This afternoon I got a strange tweet.
— So-calledAdultFemale (@VitaBrevi) September 10, 2014
Say what? I thought. That’s really weird; I don’t follow Barbara Drescher, I have no idea what she’s talking about here; I haven’t commented on anything she’s written in quite some time. But apparently she dreads the idea that I might notice something she has posted publicly, so I looked to see what it was about.
Apparently, she thinks I retweeted something she posted. OK, but that’s odd. I hadn’t. The sniping about “rage blogs” is mildly annoying — this is how the skeptics dismiss anyone who levies any criticism against them, by belittling any one who disagrees with them as “rage bloggers” (rage entirely optional; you can be calm and polite and rational, and by definition, you are a rage blogger for daring to criticize a Skeptical Thought Leader.)
As it turns out, I hadn’t whispered a word about Drescher. It was a freakin’ parody account, of which I have quite a few — that someone calls themselves “pharyngula” or “pz” has nothing to do with me. I replied to that nonsense.
— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) September 10, 2014
See? Pure, white-hot rage.
Then Drescher said more.
Say what again? This “rage blog” bullshit is getting really irritating. I said nothing, I ignore this Drescher bozo, but somehow I’m a terrible threat for existing. And what’s all this about Amy? What’s the reason for that strange resentment. But I let it slide. I’m going to ignore it all…but then along comes the third strike.
It finally sinks in that I had nothing to do with her sad little fears that I might have noticed her petty tweet, but still, she’s got to bring up her delusions about “rage blogging”. Well, fuck that noise. Now I’ve got to mention it.
Here’s the comment she dreaded being exposed to the wider public, despite the fact that she made it publicly on both Facebook and Twitter.
What’s it all about, with this passive-aggressive veiled insinuation that someone is ‘lining their pockets’ and ‘puffing up their egos’? It turns out that she’s a bit peevish because Phil Plait wrote a nice post praising Amy Roth’s activism, specifically her art installation, “A Woman’s Room Online”, which illustrates the harassment women receive on the internet.
It’s one of the more petty complaints I’ve seen from the hardcore skeptic weirdos. She is unhappy because someone said something nice about someone else. She is aggrieved because Amy Roth has creatively documented the dreadful activity that Drescher wants to believe doesn’t exist. And I suspect she’s at least vaguely aware that she’s being childish and stupid because of her fear that someone might notice her behavior.
That doesn’t stop her from doubling down. In addition to her petty resentment and her mindless lashing out at “rage bloggers”, she goes on to accuse Amy of bilking people for personal profit. This art installation is something Amy assembled at her own expense, and which she is exhibiting with free admission, and Drescher is somehow arguing that she’s doing it solely for personal gain, and that Phil Plait is gullibly colluding with her to con all those people who might sympathize with her cause.
Skeptics. The worst of them are so good at embarrassing themselves.
And just think, if she hadn’t whined 3 times about “rage blogs”, she might have gotten away with it.