guy. 8th pseudonym he’s used to drop his rants and whines here.

    What the hell is wrong with these people?

  72. vaiyt says

    The book was going to make him the Fifth Horseman.

    Because all PZ wants is to join the likes of Sam “Torture and genocide are okay if it’s done to brown people” Harris and Richard “Dear Muslima” Dawkins. Makes perfect sense.

  73. vaiyt says

    Also, thanks for proving the point in the video, jerks. By all means keep jumping out of the woodwork to flail in apopletic rage at anything with Watson’s name. Like zombies throwing themselves at a brick wall.

  74. says


    What the hell is wrong with these people?

    I’m guessing massive insecurity, a profoundly exaggerated sense of their own intelligence, and a deep sense of loss and frustration at the realization they are impotent in silencing those with whom they disagree.

  75. Maureen Brian says


    Don’t you believe it! When I threatened Justin Vacula – ever so slightly as I just raised my voice a little and questioned his manners – he dashed across the room and stood behind another man, whom I could name if it were necessary, for safety.

  76. says

    Oh, right. I did give one speech where I talked about a “fifth horseman”, self-deprecatingly.

    So I’m going to very prematurely declare myself a fifth horseman. I picture myself, though, as a little guy on a very small pony trotting after the other four.

    And you might want to look at the conclusion.

    So let me close with one more Bible quote that will answer a question I raised at the very beginning, which was, why only four horsemen? Revelation 9:16 is very useful. It says, “The number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.” You heard it, the horsemen need two hundred million riders. So my final message is this: humanists, mount up.

    I find the whole concept of limiting the leadership of atheism to four (also something those four have said was not their intent) more than a little irritating and weird. If I’m proposing myself as #5, it’s only because I want the number to be millions.

  77. Rey Fox says

    trying a combination of different pseudonyms and registering under half a dozen different email addresses, flailing madly to get past the filters, and failing every time until he learned to avoid slymepitter hallmarks.

    Get a hobby. Seriously.

  78. says

    #110, Maureen Brian:

    That whole scene was very strange. Vacula, moving his chair to the outside wall of the venue, carefully arranging other chairs around him like a kid building a fort out of sofa cushions, and then single-mindedly plonking out tweets repeating whatever the speaker said. He acted like he was afraid he’d get cooties from the other attendees.

  79. A. Noyd says

    (In reference to the people John Stewart is calling out, if that wasn’t clear.)

  80. nich says

    A. Noyd@115:

    It’s a little known fact that the H in John Stewart’s first name stands for hate. As in “I hate when people spell Jon Stewart with an H”.

    I keed. I keed.

  81. Louis says

    The thing I find funniest is the obsessive, unrelenting hate. Well, that and the haters’ tiny minds don’t seem to be able to encompass other positions. Except, strangely, obsessive hate’s polar opposite, adoration. Can’t people like things A, B and C about a person (like Rebecca Watson or PZ, neither beyond criticism, error or flaw) and not like things X, Y and Z? Do we have to have adolescent hate/love fantasies and fanaticisms about the perceived or projected virtues or vices of people? Do we have to like someone to agree with them? Agree with them to like them? Can’t we occupy a more nuanced or complex position than that? Or are we ever damned to be assigned to some spurious, and non-existent, team for the sake of some semi-literate driveller with a hate boner’s convenience?

    It’s all more than a little pitiable.


    P.S. Hermann, just for you (I’m feeling generous):

    …semi-permanently inebriated…

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    It was going to be serious competition to The God Delusion, right?

    I never thought so. Was it really? Was it meant to be? I missed that announcement. PZ=/=Dawkins, they’re, like, different people and everything! I expected PZ’s book to be PZ’s product, not Dawkins’. I expected PZ to put things his way, in his style. Are we permitted to like both PZ’s and Dawkins’ output? Because I do. Not universally or uncritically in either case, but sufficiently that I don’t object to parting with a few quid for a book. I even read {gasp} books by people I strongly DISAGREE with. Amazeballs! It’s this crazy thing called “intellectual curiosity”. Weird I know.

    I’d have loved to see your faces when you discovered that it was just a warmed-up stew of old blog posts fished out of the recycle bin.

    Oh no! PZ made a book that some people think is a collection of old blog posts (I found the style useful actually, snappy vignettes can be a nice format to read sometimes)! The horror, the horror!

    I read Pharyngula for the blog posts. I’ve been reading PZ’s stuff for donkey’s years, if bunging him the equivalent of a couple of pints of beer worth of cash is what’s needed for all that material, whether I’ve learned something or agreed with any of it, I’d say that’s worth it. So if you’d seen my face it would have been smiling. I hope that brings you joy.

    …Greg Laden brazenly lied about the nature of the book in his review of The Happy Atheist

    Never read it. Was I meant to? Will there be a test? Do I have to pass some ideological exam or something? Gosh, I suppose buying a book on the strength of enjoying the bulk of PZ’s blogging for a decade plus is a concept too frightening to consider for you.

    PZ, the Great Scientist who hasn’t published anything of scientific merit in the last decade…

    ZOMG! PZ is not a Nobel Laureate at a major research university! AI! AI! I have been shamed by not reading only the works of those people you deem most suitable! However will I survive? Perhaps because quite a lot of people, even an associate professor at a relatively small liberal arts university in the USA, can have something interesting to say. No…NO! Say it ain’t so. Perhaps…juuuuust perhaps…some of these people have something more interesting to say that a collection of hate filled delusional woman haters. Why that couldn’t be the case, could it? Pull your trousers up, old son, your envy is showing.

    (Also, didn’t PZ amusingly smack that credentialist drivel bag BWE4 around about publications etc once? That was funny)

    Shed some more impotent rage tears.

    My only tears are tears of laughter. I am laughing at you and all like you.

    Assassinate some more characters.

    Assassinate characters? Why do I guess that someone doesn’t understand Bayes’ Theorem? Or even basic statistics? Or has even bothered to look at available figures for false accusations vs incidence of sexual assault? Why do I guess that the same uncritical hero worship of certain people that you, Hermy, project onto others features heavily? It’s probably because I’m a big ol’ meanie.

  82. nich says


    I swear it is some sort of weird fetish. It all seems to follow a similar pattern. They run in, spout off, then almost literally beg to be banned. “PZ stands for Poopy Zoo! Women a teh poop! FREEZEDOM! Now ban me with your mighty ban-whips, mods*!” like naughty little subs begging a pro for a spanking. And they do it OVER. And OVER. And OVER…

    *that ain’t even mods, in the internet sense or even the early 60s London sense.

  83. nich says

    PZ is not a Nobel Laureate at a major research university! AI! AI!…

    …a Balrog is come?

  84. Louis says


    …a Balrog is come?

    Yup. The Balrog of False Credentialism. It burns you with a fire of badly attempting to deride perfectly reasonable and relevant qualifications. FEEL THE BURN!!!!


  85. Louis says


    The correct beer…the correct brewery…I…I…{sniff}…I’m actually touched! (I’m also drinking one at the moment too)


  86. says

    @119 et al: People like this have been around since Usenet days — look up alt.syntax.tactical. To me, it seems truly pathological. And pathetic.

  87. Louis says


    I have stocked up on a couple of proper stone jug scrumpies just in case you’re right (and I think you will be). I’m a huge Ringwood fan. And Rebellion. And Landlord…


  88. says

    Yo, multi-troll: seriously, EAT A SNICKERS™.

    I hope Rebecca never stops. I wouldn’t. Even if slymey, babbling, barely-literate two-fisted MRA rageboy wankers were the only people left in the world, I’d want to take the simple fact of my existence and just shove it in their faces, every single day. Why? Because it would remind them that their mission, their philosophy, their lying and their bellowing and their foot-stomping add up to failure.

    MRAs/anti-feminists/’pitters/assorted rageboys: you fail. You fail at reason, you fail at comprehending both the actual problems and their scale, you fail when you portray victims as perpetrators, you fail when you paint bloggers – bloggers, for fucks sake – as oppressive tyrants for not wanting to print the latest product of your cerebral dysentery in their threads. And the more people who realise that while men do experience a raft of problems unique to their gender that require solutions (urgently, in many cases), they are simply not equivalent to the millennia of societal and institutional baggage stacked up against women and that men are not being oppressed by some Vagylon Bralek C*ntspiracy, the more you will continue to fail.

  89. woozy says

    So…. you go to a web site called “skepchick” and you find that someone there is talking about … feminism…? And this surprises you?
    *sigh* I missed all the slymepit fun…

  90. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    They also fail at posting comments here.

    Definitely. Any ‘pitter could stick around a while if they lost the arrogant attitude, and said ” this is why feminism is dead”, and the evidence [link] is found here. Unfortunately for them, they think You-Tube with someone expressing an unevidenced opinion means more than a link to the academic literature found in places like this. This should be easy for them. Unevidenced mere opinion, dismissed without evidence. Real third party evidence, argued against with with evidence.

  91. Amphiox says

    The MRAs and the Libertarians share one thing in common. They behave like a bunch of unfettered id. It’s like they couldn’t abide by a set of rules if their very lives depended on it. The pitiful sockpuppetry is just one symptom.

  92. says


    I’m sure there’s substantial overlap between the libertarian and MRA contingents – after all, libertarianism only makes sense if you deny privilege. And it’s typical of libertarians to recognize the right of someone to harass others but not the right of someone not to be harassed (despite the “negative liberty” they profess to be defending).

  93. chrisv says

    #26 thank you. I forget how terrific Phil was. Wish he were here. Rebecca, you do have male, atheist friends and supporters. Count me as one.

  94. Maureen Brian says

    In latest news: a senior member of this incompetent, right-wing government we have in the UK has said publicly that having too large a cluster of evidently privileged people together in key posts looks bad and can skew the decision-making process.

    In other word, he has the same understanding of privilege that I learned from Barry Deutsch a long time ago.

    And if Michael Gove can grasp that then there’s no reason why either Dave Silverman or the entire heavenly host from the slymepit can’t grasp it too.

  95. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Banhammered, your evidenceless opinions are dismissed.

  96. says

    Ban Hammered: Same guy.

    He claims I’m lying, that he only made posts as “Steinpilz” … but if that’s so, he’s a member of a hivemind, because I have a whole set of identical comments in the spam trap that were made by maxwell, kryten9001, Victor Inaceus, Herman Steinpilz, harrisonfjord, and bjornagain, as they tried express their identical opinions with identical wording.

    And they’re all separate individuals? Totally amazing. They should submit to the Randi Challenge.

  97. says

    Me @128:

    I hope Rebecca never stops. I wouldn’t. Even if slymey, babbling, barely-literate two-fisted MRA rageboy wankers were the only people left in the world, I’d want to take the simple fact of my existence and just shove it in their faces, every single day.

    Pitiful ‘Pit Pseudonym #339856986:

    Another Rebecca fanboy. They’re so cute and one-dimensional. Like a living Bjarte Foshaug cartoon. And such an amusing lack of logic.

    I’m one dimensional? That’s the ‘pit calling the latrine full of shit.

    As for the fandom, until hordes of pre-adolescent hategasming keyboard warriors dogpiled onto Rebecca Watson after That Thing She Said, I wasn’t a fan of hers. I didn’t know her or her work well enough. But when I saw how she reacted to the torrents of disproportionate abuse and threats she received after that one short video, I thought “Good. That’s the way to respond to haters and toolbags. Just keep showing up and laughing at them; just keep letting them know you’re not going anywhere and not shutting up.” So I started paying more attention.

    What lacks logic, Mr fucking Spock, is abusing somebody so much that it raises their profile, gains them new fans, takes up so much of their time, changes their life so much that they turn into a veritable poster-child for how to cope with internet harassment – and then endlessly complaining every goddamn time she says anything about internet harassment.

    If you want her to stop, leave her alone. It’s not rocket surgery.

  98. says

    Hey, Persistent Pit Stain:

    Remember what I said in 128 about failing?

    You have failed so fucking hard in this thread that I felt the thump here in fucking Australia.

  99. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    maxwell, kryten9001, Victor Inaceus, Herman Steinpilz, harrisonfjord, and bjornagain (and whatever new one you will create):

    Does this behaviour really show moral, ethical, atheistical, skeptical, reality based superiority?


    The binary paradigm of some people amazes me. For instance, I think that Richard Dawkins is a wonderful writer and has done much to add to the philosophical underpinnings of atheism. I also think that he has a serious blind spot when it comes to privilege. He tends to assume that his experiences are universal. But, apparently, because I called him out during the 3d5k elevatorgate threads, I am a hater. I think that PZMyers is a wonderful writer and has done much to show that atheists should not stop at just being atheists — that human rights, those rights suppressed by religions through recorded history, is a logical extension of the atheist position. But I also have had disagreements with him (the bunnies, for instance) when his privilege shows. So since I do not follow him without question, I am a PZed hater?

    I am a white, middle-class, college educated, straight, cis-gendered man with a house, a little more than one cat, a large American sedan, two children (both in college), and am a professional. I could be a GOP poster child. Sometimes, when my privilege shows through, I am. I like my approach to the world — I try to be supportive where I can and hammer othering and treating people like things where ever I can. But I also know who I am, what I have done (I was twelve years old during the incident being used to attack this community, and we all know that 12-year-olds (a 12-year-old who had spent two years being raped and being told that this is why god created children, if you become a man, you get to do this) are held to the legal, ethical and moral standards of adults, right?), and I carry that knowledge, that fear of who I could be, who I maybe really am, and hate myself. I really do see myself as a having failed at being human. (sorry, tangent)

    So, according to the binary thinking expressed by the sock puppet on display here, since I disagree with some of what Dawkins said, I hate him. But, I disagree with some of what PZed has written, so I worship him. I was abused, so I am a liar. I abused, so I am a rapist and an example of the epic hypocrisy of FtBers. (yeah, I know xe hasn’t gone there, but it is part of the wider narrative)

  100. jefrir says

    Ooh a real live troll in action. How long will this sockpuppet last?

    I’m guessing “until PZ gets up in the morning”.

  101. jefrir says

    Spoken like a True Sycophant.

    Ooh a real live troll in action. How long will this sockpuppet last?

    Until the old fraud wakes up, I guess.

    So what are you hoping to acheive? What’s the point in posting long incoherent rants that will vanish in a couple of hours?

  102. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    God, it’s so sad that these upstanding, morally pure individuals are driven to sockpuppetry, which is EXPLICITLY against the rules of the place they are forcing their comments. These people, who clearly value consent and boundries more than other people, are just forced to violate other people’s boundries! It’s so fucking sad!

    *cries long crocodile tears*

    Yeah fuckers, with your attacks against Ogvorbis you have forfeited any chance at all of being taken seriously. So go ahead and cry HOLOCAUST and STASSI and FREEZE PEACHES and LIES and HYPOCRISY all you want, we all see who the hipocrites and liars are. Like Stephanie Zvan said, you made your bed.

  103. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    So you’re happy to support a proven liar?

    Things which are apparently the same: “claimed by Herman Steynpilts” and “proven.”


  104. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    “ze Rules are ze Rules.”

    Yes yes. Like not harassing people and lying about people. Those are “ze rules” too, but what the hell. Violating boundries, who cares, amirite guize?

  105. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    More things which are apparently the same: “blindly” and “having examined the relevant facts.”

  106. Lofty says

    Of course an Aplusser would blindly believe the Dear Leader.

    Spoken like a truly clueless gobshite. Keep it up, this is very amusing!!!!11!!

  107. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    I have no qualms violating the boundaries of a known fraud like P-Zus.

    Translation: I’ll violate the boundaries of whoever I want whenever I want so fuck you. Much morality. Such high ground. And I’m sure that off the internet, you’ll accept those boundaries of other people, right? Unless you decide they “deserve” what they get from you. Then all bets are off.

    Yep, really building yourself a solid case here, bud. Keep going.

  108. says

    Not all boundaries are the same.

    Of course, there are the boundaries other people set, like “you are not welcome on my blog, stay away”, which you simply ignore, and then there are boundaries you and your friends said, which are to be religiously respected…

  109. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Part 3 of things which are apparently the same: “formerly” and “still.”

  110. FossilFishy(Anti-Vulcanist) says

    Indistinguishable slyme is indistinguishable.

    Same tired tropes. Same pointlessness. Same petty small-mindedness.

    Troll on you crazy diamanté, troll on.

    May your screencaps bring you to orgasm before the chafing grows too great.

  111. Louis says

    I love how not worshipping PZ, arguing for nuance (Like A,B and C, dislike X, Y and Z. Agreement=/=like, like=/=agreement) but not hating PZ is “cult behaviour”. As opposed to, you know, nuanced, adult, intellectually curious scepticism.

    Still, whatever gets the Hoggling delusionists through the night, eh? Keep telling yourselves you’re not utterly inadequate pissant misogynists but really Brave Heroes (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry, I piss myself laughing every time I think of that. Co-opting Churchill for a podcast…what a muddle of fuckwits).


  112. Louis says

    Hi Herman, or whatever you next sockpuppet will be called,

    So let me get this straight, PZ is a liar because he is saying you have tried to sockpuppet here (something you have demonstrably done) under 7+ names and you are saying you’ve sockpuppeted under 3 or 4 names?

    Wow, that’s a major whopper right there. Call the cops.

    It’s quite possible PZ is lying, it’s always an option. I’m just curious to know why he would lie about this. After all, PZ’s point is that you are trying to circumvent your being banned here by sockpuppeting under several names and you agree that’s what you’re doing! It’s also demonstrable that, if one believes you are one person, not several, that you’re doing this.

    So why on earth would PZ lie about something you admit to doing and is obvious you are doing? To up the number of names you’re trying to post under from 3 or 4 to 7 or so? Not really a big lie is it, even if I grant you the extremely large boon of believing you. Why would PZ lie about that? Let me guess, to make some sort of case that shitheads like you are inundating the place with attempts to post when banned. But you’ve already admitted and demonstrated you’re doing this. Given your dishonest behaviour, why is it more reasonable to believe you than the person who has access to all the blog controls? Oh, right, because you hate him and anyone who doesn’t hate him like you is a cult member or something.

    Incidentally, I have a charming reply to your drivel from yesterday. Tragically, I didn’t copy your post to quote from, and when I went back to do so, it had been vanished. Not something I would have done, I’d just have banned you (oh noes, disagreement with PZ, whatever next?). Hence I could not quote from it. Then the rugby started and I had far more important things to do than play fist the fuckwit (that’s you btw).

    In fact, hey, guess what, I have still got far more important things to do…I’ll go do them. Enjoy your rageflailing at your betters, pissant.


  113. FossilFishy(Anti-Vulcanist) says

    Oh Louis, Rugby? Really?

    After all these years you haven’t learned that the only proper hobby for a True Skeptic ™ is sockpuppet trolling?

    [Shakes head sadly]

  114. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Herman Steynpits:

    You completely missed my point. I have disagreed with Dawkins. I have disagreed with PZed. I respect both. Respecting them does not mean that I worship either one. Just as disagreeing with them does not mean that I am a liar and a troll.

    I have disagreed with Dawkins twice (that I know of (there may be others but I do not obsessively revisit every conversation attached to a particular ‘nym on the internet)). The first time was when he claimed that, since other women have it worse, women in the US should not complain about sexism. The second time was when he seemed to extend his experience as a survivor of abuse to others (and I read that to include me). Dawkins sometimes speaks from a position of privilege. So do I. So does PZed. Dawkins sometimes fails to spot his privilege. So do I. So does Pzed.

    My point (and yes, I readily admit that I failed (yet again) to make myself clear) is that disagreeing with someone does not mean that I hate that person, or that I am going to attempt to drive that person out of public life, or out of atheism. It merely means that I disagreed.

    I also pointed out the selectivity of assertions of veracity among some people on the internet — ie, someone was a victim (Rebecca Watson has been a victim of unremitting abuse for three years now), they are lying. Someone did something bad (my history, me disagreeing with Dawkins in public) and not only is person being honest, but they are haters.

    Does that make sense?

    Of course it doesn’t. Why? Probably because, a noted failure, wrote it.

  115. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Yes, I forgot ‘I’ in the last sentence.

    Also, would the person (no, Herman, I am not saying it is you, nor am I saying it is anyone you associate with) please knock it off with the emails asking me to commit suicide?

  116. says

    Wow. Now he’s accusing me of lying about the precise number of pseudonyms he’s used? I listed a bunch of them, and I can guarantee you that they’re all nestled snugly in the spam filter, with overlapping content (when a comment failed, he’d copy and paste it under a different pseudonym), identical tone and general theme.

    I think he’s adequately well demonstrated all by himself that he’s an obsessed harasser with anger management issues, and kind of a dumbass.

    He is not the Hoggler himself, by the way. If he were, we’d be hearing much more about toilets and the Hoggle’s fascination with masturbation and fecal matter.

  117. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Ah, fresh air. Didn’t bother to read even one of sad, pathetic lying trolls posts. They are all not worthy of being read or considered.

  118. says

    I knew full well it wasn’t the Hoggler from that notable deficiency in his usual subject matter (this troll is of lesser calibre and a greater bore). However, it may be that he hails from that same part of the world as the Grogan (possibly even the same time zone as people such as myself, Rorschach, or Hank_Says) based on the regularity with which he’s depositing his fetid droppings at 4 am to 7.30 am, Minnesota time (UTC –5). The UK would possibly be a fit, except that the first postings by ‘harrisonfjorde’ would have been from 4.30 am (UTC 0), which seems an unlikely time to be getting enraged by Rebecca Watson videos. Or maybe the graveyard shift is actually that boring.

  119. says


    Y’know, I was taught that when someone makes it plain they don’t want you in their house, you don’t insist on staying to piss on the carpet, and pretend you’re some kind of bloody martyr whilst doing so.

    It’s a concept which may be foreign to you. We call it “politeness.”

    Fuck. Off.

  120. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Daz, I think what you’re missing here is that Harold owns the internets, and without them would have no place to store his peach sorbet, so how dare PZ kick Harold off **all the internets**?

  121. zaratoothbrush says

    Er… Harold, you wouldn’t be of Adelaide, would you? You remind me of someone whose stupidity has a distinct signature – lots and lots of tu quoque parroting, and lots of satisfied belief that he’s really ramming it home the more and more pitiful he becomes. The only thing missing is the unctuous passive aggression, although I think I can see tiny traces of it here and there. Of course I could be wrong – the strain of your sort of emotional virus tends to transcend global borders these days.

  122. vaiyt says

    I never denied that I posted under more than one name (such as Hermann Steinpilz). If that’s what it takes to get yourself heard, then so be it. Personally, I would restrict the term sockpuppeting to the situation where you are trying to suggest that you are more than one person. I have never done that. If PZ had not deleted my posts you could see that I was always upfront that I was the same commenter under a different ‘nym. As I’m doing here.

    It’s still sockpuppeting, ignoramus, the only difference is that you’re doing it to ban-evade.

  123. Louis says

    It really is something to be accused of being incapable of reading by someone who has said the same thing I did…

    …what a palpable fuckwit you are, troll. Enjoy your rageflailing, you’re hilariously pathetic.

    I also love being called an apologist when I’ve clearly argued several times that the people you hate aren’t perfect. Apologists make apologies for something, I’ve made none. You really are criminally stupid.

    Oh and don’t be silenced, spew your drivel across the web. It gives me something to laugh at with my coffee.



  124. zaratoothbrush says

    Sad, isn’t it. As hard as he tries to be a troll, he just ends up a piñata. That seems to be the fate of trolls these days. They’re going to have to lift their game.

  125. Louis says

    I’m also wondering if this temporarily present twit realises he’s dismissable and risible based on his words, not PZ’s. I think that would take a little more self awareness than he is capable of. Shame really. What must it be to live like that? Ewwww.


  126. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Harold –>>> hushfile. Not worth the trouble to read fuckwittery.

  127. chigau (違う) says

    Woke too late.
    Missed the whole thing.
    Oh well, there’s always tomorrow.

  128. Velvet Heart says

    I apologize. After reading a number of the comments, I realize that what I said was probably a bit on the whiny side, and possibly offensive. Please know that I didn’t mean to imply she shouldn’t say anything at all! Death threats, and all the frothing misogyny in general is a terrible thing and I don’t mean to imply she wouldn’t have the right to say something about that.

    I’m well aware that there are plenty of sexist men among atheists, just as you’ll find them among almost any group.

    What I was trying to say was that she shouldn’t fall for the temptation to be like the very people she was mistreated by, but, in hindsight, that was a bit of a dumb thing to do: After all, she’s not sending death threats, so no matter what she says, she’s not going to stoop to their level.

    Look, I’m not exactly sure what I did wrong here. I’m well aware her statement wasn’t directed at me. I didn’t mean to offend. I am, however, willing to learn from, and about my mistakes.

  129. Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] says

    Velvet Heart, here’s the thing. Rebecca Watson – and all the other feminists out there – do not need to be told that all men aren’t like that.

    We know.


    I mean, ferfucksake, you are commenting on the blog of PZ Myers who displays an impressive beard male phenotype and who – loudly, frequently, eloquently – communicates his friendliness towards feminism and his whole-hearted agreement with feminist activism. There are lots of other male allies here.

    Feminists don’t need to be told that all men aren’t like that.

    You know who does?

    Other men.

    Go tell the MRAs and the rapists and the sexual harassers and the ones who think it’s totes hilarious to make jokes about rape and sexual harassment and “bitches” that all men aren’t like that.

    Because they are the ones who need to hear it.

    Yes, telling them that, bluntly and clearly, will lose you status amongst them. You may be ordered to turn in your “man card.”

    But, at the end of the day, is the test, isn’t it? Do you support women enough to actually stand up for us and face risk yourself, or are you just in it for the cookies?

  130. Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] says

    I wrote a long comment, and it has disappeared.

    Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version:

    Velvet Heart, your mistake was directing your – correct – statement of “not all men are like that” at the wrong audience.

    Rebecca Watson knows that. She knows that very well.

    The people here know that. Fuck, you’re commenting on the blog of a person who is loudly, emphatically, eloquently in support of feminism and who is male.

    The people who need to hear that “not all men are like that” are men.

    Go tell that to the MRAs, the rapists, the sexual harassers, the catcallers, the tellers of rape jokes, and the men who think privilege is just dandy.

    They are the ones who need to hear it. Not us.

  131. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    @Velvet Heart

    A few things:

    1) We know you’re not all like that. That’s how generalizations work. They don’t mean 100% of group X does Y thing. So pointing out that you’re not all like that is a tad patronizing and most marginalized people have had it up to ~here~ with that shit.
    2) It derails the conversation. Instead of talking about the lived experiences of marginalized people, we’re now talking about how the precious little feefees of members of the dominant group get bruised when we make generalizations.
    3) On the subject of hurt feefees, the “we’re not all like that” often precedes a complaint that you’re alienating potential allies. Anyone who is going to take their ball and go home over a marginalized person expressing legit frustration and anger is a shit ally.
    4) It stalls the conversation in a more meta sense because, instead of ever making any progress, we’re constantly explaining 101 things like why “we’re not all like that” will never be a welcome contribution to a conversation.
    5) As a member of the dominant group, anyone should be able to forgive a marginalized person an occasional outburst of frustration even if they really are painting with too broad a brush. As a white person, if a person of color says something like “fucking white people!” I don’t go remind them that we’re not all like that. They put up with enough shit from people who look like me that it’s not at all an unreasonable reaction.

    At any rate, speaking only for myself, thanks for not dusting off the martyr hat and being willing to listen and ask for clarification about why you got the reaction you did. It’s always appreciated.

  132. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Also further to what Esteleth said at 200, it’s MRAs who need to hear that you disapprove of that behavior, not us. There’s only so much marginalized people can do to fight bigotry because bigoted people kind of by definition don’t think our opinions and feelings are worth very much. When we complain we get characterized as shrill and hysterical. Social disapproval from others in the dominant group is what gets us past that wall.

  133. ChasCPeterson says

    nuanced, adult, intellectually curious scepticism.

    like Louis’s.
    So adult, so, so nuanced.

    I knew full well it wasn’t the Hoggler

    and that’s why you called him ‘Franc’?

    It’s still sockpuppeting, ignoramus, the only difference is that you’re doing it to ban-evade.

    so, then, it’s not sockpuppeting, it’s ‘morphing’, in the usual parlance. Ignoramus.

    Yes, sniping is all I got this morning. Go sue me over at Thunderdome.

  134. Velvet Heart says

    @Seven of Mine, formerly Piegasm

    1) I hadn’t actually considered it from that angle. I’ve been lurking here but I’ve rarely, if ever gone and read the comments, so I wasn’t aware of that. The second part of this point, I mean.
    2) I fear I may be derailing it even further with all of this. I’d like to contribute to the actual topic, but I’m afraid I don’t actually have anything to say that hasn’t already been said and hasn’t already been said better. The best I can do in this case is add my voice to the choir. The same applies to point 4, I fear. Maybe I’ll have something to contribute, but not to this particular conversation.
    5) I’m just plain being too sensitive about it, I suspect. I admit I can only imagine the frustration involved in such a situation as I’ve had it relatively easy, with only a few nasty bumps. I’ve never been the target of death threats, for one. I just tend to flinch at broad-brush generalizations of people because of past experiences with a parental figure with some very distinct beliefs in regards to the criminal tendencies of people of certain ethnicities.

    Reading this again, I can’t help but notice it’s ‘I, I, I’. I… should probably stop posting until I have something to say.

    Thank you and, well, I may not be up to shouting it at the people who should hear it, but I do my bit by trying to correct my friends and, above all, myself when I realize we’re painting with too broad a brush.

  135. says

    and that’s why you called him ‘Franc’?

    The troll didn’t bat an eyelid at lying, so why are you querying that I returned the favour and lied back? I considered that the initial masturbatory comment and the ‘Victor Inaceus’ nym could be referencing the rather more scatological V. Ivanoff, so I was playing along with that bait to see whether it would result in a response of conceit or pride that might reveal more about who the troll actually was. As it transpired no one claimed responsibility over at the place where ‘we are being monitored’, but they were crowing about how the wrong troll was being identified. That tells me that those sad sacks over there are gullible, besides being obsessed.

    TL,DR: I don’t always post in good faith – but only in response to those who have already demonstrated their bad faith.

  136. Louis says

    Nice try, Chas. mocking you is fun, let’s not be stupid and mistake it for anything else.

    That wouldn’t be a good or well argued thing now would it?


  137. vaiyt says

    Please, Chas =P as if I would fall into your transparent attempt at evading PZ’s sight.

  138. Louis says

    Incidentally, Chas, I am eternally amused by how any frivolity or humour is dismissed by you as not serious. You really are pathetically shallow aren’t you? Wake me when you can think yourself out of a lukewarm cup of piss. Found those oh so valid and unjustly ridiculed arguments against abortion yet? Or are you still piss and vinegar and nothing else?

    Your snipe on the Thunderdome wasn’t unnoticed, I guess most people think you’re not worth bothering with. Personally, I just find it funny to mock you and watch you have a tantrum. You are hilariously up yourself and really quite unintelligent. The fact you don’t even realise it is the best bit for me.