This is ugly, and it pains me to spread these lies further, but I see it as the only way to expose them. This is a post on facebook that is all about me — it was apparently made in retaliation for me pointing out to Michael Nugent that his blog is a haven for slymepit scum, so one of those scum had to vent his fury.
I think the vindictive nature of this nonsense, and the absurdity of the lies he is spreading, will be obvious.
PZ Myers’ Glass House – mattcavanaugh:
There’s and old adage: ‘people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.’ Paul “PZ” Myers would do well to remember it, as he has a fondness for recklessly hurling stones, hand grenades, and assorted rhetorical bricks in random directions with little forethought.
Just this week, Myers lobbed a real doozy. Myers was furious that atheist activist, Michael Nugent, was allowing Slymepit members to comment on Nugent’s blog. For PZ, Nugent’s laissez affaire approach to moderation equated “defending & providing a haven for harassers, misogynists, and rapists.”
That’s right: PZ Myers says Slymepit members are harassers, misogynists, and rapists. It’s a blanket statement.
Wild accusations of criminal activity are, sadly, not uncommon coming from the unbridled gob of PZ Myers. His big, fat mouth has earned him a cease & desist order from Ben Radford’s attorneys, and a defamation law suit from Michael Shermer’s. If I took Myers’ small-man-syndrome bombast seriously, I could have taken issue with him making up stuff about me.
Back in June, when I lampooned him for falling for what I suspected was an hoax piece of fan mail, Myers went ape shit. He accused me of intending to doxx “Indiana Girl”, the 15 year-old fan I don’t even believe exists:
Can you imagine if I’d left [the signature] in, and asshole Matt Cavanaugh thought it would be clever to do some investigative skepticism, tracked down her phone number, and called her up to slime her with innuendo directly? It would be a natural and expected step in the hyperskeptical toolbox to make such a thorough examination of all the data.
Myers knows nothing about the type of person I am, other than I disagree with him … and hang out at the ‘Pit. He certainly didn’t bother to read where I wrote, “on the outside chance that Indiana Girl is real, I won’t doxx the signature.”
I’m not even going to dignify Myers’ latest accusations with a response, other than to note that among Slymepit members are many women, gays, at least one transperson, and not a few victims of domestic abuse, child molestation, and/or sexual assault. Instead, I’d like to take you on a tour of PZ’s lovely glass house.
Preacher PaulAt first blush, Myer’s prudish sexual mores seem more fitted to some smarmy preacher than an atheist firebrand. Ever ready to lecture men on the proper way to treat a lady — short answer: real men use condoms — Myers, as a radfem ally, is obsessed with the concept of “consent”. He recently shared his story of dutifully waiting for enthusiastic consent to apply his own first kiss, which occurred at age nineteen, and had taken three months of steady dating for his girlfriend to finally grant. No wonder PZ suffers fits of apoplexy whenever he compares his victorian chasteness to the libertine rowdiness of the Slymepit, or worse, the (imagined) rapine depravity of that predator of fine young things, Michael Shermer.
But as so many fallen preachers have shown, scratch the surface of a prude and you usually find a pervert. With PZ Myers, a peek behind the curtain reveals an unsettling trend. Myers’
Has been accused of sexual assault by one of his female students;
Obsesses over shaved pubes;
Defends a confessed serial child rapist;
Questioned a child pornography arrest by saying, “one man’s indecency is another man’s family photos of kids playing in the bathtub”;
Posts links to porn depicting young girls being raped by tentacles;
Spoke to a 20 year-old woman, dependent upon his patronage, about “O”-faces and masturbating with rubber fingers;
Shared to the world an erotic dream in which his female students turned into mermaids, then performed sex acts on him in his classroom.
That’s not to say that Myers ever acts on these fantasies. It is interesting to note that, following a recent road trip for a conference, he was hospitalized for what just might have been gonorrhea. (h/t Skep tickle.)
Fun With Fido and FlipperAlthough hyper-sensitive to “foul-minded speculations” about his fondness for young women, Myers seems oblivious to the gross-out factor of his frequent soliloquies on animal sex … and sex with animals. Myers, for example:
Suggested turning his Scienceblog “into a kinky porn blog“ by describing an innocuous nature picture as “a titillating photo of a gecko servicing a Trochetia flower”;
Found nothing wrong with photos of a man having sex with a dead squid, adding, “I’d also recommend looking up the work of Hokusai, Teraoka, or Saeki … Erotic art with cephalopods has a long history”;
Condones bestiality, so long as the animals are “domesticated and intelligent animals” like dolphins and dogs, “willing to participate in sexual activity with humans.”
Tarnished ArmorAs we’ve seen, Myers is quick to tar each and every foe as a woman-hater, while portraying himself as the knight in shining armor who will save the feminist/damsels in distress. Myers repeatedly undermines his mangina rep, however, with crude, sexist gaffes of his own. Such as when he embarrassed a conference attendee with a creepy proposition to join him in his hotel room for sex, or that time he made a stinker of a rape joke — during a webinar against rape jokes, no less.
In 2011, Myers enjoyed some puerile humor by snarking about a photo of “professional ghoul” Michele Bachmann opening wide to insert a corndog into her maw. That elicited a severe rebuke from blogger Melissa McEwan. Myers’ stammering reply, that he was not making a fellatio joke, but merely comparing the prominent female politician to a reptile, did little to appease the femi-rage slacktivist shut-in.
Bunker MentalitätFor someone who calls himself “The Happy Atheist”, PZ Myers sure displays a lot of anger. Besides ranting non-stop about “evil slymepitters”, not a day goes by that Myers doesn’t fume over “oblivious fuckwit Republicans” or “oblivious fuckwit Christians” or “narcissistic asshole Libertarians.” Any atheist or skeptic who does not embrace Myers’ social justice agenda is his instant enemy, too. It’s almost as if Myers envisions himself trapped in a bunker, encircled by the combined armies of evil.
Myers foul-mouthed, rabidly offensive insults to dissenting commenters at his blog are legendary. Only recently have saner minds convinced him to cease urging those he lustily bans to “shove a rotting porcupine up your ass.” When confronted with an opponent in person, Myers more often than not just calls them an “idiot.”
Of late, the pent-up, impotent rage inside PZ has been spilling out in alarming intensity. Police have investigated Myers for allegedly instigating a spree of vandalism against a conservative college newspaper. Earlier this year, Myers promised to “throw off a pier” any “slymepitters” who dared try to speak with him in public. On his blog, Myers threatened to stab in the belly any Christian who tried to convert him. This last threat seemed so bloodthirsty and sincere that, in the interest of public safety, I reported it to the FBI.
Peezus EnvyAnd what to make of PZ’ incessant vendettas against prominent atheists more successful than him? His Shermer hate is understandable. Myers looks at himself: 57, frumpy, overweight & out-of-shape , but a loyal husband to the only women ever merciful enough to have sex with him. And then he looks at Shermer: 57, dapper, a former professional cyclist, who rapes a different women every night of the year. Yet Myers’ career is in a tailspin, while Shermer has his own .org, gets the back page of Scientific American, plus repeated invites to speak at conferences. Where he rapes. O, the injustice!
Myers’ hate for Sam Harris is also an easy one. Harris, handsome, eloquent, has written several best-selling books, including The End of Faith, and The Moral Landscape. Both are troublesome for Myers; the former chafes Myers’ SJW xenophilia for moslems, while the latter conflicts with his PoMo moral relativism. Plus, Harris is a libertarian, which is almost as evil as a misogynist slymepitter. True, Harris considers himself politically liberal. But in peezuspeak, anyone who doesn’t accept the dictatorship of the social justice proletariat is an asshole libertarian.
Most shocking is Myers’ crusade against Richard Dawkins. True, Dawkins long held a prestigious science chair at Oxford, while Myers teaches cell biology to undergrads at a rural, adjunct campus. But they used to be on friendly terms, and Dawkins made Myers through his patronage, and (until the next edition is released) quotes Myers in his The God Delusion. Ahh, perhaps that’s it — the books. The God Delusion, at 2 million copies sold, is by far the biggest atheist book evah. Heck, it’s #2 all-time in the entire religion & philosophy category! In contrast, The Happy Atheist, that compilation of old blog posts, has sold a mere 4,000 copies (including the 500 still stacked in Myers’ garage.)
There’s also the small matter of The Selfish Gene, that clarion of neo-darwinism which simultaneously made Dawkins famous and transformed evolutionary biology. And The Extended Phenotype. And The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable. Unweaving the Rainbow. Greatest Show on Earth. An Appetite For Wonder. Quite a drop-off from First Horseman to Fifth.
Myers is a non-darwinian, so he opposes Dawkins. Or is it: Myers opposes Dawkins, so he’s a non-darwinian? In any case, Myers first publicly turned against his erstwhile patron in 2011, when Dawkins told Rebecca Watson to quit her whining about being meekly hit on. Watson was Myers’ special young pet at the time. So Myers, along with his fellow-travelers, falsely distorted Dawkins’ comment into a condoning of sexual assault. Next, Myers & gang falsely distorted Dawkins’ account of his own childhood molestation into a condoning of child molestation.
In case you forgot, PZ Myers’ really enjoys rape fantasies involving young girls. He also protects & supports a confessed, serial child rapist who comments at his blog.
Revenge of the NerdWhat is it about PZ Myers that causes his seething rage against the world, his violent outbursts, his slanderous attacks against anyone who crosses him?
Without straying too far into pop psychology, three answers present themselves. First, PZ Myers is clearly sexually conflicted. As a young man, Myers tells us he was painfully awkward around women, and had resigned himself to remaining life-long virgin. That is, until “The Trophy Wife” unexpectedly fell from Heaven to bless him with carnal bliss. Today, Myers espouses a prudish, monogamy-centric morality while advocating modern feminist dogma, which paradoxically portrays women as helpless, gullible waifs in desperate need of protection by “allies” (a.k.a., “nice guys”, a.k.a., “manlets”) from the rapacious predation of promiscuous alpha males.
But this Stepford Husband dystopia conflicts with PZ’ inner urges. In case you forgot, PZ Myers’ really enjoys rape fantasies involving young girls. He writes and talks about sex all the time. But not in the casual, comfortable manner most adults — Slymepitters, for example — do. With PZ, sex talk is always pregnant with the titillating, look-I’m-being-naughty vibe of a repressed teenager. It’s no surprise the resultant inner torment erupts in such outward rage. We may be looking at the atheist version of Jimmy Swaggart here.
Second, Myers’ inflated sense of his intellectual talents conflicts with harsh reality. From his own anecdotes, Paul Myers Jr. was a misfit as a child, a geek and an outcast. He consoled himself by elevating his geekiness to a badge of honor. With obvious satisfaction, he recounts how, though taunted & ostracized on the play yard, he’d dissect road kill alone in his basement. He brags about being the best reader among his siblings. Nowadays, he’s never slow to boast of his knowledge and expertise, while labeling his interlocutors “idiots” and “fools” – or his favorite invective, “oblivious.”
Myers redeems his self-worth by fancying himself an influential scientist. Sadly, Myers’ career has been a disappointment every step of the way. Oh, sure, he did get his name on a peer-reviewed paper way back in the early ‘nineties, and perhaps saw himself as the next Crick. But then the critically important field of zebra fish research left him in the dust (or, as he tells it, the other zebra fish scientists stole all his great zebra fish ideas.) So now he toils away in obscurity, raising Petsmart fish in tanks in his classroom, watching & waiting for signs of non-darwinian evolution. He’s been at it for the past thirty years, with no results to show for it. Even if his methodological rigor wasn’t shit, he’s unlikely to find anything. For the past thirty years, people who actually have a clue how to do good science have looked and found nothing. The pathos is palpable. Each day, PZ, the wannabe anti-Mendel, waddles his way to the science building at UM Morris, hoping beyond hope that on this morning of all mornings, an evolution revolution will be revealed.
It’s definitely a long-shot, but something for Myers to cling to, now that his big chance to set darwinism on its ear has gone by the boards. For many years, Myers had been banging away at the keyboard to complete his magnum opus, Natural Revolution, a wide-ranging treatise “about evolution and developmental biology, atheism and creationism.” Either Myers never finished it, or it was so horribly bad his publishers considered a compilation of mediocre old blog posts a viable alternative.
(Artwork courtesy of Ape+Lust.)
Finally, the disconnect between Myers’ aspirations as a prominent atheist leader, and his present pariah status, must fulminate great inner turmoil. Has it really only been five years since Myers brashly declared himself the “Fifth Horseman” of atheism? Dawkins would handle the theory against belief; Hitchens the scathing attack on organized religion. Dennett would explain religion as a cognitive fluke, while Harris covered the moslem-bashing. To Myers would fall the care & feeding of internet atheism. Yet today, Myers is little known and even less respected among online atheists. His personal blog, Pharyngula, and its host site, Thought Free Blogs, have become filled with social justice & radfem lunacy. Posts on atheism or science are few and far between. Readership is steadily dwindling, while a mentally unstable commentariat, bolstered by draconian, censorious moderation, fosters an atmosphere inhospitable to newcomers.
In comparison, Dawkins’ RDF site is massive, with millions of visitors each year. (Notably, Dawkins no longer recommends Pharyngula posts.) Harris maintains a popular, well-written blog. Dennett has largely shunned the limelight. But Hitchens’ apotheosis has made him an eternal god of the internet. Just google “hitchslap”.
Broken GlassIt’s gotta be tough, to be approaching 60 and looking back on your life to see nothing but strewn wreckage. It’s not surprising, then, that PZ Myers is lashing out wildly at everyone and everything, accusing others of the sins he himself commits. One might even pity Myers, were it not for the considerable damage he’s done to atheist activism & the promotion of science, and continues to do even in his death spiral. His antics and his abrasiveness have gone on too long for most. So now we are seeing patient, even-keeled people like Michael Nugent finally telling Myers ‘enough is enough.’ It looks like Dawkins, too, has said the equivalent of ‘you’re dead to me, Paulie.’ About the only fans PZ Myers has left are the Discovery Institute, who gleefully spotlight his bad behavior as exemplary of all atheists.
I wish I had some useful advice for you, Paul. You know, like: attend some anger management sessions, read When Things Fall Apart, build bird houses. But I fear you’re too deep in your own personal hell (or is that, ‘pit of slime’?) to change at this late date. Perhaps get involved with charity work. But avoid church groups, in case some old lady mentions God and you have to shank her. And no animal shelters — I don’t think you should be left alone with dogs. Food bank, maybe? I can’t even recommend you focus on your role as associate professor teaching undergrad evolution and biology. Cuz everything I’ve read from you indicates that: 1) you enjoy confusing your students; 2) you know fuck all about evolution and biology. And I surely wouldn’t feel comfortable having my daughter sit in your class while you imagine her a naked mermaid.
All I can suggest then is this, Paul: please just go away.
(c) 2014 by Matt Cavanaugh. All rights reserved.
If I were a litigious person (I’m not, they’re safe), I’d find the implication by an MD that I acquired gonorrhea at a conference actionable…but this is, of course, a slymepit MD, so she has no credibility. All the rest is likewise nonsense.
As for my suggestion that Nugent is fostering some rather wretched characters, this same Cavanaugh person is frequently commenting there, and here’s his latest. Brace yourself for some nuclear-grade irony.
Truly, Myers’ latest baseless accusation is his most reckless. Still, it is but a matter of degree. For years now, Myers’, et al. have straw-manned their opponents’ positions, and by extension, morals.
Yep, that’s a comment from someone who has provided the most densely dishonest characterization of myself ever, wrong in every word, and accuses me of picking up venereal diseases at conferences.
I’ve been pointed to the comment by Skep tickle, aka Eliza Sutton, MD, and I post it here as an example of a gross breach of medical ethics. She should be ashamed.
(click for larger image, if you can stomach it)
Note that she’s diagnosing me with “septic arthritis” in the complete absence of any facts. If she had the information that my doctor had, she’d know that they tapped and cultured the synovial fluid, and found no sign of any infection at all. And then she leaps from her completely bogus diagnosis of an infection to suggest that it is a “disseminated gonococcal infection”, and then counts back from the incubation period to surmise, while denying that she was surmising, that I acquired it while associating with the Skepchicks!
To say I’m disgusted is an understatement. I think the UW hospital should know what one of their doctors does in her spare time, so I’m not going to shy away from mentioning her name.
By the way, if I had even 10 copies of The Happy Atheist stacked in my garage, I’d hand them out to my very few friends and have only 8 copies left.
Holy fuck. Someone is obsessed with you PZ. Hey, did you know that I’m your “House N*gger”? True story, straight from the mouth of another obsessed Slymer.
I see the Slymers can’t keep from attacking one of the regulars either. Fuck these shitstains.
I wonder if anyone will fisk this massive piece of dogshit.
Wait, what? You’re black??!?
” laissez affaire “.
FAIL.
Bloody hell, where to start?
As so many people have said before: what do you prefer to this? Social injustice?
Somebody is full of hate and impotent, irrational fury. And it isn’t PZ.
Yeah, Tony, why didn’t you have the guts to tell us. Next you’ll be saying you’re gay or something.
Tony – you’re not the only one who’s been “gifted” that label. If it made you anywhere near as sick and angry as it made me, then you have my deepest sympathies.
Oh, and how he covered it…
I’m speechless. This is Markuzian-level babble.
Gack. I’m so sorry, PZ.
Shh! Don’t let PZ’s dean hear that. You wouldn’t want him to get sacked, would you?
No, no, of course you’re not.
I couldn’t read that whole screed. Maybe never will. :-(
Crommunist @8:
Yeah, I had the same reaction. I mean, here I was thinking all this time that I was a member of the commentariat who contributed to discussions and who learned a great deal about social ills and learned to look inward to examine my prejudices and biases in an attempt to be a better person. Nope. I’m just the slave of the place. ::Spits::
Commiserations my friend.
twas brillig @13:
It’s a painful read. I tried to read all of it, but after about halfway through, I just skimmed it. This person has a vendetta against PZ and it’s just pure hate all the way down.
Don’t feel sorry for me. I’ve been getting crap like this in my email for a decade now. This one did me a favor and made his lunacy open and public, where everyone can see the quality of thinking that goes on in the slymepit.
That truly and well sucks. I’m so sorry for both you and Ian.
scroll
scroll
scroll
scroll
scroll
scroll
Yup. No response here.
Nothing worse for an internet bully like MC than somebody who isn’t scared or intimidated by their immature outbursts, and can actually point at and laugh at their rabid screeds of hatred. Now to clean up MC’s drool from my work computer….
Big fan of the doctor divulging patient records without the patient’s consent. So much for ethics among Slymepitters.
I couldn’t finish it. I was afraid I’d pull something rolling my eyes.
I’m sorry too, Tony and Ian. That’s ridiculous and horrible.
Then, the slime are ridiculous and horrible people.
Wait. So you’re both the scourge of atheism and an absolute unholy terror who must be stopped and/or destroyed whilst also being utterly irrelevant and not worth commenting on?
That’s almost magical. It’s like you’re the Keyser Soze of blog evil. Hiding in plain sight.
Now that I’ve read that powerful truth screed I will know to henceforth join the mighty struggle against you/ignore you as an utter irrelevance…
Sheesh.
Yuck. Voltaire’s Prayer works in mysterious ways: Ridiculous, to be sure, but do they have to be so repugnant? *shakes fist impotently at the sky*
[slymer: PZ’s commenters are impotent! They openly admit it!]
I wonder if Herr Nugent will see this. Funny that it isn’t that Nugent is lazy about moderation. No no. He actively moderates….for bad words. Anything short of blatant threats, and naughty words, he leaves in place. This, as we all know, make it haven for dog whistle MRAs.
I saw this earlier and tracked the source of some of the quotations. I have to say, either this Cavanaugh person is awfully dishonest or has a sickly twisted mind.
Setting aside all the substantive issues here, when will the atheist/skeptical community learn that these long, detailed, pedantic, point-by-point rants come across as creepy? Clearly and plainly stating what needs to be said doesn’t take this kind of obsessive nitpicking. Don’t you possess the self-reflection required to see that your opinions aren’t really any more valuable than anyone else’s?
Enough already. Show some self restraint. Choose a few important points, address them clearly, and then move on.
My eyes were rolling so hard it was painful when I got to:
Got to love a “skeptic” who can’t bother to inform himself on the difference between a demand letter from an attorney and an actual court order (hint: one is signed by a judge, and the other has no legal force except to be evidence that “we asked him to stop and he didn’t!”). Or the difference between a letter threatening a lawsuit and an actual summons and complaint.
Of course, since this loser obviously follows PZ obsessively looking for things to distort and take out of context, he is presumably well aware of the difference and just lying about it.
These are your people, Michael Nugent. Enjoy them.
Huh. Well, I don’t know where all of these accusations come from, but the ones I DO recognize are so twisted and dishonestly presented that I can pretty much judge the quality of the rest by that.
Man, PZ, I do not envy you your inbox. Yeesh.
auraboy @ 22
not worth commenting on…at very very very very very very very very very very
*deep breath*
very very very very very very very great length.
Amen.
And she’s an MD in my city, too. I find that item particularly disgusting…no doubt partly because she abused her MDship to abuse me once, too – commenting on my blog to tell me to “get help”…for being so mentally ill as to be annoyed that Justin Vacula was following us around to conferences.
I was quite amused by this part:
Not because I know it’s false, because I don’t, as I don’t understand evolution or biology well enough myself, but I’ve seen that it’s a fairly common criticism. My token facebook MRA once proclaimed that PZ’s degrees must have been received dishonestly, and, in order to prove this, he linked a video showing him being impatient with a creationist and dismissing their long debunked – and apparently repeatedly asked by this person – question without really going into any detail.
Truly, we now know that our master is a fraud!
Someone made a similar point at We Hunted the Mammoth in the context of A Voice for Men’s Janet Bloomfield’s libeling of Anita Sarkeesian:
I think the commenter is incorrect about it being two different groups, though. As we’ve seen, holding two contradictory narratives at the same time is a hallmark of authoritarian reactionaries like these (and it’s no surprise that there’s overlap between the Slymepit and AVFM’s fanbase.)
Tony, you’re a slave of this place? I thought you were one of the people who informally led this little community.
Prime example of someone doing a good job of what I mentioned above:
Adam Lee already has someone doing these long, pedantic rants about him. Instead of wading into all of it, he brushes all of it aside and goes right to the highlights. He doesn’t get distracted by all the bullshit, he goes to the core of the disagreement and makes sound arguments.
Once again, these fools show how deeply offended they get when coarse language is used against them. Yet they have no problem using gendered slurs.
Also, I don’t know how to search for it, but does anyone know the last time the porcupine meme was even used?
I wondered if that was Skepi-whatsit or what ever that dishonest shitbag was called.
@Ophelia Benson #31:
It’s a serious breach of medical ethics. Accidental disclosures happen, but this isn’t one of those.
Someone shouldn’t be a doctor anymore. Really.
That was as far as I got because… no. Not even close. Even cherry picking those words does not make something that is not a blanket statement a blanket statement. The quotation marks around selected words do not confer a different meaning on those words that turn them into something they’re not. Just… no.
“You can’t do that to the English language.” — Bruno Gianelli
I had to stop when I got to
.
The lot of them are vile fuckwits.
Anthony K @ 33
Indeed. Like with all conspiracy nuts, it doesn’t matter whether the narratives are consistent with each other. What matters is both involve feminism being the evilest evil that ever evil-ed. As long as that’s the moral of the story, these people will believe anything.
Their lies about an abused child are on the list of the most disgusting things ever written.
Complete lack of empathy and decency. Treating people as things, that’s where evil starts.
TL;CBMTGAS
(too long; couldn’t bring myself to give a shit)
You’d think maybe about halfway through typing that screed, that guy would look at himself and think, “Jesus Christ, what the fuck is WRONG with me?”
It is a serious breach of medical ethics for physician to make that kind of speculation about a person. I suspect it’s discipline worthy.
But Anthony K, did I overlook an actual disclosure by this doctor of a patient’s records?
Oh, so now the opinion of a fundy think tank is an adequate judge of someone’s character?
Tony, Ian, I am so sorry. Nobody should ever be treated that way. Tony! you are a valuable member of the commentariat, not that you need reminding, and your thoughtful posts are one of the reasons I finally got brave enough to delurk.
weird hobby
Wow, the name calling never fails to impress. (Kidding).
Am offering virtual hugs and virtual sandwiches to everyone mentioned in the pissfest manifesto. (Not kidding).
The popularity of ad populum arguments among these super-rational examples of skepticism is… interesting, isn’t it?
I know PZed is not “looking back on his life and seeing strewn wreckage”. I hope he knows he can look back and see innumerable people, like me, who may be too busy or too shy to comment or post, but who still have been inspired and driven to clean up the shit in their own corners. To stand up to public schools who preach to kids, to patiently explain why immigrant, minority, anti-LGBT and anti-women “jokes” really aren’t funny (yes, I live in that kind of world, and sadly, it has took me into my 20’s to see it and well into my 30’s to work up the courage to stand up to it), to sweep away uncomfortable biases and see things as they really are. You’ve given me the information and language to do this PZed; you and the commentariat here. Even though I’m no force to be reckoned with, I know I’ve made a difference.
Back to the lurk
(Sorry about the lack of a blockquote.)
Oh yes, and I second Anne @ 46!
And there’s a tell right there. “Fans.” Not saying this in a bad way, but I don’t think we’re PZ’s fans, I think we’re his readers… his commentariat… his gaggle of similarly-minded-social-justice-atheists. Shows how they view the atheist “names.” Fans. Blegh.
I do love it when lurkers like trixiefromthelurk delurk long enough to say that yes, they do not comment but they do pay attention. And they do read what is going on and try to react accordingly.
:shakes head: Their obsession is phenomenal. I am so sorry for all those they hurt, you have all my empathy and support.
@39, drst
I know, I gave up reading it right around there. The quote is in no way a blanket statement O__o
Also, checking how long it was after that told me it wouldn’t be worth it to read much more, but I did, out of morbid curiousity, scroll to some point in the middle and found this:
What a dishonest description about both what Rebecca did and what the person she was talking about did.
What a spectacular show of idiocy. I was most amused by his screeches along the lines “Dawkins, Shermer, Harris are more succesfull, therefore all PZeds criticism is just envy!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logical fallacies. Aren’t skeptics and atheists somehowmsupposed to know, how they work?
Trixiefromthelurk @ 50:
I think you are a force to be reckoned with, Trixie.
trixiefromthelurk @50:
Thanks for speaking up and speaking out.
Nickelback have sold more records than Radiohead, so clearly Chad Kroeger is the greatest songwriter on Earth. /slyme logic
I think he’s actually proud of this!
Yeah! And if Thom Yorke says something disparaging about Nickelback’s music, he could only be motivated by envy.
@Moggie, 60
Well, he wouldn’t want anyone else to take credit for his exquisite work, would he? :P
I think if Sam Harris read this it might make his head explode. On the one hand, its awfully degrading to be portrayed like this – it implies Harris is a “one-note” commentator. Then again, I imagine Harris kinda getting off on that reputation. I have no evidence for the later, but the former is objectively insulting if you think it through. I also think it is largely true these days.
I know. It’s like copyrighting your bad breath or something.
“Uh, dude, I don’t think anybody really wants that, are you sure you…”
“Yes! Copyrighted. It’s my disgusting odor! Stay back!”
“Oooookay. Whatever you say.”
This doctor needs to be turned in to her local board of ethics.
It’s copyrighted? Watch out, PZ, he’ll sue you!
I can actually imagine him taking that stinking pile of of morbidly obsessive, lying filth to a lawyer and telling them he wants to sue because the person he threw the filth at has posted the whole thing online.
Michael Nugent must be so proud to have such commenters.
Proud bigots of the slime, UNITE! It reminds me of when my son was two, woke up from his nap, removed his dirty diaper and proceeded to use the contents to decorate his bed and the wall. He was very proud of his handiwork too, but that didn’t change the stench, or the fact that the wall and bed were smeared with shit.
I couldn’t read the whole screed PZ; I doubt anyone could. Why do these guys have to be so bloody long-winded?
Luckily, like all lying rants, this one is so long, incoherent and obsessively over-detailed that it’s incredibly boring.
The reaction of almost everyone who isn’t already slymy is going to be TL;DNR. They’ll just get an impression that this raving guy doesn’t like PZ for some reason they can’t remember.
I’m just going to go with Anne @46 and smhll @48.
That people would be so… ugh. And others take this sort of death-by-the-written-word drivel seriously.
This is quite frankly a gross violation of professional ethics for any physician to do.
Deary me Matt Cavanaugh, that’s fundamentalist creationist level distortion and lies. You should get a job as an advisor to the next republican presidential candidate.
.
Keep safe and well, PZ and also your valiant allies. (Fans, huh.)
@66…No. It’s “fair use”. He might threaten, but we see how far those threats have gone in the past.
PZ does, however, have a legitimate, actionable, open-and-shut case of libel against the “doctor”. It is libel per se to accuse someone of having a venereal disease. One of the first things I learned in journalism school back when Jesus rode dinosaurs.
I think we need either a drinking game or a new BINGO card with Matt Cavanaugh “accusations” on it.
I do wonder how these people get along in real life. They probably think “carbon dioxide is life”.
@Josh, #44
I’m going by the OP:
If this MD hasn’t seen PZ’s medical records, then how does s/he know of his diagnosis?
I do know such breaches occur all the time. I’m aware, for example, via hearsay from medical and nursing students, that it’s not uncommon for instructors to bring up a certain famous actress as an example of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, despite the fact that if they have seen her medical records, they’re obligated not to talk about them without permission (and she hasn’t granted permission), and if they haven’t, they’re talking out of their asses.
It’s kind of a bugbear for me, since I work with health data and take patient privacy and confidentiality extremely seriously.
Ophelia Benson @31
Oh, it’s _that_ slymepit MD, is it? Figures. I’d forgotten she’d abused you as Slymepitter, MD (as opposed to just some random slymepitter).
But I agree with Jackie @65– she could be on _very_ thin ice vis a vis HIPPA/privacy regulations, and she’s a complete fool if she thinks her atheosphere pseudonym isn’t connected to her professional identity. Those dots were connected a looooong time ago–through her own actions and helpful hints from her *own* supporters (with friends like that…).
I suppose it’s barely possible that this M.C. person might be dropping her name without her having said any such thing–but given her track record, I assign a pretty low probability to that.
Wait, “fans”? I thought I was a minion? Why do we get these spiffy uniforms if we’re just fans?
@ Tony the Q
The nasty racial slur? How on Earth does this less-than-pleasant piece of work know that YOU are the leading black person commenting here? In general, we have no idea who is where or what. Sometimes I can tell a commenter is from elsewhere by their English usage, but otherwise, any given person could be commenting from Timbuktu for all anyone knows. I would empathise with you, but of course the use of such a vile slur says much about the speaker and nothing about you.
Auraboy
Where have I heard that before?(#8). Now, before anyone cries Godwin, I’m not actually saying that they’re all fascists per se over there. Just that bigots and authoritarians share a whole lot of behavioral patterns with fascists, and are usually disturbingly sympathetic to fascist veiws.
Well, that was an ugly screed of lies, misrepresentations and outright bigotry. I only managed to more or less recognise a few of the warped anecdotes mentioned in it, but the breath taking degree to which they had been distorted tells me a lot about the mindset and (lack of) respect for the facts of the author.
There were so many lies and half truths in there that it is hard to know where to begin, but a few things really stood out to me, most notably the running thread about using lies about child rape as a weapon against PZ. That is perhaps the single most disgusting display of unethical behaviour I have seen from a ‘pitter in quite some time, and that is a high bar of toxic arsehattery to begin with.
Like that moment when you notice that your cap has a skull on it, when you look at the page and see that you have wilfully lied about the horrors of child rape in order to attempt to score cheap points off your opponent, then it is time to recognise that you are indeed the baddies.
Tony and Ian, my heart breaks. No one deserves that treatment, least of all you.
Radfem or no, all decent human beings concern themselves with consent. (That is, the kind of consent that requires no quotation marks.)
Being angry at evil and injustice and being a happy person are not, in fact, mutually exclusive—in fact I would argue I cannot be one without the other. (YMMV.)
If the shoe fits…
What a coincidence—Social Injustice Warriors are my enemies too! :D
“Espouses”? LOL. I have never, ever seen anyone judged here—by PZ or the commentariat—for not adhering to a monogamous, long-term, 2-person model of relationships. “If it works for you and your partner(s), yay!” is the paradigm. As it should be. ? IOW, WHAT.
Odd that none of the anti-feminists will ever explain precisely what this “modern feminist dogma” is. Inquiring minds want to know exactly what about it “portrays women as helpless, gullible waifs in desperate need of protection by “allies” (a.k.a., “nice guys”, a.k.a., “manlets”) from the rapacious predation of promiscuous alpha males,” tho.
Hahaha. [Citation needed.] Seriously, find me one active online atheist has who never heard of PZ Myers. And then show me your methodologically sound data analysis that he isn’t respected among a significant portion of same.
LOL! Social Injustice Warriors and Anti-Feminists FTW!
Dear Lard, my sides are splitting from laughing! Women and minorities run away from organized atheists in droves because of sexist, racist etc. shitweaselry, but no, it’s PZ’s behavior that makes atheists look bad. LMAO.
PZ Myers 1:
Aw, PZ it’s so sweet of you to think of me, but I already have one and a spare, which I will of course demand you sign next time I see you. Assuming you consent. :p
Andrés Diplotti 25:
These things are hardly mutually exclusive.
Ryan Cunningham 26:
For me this is true only when they’re done poorly.
Ophelia Benson 31:
Yeah, what could possibly be the least bit annoying about that. Jeezus.
UnknownEric the Apostate 59:
Reason number 9,452,835 why faith in humanity and/or capitalism is entirely unwarranted.
Huh. I suddenly feel all Marjanović-y.
Moggie @60:
That’s not surprising, he’s a vital part of the SlymePit ecosystem.
Cavanaugh’s wild ravings are chock-full of potential talking points against Myers, most of which are hilariously incoherent. He’s read by more moderate members of the ‘Pit, however, who take the best of the bunch and put them in a more coherent form. They in turn are read by even more moderate people, who again drop the worst and polish up the best. By this time people who wouldn’t dare hang around the ‘Pit, people like Nugent or Richard Dawkins, have started repeating sanitized ‘Pit talking points without realizing their source.
Someone’s probably got a good name for this by now (it’s been common practice in US right-wing media circles for decades), but my pet term for it is “meme-washing.” As one of the people collecting and spitting out all these wild memes, Cavanaugh is feeding the system and thus gets to see some of his fevered creations “escape” the ‘Pit and gain popularity. No wonder he’s proud of his work.
Oh noes, draconian censorious moderation is terrible, because it means people like Matt get banned when they attempt to smear their shit on the walls here. The complete lack of comments and feedback on all of PZ’s posts is proof that MCs facebook screed is superior, and we are obviously mentally unstable for not welcoming him here. Yep, perfectly rational.
Hey, why’s he dragging Jerry Coyne’s blog into this?
So, Cavanaugh is the John Birch Society to the Slymepit’s Reince Priebus.
Interesting summary of teh ECO’s research objectives. Maybe has him confused with Paul Kammerer?
@Moggie, 77
Pff, spiffy? Where are the skulls?! What about the standing collars? The half-cape? And the colour? Who wears purple uniforms? NO! These uniforms are far from spiffy! Bah!
I’m beginning to think Pharyngula needs to pay royalties to Mitchell and Webb.
@52, Eric the Apostate,
This. The day I go from an independent-minded PZ reader who agrees with much but not everything I read on this blog to a sycophantic slyme type “skeptic” fan, I really just need to cash it in.
The kind of physician who do less than jealously guard personal medical information for the sake of the patient and their own professionalism has no business being a physician. Some things are beyond personal gripes and vendettas. Even if mere speculation has taken place with no release of records, in this context coming from a physician the implication is that there is SOME basis for thinking it likely as a medical doctor. This is a disgusting misuse of a privileged position that should be slapped down; the rules governing physicians in most states include provisions against unprofessional conduct.
An educated middle-class man with decent health insurance and a functional immune system, hospitalized for gonorrhea? How often does that even happen?
“Instant” in the case of Richard Dawkins was what, 2, 3, years?
Last I saw, it was DAWKINS whose bad behavior was being used as exemplary for all atheists by those seeking to discredit them.
Oh, we know the type of online atheist that doesn’t “respect” PZ quite well. Getting “respect” from most of them would is something I would, personally, be ashamed of.
My brain hurts after like a quarter of that… how do you get through a decade of that, PZ?
Maybe we need to spin up a Snopes-esque site to just start covering all of these…
How is responding to everyone in the entire comment thread with your opinions about everything that’s been said so far not the very definition of this “done poorly”? Is it just because my politics align with yours? Did all of your one sentence thoughts really add to the conversation? Can’t you just read a community’s thoughts and contribute when you’ve got something substantial to add? If everyone responded the way you just did, this entire conversation would be an unreadable mess to the casual reader. This behavior is the digital equivalent of the libertarian at a party who won’t stop drunkenly interjecting Randian philosophy in the middle of everyone’s pleasant conversations. We should be more considerate than that.
What an ugly rant. Nugent, Harris & Dawkins must be so proud of their defenders.
On the bright side, PZ, even your enemies write your blog is “filled with social justice”. Way to go.
*
Still waiting for the Forest Troop T-shirts. Better than spiffy uniforms any day.
A few things I thought worth noting:
* I guess “laissez affaire” is French for “edits out the names of public figures when the much-publicized accusations against those public figures are the actual topic of discussion.” The French have a term for everything, don’t they?
* The accusations regarding bestiality take me back (way back…pre-ScienceBlogs?) to similar accusations made by Vox Day. Misogynists of a feather, I guess.
*It’s downright frightening the way this asshat can apparently take as given that Michael Shermer rapes people at conferences, and still holds him up as better than PZ. It’s PZ who the Discovery Institute points at to show how bad atheists are, but the rapist keeps getting invited to speak at conferences.
*Speaking of frightening, the conflation of rape and sex that’s implicit here is worthy of unpacking, but by someone with a stronger stomach who’s getting paid to do it.
*Imagine, being so obsessed with consent that you’d actually wait to make sure it was okay to kiss someone before just doing it. What a prude? So much better is the libertine Slymepit approach of just gnawing on legs and defending rapists.
*At least one trans* person comments at the Slymepit, as though that’s a badge of how diverse the ‘pit is. I think I’d be willing to put the diversity of the commentariat against the ‘pit any day.
*Nothing says “not a prude” like accusing someone of having a hidden affair with women who, as you can tell from the way they conduct themselves in public, are loose and disease-ridden. Yep, real libertine, those Slymepitters, scandalized by hentai as they are. Talk about “sexually conflicted.”
*If nothing else, it’s nice to see this fuckwit laying out all the Slymepit lies in one place, for easy cataloging. It’s also nice of him to prove the point. Nothing says “the Slymepit isn’t all harassers, misogynists, and rapists” like writing an obsessive screed about one person, parroting centuries-old misogynist tropes, and defending rapists. It takes talent to shoot yourself in both feet with such precision.
*I’d like to add my sympathies to Crommunist & Tony; nobody should have to be a target for these bigot assholes. I’d also like to thank PZ for wading into the muck and posting this up. It’s ugly, it’s hateful, it’s completely detached from reality, and yet somehow I don’t think we’ll see Michael Nugent writing a long-winded post tut-tutting its existence. Funny, that.
@dWhisper #92:
Might be a worthwhile pursuit for the Pharyngula Wiki. This certainly isn’t the last time we’ll be seeing these lies.
I wish I could say I was surprised, but I’m not.
Of course, given he likes to present himself as the arbiter of right and wrong in the atheist community, we should get at least 14 posts (ranging from 1,000-5,000 words) from Michael Nugent on how despicable this post was.
Right? Right? Right?
I know matt cavanaugh’s screed may not be worth the fisking, and that PZ doesn’t give a shit about this, but I think the pitters’ pointy lil heads might explode if they found out–well, they’d have to be interested in the truth, and if they were they could easily find out–that according to Alexa Pharyngula’s global ranking is not far from that of Dawkins’ website–and its US ranking is quite a bit better. Harris’s US numbers are similar to Dawkins’, and his global numbers are unimpressive.
Alexa doesn’t break down stats for individual FtB blogs, but Pharyngula gets by far the most traffic here, so that means–well.
Also according to Alexa, FtB’s readership is about 45% female (approximately; they provide a graphic, not numbers.) Dawks’ is around 30% and Harris’s less than 25%. Just sayin’.
Actually, Shermer’s attorneys sent PZ a C&D. Which PZ disregarded. Shermer did not sue–and the deadline for such a suit passed quietly less than two months ago.
Don’t remember a Radford C&D. Maybe he did file one and no fucks were given.
All the other slimey bullshit is easily refutable, but those two jumped out at me because I hadn’t heard them before.
Wonder if Jerry Coyne will cry and wail about the dishonest attacks on PZ? Prolly not.
kevin Kehres@73,
Of course – the lawyer would tell him (in legalese) to fuck off.
Ryan Cunningham@93,
What on earth is your problem?
In Canada, at least, it is most likely actionable. Falsely accusing someone of having an STD is defamatory per se. Depends on whether the court decides the weasel words are enough.
I thought they were against spreading false — oh, who am I kidding. It’s clear they have no principle, and pretending other is silly, even rhetorically.
Also, the “Fifth Horseman” remark was an obvious joke.
(From PZ’s 2009 Humanist of the Year acceptance speech.)
Yeah, Radford sent a C&D. It was ignored. He didn’t follow through, and also his lawsuit against Stollznow was thrown out.
I also got a C&D from Stuart Pivar. And from Vincent Fleury. And those wacky loons at the North Star. There have been a few others over the years, but they all blur together into one tiresome parade of clown noses.
Pivar, by the way, was going to sue me for a million dollars. The others…well, I didn’t even flinch when I read their complaints. I laughed.
And besides, we know PZ’s mode of transportation. “Horseman”? Utter piffle.
#101: Also, the whole point of that speech was at the end, when I told the audience that we needed everyone to mount up. It was actually very much a “we don’t need no steenkin’ horsemen” sort of speech.
Treating being a rapist like something to be envious of. Blech.
You know who else is a god of the internet? Chuck Norris.
#73: No, no way. I don’t believe in taking legal action to silence people, even when they’re as dishonest and slimey as Eliza Dutton or Matt Cavanaugh. That’s why I choose instead to openly expose their words.
PZ:
One meeellion dollars? Jesus, imagine the balloon animals he could make with that kind of money!
Vincent Fleury! I’d forgotten about him. He sent me an upset e-mail once, full of vaguely legalistic-sounding language. I chucked it in the spam bucket and never looked back.
I really don’t get this ‘my career is in a tailspin’ thing. I’m an educator at a good university; I like my job and there are no prospects of it ending in sight, short of dropping dead. But apparently, if you’ve convinced yourself my vision of my position is something akin to Francis Crick’s, then I must be failing.
So is Matt Cavanaugh’s career doomed because he isn’t Francis Crick? Everyone in the world must be failure because they aren’t Crick, even Crick, who despite being Crick, is now dead.
Wackaloon down a drain vortex….
I have to wonder at the self-awareness of someone who can write such inane, unhinged, fact-free drivel and then sit back and hit “Post” .
Did AngrySlymer#45867 proofread this amazing self-parody or just suddenly awaken with it on his screen after having channelled M@bus for a couple of thousand words? Is this what we’re to expect from intelligent, rational people who are on the side of reason and skepticism? I mean, I’ve seen and heard off-leash foaming-at-the-mouth shit-flinging before, but usually it’s creationists or Mike Adams or Dinesh doing it. These are people we’re meant to take seriously as skeptics and deep thinkers? These are people Uncle Mick Nugent and Jerry c*t-blogger Coyne chooses to side with? These are people that fucking well call us “radicals”?
Fuck each and every one of them. They can all chew on a sack of boiled arseholes.
As for Dr Eliza Sutton, MD, I hope she displays a little more integrity when dealing with her actual patients (some of whom might find her, erm, hobbies interesting). Again, this is someone Mick bloody Nugent, kindly father of polititude and wisdomnity, appears to sympathise with. And so I have to wonder just how much Jamieson’s the bugger puts on his corn flakes.
I am NOT Crick!
We are ALL Crick!
I’ve had a Crick in my neck for days.
I’M Rosalind Franklin, and so’s my wife!
Wow. That post of Sutton’s is…disgusting.
Ryan Cunningham 93:
(in response to Ryan Cunningham 26: “Setting aside all the substantive issues here, when will the atheist/skeptical community learn that these long, detailed, pedantic, point-by-point rants come across as creepy?”
LOL! How is your opinion about my opinion not the very definition of a blog comment thread?
? I have no idea what your politics are, and I don’t give a shit.
Yes, they added my thoughts to the conversation in which I am a participant.
Can you? I mean beyond your pontifications regarding how I’m doin teh blog commentin’ rong.
Yes, yes. I should tailor my comments to your unsupported opinions about the needs and expectations of “the casual reader.” Hahaha. Awesome.
OMFG LMAO.
Tone trolling on behalf of “the casual reader” FTW.
What can I say, I love a well-done fisk. (<—not an apology.)
Anthony K #75
She read PZ’s blog post about being hospitalised with a swollen knee, then speculated about how hospitalisation could only be necessary due to septic arthritis, and then speculated further about which nasty bacteria caused the sepsis, and then speculated even further about the timing of the infection with the nasty bacteria.
So it’s literally diagnosis over the internet. It’s also pretty ignorant speculation, given that when I was working as a physiotherapist I saw people of various ages hospitalised with swollen knees on the orthopaedic ward fairly regularly, and not once in my experience did any of those people have septic arthritis.
I left this comment on Nugent’s post about PZ’s comment that he’s defending rapists. We’ll see if it makes it through moderation (it’s listed as #97 in my view).
So, Eliza Sutton, MD is not a doctor that anyone should permit within touching distance.
irisvanderpluym @118: Fisking isn’t for everyone. I like it (frankly, it’s a default mode for me) because of its clarity. There’s never any ambiguity as to what you’re addressing or responding to, and there’s no wiggle-room for your opponent to say “that’s not what I said.” All the evidence is laid out very clearly, without relying on lengthy paraphrasing or linkspam. I find it much preferable to, for instance, the innuendo and allusion style of your Michael Nugents and your DBAD-era Phil Plaits.
That said, I’m sure I’d hate it if everyone everywhere posted everything in fisk format, so I’m glad it’s not for everyone. Let a million flowers bloom, and all that.
The quote in the OP is hardly a fisk in any sense. It’s a rambling screed, perhaps structurally similar to fisking, but lacking that crucial element of actually addressing actual quotes from your opponent.
Jesus Christ. Following that back, it actually has links! Does he think noöne will compare his claims to the posts?
Actually, going by the comments, some people will indeed wallow in confirmation bias given the option.
The Dr Slyme MD, making a diagnosis based on a blog reminds me of when Bill Frist made a diagnosis of Terri Schiavo based on an edited video tape.
Fisking is awful for conversation. ‘s about the only issue I have with it.
I think I’m missing something: how do we know skep tickle is Sutton?
Having concluded this masterpiece with the killer line …
(c) 2014 by Matt Cavanaugh. All rights reserved.
All Rights Reserved. Is that a problem with ego or with comprehending literary merit? The idea that anyone would want to copy, let alone plagiarise, this dreck staggers the imagination.
I think he thinks he is setting a “clever” trap. He knows enough about PZ to suspect that PZ will blog about his screed and post it. He then thinks he can turn around and sue PZ for copyright infringement.
Truly laughable.
The next time someone points out just how inclusive the Slymepit is, direct that person to the timeline of Mykeru, clownfall or Thatscissexist. And look at how many Slyme memes have been picked up by TERFs.
Big fucking deal that one of the regulars of the Slymepit is trans, I can point out absolutely terrible people who are trans. Hell, Cathy Brennan tolerates “gender critical” trans people.
mildlymagnificent
The writer is fully aware it’s fiction. There’s money to be made in promoting lies.
Totally, fair use from Wiki:
Emphasis mine.
*snicker*, so stupid all around….
@127 mm:
Modified (he’s not the only one who can magically sense other peoples’ characters and motivations).
Anyway, I didn’t actually notice the (c) before. On his facebook post.
Copyrighting a goddamned facebook post is such a self-parody, it’s up there with “Hi. My name is Kent Hovind” as the intro of your doctoral dissertation. Couple that with the incandescent loathing and flat-out lies and laughable speculations and obsessive character evaluations and – holy fuck, can these people actually not see how strongly they resemble creationists? Hell, the only way they’re not resembling creationists right now is the fact that they don’t believe in Genesis. And I’d almost go so far as to say creationists have a more enlightened attitude toward women.
I’ve been threatened with lawsuits so many times that maybe I think he’ll think he can turn around and sue me. It’s a trap!
Snicker. He makes a direct address to PZ in his own comments:
Or what, exactly? He’ll sue? I’d love to see that.
… non-darwinian evolution.
What’s this one about? Is Cavanaugh accusing Myers of having heard of Mendel?
Also, the blog has run out of brain bleach! Very impolite, the person who empties the container is responsible for refilling it.
Why exactly DID I read those comments?
*Announcement*
The Pharyngula Saloon and Spanking Parlor, is holding a “Fuck you MC” party later tonight. Grog, swill, popcornz, and bacon sammiches on the house starting shortly. At the witching hour PZ time (CT, US, UT-6), everybody is either give a picture of MC the finger, or moon the picture (don’t ask how the picture was obtained, you need not burden yourself with that information). Donations in lieu of tabs will go to the rape victims legal funds (beware, the Pullet Patrol™ is handling the funds, so just take the free booze and food).
*/Announcement*
@PatrickG, 136
Speaking as a long time sufferer of commentreaditis, I know the answer to this.
It’s because you hate yourself and don’t want to be happy.
For the most part an extremely well written analysis…
Good thing this person does not work as an editor.
Well, sorry for that PZ. You deserve better.
Oh…
uh…
wow. Just read PZ’s update, wherein Eliza Leeds Sutton, MD of the UW Department of Medicine in her own words completely atomizes the tiny benefit-of-the-doubt I was extending at #76.
I. Don’t. Even.
“that means they think he has septic arthritis”!
uhm…that level of logical and linguistic imprecision should embarrass a 2nd year med student…let alone a faculty member responsible for training future doctors. (it would be unremarkable from an average person with average google-fu…this is not such a person.)
“they think he has [this bad thing]” is NOT the same as “they think he could/might have [this bad thing], and want to be sure and besides, if he’s been immobile for days and nauseated with pain, the hospital is a pretty appropriate place for him until we have some more information.”
but who am I kidding…slymers and their enablers never extend even minimal charity-of-interpretation to their declared enemies (though _we’re_ the baddies for not tying ourselves into pretzels being uber-charitable towards them at all times).
In my experience, it is not actually typical of doctors and nurses to deliberately shit on their professional standards and ethics when “off duty” in this manner. I hope I haven’t just been uncommonly fortunate and/or delusional all these years! Seeing as how this is the only individual I know of that abuses an online pseudonym this way. I could just be blissfully ignorant. I really hope not.
Remind me, who is Matt Cavanaugh and why does his opinion on anything deserve the slightest consideration?
Anthony K @85:
Pretty much. It’s one reason why some people obsess over who is and isn’t part of the ‘Pit.
“I’m not a member of the SlymePit/John Birch! I’m not helping harassers and bigots, I’m just repeating what I heard from a friend of a friend. How can that be a bad thing?”
A slymepit™ misogynist fuckwit. And it shouldn’t, except he did an irrational screed about PZ. So PZ posted it to show what a fuckwit MC is, using MC’s own words.
No consideration, other than pointing a laughing, are on the table.
@ Athywren, 138
I would have gone with morbid curiosity myself, but this rings a bit too true. :)
Myers @OP:
Ooooohhh, NOW you plumb done it, Myers! You just turned a bunch of angry obsessive loons into a bunch of angry obsessive loons! Think of the consequences, man!
[sagely bobbles his head]
Provide a link? I’m fairly sure that providing the source is the only requirement of fair use. I’m am amused at the irony of the same people who scream about clickbait complaining that you didn’t include a link when you quoted their words in full with complete accreditation.
That last line by the Slyme doctor in the update.
Is there no level some of the pitters will not dig down to.
I wouldn’t be surpised if Matt Cavanaugh, like so many before him, is yet another entitled pissant who came here spouting some ill-informed opinions about something and got his ass handed to him by the Horde before throwing a tantrum and storming off, swearing revenge for being laughed at and having his super-duper-smartness skills revealed as nothing more than half-assed Google-fu.
Another data point to indicate that the worst thing to happen to the atheist community was that people tried to grow it by telling mediocre thinkers they were geniuses for coming to the conclusion gods don’t exist.
@ Tethys: The link PZ provided goes to his Facebook page, on which he copied his diatribe, when All Lawyers know that you must link directly to the hallowed website on which the words hath been spewed, for Facebook does not allow pictures*. Also because, for Reasons, this violates his copyright. No, really! If I really wanted to, I’m sure I could drag up the relevant portion of the USC that governs Facebook Transactional Copyright Law. That’s totally a thing, right?
* No really, he wants everyone here, specifically, to see the pictures.
Jacob Schmidt @126
as I recall, most of the dot-connecting occurred over at Ophelia’s blog around mid-June of last year. It’s just that some of us remember…some of us connected some of those dots. Again, as I said upthread, dots left by Skeptickle herself and one or more of her supporters.
Matt addresses the semi-libel:
So he’s trying to point out hypocrisy; he wants PZ to criticize him for his silly claim, so that he can claim points, however he would phrase it. Several issues there:
There’s nothing to indicate Skep Tickle was being satirical; she made her implication with full fervour. He tries to sweep that under the rug by saying neither he nor Skep Tickle made any actual claim, except that rather defeats the purpose: if no claim is being made, and wild speculation and implication is totes OK, then there’s no parallel to draw. He wants it both ways: to make the claim, and pretend it’s all satire.
Also:
Ahahahahahaha, lovely.
Wowbagger, you should recognize many of the people commenting on Matt Cavanaugh’s blog.
Remind me, who is Al Dente and why does xhe opinion on anything deserve the slightest consideration?
Qt th fmnst PZ, dxng wmn fr sch ptty rsn s slly nd bvs jk. Mnwhl y st bhnd yr kybrd, hnds shkng wth rg, ccsng ppl f spprtng r hrbrng rpsts nd msgynsts.
B frwrnd, f y r ny f yr rbd sycphntc cmmntrs r fllw blggrs dcd t mss wth Skp RL, th glvs cm ff. t wll trn vry gly vry qckly nd y wldn’t lk t whn w’r ngry.
Look at the slymeepitter pretend that they are going to become The Hulk.
So cute when they try to be threatening.
Patrick G #150
That link goes to something called “Skeptischism Network” (last I checked their page had all of 12 “Likes”), which may not be Cavanaugh’s.
The person posting as “Skeptischism Network” on that linked thread says she’s female. FWIW she sounds to me an awful lot like Scented Nectar.
He’s probably referring to Myers’ disdain to pop evo-psych and misogynistic pseudo-biological arguments.
@155:
If you’re looking for a mud fight, you’re in the wrong place. The harassers’ brigade is over there.
Oooh, shiver me timbers,
By th wy, t’s clr t vryn wh s nt prt f yr htfl lttl clb tht y r clrly n pn nd lshng t, dply hrt by th trths cntnd n ths rtcl. Y r sn by ths tsd yr clb s mmnsly ptty nd vndctv, qck t blly wmn (.., cwrd) nd lwys wllng t trn n nln spt nt rl lf hrssmnt t th drp f jk.
Cngrts.
So what else is new?
Also, fuck off.
That screed was 2,691 words long. If he keeps it up, he’ll be as prolific as Susan Miller, (and just as accurate!)
Prhps t’s tm t dx th dmttd rpst wthn yr rnks? Wht’s gd fr th gs, nd ll tht. r wll y nsst tht t’s nly K whn y d t? n wndrs…
The little slymie is still trying to talk tough.
PatrickG
Yes, it is clear that MC wants everyone to visit his FB page, and is very upset that he is not getting all of the “likes” to which he is entitled. I can’t imagine what photo could prove any of these stupid allegations. I have absolutely no interest in learning more of MCs hateful opinions, so I won’t ever be visiting his FB page.
Go ahead, internet tough guy. You fuckers talk about him all the time. Never mind the actual details of what happened to that person.
Narcissist weirdo @ 160:
PZ, you need me to call a whaaaambulance, you just let me know, K?. LOL
What is it like on your planet? What color are the skies? Do you have many moons? :D
Th grpthnk s strng hr. Jst lk hw mny f y shp rfrrd t ths s “scrd.” Rthr thn hvng r shrng ny f yr wn nq ndvdl thghts, y ll jst ch wht hs lrdy bn sd, s mch s tht y nd p sng th sm xct wrds. Hy thr’s nm fr ths knd f thng – ch chmbr.
Cry moar,
You mean the guy who was sexually abused for years as a child, and was forced to abuse younger children when he was eleven years old?
“Slime” flatters you. You people are lower than pond scum.
Oh, sorry youse guise. I interrupted other peoples’ opinions with my own. AGAIN.
“bigpaulmyers”? Seriously?
Huh. Looks like someone put up the Brave Heroes signal, because I see that they have begun to arrive already.
I can’t do any better than you Horde have already, so I’ll be over here making tea for anyone who wants a cuppa. Support staff, me.
Tell us moar about sheep please
bigpaulmyers @ 155;
Exposing and critiquing a medical doctor for behaving in a fashion contrary to recognised standards of medical ethics; it’s not really the same thing as ‘doxing a woman for such a petty reason as a silly and obvious joke’.
Still, expecting a ‘pitter to understand the concept of ethics is probably asking a bit too much…
If the shoe fits, and this shoe seems to have been hand crafted to exact specifications.
Do you turn green by any chance?
Incidentally, we aren’t the ones with the nasty track record of harrassment and personal abuse aimed at disrupting people’s lives. If you want to see someone guilty of that, there are these wonderful devices called ‘mirrors’ you should definitely look into…
Also, I am usually humbled my my ineloquence and lack of good thinking when I read anything by either Crommunist or Tony – they are both amazing writers and absolutely wonderful people, and I’m so sorry that you both get such crappy bigotry leveled at you.
Wait, it’s an echo chamber because many commenters use the same term, ‘screed’, rather than using a bunch of synonyms?
It makes my brain hurt thinking people like bigpaulmyers actually believe the nonsense they’re writing.
Please tell us about your larger than average turgidity thank you
Baaaah.
May I suggest this, bigpaulmyers; look up what grooming is in sexual abusive power dynamics.
Please, give me some more big threatening talk, internet tough guy.
Th dtls f wht hppnd? h y mn hw, whn h ws 12, h rpd thr yng grls, f hs wn ccrd, dspt knwng tht t ws wrng? Ths dtls? r wht bt th lttl dtls knwn s hs vctms, wh hv nvr bn ffrdd n pprtnty f sng jstc r hvng clsr? n yr wrld ths r mnr dtls nt wrthy f yr gz, pprntly. Bt tllng n STD jk s dxbl ffns?!?
Hly fck y ppl r fckd n th hd.
Whn y wr 12 dd y knw tht chld-rp ws wrng? r y nbl t cndmn ths dspcbl cts dspt yr ffnty fr fghtng th Ptrrchy nd Rp-Cltr nd Msgyny?
When ask to back this up, Matt merely writes, “His own writings. Or ask him yourself.” Backing it up isn’t to be bothered with. Just accept it.
Also, PZ talked about sex with Ashley Miller. I’m not sure why that matters. Putting that forward as an evil thing is about as puritanical as it gets.
Then there’s this: “[PZ] [s]hared to the world an erotic dream in which his female students turned into mermaids, then performed sex acts on him in his classroom.”
It’s a reference to this post. He missed the part where all the students turned into mermaids. Then there’s the fact that it’s basically put forward as a thought crime: PZ is a bad man for having a bizarre dream about google glass and mermaid sex with his students. It’s a step worse than that, actually: we can control many of our thoughts. Dreams tend to be firmly outside our control, however. I certainly did not want to have a nightmare about weird math and beer the other night.
If it wasn’t posted with Matt’s consent, he’ll have a hard time arguing that PZ copying it here is a copyright violation; he’s letting other people do it as they please, so it’s clearly not really a problem to him. If it was, it’s a fair source, and his whining is silly.
Michael Shermer is not a member of the horde, so I see no need to cast him from our midst. Also, slymetrolls are a bunch of petty lying sociopaths , so save your opinions on morals .
I was twelve when I babysat that summer. Not that reality will actually matter.
I was in cub scouts when I was about 8 to ten.
But, of course, what I actually did, and what was done to me, and what was done through me, and the behaviour I was conditioned to think of as normal, will continue to be twisted.
I suspect ‘bigpaulmyers’ subscribes to this magazine.
Funny, now that you mention it, I recall reading about that.
Obvious troll @155,
Do you even realize how plainly ridiculous saying such a puerile shit makes you look like?
And one more thing. This:
Is called projection, and in general is considered a sign of a major failure at self-reflection.
@bigpaulmyers:
Why is this always the next step? Sam Harris pulled this too, as do so many of these people who apparently have no courage of their convictions (or think “calm down, it was just a joke!” is some kind of get-out-of-backlash-free card). There’s nothing in Skep Tickle’s post that indicates it was a joke, and golly gosh if Cavanaugh didn’t seem to take it as true enough to report.
But even if it were a joke, which it wasn’t, it’s a joke that A) isn’t funny, B) is still offensive, and C) is still unethical for an actual medical practitioner to be telling in a public forum.
There’s no need to make the accusation, Cavanaugh is supporting rapist Michael Shermer right up there. Some of your pitter pals donated hundreds of dollars to Shermer’s legal offense fund. How is that not “supporting a rapist.”
As to ragefully accusing someone of harboring rapists, is that only a bad thing when we do it? Because you don’t seem to be upset that Cavanaugh did exactly that.
Nothing says “brave hero” quite like making unveiled threats of physical violence while hiding behind a pseudonym. You’re aware that threats are illegal, right biggie? You’re aware that your IP address is logged when you comment, right biggie?
But it’s nice to have the moral philosophy from pitters: Doxxing is unethical, a medical professional fraudulently diagnosing someone over the Internet is totes okay (and just a joke, can’t you take a joke?).
“You atheists just hate God because someone in the church did something to you when you were younger. Deep in your heart, you know God exists, and you’re just lashing out because you fear the Truth!”
[citation needed]
Okay, fine, it’s Ed Clint. Oh wait, that’s your ranks. My mistake.
It’s the proper term.
You mean like the kind of place where they play telephone over the course of years, then parrot the results with only the most passing resemblance to reality, never actually bothering to look at the facts? Like the quoted post above?
Do you have difficulties chewing gum and walking, biggie?
Y lyng lrs hv frgttn wht h dmttd t. Th frst tm h rpd smn, h sys h ws frcd t d t. Fr ngh gr tht nbdy sn’t blm f n bsr frcs y nt hrtng smn ls.
Bt nt th scnd tm, whch s whn thr wr mltpl vctms. Th scnd tm h ws ll by hmslf, n hs wn, bbysttng thr yng chldrn. H wsn’t frcd by nyn th scnd tm, nd h dmts t rpng ll thr. Y hv thr frgttn bt ths r y hv glssd vr t n yr zl t ccpt hm s n f yr wn.
N sympthy fr th thr vctms, n thghts bt jstc. Jst frgt t nd mv n t mr mprtnt fmnst css lk dxng fml dctr fr tllng fckng jk.
As another lurker in the Pharyngula, I feel like I should to follow the lead of trixiefromthelurk @50: who came forth to comment on this.
I did read the whole screed (I have no idea how, but I did). I have to say that it says volumes about the author and nothing about the target because the lies are so self-evident. The author also shows such a lack of awareness of their own biases that their head must be firmly up their ass as far as it could possibly go.
PZ, your writings have changed my world view for the better quite a few significant ways. And you have introduced me to several other most excellent bloggers who likewise have informed, entertained, and educated me into a more ethically aware human being. Please keep being you.
I condemn them.
There, that was easy. I’m not sure what your point was. I’m not in the habit of holding adults responsible for actions taken as children, from petty theft to murder.
Wow, what a weapons grade screed. PZ, you must be doing something right to receive this.
I’m sorry, Ogvorbis. I was trying to help,* but I should have kept my big mouth shut. You don’t need more people who don’t have the facts straight discussing you online. Or anyone who isn’t you, actually.
Apologies.
* Which was stupid of me. It’s not like they care about the truth, or have any compassion for any of your abuser(s)’ victims.
@ 155
Projection is fun, isn’t it?
Slymers are always angry and we never like them, so I don’t really understand the threat.
You… you know it wasn’t a joke right? We can plainly see that. It’s caption a short scroll up, there. The author goes to considerable length to document and source the claims therein.
Wrong, you are the one fucked in the head.
The simple fact that you know the details and still call him a rapist.
What of the man who raped him and then collected those young girls?
Is there no fucking depth you will not go in order to score the oh so sweet righteous rhetorical point?
Fuck you!
@jodyp, Josh, Wowbagger: You get an Internet, you get an Internet, you all get an Internet!
Such perfidy! PZ, you should be ashamed of yourself.
What horrible concepts are you going to latch onto next? “Equality”? “Justice”? “Human rights”?!
Link that it is a joke is required from YOU.
OOHH, why should I be scared from a threat from an epsilon male, who when they can’t show they are even delta males, take it out on the females? Why should we take anything you say as anything other than bullshit and false bravado, like an epsilon male would do?
No epsilon male, we are laughing at the fuckwitted liar and bullshitter, another epsilon male like yourself, who is trying to pretend to be real. *snicker*. Reality is for those who accept women as their equals…..
Here’s my thoughts at that wall of bullshit epsilon male: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.
Nothing but a good belly laugh of those unable to cope with reality
Nope, that is YOU EPSILON MALE. Bwahahahahaha, you are to be laughed at and ridiculed, and in no way taken seriously, since you don’t take women seriously…..
Gee, show me where Shermer is ruing his raping of women, then come back and talk to us Epsilon Male…..
Y dmb shts hrpng n bt “frdlntly dgnsng” smn r mssng mdcl rcrds r btsht nsn. Sh md jk bsd n pblc nfrmtn tht PZ pstd n hs blg. t wsn’t fckng mdcl dgnss nd t ddn’t rqr ccssng r mssng ny prvt nfrmtn.
Tht y ddn’t fnd t fnny s nthr srprsng nr rlvnt, nd t dsn’t smhw mrph jk nt sm knd f prfssnl mscndct.
fnd t mnd-bgglng tht nn f y s nythng wrng dxng prsn fr n bvs jk md fr smll dnc f nsgnfcnt htrs. t wsn’t sttd n srs frm r n srs cntxt.
Hv y fckng dts nvr hrd f tkng th pss t f smn? Hv y bcm s ttchd t yr Dr Ldr tht y hv lst ll prspctv? Wht th ctl fck!
Janine @196:
My rapist was not there physically when I walked in on the three girls engaged in sexual play and joined them. He was there in my head, though. Two years of being told that there are two kinds of people on earth — men and girls — and he showed me why I didn’t want to be a girl. Again and again. So I did what he had trained me to do. What he had conditioned me to do. What meant the least pain for me.
I condemn myself for what I did — when I was in scouts and that one time after. He is still in my head and every fucking day is a struggle to get him to shut the fuck up.
And along comes “bigpaulmyers” (lordy I wish I knew how to write that in Comic Sans) to further demonstrate the close parallels between allegedly skeptical internet misogynists and creationists. How much more projection and how many more impotent threats could you possibly pack into a troll assault? “You guys have a rapist too!” and “You wouldn’t like us when we’re angry!” and “OMG lawyers!” is just one step away from “evolution is a religion!” and “Darwin’s days are numbered!” and “Y’alls uh goin’ to HELL!”
Well, Trolly McTroll, we know your secret: you’re always angry. But when you sub-adolescent prats decide to hulk out, you don’t get huge and green and unstoppable, you just get smaller and louder and slightly more unhinged.
‘bigpaulmyers’ wrote:
You owe me a new irony meter – and that one was set to ‘Ray Comfort’-level resistance. I guess I’m going to have to upgrade to the latest model with ‘Shermer defender’ as the type most likely to spout something so inane and self-contradictory.
Thank you, Ogvorbis.
Still, you were groomed for that.
If you continued with that as an adult, you should be condemned for that.
But right now, bigasshole is grandstanding on your story.
I’m still not seeing the joke part. There’s a medium length, well documented post making the case that PZ might have gonorrhoea. Wherein lies the joke?
I mean, I could see a joke being made like that. The timeline is right; it’s a possible cause. I can see “lol maybe he got VD.” Formal documentation to back up your claims moves that from a joke to a serious post. “It’s a joke,” is just cover, methinks.
Janine:
I know. There are just so many different versions out there of my failures that I guess beating my head against the wall of reality is better than that big bottle of percocets. Sorry.
Have you ever heard of an epsilon male like yourself making intellectual points in the presence of those who know better? You inane and irrelevant attempts to throw poo are seen for what they are. And they don’t make you look good, just like another monkey throwing poo…..
And with this statement, bigasshole finally says what the slymepit actually is.
Thanks for finally being truthful.
I would like to dissent from the obvious group-think, echo-chamber, Feedingfrenzy Thoughtpolice Bullying going on in here.
When I first read this tiresome tirade on Facebook, I did not use the word “screed”. Instead:
I now have to admit I was entirely wrong — there may be a good reason to copy a nonsensical farrago of lies such as Matt Cavanaugh’s, but it’s rather like Lewis’ law on feminism that comments on a feminist article usually demonstrate the need for more feminism. Copying the entire litany of falsehoods has drawn out cranks like our good friend “bigpaul”, who is doing a marvellous job of displaying his inanity and the intellectual vacuity of his fellow Slymepitters. Good job.
No, actually, repeatedly calling it an “obvious joke” doesn’t actually make it one. Please, show us how it’s a joke. Cite other jokes that quote extensively from medical websites. Explain the author’s use of timing, describe what’s humorous. What’s the setup? Where’s the punchline?
There you have it, folks. The Slymepit is not a serious forum, it’s a small audience of insignificant haters. You didn’t take them seriously before, but now you have it straight from the horse’s mouth.
But you know what, biggie? Professionals are held to higher standards. There are certain professions where this kind of conduct–ha ha it’s a joke I’m just joking when I explain what this person’s symptoms mean and boy howdy are they salacious, wink wink–is actually unethical. Maybe it would be an acceptable joke for a layperson, not so much for a professional.
We’re quite familiar with it. It’s what we’re doing to you, after all. And you’re full of it.
Ogvorbis, the reason why there are so many versions of your story is because there are people invested in using you as a reason to discredit everyone here. Not your fault.
@Tony! http://www.lifeofcray.com/2011/12/whos-awesome-you-are.html
Stay awesome, dude.
Honestly? I don’t know if I did. I know that I knew that I should respect and obey adults, because that had been drilled into me since birth. I knew that there were certain adults who were Godly men, who knew more than I did about everything, and to whom I was supposed to turn for all kinds of guidance. I didn’t really know much about consent, because my family didn’t talk about *sex* and things like that, especially not by age 12. If one of them had done something to me, or trained me to do things to others, would I have really, truly understood it was wrong? I’m not sure. Maybe you had parents who taught you the entire meaning of consent from the moment you were born, and who didn’t think that tickling you when you said no was funny, and who didn’t force you to kiss and hug adults you’d never met before just because they were family, and who taught you that no means no and yes means yes and that you should never, ever, ever touch another person without their consent, and that a boy chasing a girl around or picking on her was wrong, rather than “oh, he likes you”. Good for you. Some of us weren’t that lucky, and we didn’t learn everything about consent by age 12.
And if you do know everything about consent, then you know that 12 year olds, by definition, can’t provide consent. That doesn’t just mean for what’s done to them, it’s also consent for what they themselves do. They literally don’t have the brain development to understand the consequences of their actions. If kids are taught to do shitty things, they will do them until their brains and experiences develop to the point that they can break their training and form their own mental compass , and that takes a few years.
So, tl;dr me: fuck off.
Why is it that when whine-pitters make these awesome “jokes”, the presence of humour has to be explained at length? Even a joke that’s cruel or in poor taste should be easy to discern from a flat-out hategasm (besides which, Dr Tickle has a history of being a particularly humourless and spiteful individual). It’s very telling that jokes by fanatics of all stripes often have to be explained to people who reside outside of their little silos; kind of reminds me of Fox News chuckling at themselves while exhibiting shameless racism or sexism.
Fox News propaganda jockeys, creationists – the parallels between them and the eternal pubsecents at the pit would embarrass any self-aware human, but apparently a significant section of the skeptic community appears perfectly happy to share traits with some of the most viscerally hateful and toxically stupid communities known to humankind.
Didn’t skeptickle dox herself ? Isn’t that where the info came from? So any subsequent use of the data she herself provided isn’t doxxing.
@Tom Foss, 187
It’s funny isn’t it? Creationists like to wheel out that criticism when they get the same responses to their inane questions about why there are still monkeys, or how the first human managed to find another human with whom to mate.
How interesting that the same gets wheeled out by this guy when a few people use the same word a few times… I’m sure it doesn’t mean anything though. Probably just a coincidence.
Well, and. I sexually assaulted my little brother, as was pointed out chez Michael Nugent. I held him down and kissed him against his will once.
This is what happens when you try to talk about rape culture honestly.
There are some people who are triggered by Ogvorbis’ continued presence here. But none of them would accept that this means that the ideals exemplified in the phrase, social justice warrior are not worthy ideals. They perceive some folks around here not living up to their ideals, and it hurts because they share those ideals. Slimepitters perceive people here not living up to their ideals and seize on it as proof that those are corrupt, false, unworthy ideals.
Ultimately we are on the right side of history, and if it weren’t for the fact that the climate crisis is going to force rapid unpleasant change and probably plenty of death on the global population relatively soon, I’d be completely confident about our prospects for winning the so-called culture wars in the long term.
Ach, shoulda put a content note. Sorry.
On that note, there’s ample evidence that 12 year olds in decades past thought rape was A-OK in a variety of situations.
Hell, there was a recent case of a 12 year old raping his younger sister. He was let off, due to his lack of understanding of what he was actually doing. The amorality of children is nothing new, and shouldn’t surprise anyone: they aren’t all baby lambs. They’re intelligent apes, and not infrequently do nasty shit.
What am I bet the InternetToughGuy doesn’t know what screed means?
Making jokes like that is an unethical breach of professional conduct for any physician.
I sent an alert.
I know every version of Ogvorbis’s story, and I fully support and respect him. The slyme trying to turn a child who suffered some awful abuse and acted out that abuse as a child into a narrative that supports their hate agenda is all the evidence I need that the slyme is reprehensible, immoral, pieces of human filth. They work at being the dregs of society.. If given the choice between the two, any person with a functioning brain and moral compass would choose Oggie in a heartbeat.
The first refuge of the morally bankrupt and their apologists:
“it was just a joke! harharhar!”
Even on a quad strength coffee I wouldn’t be able to read through that excuse for a rant, and of course teh author, like many of his calibre, can’t be bothered even doing basic sourcing via cutting and pasting links to primary sources.
And of course the lovely individulas from the slymepit totes have to show up and spew /sigh
@bigpaulmyers – lolwat? How exactly is Skep tickle’s thing just a “small” joke? Where when her post is claiming PZ picked up an STD is put in context vis the pit’s attitude towards sexuality and on going shit flinging it’s pretty fucking clear it’s meant as an attack? Oh right, it’s okay when the pit etc do it, but even when us social justice warriors point out easily verifiable stupid shit done by sceptics and atheists it’s bring out the pitchforks of hyper-scepticism and conspiracy for your lot /rolleyes
And now to relurk (limited energy reserves due to depression, else I’d join in the nomming on the pitter’s )
Insofar as what she wrote being a joke, I’ll let Sally Strange do the talking:
https://twitter.com/SallyStrange/status/502682117495459840
RE: Doxxing of Sutton
It happened here: “Unrelated to your letter: to complete my outing, in order to remove any further potential stringing out of information, my name is Eliza Sutton. I am a physician in Seattle. Anyone who wants to is welcome to Google me.” — Skep tickle
There’s a reference to a previous outing ( she’s completing it); I’m not sure what she means.
Psst, Sally, I think comment #200 may be a small example of that Schrödinger’s Douchebag meme from Reddit that you’ve very successfully had retweeted many thousands of times.
Also, people complaining about the ‘doxxing’ of individuals would be far more credible if the person in question hadn’t voluntarily identified herself multiple ways as a known person within the US skeptics set by using e-mail addresses that included her actual names, and if the revelation of her identity had been accompanied by digging into every other aspect of her personal life like a typical 4chan ‘dox’ would involve, down to social security numbers, bank accounts, etc. etc. etc. – which funnily enough, hasn’t happened.
Dammit, jinxed not once but twice!
BTW I didn’t call Cavanaugh’s little whine a “screed” either. I called it a “clumsy two-fisted unlubricated hatewank” when discussing it with a friend elsewhere and I stand by that.
As for “doxing” Dr Tickle, no. First, no, her real identity was not revealed against her will by some diabolical FtB operative out to cause harm or embarrassment. And since she posted that whatever-it-was publicly and is aware that her pseudonym and real name are known publicly, she implicitly stands by it and presumably can explain it to anyone who asks.
Second, hearing a whine-pitter moan about their own people being doxed is a gigantic black pot snickering at a very small and shiny kettle. Whose side of the rift was it that doxed Brownian? Who was it that publicised Surly Amy’s address? Which side of the rift appears to do everything it can to fuck with this network and its allies and supporters? Which blog network was accessed illegitimately by a former member after his well-earned turfing and then had its private comms publicised?
On a more general note regarding anti-feminists, who the fuck was it that kicked off gamergate and the Sarkeesian hatefest and hounded Jen McCreight offline? What about Hensley’s PTSD? What about the daily two-minutes e-hate for Watson and Greta Christina and any other woman online who dares to criticise sexist attitudes or behaviour? Can anybody point to anything done by SJWs that even remotely compares, either in magnitude or frequency? I’m not assuming that people on this side of things are 100% pure and blameless in all things, but I believe a direct comparison of the amount and severity of misdemeanours between this side and the pit would be illuminating.
Only the lowest of the lowest of the low even think about, much less actually go ahead with, bringing up Ogvorbis’ history in an attempt to derail a thread.
You truly are a disgusting specimen, bigpaulmyers.
*just sees a solid wall of text*
yup, crazy screed bashed out by mashing a keyboard while flinging spittles of saliva at the screen
This ‘it’s a joke you idiots’ business is Faux News stuff. Or in Australia, Andrew Bolt/News Limited stuff.
(Purely imagined scenario based on what I’ve seen by these types)
Faux News: Prime Minister, how do you response to reports that you’re a kiddy fondling muslim?
PM: That’s an outrageous slur!
Faux News: I’m not saying you’re a kiddy fondler, obviously it’s a bad joke, but the rumours are out there in public and require answers.
PM: I won’t dignify that with further response.
Faux News bulleting later that day: Today, the PM refused to deny speculation that he was a kiddy fondling muslim. We’ll go to panel of experts to discuss this treacherous politician who is causing the downfall of our country…..
Tangential, but right now I am relieved that my, my sister’s, and my brother-in-law’s doctors are at Overlake, Evergreen, and Swedish, not at UW Medical Center, because it reduces the chance of having this doctor participate in any way in our care. I won’t claim they’re perfect, but I’ve seen no evidence of either incompetence or malice.
False equivalence and tu quoque – it’s all the ‘pitters have. Well, when they aren’t just flat-out lying.
vaiyt @ # 158: He’s probably referring to Myers’ disdain to pop evo-psych and misogynistic pseudo-biological arguments.
Dunno how he thinks zebrafish research would pertain, but I’m not going to ask you to connect dots seen only in Cavanaugh’s vision.
Anne… @ # 172: …Looks like someone put up the Brave Heroes signal, … they have begun to arrive already.
If “bigpaulmyers” is the best they got, they ain’t got squat. Billy Batson could handle a squad of bpms – without having to use the “S” word.
I’m here most days, and have no idea…were all those tentacle posts a long-running euphemism?
SalllyStrange
Nice to find another optimist like myself.
And anyway, manginal biologists should really emulate SJW extraordinaire Jacques Monod.
#236 I thought it was because PZ holds that evolution isn’t only by natural selection like Dawkins. Dawkins believes that Natural selection is really the only driver of change in evolution, though he does sometimes pay lip service to other mechanisms while downplaying them. I think PZ holds that genetic drift, and other mechanisms are important in the process of evolution.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Xanthe
Funnily enough, on this side of the rift there aren’t any photos of skeptickle that have been photoshopped into porn or violence sexist games, she also will not be subject to funny jokes about STD’s that imply that she cheats on her partner. We will not spend all waking hours plotting new ways of violating her right to privacy or attempting to make her life as hellish as possible. In short, we simply aren’t bullying, misogynist assholes, and the slyme needs to get over their obsessions.
Actually, Stephanie Svan names Sutton here years ago, with nary a fuss. It seems the name was already known, at that point. I can only conclude that doxxing becomes a Bad Thing only when it ties to some obviously shitty behaviour.
faehnrich,
This is problematic, to say the least. Please, try to avoid such charged phrases in future.
That is because we do not believe enough in free speech.
Tethys @240
But that’s their raison d’être, their sole purpose in life. Without their obsessions and their insistence that everyone possible know about those obsessions the slymepit would dry up.
On the upside: I didn’t know keyboards were that frothing spittle-resistant these days. Go tech sector!
Pardon me, I’m just here at this comment number to insert my opinion about the opinions of Hordepersons on this thread, especially those in support of Oggie:
I like ’em!
Doctor in front of the Medical Disciplinary Board:
“Did you diagnose someone who is not your patient, in public, with a gonococcal infection?”
“Yes, but it was a joke.”
“Oh! It’s OK then. Sorry we disturbed you. You may go.”
(Is it clear enough this is a joke? Or should I add a reference list? I heard that’s how you do humor. I know that my favorite part of every Terry Pratchett novel is the APA-style bibliography in the back.)
Jebus. I read about half of that and went to skim-mode. What a fucking waste of internet-ink.
I herby diagnose our most recent troll “big pee mouth” as having skeptic arthritis.
Now please send me a “cease and desist” letter, I need something to line the cat litter tray with.
I just can’t understand how this Matt character doesn’t get honesty and rationality at all. Then for laughs Big Dumb Paul comes on and acts like a big kid. “You won’t like it when we are angry.” oooohhhhh Maybe I should visit the pit. But I won’t. Too much hate. Like others I stand with Tony and Ian.
Vicki @234
Ouch. I understand the feeling, and I’m glad your loved ones get good care.
But I’m afraid I have to pull a “#notall…” here, and point out that there in a large institution like UW Medicine there are also a lot of hard-working and ethical professionals who don’t deserve to stink of the poo that Doctor Slymie is flinging. It’s got its blind spots and flaws, probably some large ones of each. But in my, albeit limited, experience, this level of disgusting nastiness doesn’t reflect the overall culture or ethos there.
And that, folks, is the sort of damage Dr Skeptickle is doing to her colleagues at the UW. Good job, Slymie, MD!
(oh, wait…it’s actually my fault and the FTBullies’ fault for not instantly forgetting forever that this person publicly outed their away-from-keyboard, legal/professional name online all on their own. After they and their supporters had left enough breadcrumbs to make that revelation all but inevitable in the first damn place… [Emily Litella] NEVERMIND! [/Emily Litella])
As for jokes, well, even granting that Skep Tickle intended her diagnosis as a joke, it’s the sort of joke that medical ethics preclude a person with an MD from making in public. Not much more to it than that.
Bigpaulmyers came here to set our record straight – pitters aren’t just terrible, they’re REALLY terrible.
is the banned slymer commenter, Fishcake-SireSpout; I’ve corrected his name accordingly. And banned the contemptible asshole.
By the way, anyone can quote anything in comic sans with the <q>/ </q> tags.
I just want to give my support to PZ and the other commenter’s that have been on the receiving end of this crap.
All Hail The Real Paul Myers!
(off topic)
@ 227 Jacob Schmidt
If you really want to know, Ophelia addressed “Skep tickle” by her first name here, and later mentioned she was on the board of an atheist org. This was twisted by pit-types into Ophelia “doxxing” “Skep tickle” and they acted all outraged.
“Skep tickle” then revealed her full name, occupation and location herself, as you quoted.
All this was well over a year ago.
(/off topic)
If the gonorrhea thing is supposed to be a joke, why is it tucked in the middle of accusations? “Here’s a bunch of things PZ supposedly did, also we’re gonna imply he got venereal diseases from sleeping with conference attendees but THIS is not supposed to be a factual statement, now back to calling him a pervert”. Doesn’t mattcavanaugh realize he’s undermining himself? What else is a “joke” in that litany?
Wow, that was so long. It just kept going and going and going. I will admit I stopped at “he is obsessed with the concept of ‘consent'” because when you scare quote “consent” (those aren’t scare quotes, those are quote quotes), it’s kind of a good indicator that it’s probably not going to get any better.
Wait wait wait…
So thinking consent is incredibly important is stupid and consent is something that’s fuzzy and not really worth worrying about, but posting this without his consent is WRONG.
Right, got it. That’s… uh, special?
Yet another case of “This is totally different somehow! It’s only bad when it happens to meeee!”
A brief poking around shows that it’s even funnier than that. Stephanie Svan addressed Sutton by her first name 7 months before that, without any objections. I tried posting a link, but (I think) the slur in the url got caught in the comment trap. It’s in the comments of the Almost Diamonds post That’s “Fucking *Effective* B—c” to You.
Just found this response on FB http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/10/07/the-smears-get-increasingly-serious-as-pz-myers-crosses-a-new-line/
Which I only mention because the first FB comment is from Barbara Drescher who charges “Nugent is missing a lot of history that he might appreciate, such as the time that PZ posted the IP address of a 17yo Christian kid who dared to ask him a simple question so that his minions could hunt the kid down in meat space. (In a previous post he talks about PZ throwing a tantrum in expectation of Nugent doxxing someone, despite the fact that Nugent said he wouldn’t do that.)”
When asked about it she says “That was years ago. I’m not going to hunt it down. But if he wants to go looking for it, it was when Pharyngula was on ScienceBlogs, probably fall of 2009 or spring of 2010.”
ie take my word for it, he did this horrible thing. But I won’t show you where. You have to look for it yourself, but if you can’t find it it’s because it’s not around anymore. But you can trust me.
Ah, just got off work and I can see this thread took off. Why, I wonder what I’ll find in the comments since I last read…hmmm…
Totally skipping the trolls comments.
Silentbob @198:
Ouch. Good one. That’s gotta sting.
It’s a shame Our Little SparklePitter doesn’t care about those concepts.
****
Ogvorbis @201:
In my book, the fact that you recognize that what you did was wrong…that you condemn those actions…that you refuse to engage in sexual assault of any kind…that is what marks you as a good person. Yes, you joined in on the sexual assault–as a groomed child who’s moral compass was fucked up by two horrible people. You’re not that person though. You’ve grown into a kind human being who completely condemns what you did and you refuse to do anything of the sort again, and you haven’t. We’re not talking about actions you took 2 years ago. You did this at 12. You’re an adult now, but fucking shitstains like the Pitters who wouldn’t know compassion and empathy if it smacked them across the face, want to hold you accountable for the actions you took when you were 12 (actions which you were manipulated into performing).
I ain’t said it in a while but FUCK YOU TO EVERY GODDAMN ONE OF YOU FUCKING SLYMEPITTERS.
****
gijoel @212:
Thank you. I love that pic of the dog.
That did actually happen, or at least an event close enough happened such that I wouldn’t call it an outright lie. Or at least the first bit. “… so that his minions could hunt the kid down in meat space,” is a blatant lie.
PZ got email from an 18 year old from Wisconsin. He reposted the letter in full online; the letter included the sender’s full name and approximate location (i.e. city and state).
Despite that, nothing bad happened. The kid was left alone.
Thanks for the info, Jacob.
This was a tough thread to page through. Tougher than most others here and I’m not sure why, entirely. The screed was absolutely horrific bullshit and seeing the Slymers posting their hateful crap in the thread was sickening. Then I saw what happened to Oggy and felt like crying. :-(
(Oggvorbis, I’m mostly a lurker but for what it’s worth I’ve always appreciated you as one of the kindest, most thoughtful posters here. And I’m so sorry for the deep pain you’ve had to endure all your life.)
Sometimes I really feel like I don’t know how to live in this world. :-(
bigpaulmyers @155:
Hmm, threats of violence. That’s usually the last resort of the cornered or desperate, and as you’re free to leave at any time the former can’t be it. So why the desperation?
bigpaulmyers
Gregory Greenwood @80:
[snaps fingers], that’s IT!
You hang around the SlymePit, right? So you know first-hand that it’s not a hate group, it’s just a bunch of merry pranksters trying to deflate the massive egos that just can’t take a joke, no matter how obvious.
bigpaulmyers:
And when you first saw that flash by, you chuckled. It was obviously a joke, just a bit of harmless humour. And Cavanaugh’s post did a bang-up job in the ego-deflating department. Now, though…. now, you’re having second thoughts. I mean, Cavanaugh did go on for a long time, and it comes across as rambling on a second read. Sutton is a doctor, and therefore under some heavy restrictions on what she can share. Her words carry weight and authority, in that domain, and you haven’t heard any other doctors joking about medical diagnoses.
Maybe… you’re the baddies? Maybe it’s not Pharyngula that’s the hate group, maybe it’s the ‘Pit? That would suck, because nobody wants to wake up and realize they’re part of a hate group.
There’s gotta be some way to test who the real hate group is. Hmm….
Ok, that’s one way. Force a group to confront their contradictions, and watch what happens.
… and, the results of this experiment?
Woo hoo, success! The Pharyngulites are reacting with hostility and scorn, refusing to confront the truth. As there are no other possible explanations for this behavior, they must be the hate group. This combines nicely with the other evidence you already have, such as groupthink and immoral behavior. Meanwhile, you’re wading into hostile territory, trying to wake up the sheeple and being the voice of reason to the wild horde.
Ahhh…. you can feel your cognitive dissonance dripping away as the ban-hammer comes down. You again know who the baddies truly are, and the world is right again.
#263: Don’t forget the follow-up!
Comparing the ethical behavior of the slymepitters who show up here with the creationists and other theist apologists, and its no contest.
The theists win by a country mile and going away.
I poured myself a nice glass of Jack Daniels and slogged through the whole thing. I didn’t get the vast majority of the things this Cavanaugh guy referred to, but the very few I did show that his talent with twisting words and strawmanning and quotemining rivals that of many Creationists, making me think the rest of them are similarly… erm… misleading.
Still waiting to hear from Michael Nugent about this egregious attack…
And waiting…
And waiting…
And waiting…
And waiting…
And waiting…
And waiting…
And waiting…
And waiting…
And waiting…
…
Maybe I shouldn’t be holding my breath?
is this seriously what it is all about? Has anyone else notice this yet? This is all fucking about, “Guys don’t do that” being replayed under another guise.
From the screed comment update by one ‘(c) 2014 by Matt Cavanaugh. All rights reserved.’
From the increasingly, severely furious, Father Michael Nugent who is going to turn this car around very shortly:
All because PZ made this tweet comment:
An Open Comment to Michael Nugent,
Dear Michael Nugent, you *are* defending a serial sexual harasser, and an ‘alleged’ rapist in the the name of Michael Shermer who ignores consent during sex. Based upon Mark Oppenheimer ‘s Buzzfeed article (http://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement#96skpe) and depending upon which story that you believe from Mr. Shermer, he was ‘totz’ sober adult and had consensual sex with Alison Smith (who wishes to be named, publicly about the incident to protect other women from sexual predators so you not mentioning her name is hushing up a sexual assault allegation). Or, he was slightly less drunk since he, by his own words, was called out for not drinking during the party in question, and escorting Alison Smith not to her room, but his, and she immediately left his room in a fit (paraphrasing her words) and had to be escorted off the premises in an wheelchair because she was still drunk. Mr. Shermer is offering different versions of his story depending upon his audience and you are defending him .
Also, please, do not forget Dallas Hugh who has also publicly accused Mr. Shermer of raping him, Dallas Hugh, whose suicide note lead to his coming out to his friends and family as bi-sexual. Mr. Hugh, that everyone has hushed down the comments threads everywhere expect for a sporadic mention in passing. Dallas lays it out in his suicide note: http://creativepooping.tumblr.com/post/58606684580/copy-of-suicide-note-from-attempt-on-8-13-2013.
How many allegations by named individuals do you require before you at least call a sexual predator an ‘alleged rapist’? That is two people naming Michael Shermer with their real world names attached to the accusations against Michael Shermer. Is three the magic number for you?
Seriously, Mr. Father Michael Nugent, sit the fuck down, listen and learn what the fuck you are talking about, what the fuck you are defending. Maybe if you read, study, and investigated with as much time and effort as you do in writing pedantic polemics then you might understand the anger in PZ’s tweet(s).
You can start here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2014/09/12/timeline-of-harassment-and-sexual-assault-allegations-against-michael-shermer/
You can start here: http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/2014/10/06/pz-myers-glass-house/
You can start here: http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=393&start=51350 (and read backwards in history
You can start here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/10/06/online-misogyny-idea-that-internet-isnt-real/
And to bury the fucking lede, if you haven’t already run off and written another 5,000 word pedantic polemic on naughty words that PZ is hosting, I agree that PZ should apologize to you and re-tweet the following:
[ that you are] ….defending & providing a haven for harassers, misogynists, and alleged rapists
I mean, you did not concern yourself over the harassers and misogynists. Why is that, Mr. Father Michael Nugent? Do you agree that you are “defending & providing a haven for harassers, misogynists…” but the new line is ‘alleged’ rapists? Have you fucking (ohhhh, another naughty word) traveled to LA and read, saw, and experienced the tweets sent to Amy, Rebecca, Ophelia, Stephanie, Greta and all in the Art exhibit?
I wonder if Michael Nugent and PZ Myers would agree to the following recommendation:
Short of that proposal, then I would propose that you, Mr. Nugent, look around your website, and where possible, track the user names, email addresses, and IP addresses between your website against the list of user names on the Slymepit, the Blockbot, and the internal killfiles of the FtB bloggers, Skepchicks, and the women covering misogyny in the gaming world. Unfortunately, the harassers use more sockpuppets than [insert your own analogy] in order to play plausible deniability and other childish games.
Finally, Mr. Nugent, why do you only concern yourself with getting an apology from PZ for using [the allegation of] rapists and not the harassers or the misogynists on your website? I, personally, recommend that you step back, sit down, and listen (but do not write until you are up-to-speed on the whole issue. Please do not cut-run-and-flounce, like you did when you tried to host that debacle of a debate between the same harassers and misogynists that are posting on your website now with Stephanie, when the shit became ‘to real’ for you.
Mr. Nugent, you need to see this through to the end for the standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept. Right now, your standards are shitty slimy and quite patronizing.
and my post with multiple links is in the Spam filter. I am not sure if PZ will let it through. I will let him decide. In it, I propose a solution between Michael Nugent and PZ Myers regarding an apology along with a lot of other observations.
Marc Abian @237: I believe it’s a reference to this golden oldie: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/26/mammals-have-hair-get-used-to/
I kinda feel sorry for Michael Nugent. And then I realise that he only has himself to blame.
Don’t hold your breath Donnie.
This meme-washing, as I called it, is even more obvious when you place Nugent’s letter next to Cavanaugh’s rage.
When you mush the two of them together, you find they’re firing off similar talking points. Nugent doesn’t hang around the SlymePit, though, and loudly condemns their foul language and violent rhetoric. You’d never spot the connection unless you knew of the ‘Pit’s talking points before Nugent started repeating them; otherwise, you’d probably think the SlymePit was copying Nugent, and not vice-versa.
And in this fashion, the reprehensible becomes respectable.
Hj Hornbeck
This would explain the infestation of Michael’s blog from the ‘Pit’s perspective. But not his. I fail to see any positive outcomes for him.
Donnie @271
Shouldn’t you be posting your whine at Nugent’s website? He’s the one who needs to apologize to the world about letting the slymepit infest his blog.
PZ – I am not a doctor – not even close – but I have enough training in Microbiology to recognize that her own description of septic arthritis contradicts her leap to gonorrhea as the cause. The description of the causes of the disease implicates gonorrhea in young sexually active adults. It also mentions other possible causes such as diabetes and immunosuppresive drugs, which would be much more likely for a 57 year old man. It also lists Staph aureus, Haemophilus influenzae b, and E. coli before Neisseria gonorrheae. So in addition to the fact that you did not have septic arthritis to begin with, she had to twist the hell out of things to come up with gonorrhea as a diagnosis.
I also had to stop reading when I got to the part about Oggvorbis. That made me want to vomit. Oggy, in my book you are good people. What you were forced to do as a child was horrible, but you had no choice in the matter. I agree with Tony. The fact that you are determined not to perpetuate what was done to you is what matters.
Can’t wait to see the Slymepit defend this.
theophontes@273
I might have felt sorry for him a few months ago. Not now*.
Lie down with dogs – in the fluffy, comfy bed you yourself made – get up with fleas. I don’t care how itchy and uncomfortable it makes you. He asked for it.
*Previously I might have thought a disgraceful exhibition like this would get him to rethink his approach. I have little to no hope of that now.
In the good old days, Matt’s missive would have been sent in the post, written by hand in very small letters on unruled lines spaced too close together, and he would have made it all fit on two sides of one sheet of paper, probably decreasing the line spacing toward the final paragraphs. All rather sad, isn’t it.
PZ #268 and Jacob Schmidt #264: I’m always a bit sad when I see the renovated scienceblogs archive of Pharyngula where they *lost* tranches of comments from the database thus months and months worth of posts seem to have zero comments instead of showing the hundreds they tended to receive, so I hopped over to the Wayback Machine, and the Internet Archive snapshot for Pharyngula taken on 2010/07/12 shows that the first post on June 10 re the emails from the 18 year old had 550 comments by that time, and the second post about him on June 11 had 360 comments. Just for the historical record.
Also for the record: on neither post did PZ reveal the young man’s email address or IP. In the second post the young man made a mild complaint in his email to PZ about how he would “continue to get more adds from your blog friends on facebook.” So nobody did more than engage with him via his public social media profile. What a bunch of brutes you all were – where’s my fainting couch?
You forgot the green ink.
My main complaint is that the guy could do the readers a favor by adding a little white space between paragraphs. I’m reading it, actually just skimming it, on a good sized monitor. I’d hate to think about what a jumble it would be on a tablet or phone.
Looked like pretty standard BS accusations and mischaracterization of events both real, grossly exaggerated, with a good part being entirely fictional. At least he actually read some of the material so he could allow some accusations have some tiny grains truth before he spins off into evil fantasy.
Standard Gish Gallop tactics of a multitude of accusations with a few having some whiff of reality. A strong effort on length alone and a step up from the normal bland hog wallow. I give it a ‘C’. As with most Gish Gallop type attacks they are wide but not very deep. Once the initial shock of so broad an array of accusations wears off you look at the individual parts and find they are just smoke. There is no substance behind them. A big cloud of smoke is not a whole lot more impressive than a little one. It is all just smoke.
My standard response to such things, assuming I value the persons commentary enough to comment, personal abuse and groundless accusation tends to devalue my estimation of what is to be gained by engagement, is that I’ve been called worse by better. I was developing a thick skin on line before most of them were born.
Kind of sad contemplating the work that went into that scree, and the huge numbers of electrons inconvenienced, considering how it will all roll off the back like water off a duck.
*snort* *chuckle*
Cavanagh’s is actually complaining about abuse of copyright*! That’s right up there with the proverbial guy who murdered his parents, then appealed for clemency on the grounds that he’s an orphan.
*See my #66 for a related semi-prediction.
Finally (finally!), someone whose writings allow a reasonable comparison to Mabus. Except that it is all pointed at one person.
I do not envy.
Funny how Drescher conflates PZ’s usual tactic regarding threats of violence (posting IP addresses & identifying information) with pointing out that a kid who wrote in with his full name lives in a city with a population of 78,000. I wonder if she ever condemned Vacula for posting Surly Amy’s home address. Did Nugent?
But as the other medical professional with the history of making unethical totes-joking diagnoses over the Internet, I wondered if she’d show up in this thread.
Maybe that kid had a very unusual name, like “Quisling” ? (that name is now extinct in Norway, for some reason)
.
The letter is an interesting missing link between the LeTter writers that Use Random caps and a random word soup, on one hand, and the writers who actually check their facts as well as their writing.
The hate and disinformation forms a continuity from the former category, but the factually incorrect parts set it apart from the latter.
Denisovans? H. heidelbergensis?
A followup, I doubt Father Michael Nugent would have allowed my comment through his moderation because I use many naughty words and sarcasm. Essentially, the highlights without supporting links:
1. Does anyone not realize that this is merely a continuation to “Guys, don’t do that.” Supporting documentation of that assertion.
by (c) 2014 by Matt Cavanaugh. All rights reserved. in a comment on his screed.
by Father Michael Nugent on his 10/7 post The smears get increasingly serious as PZ Myers crosses a new line
All because PZ tweeted this regarding the commentariat on Michael Nugent’s blog:
We have two individuals who have named Michael Shermer as a rapist:
– links to Allison Smith’s accusations against Michael Shermer
– link to Dallas Hugh’s (of creativepooping tumblr) suicide note that publicly accused Michael Shermer of rape
The irony deficient Michael Nugent actually wrote this:
and this:
Dear Mr. Nugent, you *are* defending Michael Shermer. We, the Social Justice Warriors *are* working on protecting future victims from rapists (side note: Mr. Nugent, where have you been in reality for the past 3+ years? Provided links to various supporting documentation of the issues) You *are* defending and harbouring harassers, misogynists, and [alleged] rapists. Is it the ‘alleged’ rapists (plural and not singular*) that has you in a pedantic polemic mode?
*side note: Because you emphasized the plural of rapist in and above the singular in the above blockquote of you, does this mean that you subconsciously acknowledge that you are supporting a name sexual predator, a named sexual assaulter, and a named rapist in Michael Shermer?
Fine, In order to not get into the links illustrating the links to and patterns to various commenters on his blog compared to the comments on the SlymePit and the “Great Debate Debacle” where Mr. Father Michael Nugent cut-ran-and-flounced when the context of the debate became to fucking real for him. I proposed the following:
Option #1:
Option #2:
After this review, PZ will agree to retract his tweet, and issue a clarification tweet as follows:
….If there are no more than 1 rapist (defined as anyone who has engaged in non-consensual sex with a partner – even if the partner is a known person to the rapist – whether the partner is sober or drunk) that is commenting on Michael Nugent’s blog.
In the meantime, I suggest that Father Michael Nugent do the following:
1. Sit down
2. Shut up
3. Listen and
4 Do not write 5,000 word pedantic polemics until you have done the following
[Insert links to}
1. Lousy Canuck’s timeline on sexual harassment
2. The screed by ‘(c) 2014 by Matt Cavanaugh. All rights reserved’.
3. Link to Greta’s blog post about the CFI Art exhibit of online harassment
We, the Social Justice Warriors are attempting to create a community, environment where victims of rape deserve justice, and potential future victims deserve to be protected from rapists. The Slymepit, and a lot of others, do not support the SJWs attempts to create a safe environment.
Mr. Nugent, what are you doing to protect potential future victims from potential sexual predators, sexual assaulters, and rapists within the atheist, skeptic, and online communities?
[finishes with link to the video by Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO, to the Australian Army]
Mr. Nugent, what is the standard that you are willing to walk by?
Sorry, I guess PZ released my comment from the Spam filter while I was working on a non-linky version.
^THIS!
Oggie, I’m sorry. I wish these people were not deliberately trying to trigger and victim blame you as punishment for being a feminist man.
Ogvorbis
My history is very different from yours, but I damn well know that an abused kid will carry their abuser with them for a long time. And everything carlie said.
The comments over at Nugents blog are like a who’s who of the other side of the ‘deep rifts’. Even Thunderf00t showed up. Well, you know what they say about the company that you keep…
@Yazikus: Well, I know what they say about the company that you keep. They say “how dare you?! Guilt by association! Baseless smears! Personal attacks! Obsessive! Bad apples! Unrepresentative! You can’t even prove that these people who said those things are associated with us! They’re probably Christians or Skepchick sockpuppets for sympathy and attention! Plus you’re just as bad because your mentally unstable commentariat said a thing about a porcupine several years ago!”
the misspelled french was funny, the rest-no surprizes.
I find this little quote hilarious, given a certain incident at a MN movie theater a few years ago.
HJ Hjornbeck, I like the term meme washing, but I think meme laundering is a bit more appropo.
Well, fuck. Ogvorbis, I’m truly sorry these slime really are scum enough to try and use your history as a victim of child abuse like this.
That they are scum enough to use racist slurs against Tony! and Crommunist.
Hope Dr. Sutton is proud of herself and her professionalism. Hope I never have dealings with a doctor like her.
And yes, it’s quite striking that a group of people could use “social justice” as an insult without ever apparently stopping to think what this says about them. The pitters really should take a look at the badges on their caps.
opposablethumbs #298
QFT. It’d be like using “paragon of kindness” as a pejorative. Hey opposablethumbs, go suck an egg you exemplar of integrity!!
Aww… They got themselves a doctor too!
How cute…
Can’t help that it is funny that it is just over a week ago that the Discovery Institute posted this: William Dembski Thanks Richard Dawkins for Inspiration
Also, debates like this on facebook/twitter leads me to block more people from the anti-SJW crowd – each of which results in $1 donation to a SJW-friendly cause. I think today alone will add $20 to that pile.
*snicker*
@Kristjan Wager, don’t sign up to @TheBlockBot, the 7000 blocks might bankrupt you ;-)
raisin date
(sorry, that’s my sole contribution to this convo. I’ll get around to reading it all eventually)
@Donnie #271: Thanks for the through recap, I am bookmarking your comment.
@PZ: You slip every now and then, but I for one admire your integrity.
Also, we are not atheists, we are not “brights” or humanists or freethinkers…
We are Social Justice Warriors.
I just want to thank P.Z. and many others here for being a source of educational inspiration for quite a few years now. I would venture that most folks here are more interested in investigating and understanding the world than picking petty fights. If something gets condemned on this blog, it’s usually something pretty fucking sick.
PZ, Don’t you feel that, as a person who wields an actual audience, to take a direct action toward another human being which would amount to an assault on their livelihood, one of which you know nothing about personally, would have a negative effect on them and their family, of which you do not personally know and who may consist of, even if you assume this person (because of their opinions and ideas on an internet forum, hell I’ll give you that, even though I don’t think I have to) “slime” (speech which I honestly don’t condone towards another person on any grounds because words like that allow us to dehumanize and objectify each other – the very ROOT of prejudice), even if they somehow deserve having their speech curtailed, something else I DO NOT CONDONE, but even if you somehow do, and think aggression is somehow warranted against this person, which again I am giving you for the sake of argument alone I assure you, even then, do you really think such aggression is warranted to all the innocents that may be tied on this person, or who care about or love this person?
This sort of action is just plain wrong. Ideas are not meant to be enforced, but argued. Somehow you think it’s your job to enforce them, with REAL threat to a person’s way of life, people who have families and loved ones. How , PZ Myers, can you possibly feel justified in this, no matter what the speech? IT IS SPEECH. Posted by a pseudonym. When her real name got involved, this became aggressive action, against clear implied wishes (pseudonym use) , and in attempt to limit free speech. How could anyone, much less a logical thinker, find this sort of thing appropriate?
christopher, here are some punctuation marks for future use. They might make your writing more comprehensible:
………..;;;;;;;;;;;
christopheragens
I find your writing difficult to parse, but I think you’re saying PZ’s criticism of Dr Eliza Dutton’s unprofessional and pseudonymous libel is an attack on free speech. And he doesn’t know her, which makes it even worse. Is that right?
Probably some paragraph breaks would help, too.
Egads, christopheragens. Your entire first paragraph is one sentence. Maybe try organizing your thoughts better.
As for your content, you realize that PZ has done nothing except use his right to free speech? Dutton criticized him, and he criticized her for the ethics involved in her criticism. Do you think maybe the only reason you see her speech as acceptable while seeing PZ’s as unacceptable is because you are biased? Do you not see how her post is a threat to PZ’s way of life? Why is it ok for her to use speech to make up lies about him, but it is not ok for him to call her out on those lies because it could threaten her way of life? Part of free speech is that we are responsible for the consequences of our speech.
And medical doctors have a greater responsibility in how they use their free speech. If she made up fake diagnoses and published them in an open forum, all while claiming expertise in the matter because of her medical degree, that is a serious breach of ethics. One that could potentially get her in a lot of trouble. And that is her responsibility, not the responsibility of the people who are calling her out on her unethical behavior. She is lucky that PZ does not seem to intend to take legal action against her or report her to her medical ethics board.
And as I understand it, her name was already publicly known in association with that pseudonym for quite a while now, so PZ was not the one who exposed her true identity.
christopheragens @ #307
Dr. Dutton used speech. PZ replied with speech. Nobody is keeping the other from engaging in speech*. Seriously, just because you can say things doesn’t mean nobody can react to what you say or challenge it**. In short: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.
—
*And given how freely Dr. Dutton herself linked her real name with her online handle, I find it disingenuous to claim that PZ doing THE EXACT THING SHE DID is somehow aggression.
** And just in case we’re dealing with an extra side of disingenuous (or stupid): This does not mean that all challenges are equal. Note that PZ pointed out grossly out of place behavior from a professional which ought to know better. He didn’t send her death or rape threats, or photoshopped her face (or that of her family members) into porn images.
I will never again criticise myself for my run on sentences. Never again. Holy wow.
Also, does anyone else disappointed that there are no instances of “henceforth referred to as” in that stream? It feels like a missed opportunity.
Hrrrgh. I accidentally the word “feel” out of there – “does anyone else feel disappointed.
I need to start using preview.
(I did not accidentally the word “leave” out in this case though, that was intentional.)
How does one “wield” an audience?
Also, just because I’m enjoying the sound of my own keyboard so much, I must comment again. This is certainly not because I’m completely failing to get an entire train of thought out in one go at this point in time.
Is anyone else confused by the idea that we’re being wielded? I didn’t realise that the Myers unit had control over my actions.
@307:
Comprehensibility. Come back and post when you have it. Geez. I thought *I* was bad.
Also, I guess our new runonsentence commenter doesn’t know that the Slymepit is an actual site…it’s awesome that they call it that bc they are slimy individuals.
Both of your aggressive sidelining language toward me in the form of personal insult to my “writing” is noted.
…(here are some periods)
I’m saying that any person who proffers any speech anonymously, deserves to have their speech preserved without threat to their livelihood, or the livelihood of their families by guiltless (even if you assume, as I said in the first post, guilt on the part of the individual in question) association. Speech about a public figure simply does not warrant that.
As far as I know, PZ does not have a professional relationship with this person(check what hipaa laws), and this is legally not libel(this is criticism [obviously meant as a joke] of a public figure, using public information), but if it were, that would be a case for court, not character assignation to enforce ideas and squelch critics.
Ze Madmax
The difference is that this person is not a public figure using their real name (which makes it not “THE EXACT SAME THING”) as you claim, PZ is using his real name, and with that you open yourself up to more varied speech about you. If this is indeed libel that is a matter for legal action, not social, social action against people for speech just one step from thoughtcrime, which I feel is fundamentally wrong, the actions of other parties are irrelevant.
“** And just in case we’re dealing with an extra side of disingenuous (or stupid): This does not mean that all challenges are equal. Note that PZ pointed out grossly out of place behavior from a professional which ought to know better. He didn’t send her death or rape threats, or photoshopped her face (or that of her family members) into porn images.”
Once again, aggression and insult noted.
Actually, I find posting real life info about someone to a large public forum which may contact her job MUCH worse than Photoshopped pictures, or even (internet) rape threats. Because this deals with real life, and people may depend on this person, they have people who love them, and a whole life away from this. Taking action which may mess up that life, over IDEAS, is wrong.
christopheragens.
Here’s a tip: quotation marks are not for emphasis, although you’ve inadvertantly characterised your communication quite well by using them. You see, in this context, such punctuation is known as scare quotes, and generally implies that whatever is between them is false or incorrectly used in some fashion.
Gadzooks, another Tone Troll.
christopheragens @319:
You’re assuming she’s anonymous.
christopheragens @320:
So sorry (not), but you’re providing a defense for someone who is harassing asshole, so many of us aren’t going to be terribly inclined to being polite to you.
If you can’t deal with that, you can leave at any time.
So since she outed herself, can you take your concerns and shove them somewhere that’s not here?
@ christopheragens
Poor widdlel diddums doesn’t like being called disingenuous and stupid? Try not lying and not saying really stupid shit then:
Dr. Sutton posted her own real life info and attached it to her ‘nym and then used her status as a doctor to LIE about someone with a large public forum. She did that. Nobody did that to her. And this horseshit of the internet isn’t real? It’s horseshit. You’re real. I’m real. Everyone reading this is real. The people making rape threats? Real. The people who may depend on this person? Also real and Sutton should have fucking thought of that before she committed a gross fucking breech of ethics. It’s seriously ludicrous…just…there aren’t even words for how completely backasswards it is to have a bigger problem with someone calling out grossly unethical behavior than you have with actual grossly unethical behavior.
321 – Emphasis was in original quote which I copied, not mine. And even if it were somehow a grammatical error…really? That’s what you’re going to address?
322 – Not sure what that is, but the Troll part makes me think you’re trying to write off what I’m saying as not my acual opinion. Would you like to call me? Have an actual conversation? I am using my real name and that’s really me in the picture. I’m just saying what has been bothering me for a while about this new practice of social enforcement of ideas. I don’t think it’s right.
Is a conversation possible here without attacks? Why all the aggression? If you’re right, why can’t you just talk about the issue directly instead of making it about how I write, or labeling me with a name which is obviously meant as a tag for others to write me off, as though I’m somehow less-than.
@A Hermit, 6 &Tony!, 23
Ah, ya great big bullying bullies! Mocking my inability to spot small punctuation marks. I have a low grammatomancy skill! :(
Well, actually, I “used to” “see” “auras,” so I already succumbed to it once and got better. Hmm… would that imply I still have antibodies providing a bonus to immunity, or would it be a susceptibility, in much the same way that an old knee injury makes you vulnerable to called shots to the leg?
@Ranzoid, 30
I don’t get it. Why do you care enough to even have an opinion about this? What difference would it make, other than being an excuse to call her a liar?
Speaking as somebody who definitely has been playing games since the age of five – I used to play Repton and Bonecruncher (Holy fuck. I played that again recently on an emulator. You kill monsters and use their bones to make soap. Then you bathe with the bone soap. What the fuck was wrong with you, Superior Software?!) on a BBC Micron – I really haven’t had any issues with her arguments. Even if she’d never played a game in her life, her criticisms would still be valid, but it’s pretty clear that she was a damn, dirty nintendo player. Bloody consoles! *shakes a fist*
… wrong thread. Ignore 328. *drapes a cloak of invisibility over it*
326 – “The people who may depend on this person? Also real and Sutton should have fucking thought of that before she committed a gross fucking breech of ethics.”
So then you are saying aggressive action against even innocents, assuming this guilt, by connection to this person is warranted over IDEAS? That is what you’re saying, just to be clear? You can’t disconnect the two when you’re talking about endangering someone’s job in real life.
How can you justify this over ideas?
christopheragens @ 327
Are you incapable of parsing words for content unless they’re dripping with honey? You whine that people are making excuses to dismiss you by calling you names. What the fuck do you think you’re doing by moaning about aggressive language if not making excuses not to take those people seriously? Do you even read this shit before you hit post?
christopheragens @ #319
You know that merely stating that something is a joke doesn’t make it so, yes? And there are no suggestions from her post that it was meant humorously, but it rather looks like an attempt to cover one’s ass after the fact because the online diagnosis comment is bad PR and people know it.
@ #320
Why?
You know what I hate more than people who abuse 1984 references? People who abuse 1984 references who sound like they either never read, or didn’t understand the book. /bookpedant
Then you should read the article PZ posted at the link I provided. That should hopefully disabuse of such an idiotic notion. Do please note the aggression and insult again.
331 – In the case of response to insult, how do I take an insult seriously? It’s inherently sidelining and not about the issue at all. Any actual arguments raised I’ve attempted to respond to, so I don’t see how I’m doing anything like insulting someone.
christopheragens @ 330
People have names. Use them. We’re not numbers.
Why is it suddenly different when the direction is reversed? It’s totally OK for Dr. Sutton to spread lies (lies being untrue IDEAS, since you’re apparently unclear about this) about PZ, to which she uses her status as a doctor to lend credibility, to what end exactly? Do you think she has no intention of damaging PZ’s “real life” livelihood when she does this? Do you think she’s not trying to influence people to say not buy his books, maybe hoping his employer will see these allegations and have cause to fire him, maybe conference organizers won’t invite him to speak? What the fuck do you think Sutton’s goal is if not to damage PZ’s “real life?”
And again, she did what she fucking did. The consequences are what they are. Any family and/or dependents she has are HER responsibility and it’s not others’ responsibility to turn a blind eye to her grossly unethical behavior. Where is Sutton’s responsibility for the shit SHE did of her own free will? Why is it everyone else’s responsibility to suddenly spare a thought for her family when Sutton herself apparently didn’t have a single neuron to spare for them when she engaged in this grossly unethical behavior?
332. Ze Madmax – The fact that you could support such an obvious social stance of controlling discourse by endangering real life jobs is proof enough to me that you are the one who does not even come close to understanding 1984, or the sinister mechanisms which lie underneath the control structure described in that book, as if you did you would know that you perpetuate it with your support of just this sort of thing.
Shame on you.
Yo!
CHRISTOPHERAGENS!
Did you happen to notice my comment @323, which shows that Eliza Dutton outed herself last year?
Christopher, I have yet to see you respond to the fact that our dear Dr. who is making intentionally false diagnoses over the internet OUTED HERSELF a year or more ago.
Your blatant ignoring of this fact is noted.
Your blatant ignorance of professional ethics is also noted. For example, I am a licensed veterinary technician. If I wrote something like “I hope your cat dies of cancer” and my boss found out, I would be in deep shit. Deservedly deep shit. Calling it a ‘joke’ wouldn’t protect me from the deservedly deep shit. Even if she didn’t find out, saying something like that to someone is UNETHICAL CONSIDERING MY PROFESSION.
A DOCTOR claiming someone she doesn’t know has a stigmatizing disease in order to do damage to their reputation is NOT A JOKE and UNETHICAL CONSIDERING THEIR PROFESSION.
Stop bloody ignoring these two important facts. Unless you can acknowledge them, you will be self-admitting to being nothing other than an insincere and frankly boring troll.
Seven of Mine @334:
Uh-oh, you used coarse language. I think someone here might be vewwy, vewwy cross.
****
christopheragens:
What’s the problem? She outed herself to the world last year.
@christopheragens
You appear to be operating under a pair of misapprehensions… possibly more, I’m not really paying a great deal of attention right now:
1) That mentioning that which is already public knowledge, which was made public by the person it relates to, is somehow an act of aggression.
2) That the commenters here are in any way likely to behave as those who frequent the slymepit toward those whose information is publicly available.
Neither of these have much bearing on reality – hence my use of the term “misapprehension” – but your position seems to rest on them, so it would seem that your position is not a particularly reasonable one.
Christopheragens,
This is not over ideas. It is over a personal attack she made to PZ. Baseless attacks that are unethical given her profession. I’d also like to see you address Tony’s #323. You made it seem like the big problem here – the difference between Dutton and PZ’s posts – is that she meant to be anonymous. Tony provided a link that shows that is not true at all. She posted her own name and profession and made it clear that she doesn’t mind people googling her. So what’s your issue?
christopheragens @333:
I don’t give a rat’s ass how you take an insult cupcake.
It’s not sidelining to express disdain for an asshole who is making apologetics for someone as vile as Skep Tickle.
And you still haven’t responded to one of the biggest arguments directed your way.
334 – When you have to reply to so many, you must use your time wisely. I am reading your name, don’t worry.
Lies?
She took public info, and pointed out how it fit an obvious long shot, conditional diagnosis based on general knowledge. Pointing out consistency is not lying. Suggesting a possibility is not lying.
The post ended with “I’m not implying anything by that.”
“Oh, I’m not implying anything but hey all these symptoms look like ghonorrhea lol, but hey, I’m only a doctor and the symptoms fit so don’t take me seriously.”
What the ever loving fuck?
toska @340:
Maybe someone just doesn’t like PZ and doesn’t have the backbone to come out and say it. It’s like christopheragens is trying to be a respectable Slymepitter.
(I think my keyboard just melted from that)
I see he is still not acknowledging that Eliza Dutton outed herself, which undermines our new trolls entire “argument”. Which wasn’t that strong to begin with.
TIL; not matter what you imply, you’re not implying anything if you finish your statements with “I’m not implying anything by that.”
Cool. Clearly, rationality is in full force.
Christopheragens,
None of this is even about social control or discourse. I don’t see any of Dutton’s social ideas even mentioned in this thread. This is about the fact that there are medical ethics boards that say a doctor cannot publicly say something like, “Hey, I’m a doctor, and this public figure I disagree with was hospitalized, and it’s probably an STI, and I’ll even throw in a speculation as to where and when he got it” without some consequences. You can’t use your professional credentials in the medical field to spread lies about people’s health. This isn’t a rule that Pharyngula made up.
christopheragens @342:
Unless someone is holding a gun to your head and making you comment at Pharyngula, you don’t *HAVE TO* reply to anyone. Sure would be nice if you’d reply to my #323 tho.
1. When someone has themselves publicly tied their pseudonym to their real name and profession, they are not posting anonymously.
2. Setting aside that it is not “obviously a joke”.. If the speech was not libelous, how does connecting it to their real name and profession make it a threat to their livelihood? (Well, in this case, it is likely not only libel, but also a breach of professional ethics)
3. How is pointing out that a doctor making such statements publicly is an ethical breach, worse than suing the doctor for libel, putting her comments into the court records, dragging her through the legal system (at considerable expense), and in the event of winning a judgment against her, extracting damages?
337, 338, 339, 340 – I didn’t acknowledge it because it does nothing to my overarching argument – which is that enforcing ideas at the threat of one’s livelihood is a type of social oppression, and is wrong. The fact that she posted somewhere what her real name is does not change the fact that many of you hate her now and some of you make try to get her fired, and PZ knows of this possibility too, and chose to use that real name. Therein lies the immorality. One immoral act does not make this one any better. It would be one thing to respond to her post, but this is different, this is gunning for her, or at the very least taking a big chance that someone else might because of your post.
christopheragens @350:
So you have no problem with her ethics violations. I see you side nicely with the ethics of the Slymepitters.
I didn’t like the woman before I knew who she was. She was a repellent person from the first few comments I’d read of hers on Ophelia’s blog. I don’t hate her though. A lot of the shit she says, the side of the Deep Rifts she sits on…that shit disgusts me.
I also love how you’re speculating that some of us may try to get her fired, when you don’t know anything of the sort, and IIRC, no one has even hinted at that.
Hyperbolic much? No one is gunning for her.
What, are you president of her fan club or something?
@christopheragens
So you’re opposed to the concept of doctors being held medical ethics standards?
If one’s livelihood is dependent on one’s actions and one’s ethics, the only person endangering that is herself.
That said, we’re not like the pit. I doubt that anyone here would go and tell her boss or harass *her*. If they did, they’d be assholes, plain and simple.
Just as the person you are defending is an asshole. That doctor is an asshole and she should be fucking ashamed of herself. I hope to fucking hell that she doesn’t blab patient info all over the place, and that she isn’t unethical enough to make diagnoses over the phone when it actually matters because those are easy to fuck up.
343 – yeah doesn’t make much sense does it, unless it were a joke…
347 – But seeking to punish that person for speech is wrong, and in itself social control.
348 – Feel free to stop replying yourself. :) 323 answered in 350, it’s cute that you thought that made a difference to my argument though.
@ Seven of Mine:
Ha! Blatant lie! You are totally a number!
That said, I’m eagerly awaiting chirtopheragens backing up this:
with proof that he’s denouncing this type of activity at any place other than here. I hear the SlymePit has open registration.
Also, I refer you to misapprehension #2
Sure, we understand, you guys like to make shit up and try to ruin people’s careers with that stuff, so it’s understandable that you’d be terrified of one of your own being held responsible for something they actually did… but the people here tend not to be as vindictive as you lot, so piss off and stop whining about people who are publicly out being criticised for something they did publicly.
Christopheragens,
But you said this:
So, she used her real name, which in your own words, opens herself up to speech about herself. You certainly argued as if her anonymity was your overarching point. But then it turned out you were wrong. We can scroll up and see your previous arguments.
Do you see how her statement could also affect PZ’s livelihood? STI’s have a huge stigma associated with them that could affect his personal and professional life. She speculated that he contracted an STI by cheating on his wife. This could affect his marriage. Thankfully, I think every reasonable person realizes how stupid and obviously baseless her comments were, but that doesn’t change that an attack on someone’s sexual health is meant to affect every sphere of their lives. Somehow, I doubt you are over at her post arguing that she should not have posted it because of the potential affect on PZ and his family.
(Emphasis added.) You’re suggesting threats of rape aren’t part of real life merely because they are made to people over the Internet? So what you are telling us is that you’re an ethical vacuum, too, as well as an incoherent, ignorant fool. Speech has consequences. Perhaps while rumor circulates on the Slymepit it might be ignored, but this little bit of speech is no longer confined there and has solidified into a defamatory untruth. That’s how the Slymepit works and Dr Sutton is complicit in it — nearly three and a half thousand posts there say so. I’m unaware that anyone has taken the step of contacting Dr Sutton’s superiors, but given her participation in the obsessive monitoring and targeted harassment of people for the last few years, I wouldn’t weep a tear — that stable door is way past being bolted.
christopheragens @354:
Again, you seem to have no problem with ethics violations in medical professionals.
You’re a funny guy. You’re also the one that was complaining about having so many people to respond to. I never made any such whine. So I’ll continue responding as a I see fit ya pissant.
Also, this, from you:
Sure does indicate how important her so-called anonymity is to your argument. Since she isn’t anonymous this didn’t “become an aggressive action, against clear implied wishes (pseudonym use), and in an attempt to limit free speech”.
Are you that big a fuckwit that you didn’t think we couldn’t just scroll back up to see the drivel you shat out upthread?
351 – once again (sigh), 2 wrongs make not a right, even if she is in ethical violation.
352 – No, we have hipaa laws for that and she did not even come close to violating them. I am certainly against them being unprofessional about their patients and if she was disclosing personal medical information, or had treated him, or even had access to his medical file, I would have a problem with this. But as it stands, this is just so obviously a joke, and pointing out timing and consistencies, and the language and how it ends…its hard for me to see all of you able to argue so strongly and yet none of you can tell its meant as a joke, really?
353 – Well that actually makes me feel a lot better, that you would say trying to endanger her job would be bad. I hope no one does. That is what I’m against.
I am not saying I liked the post, or approve of it, I’m simply saying it doesn’t warrant real world retaliation, which I feel is a obvious possibility when you post someone’s real name on your popular blog. I’m sure there are many upstanding people like you who would never do such a thing, but are you so sure there aren’t some who would want to get her fired?
Christopheragens,
Maybe making statements about a stranger’s health because you don’t like their political and social ideas is an attempt at social control. I don’t think PZ did or said anything to her personally to inspire her unethical comments, so why would she make them? Because she doesn’t like his opinions, and she wanted to punish him for holding those opinions by starting rumors that he contracted an STI at a conference while cheating on his wife. Her reasons are social control. PZ’s reasons are defending himself against false statements about his health and conduct.
@Christ, 354-
No, actually, the polar opposite because it’s an accusation pretending to be a joke. It’s the equivalent of me saying “Don’t take me seriously, but hey, all the available information provided sounds like you gave your dog stomach cancer on purpose.” It’s full of weasel words that are there ONLY to deflect away blame from a blameworthy statement.
Will you aplogise to PZ if, in a few weeks, people are claiming he actually has gonorrhea because they heard it was so? I’m betting the answer is ‘no’, because it’s clear you don’t give a shit about ethics.
…. hey, waitaminute, I know that one! Seven- no, eight years ago, Myers linked to an article about cephalopods in Japanese erotica.
Over the year since I last saw it, that claim’s transformed from “Myers endorses tentacle rape porn!” to “Myers links to tentacle rape porn!” Oolon did an excellent job of covering that one. back in the day, so I’ll just point you there.
Good gods, go fucking whine somewhere else about your hypothetical “Her job is in danger BECAUSE SHE IS UNETHICAL” would you? You’re boring as shit.
WHY DO YOU STILL NOT CARE THAT THIS DOCTOR IS UNETHICAL? WE ARE NOT THREATENING HER, but you act horrified by the fact that WE are horrified by her behaviour. Why is this so fucking important to you?
358 – No, I realize that everything is connected to real life in literal terms, and can be bad. I was juxtaposing the internet, as in internet/real life. I was saying that this was worse. That’s all.
Would you weep a tear for her children?
Her mother?
The thing with jokes is that they’re supposed to include humorous content. This one instead included citations from a medical article. I mean, if I were to throw together a comment to suggest that you’re an ignorant loser with no grasp on rationality or reality, complete with citations, would that become a joke merely because I ended it with “not that I’m suggesting anything”?
Look, here’s what the American Medical Association has to say about it. I’ll give you a hint; it says she’s responsible for what she posts online.
Again, these are not rules that Pharyngula made up. The ethics in the medical profession are not limited to interactions between physicians and their patients. They include the public presence of physicians.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion9124.page
You honestly think that receiving rape threats aren’t as bad as getting in trouble for an ethics violation that one has knowingly committed?
I had an emotionally manipulative and generally unstable young man attempt to reconnect with me over the internet after 5 years of active avoidance on my part. Considering his behaviour, this was damn scary because the internet is part of real life.
I pissed someone off when I was younger, and they made an active point of saying that they only lived an hour from me. It was over the internet, but it was damn scary because the internet is part of real life.
Those were just as scary for me as the guy who stalked me when I was 17 and he tried to break into my house.
You may kindly fuck off sideways into the sea for equating threats to life and physical and mental safety with a write up for being unethical.
christopheragens
She used her status as a medical professional to lend credibility to wild speculation. There is no meaningful difference between that and lying.
I just can’t even… I have no evens to just… What. The. Actual.. How the, what in the WHAT?! “I’m totally a doctor and here’s my actual name and like go ahead and google me so you can see I’m a really really doctor and look at this symptom and ooooh look at that symptom and oh my that could be gonorrhea and that happened…oohhhhh that happened when he was out of the country and his wife wasn’t with him ohhhh….. But I’m totally not implying anything by that.” *huge wink*
Anybody got a towel? My brain is leaking out my ears right now.
christopheragens
Would Dr. Sutton? Appparently FUCKING NOT since she did this of her own fucking accord. So are you over at the Slympe pit too, chastising her for behaving so unethically when she has family depending upon her?
Ok, about the identity, I did have that wrong sorry, I acknowledge that, but the argument still stands, I feel, because I am saying endangering a job is wrong with these circumstances in general, and in the case of slymepit people doing it too, because you guys all seem to keep bringing that up. I mean it in all cases. Including this woman’s if this post was damaging to pz in real terms, I don’t think doing anything damaging to someone else because of social disagreement is right,
I’m just saying its not good for any social argument to let this sort of thing go on. It’s bad.
Wait, I get it! The joke is “not that I’m implying anything” when, in fact, she is very much implying something. Oh my, that is hilarious!
Christopheragens.
The. Only. Person. Endangering. Her. Job. IS. HERSELF. For. Being. UNETHICAL.
Yes, yes oh very horrible to criticize people for being horrible. We should totally let them feel like it’s totally OK to be horrible because…well I don’t know why but because.. just because. Because PZ is bad and must be disagreed with and if PZ said it or did it, it’s wrong by definition and I can’t explain why I just know it is because that’s how it is. Because.
You guys really need to chill with the insults or I won’t respond to you…I’ve tried to be patient but really, do you act this way in real life?
But what you don’t seem to get is that PZ did not post it because of a social disagreement (Nor has anyone on this thread). She seems to have that motive (I can’t see any others, since PZ didn’t not direct any attack at her first). But he did not say anything about her position on social issues. He pretty much said, “A doctor said this about me. It’s wrong. And because of their profession, it’s also extremely unethical.” And he even said in the OP and in comments in this thread that he is not seeking any action against her. He did nothing but respond to an attack by saying it is unethical for a medical professional to do what she did to him. And the American Medical Association agrees with him on that. The AMA says she should understand that what she posts online can ruin her reputation and/or affect her career, and that she is responsible for preventing that.
When I am dealing with clients, or anything to do with animals… no.
When I am not dealing with clients and not dealing with anything to do with animals, I will indeed call an asshole an asshole. To their face. With vigor.
But that’s because I have professional ethics.
Quoting christopheragens (9 October 2014 at 2:46 am),
But you’re not actually in any position to judge what it is ethically worse, and you seem to have no consideration that Dr Sutton has for the last few years, both enabled and actively participated in activities such as stalking and harassment, which are also forms of “social control” — highly negative ones, which can be variously regarded as civil torts or as criminal offences. Your defence of the abuser’s lobby shows where your ethical priorities lie.
Posting about it here puts her job in no more danger than her own posting of it did. Except, perhaps, insofar as FTB & Pharyngula are more widely known than the slymepit is, and so the chances of someone she works for reading it here are possibly slightly higher than in its original location, but this thread is already two days old and it’s only going to get older, so that chance is going to drop quite rapidly over the next few days, weeks and months.
Whoa, you’re channeling Michael Nugent now. Are you going to split the million dollars with us?
Quoting christopheragens (9 October 2014 at 2:56 am),
Do you make a habit of being completely uninformed and ignorant of the facts of a case before making faulty and unethical moral judgments, or is this a one-off act of foolishness on your part?
Seriously, you’re willing to minimise rape threats – which are a form of that social control that you keep going on about btw – because they happen on the internet – much like this entire website and all of its contents – but you don’t want to have to deal with insults? Piss off.
If threats on the internet don’t matter because they’re on the internet and somehow not real life, then this doesn’t matter either, because it’s also on the internet and so not real life to exactly the same extent as those rape threats are.
Well people, that would be really terrible, wouldn’t it? We’d better chill like the fuckwitted scumbag says.
Fascinating how the standard changes based on who does it. So PZ’s response is to be condemned because it has the potential to do damage, but Sutton’s initial attack only deserves condemnation if damage was done?
It’s not terribly consistent, and it makes you look rather more disingenuous than you already do.
shockna, not to mention that in christopheragens’ faulty ethical grounding, telling a truth is somehow deemed to be worse than the telling of distortions of truths and outright lies, because of an appeal to consequences. That’s a very shaky argument to make when you’re so utterly ignorant of what consequences have already flowed from the multi-year campaign of lies and distortions that has gone on to date.
@christopheragens
complaining about your incoherence is not aggressive, it’s the result of you writing non-parse-able mega sentences. “sidelining” my fucking ass.
skeptickle/eliza has never been anonymous. she’s been switching between her name and her handle for a while, uses a number of online accounts with her meatspace name in it in the same spaces as the skeptickle handle, and has (as has been quoted in this thread), become quite open about her meatspace name.
While one still should refer to a person in the form they prefer in social situations, this is not a matter of anonymity.
what the fuck are you talking about. She behaved unethically. Commenting about this on a widely read blog mean it’s possible it’ll get back to her employers. That’s not a threat. It’s a consequence of behaving unethically in a way that’s related to one’s profession. Are you saying there shouldn’t be consequences for unethical behavior if the unethical behavior involves words?
Also, what threat to her family? are you making shit up now?
incorrect.
oh, you’re one of those ignorant dolts who doesn’t know a damn thing about how norms function in a society and therefore thinks lawsuits are the only acceptable/available form of social consequence for unethical behavior. ick.
incorrect.
do you even know what that word means? or do you just enjoy pointless hyperbole? publicizing people’s own words when these words are part of unethical behavior is not anywhere near punishment from a position of extreme power imbalance for thinking something in your own head.
are you fucking trolling, or is your ethical compass that damaged? no “real life info” got posted that wasn’t already known, since skepticke didn’t hide her meatspace name in any way. The only harm that can come to her is as the consequence of her own words, i.e. if someone connected to her work agrees that what she’s done is unethical behavior. No new private info about her was revealed. how is that worse than a campaign of targeted hatred and actual explicit threats?
rape threats are not real life? online harassment campaigns are not real life? what is wrong with you
and therefore what? there should never be consequences to anything anyone says, even if it’s toxic and unethical?
nah, you’re probably quite genuinely having a fainting fit over impolite words addressed at you. it’s still a derailing tactic to focus on tone over content.
and this is not a real conversation, how? are you one of those dipshits who STILL hasn’t realized that the internet is art of the”real world”? Also, as a side-notewhat the fuck is it with this need for making public discussions private? You’re not the first who pushes for this escalation of intimacy when a public convo doesn’tgo their way, so what the fuck is this? What’s the point of wanting to take this offline and personal?
“new”, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
don’t confuse lack of politeness for aggression.
because how you wrote your first comment made it absurdly difficult to figure out what the fuck your point even was. also, don’t fucking pretend as if your points aren’t being addressed. your focus on tone is a derailing tactic.
except calling you out as someone who focuses on tone over content is not “meant as a tag for others to write me off”, it’s pointing out that your fucking vapors aren’t fooling anyone.
your social analysis skills are shit. see above.
incorrect.
if she’s done nothing unethical, then having anyone at UW reading this won’t endanger her job. Furthermore, if you’re saying PZ shouldn’t have posted about her unethically internet-diagnosing him because it might have consequences, does that mean the unethical behavior of non-public-figures mustn’t ever be exposed to large audiences? That there simply should never be consequences to unethical behavior if it involves the use of words and/or people who aren’t public figures?
yeah, that part would be the blatan tlie. come on, how is that not fucking obvious?
except that is not what’s happening here. internet-diagnosing someone as an MD is not an idea. giving her behavior a wider audience is not a threat. And not all social enforcement of norms is oppression. Oppression requires power gradients and social structures.
once again, you’re seeing emotions that aren’t generallly present. Aside from that, skeptickle has been held in low regard for YEARS based on her various unethical behavior (e.g. internet-diagnosing eole with mental illnesses and other, medicine unrelated unethical and toxic behavior over several years). This is not a first offense.
which we already knew, because it’s not a fucking secret. you’re making shit up. The only difference is that this behavior of hers is now far more public than it was when it was posted at the slymepit.
or the beginning of a malicious rumor; and one that is now apparently spreading quite successfully.
incorrect. unethical behavior involving words is not immune to consequences.
still incorrect.
the internet is part of the real world, your juxtaposition is faulty. welcome to the 21st century. she behaved unethically in the real world, and now her behavior is more widely known and may have other consequences. unethical behavior should have consequences, even when it involves words and/or the internet.
stop tonetrolling.
this, from the guy who earlier said rape threats aren’t as serious or as bad as having you words be known more widely?
christopheragens
This is real life. This is a rude blog, where facts are valued over fainting. Get over it and answer the questions put to you.
Would you stop your mother fucking tone trolling and get a a real point?
Or are you too addle brained to speak clear language in see the consequences of what you say?
You obviously don’t get that you are making value judgements too, and you aren’t absolutely right on anything.
Your opinion is noted and filed in the circular file.
For having to live with her as an influence in their lives? Yes, I suppose so.
And I see you’re conveniently ignoring toska’s comment at #361 pointing out that what SHE did was trying to punish PZ as social control over what he said.
So just to be clear, taking legal action against speech doesn’t treat it as thoughtcrime, but taking social action does? Whole lotta Orwell up in here. I bet Michael Richards woulda liked to use that one a few years back. “Booing me for saying the n-word? That makes you just like Big Brother!”
“I’m saying that any person who commits a crime while wearing a mask deserves to have their actions preserved without threat to their freedom.”
Voluntary anonymity should be an inviolable shield behind which people should be able to say anything without consequence to themselves. Enforcing social mores and codes of ethics is thoughtcrime. Ye gods, you’re a special kind of stupid. Especially when we get to…
….the part where you try to affect people’s speech by applying social, not legal, consequences. Wow, it’s almost like your position is so absurd as to be self-contradictory. Almost exactly like that.
Christopher, until you apply your concerns to those you are defending, you deserve to be ignored.
Apply your concerns to everybody, or nobody.
You can’t pick and chose who you criticize because you don’t like their political/ethical positions, or you have no ethics yourself.
Jesus fucking Christ, that this asshole can weep mantears because someone is being held accountable, in the smallest possible way, for things they actually said and did, and call it oppression, while simultaneously saying that the Internet isn’t real life and rape threats aren’t such a big deal, is completely astounding.
How dare you contact Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers to tell them things he said? How dare you speak out against Don Imus and Anthony Cumia and Charlie Sheen and Orson Scott Card and Jenny McCarthy and try to get them to lose jobs based on things they’ve said? Free speech! Thoughtcrime! I don’t actually know what these words mean, but they sound good!
nah, Tom. you see, public figures like Limbaugh and PZ, they are fair game for absolutely ANY form of sanction or criticism or verbal abuse; but private individuals are exempt from any consequences to their words whatsoever. Because reasons. And there’s a clear dividing line between public figure and private individual; also because reasons.
christopheragens @376:
No, we don’t “need” to do anything of the sort asshole. You don’t get to dictate the terms of the conversation. This is a rude blog. Check the commenting rules. You deserve the insults you’ve received-and really, they’ve been minor. I don’t care how patient (read: civil) you’ve been. You’re supporting a known harasser and someone who violated medical ethics. You act like that’s totes cool. Skep tickle is a vile human being and you’re supporting her. That makes you an apologist for a vile human being. That’s the kind of person that fits in with the ‘Pitters. And they’re scum.
Like I told you upthread, you are free to quit commenting at any time. No one is forcing you to respond to people.
I like it when we get trolls from different time-zones.
It gives me lots to read with my morning tea.
So, when somebody gets into trouble for violating their professional code of conduct, the person who points out said violation is the baddy.
You need some really fucked up morals for that
christopheragens:
Implying things, and then finishing by saying, “I’m not implying anything by that,” is lying.
And here you are, furthering her lie by supporting the claim that no implications exist when a person who publicly identified herself as a medical doctor points to various symptoms in another person and speculates about possible diagnoses.
Oh, and here’s a gratuitous insult, in the hopes that you’ll go away: you’re a fuckheaded shitfrigate.
Christopheragens: your indignation at being insulted is noted. Time for some perspective: are the insults against you in any way comparable to the insults to me by Cavanaugh & Sutton?
Also, to everyone: SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE LEGAL HAIRSPLITTING. There are no legal actions pending or even contemplated. If I wanted legal advice, you know who I’d ask? A lawyer. But I don’t even need legal advice.
Any future comments babbling about the law will be deleted as irrelevant, no matter who the fuck makes them.
Will the slime’s cheerleaders please let us know what horrible acts are OK for people to say happened and are horrible?
We know we can’t talk about rapists, harassers, and unethical doctors spreading malicious lies. Is there anything else? What crimes and ethical breeches can people point out or expect people to have to answer for? If we’re allowed to mention it, how polite do we need to be about it? Should we kowtow or is a quick curtsy OK?
Interesting series on feminism being broadcast by France24 (pronounced: fRaans vaarn kaart) … Link: Emma Watson, feminism’s new poster girl.
In one of the interviews they even bring up “Dear Muslima”. I would be fascinated to know what goes through someone like Michael Nugent’s mind, when he sees such TV programs. He is on the wrong side of history. When will the penny drop?
Remember those kids who called people “Narcs” and bullied them extra hard for telling on them for bullying, writing about who sucked whose dick on the bathroom walls or stealing?
They grew up to be the Brave Heroes of atheism.
Actually, christopheragens reminds me a lot of those people who cray a river about getting a speeding ticket:
They weren’t that fast, they didn’t commit a serious crime, other people are doing worse, the police just want to make money, it’s so unfair, won’t somebody think of the children who will have to go without a new Playstation because their parent has to pay the speeding ticket, yadda, yadda, yadda.
The only person who is never to blame for the mess they’re in is themselves, the very people who knowingly and willingly did shit. Nono, it’s the people who make others aware who are wrong.
theophontes ,
My hunch?
When the shit hits the fan proper, we’re all going to see alot of backpeddling and rushing to pretend they were never on the other side of this rift.
I note Nugent’s rant is full of dogwhistles for the MRA set: “Femi-rage! Mangina! SOCIAL JUSTICE WARIOR!!” PZ is described as “a radfem ally” trying to shame “alpha males” out of their wholesome, manly, natural,
GodEvoPsych-given urge to hurt, control, and violate women.I liked atheism better when it didn’t have so much conspicuous overlap with the “Men’s Rights” set.
@ christopheragens, various
Hey, you know who else was only expressing IDEAS over the internet? Andres Breivik, Elliot Rodgers and many people like them.
But that aggressive FREEZE PEACH, that dehumanising of the subject of their hate was just a joke, right? It wasn’t real because it only happened on the Internet? Well until it stopped being a joke that is.
Of course I’m not implying anything by comparing the hateful word-puke quoted in the OP with the rantings of Andres Breivik or Elliot Rodgers
Two individuals write on the web.
One is a “public figure,” who goes by their own name when writing. Anything said about this person–short of actual, provable libel–is either legally or ethically considered protected free speech. This writer is expected to simply live with whatever consequences their speech brings to themselves or their associates. It’s a dog-eat-dog world, after all.
The other writer sometimes goes by a pseudonym, but has failed to maintain separation between their real and pseudonymous identities. Everyone should be extremely careful to avoid drawing attention to this person’s real identity, in case it could negatively affect their career, family or social life, and possible hurt them, economically. Even simply repeating this person’s own statements, connected with their real identity, is a gross breach of ethics/morality.
I can find no intellectual or ethical consistency in your stance, christopheragens, and must conclude that the actual underpinnings of your argument boil down to simple selfish preference.
on a side note, I really do wish people would stick to internet-etiquette of referring to people universally by the name they’ve chosen for themselves in any given venue, except where other names/identities are salient. Yes, we all know skeptickle is Eliza Sutton, and there was a reason to repeatthatpoint in the OP, but is there a point in insisting to refer to her by the meatspace name throughout this thread? Is that really hugely different than calling Ophelia Benson “Ophie”?
I think that’s a fair point, Jadehawk, you’re right. But I’d say it’s not the same as the “Ophie” invention, though; it’s a name this person actually uses, at least, even if not the one picked for a particular venue – not the same as inventing a completely new diminutive (that the person in question and those they converse with have never used) with clear intent to belittle them?
I remain curious how, in the first case:
Person A makes a post, in their own words, asserting that Person B’s condition must be a result of infection, probably by gonorrhea, and the timing implies a sexual affair at a conference
it is not considered harmful to Person B’s livelihood and relationships; but in the second case:
Person B reposts Person A’s own words, and suggests Person A’s employees might be interested in hearing Person A’s own words
it is considered harmful to Person A’s livelihood and relationships?
If, upon hearing Person A’s own words connected with Person A, their employer decides disciplinary action is warranted — why does the responsibility for whatever penalties are incurred fall upon Person B?
I know this thread is mostly dead now but I have to show how one member of the Slymepit is looking at this, that FtB is a rogue state and a person from here needs to be kidnapped.
You bet your fucking ass that there is a Trigger Warning!
I wonder if this is yet an other example of their humor.
Could be. The first rule of comedy is to be funny. That isn’t funny. So, yes, that is how their “humor” is. Unfunny and pathetic.
I think the issue is that it almost works. If one were to express one’s homosexuality, word getting back to one’s boss might lead to one losing one’s job. Any number of things could go this way: sometimes bosses are capricious, or bigoted. Here, however, the words are actually salient to the author’s profession.
Janine @413:
I see that’s from brive1987. I recall him when he first began commenting here. Didn’t like that shithole then, like him even less now.
Jacob Schmidt @415:
There are lots of legitimate reasons for someone to speak anonymously. Most of them could be summarised as either A) protecting yourself from retaliation when reporting on the misconduct of others (eg. whistleblowing), or B) protecting yourself from misconduct by others in reaction to your speech (eg. bigotry).
A not-so-legitimate reason is C) protecting yourself from the consequences of your own misconduct by speaking anonymously.
But of course, in this case, it was not anonymous speech. If it was an unidentified pseudonym that posted the medical comment, it would just be yet another horrible post from the Slymepit. It is because the poster is identified, and known to be a medical practitioner, that it is so problematic. It lends authority to the statements since it indicates expert knowledge behind them; and one wouldn’t expect a medical professional to deliberately misdiagnose someone in order to smear them. (But then again, one wouldn’t expect a medical professional to offer an opinion in that manner at all.)
I assume ‘skep tickle’ continues to post as such because it represents an online identity, rather than for anonymity, given she has personally linked the pseudonym to her real name. (I maintain mine, despite my real name literally being one click away*.) If she really wanted to isolate herself from her statement, she wouldn’t have posted under her main online identity. Or even better, not posted it at all.
* Though if I’d realised I’d be keeping it forever, I wouldn’t have used a name from a 90s anime…
Janine,
So, they are now suggesting that a person severely abused as a child be kidnapped to extort our silence but they still think we’re the bad guys?
How do people get that awful and that deluded?
Did they load all of their human decency and reasoning abilities into a rocket and fire it into the sun while they held hands and sang a medley of Nickleback’s greatest hits?
I.
Don’t.
Even.
They’re not suggesting he should be kidnapped. Apparently Damion Reinhardt dropped enough information in the pit (now redacted) to point to someone who may or may not be Ogvorbis. The plan is to hold that information over people’s heads. Say something we don’t like, and the abuse victim gets it. Still despicable. Slightly less reportable to the FBI.
Given how Damion “proved” that I am part of A+, I am skeptical of hi detective skills.
Still Brive1987 displays an extremely unethical way of trying to shut people up. And I thought that the pitters prized FREEZE PEACH above everything.
And Brive1987 displays a fucked up view of what is happening here. Sorry, we are not nation states.
So, not kidnapping so much as threats of torture? Lovely people there, just lovely.
Am I the only one confused by PZ being called a non-darwinian?
Is it chilly?
Must be the FreezePeach!
Topics that are never funny: 1. rape 2. STD’s. 3. PZ Myers
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT THEM! EVER!
Interstate extortion and blackmail. You bet the FBI would be interested, as both are felonies.
Oh, you mean the Poopyhead?
Only in Ireland would atheists elect their own Pope.
Atheist Ireland is practically a personality cult centred on Mr. Nugent and his deliriously inflated grossly oversized ego. In 2008 Atheist Ireland began whereupon Nugent was elected chairperson of AI under what I’d call suspicious circumstances. I booked the hotel room and invited people to turn up. He was voted into position by a good number of his friends who subsequently did not become members. Since then he has managed to be the only candidate for chairperson. His small band of followers hold him in such awe none dare criticise him nor question his papacy. Such is the dedication of his acolytes that they’ve dispensed with elections altogether. What is interesting is his chequered background. He seems to have spent most of his life as a Joseph looking for a manger. Along the way he became a card carrying member of the Ultra Catholic Fine Gael party and was an election candidate for them. In Ireland this political party, now in power, (maybe their chances improved without him) is commonly referred to as the Blueshirts after the founding fascist organisation that preceded it. This is strange to say the least for a man now claiming, (a la Chris Hitchens) to have become an atheist in childhood.
He looks to me to have seized on the rising profile of atheism around the publication of the God Delusion as a bandwagon worthy of his munificent pontifications. As a lifelong bureaucrat who has spent most of his life in little-committe-land he was practised enough to manipulate the system in his favour. AI/Mr. Nugent is much given to wildly over inflated impressions of it’s/his own importance. Nugent is a distortion liar and a self promoter using atheism as a platform for his ever ballooning ego. He’s manages to do this while apparently managing to wear the same red t shirt for almost the last decade. FXR
thanks for the perspective, Fexbolt. good to know!
I should also add that that his ridiculous ten thousand word, torturously legalistic, long-winded posts are made possible by the fact he is unemployed and living on social welfare. His CV is an exercise in smoke and mirrors. I don’t think he’s ever held down a long term job. Dominating Atheist Ireland has provided a platform for his engorged sense of self importance. His small band of acolytes followed me around internet atheist sites PM’ing moderators to have me banned from criticising him. They succeeded in a number of cases especially on Irish sites. He thanked them for their dedication.
As I said Nugent is a distortion liar and a self promoter. This is a link to the talk page of the AI wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atheist_Ireland
Under the section “Founding of Atheist Ireland” you’ll see an argument between me and Funkyderek who is in fact Derek Walsh, one of Nugents most slavish followers. They were determined to cover up the fact Mr Nugent was going around lying about being the founder of AI. The question is this: does the truth matter? If the facts about an atheist organisation matter less than the promotion of the organisation and the image of it’s figurehead then what you’ve got is a potential quasi religion. Atheist Ireland has a leader who enjoys a deferential uncritical band of followers. He is considered so far above the ordinary members they regard him as beyond challenge in his position as supreme leader/chairman.
That sounds like another organisation I grew up with in Ireland…but I can’t remember what it’s called. I think it’s run out of Italy…..
@ Fexbolt
Wow!
That would explain a lot of very strange behaviour. Thank you for posting.
I’ll just chime in to express skepticism at this thread being resurrected with a bunch of damning personal information about Nugent by a commenter I haven’t seen ’round here before. It’s possible that Fexbolt is being totally accurate and truthful, but it’s also very possible that this is a “look at how unskeptical the Pharyngula babboons are! They’ll believe anything that makes their opponents look bad! Haw haw!” trolling attempt by the usual suspects.
In other words, I’d like to see some corroboration before I’m ready to accept that Nugent is a serial cult-of-personality leader looking for whatever group is willing to make him a figurehead, no matter how consistent that characterization is with his behavior.
Well thanks, Tom Foss.
That was incoherent.
I’ll thank Tom Foss too, for speaking for all of us.
oh wait.
what’s the opposite of thanking someone?
that.
Okay, let me cohere it:
1. This thread is old. Why resurrect it over a month after the last comment?
2. Who is Fexbolt? Do they have a history? Are they reliable?
3. Is this information actually true?
4. If this information is true, is it presented honestly, or in a misleading way?
5. If this information is not true, what prompted it? Trolling? Personal axe to grind?
Looking at the linked Wikipedia talk thread, I think axe-grinding seems pretty likely, and have no way to distinguish between axe-grinding and honest presentation of actual facts without independent corroboration.
Is it really so absurd to caution against immediately believing statements of unknown provenance that happen to fit with our opinion of the guy?
Yeah, I totally spoke for everyone, what with all my use of phrases like “we all” and the like.
Oh, wait.
Tom, it is possible that (a) Fexbolt has something of an axe to grind against Michael Nugent, AND (b) much of the information may actually check out, and so is likely to have some basic truth to it even if through the axe-grinder’s filter. Nugent did stand as a candidate for Fine Gael in 1989; Fine Gael’s predecessor party did merge with a nationalistic party known as the ‘Blueshirts’, etc. etc. etc.
Also, with initials like FX (Francis Xavier?) it’s not too hard to find out out what Fexbolt’s full name is based on the info you can search out, and whether you accept what he writes on Wikipedia talk pages or Pharyngula articles is your call.
Thanks for the corroborating info, Xanthë.
Fexbolt has posted here a grand total of 3 times. However, someone named “mudpuddles” made a number of posts here using the same IP address.
Read Nugent’s blogs asshole, like you don’t believe a word he says, rather than with worship. DUH. Apply the same skepticism you want us to use, upon Nugent. Come back when you are done. In a couple of years or so.
Tom, I think your post was an appropriate note of caution. It’s true that the election bit seems to check out, though I can’t vouch for the characterization of the party. But Fexbolt’s rant about the formation of AI sure reads like a lot of ax-grinding to me, and the linked Wikipedia discussion is if anything even worse. Fexbolt seems to have an obsession with being creditor as a/the “founder” of the organization. The upshot of which is that I’m not putting much confidence in the other allegations that can’t be corroborated.
Why would I read Nugent’s blogs? They’re tedious at best. In fact, I gave up on them back at the start of his hissy-fit feud with PZ.
But it’s totes cool how you think I’m a neophyte here and a fan of Nugent’s.
PZ #437
Good to know.
How does Tom Foss stack up?
Huh? Foss has been here for quite some time, with a few hundred comments…he’s also a regular at B&W. He’s also been a regular critic of Nugent.
Awesome. Guess I haven’t made much of an impression.
I’ve seen Tom Foss here and at Ophelia’s Butterflies & Wheels for a while.
I tend towards Tom’s caution. Nobody here has much use for Professional Scold Mick Nugent. However when someone comes out of nowhere, resurrecting a month-old thread to trash Nugent, I get a bit suspicious. Why did Fexbolt come here to tell us about Nugent? What difference does it make if Nugent schemed his way into being Grand Poohbah of Atheist Ireland? Since I’m neither a member of nor a donor to AI it really doesn’t matter to me how Nugent became the Grand Poohbah. Macht nichts! I don’t need further reasons to have no regard for Nugent.
Tom Foss is not a newbie to Pharyngula, but he perhaps only comments a little more frequently than I do, which is probably once or twice most months but not every month. Nonetheless, I’ve been commenting since pharyngula.org days, and before that on talk.origins, so names you don’t remember due to non-frequent posting don’t necessarily belong to newbs.
Nerd, chigau (違う) – seems to me you are both misreading Tom Foss’ post and leaping to fallacious conclusions. Nugent is an ass who’s allowed his purported dedication to critical thinking to be swayed by the rhetoric of Team SlymePit because he got upset about rude words on Pharyngula. Why not suggest that those of us who disdain Nugent’s descent into assitude display a stronger commitment to critical thinking than to embrace Fexbolt’s assertions without asking for supporting evidence?
I’m human enough to admit that there’s a part of me which would jubilantly switch to schadenfreude mode re Nugent if that supporting evidence is shown to exist. But so far it’s just a Wikipedia talk page showing two competing versions of certain events. I want to see more evidence before I give in to my less admirable impulses here.
You’re all absolutely right.
No problem waiting for the facts to settle.
I’m with Tom on this.
Anytime I see a new thread resurrected like this, it sets off the spidey- sense. Granted this could be a false positive and on face value it appears to be. Still, I find Tom’s warning to have some value.
(Incidentally, Tom, I’ve read plenty of comments by you here at Pharyngula, as well as around FtB. I think you’re definitely good people.)
Sad to see Foss distrusted like this. I liked his note of caution, since I tend to jump on bandwagons, myself.
Speaking of badwagons, its fun (but I use the word thoroughly wrong, of course) to read Nugent’s latest non-criticism of PZed’s hypocrisy.
What is about context that’s so hard for people to understand?
I appreciate the support, folks, but I’ve seen enough concern trolls pop in here with default pattern avatars (I’ve tried to change it a few times with no success) that I understand the knee-jerk reaction.
I just know my first reaction to seeing this thread show up in my inbox again was “troll,” and what I skimmed of the exchange on Wikipedia seemed a step or two down from demanding a Leica rangefinder. There are plenty of reasons to loathe Nugent, and Fexbolt’s may well be among them, but the whole thing set off my troll alarm.
I’d be the first to accept Tom Foss’s right to question.
It is fairly easy to establish that Nugent was an Election Candidate for the Fine Gale political party. http://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=1999L&cons=16 . Scroll down to the FG in the blue box.
It’s also easy to establish Fine Gael’s pro Catholic Church credentials since the foundation of the state. Look up J A. Costello (FG Prime Minister): “I am an Irishman second: I am a Catholic first” etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Costello
I find it strange to say the least that someone claiming to be a lifelong atheist would not only join, but run for election on behalf of one of the two political parties responsible for turning Ireland a Vatican fiefdom. Then when a new political party comes along he jumps from one to the other. You can read this on his Wiki page. I’ve never found any reference to him being an atheist during this period.
Why this thread now? I came across this by accident. These days I don’t spend hardly any time on atheist sites and haven’t for quite a while. Coming across this thread was one of the rare times in the last two years I’ve checked in on how things atheist were going. I however do have long term reasons for keeping abreast of the situation.
Someone mentioned that they’d like to see evidence of Mr. Nugents serial quest for committee dominance: http://i532.photobucket.com/albums/ee327/Falconer1st/PhoenixNugentPeaceTrain.jpg?t=1416211323. The magazine article is from 1992 and details his struggle to dominate one committee or another. At the time the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland were the hot topic. He was well practised in committee politics before he arrived among the inexperienced people on atheist.ie.
That AI is dominated by one individual can be checked but it’s possible past records of AGM’s are no longer there. If you can find an instance of anyone in AI challenging for the position of chairperson since 2008 go ahead.
http://atheist.ie/2013/09/atheist-ireland-annual-report-and-agenda-for-2013-agm/
It very quickly appeared to me he was about to use AI for his own self promotion which is when I had to be got rid of. The minutes of that meeting (Dec 6 2008) have never emerged and I doubt they ever will. I’d had the kind of half idea that an atheist organisation might operate on some kind of principles rather than committee politics and subterfuge.
“3. Committee Elections 2013
“Under our constitution, we elect four committee officers at each AGM and the committee then co-opts other members to create and fill other positions as required.
This year we have had one nomination each for the four elected positions, who will be returned unopposed:
Chairperson – Michael Nugent”
Do I have an axe to grind? You can characterise any disagreement or difference between people that way so I’ll leave that up to you.
My first priority was to get something off the ground in terms of atheism. I put a great deal of time and hard cash into fanning the embers of interest and bringing atheists in Ireland together. It’s not that getting whatever credit was due was important at the time. Of course you’ll either believe that or not. What really pissed me off was this distortion liar claiming he founded an organisation which he most definitely did not and then using it as a platform for his inflated ego. There were a number of people involved to varying degrees of course and I’m not excluding them either. The only input into the site Nugent had was to advertise himself by announcing that in 2008 he was starting a blog about atheism.
file:///C:/Users/FXR/Documents/Atheist%20Ireland%20and%20related/Nugents%201st%20Post%20-%20Introduction%20and%20new%20Atheist%20website.htm
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0611/atheist_confab.php3?printer_friendly#.VGoIhfmx2r0
http://humanrights.ie/constitution-of-ireland/the-offence-of-blasphemy-and-constitutional-change/
There were a number of other articles but the links appear to be dead now.
It’s still down to this: does the truth matter? Should it matter as much for an atheist organisation as a religious organisation?
FXR
Dear Mr Myers
I’ve no idea who mudpuddles is or why they’d have the same ip. I found 7 or eight posts by that name and I certainly didn’t make them. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/08/20/saying-you-should-abort-is-as-wrong-as-saying-you-may-not-abort/
@ Fexbolt
I once found it strange that your nemesis has been padding out his blog with slymepitters. The pieces of the jigsaw are all slowly falling into place .
@ theophontes
Oh yes, the Slymepit, I must have taken his name in vain….
http://i532.photobucket.com/albums/ee327/Falconer1st/Atheist%20irl/SlymepitbannedIP.jpg
What he’s doing is acting the Bishop. When he finds an angle he can exploit, as in this case above, his inflated arrogance has something to seize on. I don’t know how exactly Mr Myers is supposed to have sinned against him. What I do recognise is the reaction: striking the ground with his cyber crosier over and over, demanding an apology. The self righteous indignation plays well to the devoted who flock to twitter their support filling the pews with praise.
It helps being unemployed and having a social welfare income in the internet age when you have visions of universal dominance of the atheist flock. It means you can spend endless hours constructing thousands of paragraphs full of microscopically analysed details of an argument that others forgot like a fart in a hurricane two minutes after it happened.
What he’s done by inflating the disagreement, drawing attention to it and repeatedly demanding an apology is to equate himself with PZ. When he offered to mediate on a previous occasion what he inflated into the “great atheist schism” he was raising himself into the position of benign fatherly Pope enthroned between the Dominican atheists on one hand and the Franciscan atheists on the other.
There is an age old joke in Ireland. It’s about the tourist in Belfast asked at gunpoint if he’s a Protestant or a Catholic. He answers “I’m an atheist”. He’s then asked: “Are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant atheist?
It turns out there is such a thing as a Catholic Atheist after all.
Only in Ireland would atheists elect their own Pope.
@ Fexbolt
I don’t know. I am also blocked. When I asked, they said it’s because of my Chinese ISP.
(Not that I feel the need to be unblocked.)
@theophontes
I think I was banned after criticising his absurd pontificating over the “great atheist schism”.