The Secular Policy Institute has now flexed its mighty muscles and done something. You might be wondering “who?”, so I’ll remind you: this is the vaporous think tank that used to be called the Global Secular Council, or Secular Global Institute, but then underwent a few confusing rearrangements of the chairs on the poop deck to reorganize under this new name. Their specialty seems to be attempting to strong-arm feminists into supporting them, listing celebrity atheists on the masthead, getting together for photo-ops, and otherwise…doing nothing at all. They’ve lately discovered a latent ability to wag their fingers, though, so they’re going to try to do that with this announcement.
The secular movement has a problem,
They do! We’re six words in, and I still agree with them. What problem are they finally going to address? The out-of-touch leadership? The rabid blaming of Islam for every problem? The presence of sexual predators on the boards of certain organizations? The blind eye turned to the naked misogyny in the ranks?
in that some of our foremost leaders
Good start. Our problems aren’t in the ranks, it’s among people who appoint themselves “leaders”, and rarely seem to be competent.
get media attention by causing controversy.
Oh, no! They’re going after Richard Dawkins!
While this helps them draw in followers,
Wait, no, so not Richard Dawkins? He doesn’t need the media to have followers; his shenanigans on social media have actually cost him fans.
it causes an atmosphere of infighting in the secular community that hinders us from partnering, takes our eye off the ball of important issues,
Excellent. They’re going to rebuke Michael Nugent for his bizarrely hostile and obsessive campaign against me. Well, unless they think I’m one of the most important issues for the secular community to address.
I don’t have the ego to think that could possibly be the case.
and makes us look crankypants to outsiders. No wonder the stereotype of a secular person is condescending and angry.
Richard Dawkins again? Come on, quit picking on him.
At the Secular Policy Institute, we know that the problem comes from who we partner with, in two ways.
Yes, definitely. Look at their list of members, which is a very mixed bag. Some good people, some problematic people, and a few I wouldn’t piss on to put ’em out if they were on fire. Is this an announcement to clean up their board?
First, we want to positively partner with anyone who will work with us, including religious organizations. We don’t bash religion and we seek to partner with everyone. This prevents doors from closing with politicians and other big decision-makers. We even have several churches in our coalition because plenty of liberal churches support our goals of separating of church and state, and ending discrimination against nonbelievers.
Oh, please. I don’t buy this pious BS, but if I did, I’d have to think they’re really out to get Richard Dawkins again. Or Boghossian. Or Harris.
Second, we also avoid partnering in some situations. We believe the secular movement should stop rewarding those who cause discord.
DAWKINS??!? Or maybe it’s poor obsessed Nugent after all.
Why are “shock jock” bloggers invited to lecture at major secular conferences?
Eh, what? The “shock jock” remark is rather biased, but there is a reason: there are many people other than the ones appointed to the Secular Policy Institute who have interesting things to say, or simply offer different perspectives. It’s also the case that many of those bloggers have criticisms of the leadership — which is why they get called “shock jocks”, not because they’re particularly shocking, but because they do challenge the status quo.
Shouldn’t it be obvious to the Secular Policy Institute why diverse views should be expressed within the atheist movement?
Freedom of speech is a confusing issue, but it means that each person can speak freely through his or her own channel. It does not mean that angry voices have a right to dominate unmoderated discussions on our own Facebook pages and forums.
Exactly right. So this is still muddy and unclear — they’re going after trolls who are cluttering up their forums? You don’t need to make a public announcement to do that. Just do it.
Perhaps as a community we are responsible for leading a cultural tone and guiding people towards constructive debate.
Sure. And sometimes that tone is called the status quo, and you need people who will rock the boat and break down the barriers of dogma.
Apparently we are not alone in wanting to look more professional as a movemnent to the outside world.
Actually, I think the big problem is a movement that wants to look slick and professional, but with an emptiness in its heart: no real cause, no genuine ideals, just a desire to pose on an empty stage and pretend to be cool. I don’t want you to look good, I want you to be passionate for a cause.
This week, SPI coalition member Atheist Ireland publicly dissociated itself from blogger PZ Myers in an open letter.
Oh, no! I’m so sorry, Michael Nugent. The SPI has noticed your unprofessional and constant harassment of me, and are offering a stern rebuke. You know, as an affiliate of the very professional-looking SPI, you should avoid that kind of inappropriate obsession, especially when it is directed at someone with no connections to your organization, and no obligations to you. It’s just kind of wierd and creepy, you know?
What are your thoughts? Do you feel that strident internal criticism makes us stronger,
Internal criticism is essential. The kind of stalkerish sea-lioning that Nugent engages in is against someone who has nothing to do with your organization, so it isn’t really internal.
or that our generosity to be inclusive to all voices is being taken advantage of? Let us know on our Facebook page and on Twitter.
This makes no sense. No one has taken advantage of SPI’s ‘generosity’ — I don’t know that Nugent has been given anything by you. For that matter, I don’t think SPI has given anything of benefit to anyone. He’s free to rant away on his blog. So I…
Wait. I have just been informed that SPI is trying to criticize me. But that makes even less sense! I am not a member of the Secular Policy Institute, and have only been critical of that posturing glob of pretentious “leaders”. And it starts off complaining about some of their foremost leaders
, but I’m not “theirs”, I’m not “foremost” anything, and I do not have a leadership position anywhere.
Except maybe on FreethoughtBlogs. But even there we have a constitution that says we’re all pretty much equal here. I’m kind of a founding member, and that’s about it.
I’m about as much a member of the Secular Policy Institute as I am of Atheist Ireland, which makes all the finger-wagging laughable. I can just sit back and do my own thing and they have no strings to pull on me — so I can keep on laughing and mocking and criticizing, and will do so.
Unfortunately, there are all those other members of their coalition — I’m not tied to any of them, either, but they might want to watch out. The Secular Policy Institute thinks their job is to scold people, and particularly people who might criticize their presumed position at the top of the hierarchy.
After having read their vague announcement carefully, I have to come to the conclusion that the SPI still hasn’t done anything at all. And further, that they are awful communicators.
Holy crap, I thought I knew the definition for “pompous” already, but SPI just went ahead and made themselves the living embodiment…
I’ve got absolutely no dog in this… um.. “fight”. I follow pharyngula, a few other FTBloggers, Friendly Atheist, That camel fella, and a few others. I’m just stumped over this bizarre petty behavior though. The old atheist leaders like Dawkins and whats-his-name, and that other white guy are some of those stubborn and strange people in atheism and I, frankly, find them an embarrassment. This behavior just underscores it.
I don’t like to say I’m an “Atheist” not because I’m worried about the consequences with my family, friends, and co-workers, but because it immediately links me to these stodgy smarmy condescending sexist embarassing “leaders” of atheism. I try to be caring, loving, accepting, and thoughtful in my life, but once I’m linked to these embarrassing “leaders”, none of that matters.
I think the thought leaders were a bit out of breath because they hadn’t lead the condemnation of nasty word people and religion-bashy people.
Also, their recent post on facebook are all about how Pope Francis was all chummy when he visited them and splashed water over the SPI.
Just quietly laughing now.
THE GOD DELUSION
Also, this partnering with the religious is all of a sudden happening just because they want to be buddies with politicians. It’s American Atheists at the CPAC part 2. And being a band of misogynists, of course they’ll want to go with their misogynist counterpart politicians, i.e. the religious right.
Gosh, PZ, I don’t know, I think you should take this very seriously. It’s not like there are any Named Individuals on the SPI who might have any sort of ulterior motive for wanting you to be quiet. I’m sure this is coming from a place of deep and genuine concern for the health and integrity of movement atheism, and definitely not from any sort of transparent desire to pretend criticisms of them are invalid if their critics are angry with them.
Yeah, all the voices. The men’s voices, the white men’s voices, the straight men’s voices, the straight white men’s voices. All the important voices.
I hereby dissociate myself from PZ Myers, and prohibit him from entering my treehouse.
First off, horseshit, you do. Secondly, doing that is A-OK, as long you bash belief systems and don’t allow that practice to bleed over into attacking their believers, especially when specific ethnicities are associated with that group of believers.
It really took me a second to kick the old memory cells into gear and remember what this “Secular Policy Institute” is, then I recalled it’s that bunch who let themselves be photographed with an ickily smirking Shermer draping himself over a woman like a drunk fratboy.
Personally, I think it’s fucking amazing how atheist activists can’t seem to throw you under the bus fast enough, PZ. Over at Patheos, Mehta and even JT, people are putting out some real bullshit rationalizations.
Not that you don’t deserve criticism, everyone does. But the criticism should be grounded in some honest base. When Mehta accused you of using “violent rhetoric”, I almost lost my lower jaw. The thing they’re all mad at you for now is criticizing AHA because of her own violent rhetoric. Also, I’ve lurked and commented here for years, and seen nothing bring down the ban-hammer faster than violent language.
Who is this “we” they keep speaking of? I don’t care about SPI, nor am I aware of what secular policies have to do with shutting up feminists for the sake of “looking professional” (professional what FFS?) and treating famous white guys like leaders because they’ve written a few books. These bigots are desperate to stay relevant. They’re shouting down an empty room at this point. The world moved on.
We had a serious ice storm here a few years back. I was talking to an arborist and he pointed out that we had lost more trees than just the ones that lay on the ground. Some of the trees had lost large limbs. Without the nutrients from those limbs, the trees would slowly starve over the next 5 or so years. The arborist said, “These trees are dead. They just don’t know it yet.”
Old school organized atheism is dead and for the same reasons. It just doesn’t know it yet.
Of the SPI’s “fellows”, I can see several people who might be annoyed at the things being implicitly done in their name. Have these people been made aware of what’s happening?
gmacs @10:
Well, except it’s not, of course. Let’s not mistake the pretext for the text. What they’re mad about is lèse-majesté in general, and Shermer in particular.
Of course. It was all fun and games when PZ was the attack dog that went unabashedly after creationists and theists alike. But when he started using the same logic to go after Atheist Superstars and their sycophantic followers, well, we can’t have that now can we? That’s divisive, that is.
Given their long list of fellows and lack of any projects, I’m guessing that the Secular Policy Institute’s main project is to collect fellows.
They got a nice little cargo cult of “criticism” going. Slymepitters come up with slimy accusations using shoddy evidence and distorting it as best they can. Michael Nugent buys it like the good little sucker on a blind crusade. Michael’s ceaseless whining finally leads to his organization that he is in charge of issuing a statement cobbled together from his various asinine and illogical blog posts where he hashes out slymepitter arguments. And then other atheist organizations and prominent atheists look at it and credulously just buy the lie, just like Nugent did. It’s a fucking snowball of idiocy, hypocrisy, and willful ignorance. Fucking amazing.
Also, this is the same Secular Policy Institute that employed this guy: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/03/26/how-not-to-build-a-coalition/
I think there is obvious problem here. It isn’t PZ.
You should be proud PZ. You’ve managed to unite both the pearl clutchers and the MRA factions against you. You’re a uniter not a divider!
I find this all incredibly confusing. Of course we need internal criticism and of course some atheists are going to be more “cranky” than others. I don’t see what PZ has done which singles him out for these sincere expressions of concern — particularly when I considedr the wide range of membership in SPI. I prefer a movement where we don’t all adopt the same strategy, viewpoints, tactics, focus, and voice. In my opinion SPI is getting their undies in a bundle here for little reason.
They’re also not being very consistent.
As for me, I will yet again reiterate that I have publicly disassociated myself from atheist Craig Stephen Hicks.
Morgan @13 True enough.
Gen @14 THIS!!
Generosity?
Fucking generosity?! Really?!
I don’t know who exactly the royal we is supposed to be, but they can take their generosity and stuff it.
By the way, PZ, I love that you went with that Ultron quote for the picture. :thumbs up emoticon:
Some skeptics they are.
I also honestly don’t see what problem Nugent (and thus the other people that fell for his Gish Gallop) has. I’ve been arguing over at B&W (which I rarely visit anymore) as well as Alex’s Godlessness in Theory and I STILL don’t see what the problem is, why PZ is such a big, bad boogeyman, what he did that’s so terribly wrong that people feel the need to denounce him.
Other than telling the truth, that is.
This prevents doors from closing with politicians and other big decision-makers.
Gee, who else made access to bigwigs their top priority? Oh yeah, the national media outlets who robotically supported every lie the Bush crew told us about Iraq, al Qaeda, 9/11, and WMDs that were never found. If that’s SPI’s top priority too, then they’ll be no more honest or useful than the Wall St. Journal.
We don’t bash religion…
Not even when they deserve a good fact-based bashing? Then what good are they?
…and we seek to partner with everyone.
Everyone everyone? Including the people who hate atheists and want them to quietly shut up and stop existing? These people really need to specify who they want to partner with, and for what common goal.
Is SPI trying to be the “big tent”? You know, where everyone is welcome in. As long as they don’t get into loud nasty shouting matches with someone else. IE:
I did not know “secular” was a euphemism for wishy washy fence sitters.
They’ve been ever so generous by letting the minorities speak and instead of getting cookies for it they got told that it is not their place to “allow” us to speak. How rude! If we’re going to be all uppity, they’ll show us! They’ll take their rapists, forced birthers, Islamaphobes and internet terrorists and go keep doing nothing but hawking old ideas rehashed into new books without our support. Oh my stars and garters! What ever will we do?
The best part is going to be when the rats realize the ship is going down. Then they and the fleas upon them will forget why they ever thought these pretentious bigots mattered.
Hemant Mehta posted an entry about this on his Friendly Athiest blog a couple of days ago. I was wondering how long it would be before it was mentioned here.
(which I rarely visit anymore)
You too? I thought it was just me.
Hemant’s post: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/04/08/atheist-ireland-publicly-dissociates-from-blogger-pz-myers/
Have you been putting horse heads in people’s beds, PZ? That’s really not nice. Intimidation isn’t the way.
I am a bit disappointed, though. We didn’t get the standard lynch mob accusation.
What I definitely want out of an atheist movement is one where strident internal criticism is silenced, those who cause discord are not rewarded, and that we defer to wisdom and generosity of our thought leaders.
And with that last post, Mehta has now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what a smarmy dishonest douche he is. Fuck that guy.
So, rather than working on any actual opinions on policy, or doing anything useful, they’ve decided to use their resources to pick on a blogger & educator. Priorities, amirite?
porlob,
Oh yeah, the “think tank of thought leaders”
*snicker*
Horse’s heads? You know me better than that. That would be an ambiguous signal.
Wake up one morning with a bunch of squid writhing at your feet, though, and you know exactly who’s sending you a message.
Governor William J. Le Petomane would be a better Leader:
“Gentlemen, we need a few harrumphs”.
PZ – be honest. Have you been sockpuppeting on Facebook in order to dominate the SPI’s unmoderated Facebook-page discussions?
Bad PZ! Naughty PZ!
Of course, my mistake. I’m so sorry. I didn’t mean to offend, esteemed leader, sir, professor.
Oh God… just let me go and say good bye to my family, please, before you send the squid squadrons.
(I’m reading comments over on Patheos, and apparently you are dangerous and unhinged so…)
When did ‘partner’ become a verb?
I am! Foremost leader! Dangerous! Unhinged! Why, I might just write something critical of our celebrity leaders, rupturing the reverence we’re all supposed to feel!
@Beatrice:
Oh, don’t worry. That’ll come, when they’re done with PZ and simply want to portray the “other side” as unreasonable. A nebulous “other side” gets the “lynch mob” comments. Specific people have to be taken down specifically. That’s actually when you know they’re more worried about you. At “lynch mob” stage, they don’t risk driving any traffic to you amongst those who want to see the evidence. Naming names risks that someone might get curious and actually read what your rhetorical opponents have to say.
So this is the escalation. I wouldn’t worry too much about it, though. I’ve been labeled a traitor to feminism before. Except for my virtual irrelevance to the field, it wouldn’t surprise me to get labeled a traitor to atheism/skepticism next.
Shhh, Crip Dyke.
.. I can hear them coming.
It’s bad when our foremost leaders get attention for themselves by causing controversy, so we’d like to invite you all to get on Twitter and Facebook and tell us how much you hate PZ Myers!
Decades? Centuries? It’s definitely been used as one for some time so this isn’t anything new or unusual.
Why ask me now? I thought the Good Thinking Think Tank of International Thought Leaders was going to tell me something. Are they saying anything here? If so, I can’t tell what that is supposed to be.
And for the sake of transparency, who wrote this useless dribble or signed onto it? I doubt you consulted all of the member organizations (much less individuals) of your supposed coalition, despite the fact that you (whoever you are) appear to be speaking on their behalf.
Yes. We need strident internal criticisms of bigots and tone trolls and assorted bullshitters, and we are being taken advantage of by your apparent alignment with such assholes.
So, “looking more professional” is throwing minorities under the bus and keeping quiet about the scumbags that infect the movement…i seeeeee…..hmmmm….well, you fellas keep trying to look “professional” while the rest of us try to look like decent human beings.
Next time i’m told i need to look more professional i’ll remember to become an empathy impaired arsehole who’d sell his mother if it gets him something.
Stop watching Mad Men, you are watching it wrong…
Here is the original statement from Atheist Ireland: http://atheist.ie/2015/04/atheist-ireland-dissociates-from-pz-myers/
Also very useful: http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2015/04/08/atheist-irelands-statement-on-pz-myers/
A summary of PZ’s crimes:
“Smearing” (i.e. criticizing) prominent atheists for their horrible stances on non-atheist issues.
Too insulting, with special concern with accurately labeling sexism, insulting people’s intelligence, and, my dear stars, calling people “asshole”.
Criticizing or insulting dead people.
Saying that he hates some people.
Using “rhetorical violence” (i.e. violent images as a metaphor for argument).
Also because he said he will try to stab Christians, specifically in the event PZ is lying on the ground dying and they try to convert him instead of trying to save his life.
The rotting porcupine comments (apparently SOME people can be held accountable for their commenters)
Commenters being mean to Richard Dawkins (see above)
Being mean to Ayaan Hirsi Ali because the quotes were allegedly “selectively edited”.
Being mean with an accusation of Nugent having a “haven for rapists” (see: “selectively edited” again, above). And for not apologizing.
IRISH WANKER OH NOES
PZ published the Shermer accusation without Proper Journalistic Ethics.
Also he is: hateful, hurtful, dehumanizing, violent, unjust, defamatory, employs hate speech*, relentlessness of abuse, undermining of reasonable discourse. unjustly attacking.
PZ must be opposed because/his opponents possess: reason, ethical secularism, respect for human rights, empathy, fairness, justice, integrity, promotion of an ethical society, robust inquiry.
In the conclusion, they almost explicitly admit that it is “cumulative” effect of all these statements that is important, while also alleging that each individual example is very very bad because reasons. They admit that rude language and criticism is fine, it is just that PZ is doing too much of it and is doing it “unfairly” for people who are Just Disagreeing.
So here’s the irony: Ultimately the criticism boils down to the fact that people do not view PZ’s criticism as “just”. PZ sees bigotry and calls it out. Nugent et. al. claim that PZ and the bigot are Just Disagreeing. So what we have is PZ and Nugent et. al. Just Disagreeing about whether a given person is displaying bigotry, or what “just” critiques entail. Based on that Just Disagreement, Nugent goes on a crusade against PZ, harassing him, ceaselessly blogging about him, and getting his organization based in an entirely different country to disassociate from him, such that it has been the main topic on the Atheist Ireland webpage, having three or four articles on the subject already, for the past four days.
Fascinating, isn’t it?
* The article says he employs hate speech against Christians, and quotes him saying he left the theater, I believe the context was at the end of the film “God is not dead” that showed an angry atheist professor get his comeuppance by getting run over while everyone tweeted the good news, and PZ says that he was filled with loathing for Christians due to it. That’s not what hate speech means.
You just described virtually the entirety of mainstream movement atheism. Good without gods, my fucking ass.
Wait? That was you? Just what we’re you trying to say?
(Shivers deliciously…)
… Oh. Wait. Shit.
(Dialling…)
FedEx? Hello? I need to cancel that large package with the ‘keep upright’ instructions… Apparently, I assumed wrong…
(Shivers deliciously…
Wasn’t there a part in there as well (I don’t feel like clicking over) that said PZ calls people sexist and then doesn’t hold himself to the same standard? Like, they aren’t worried about actual sexism, just that they are being called out. It’s bullshit either way, but so transparently petty!
Beatrice and Crip Dyke
“With cat-like tread, Upon our prey we steal…”
The OED says that partner as a verb is rare before the 19th century, but they have examples going back as far as 1623.
[/relurk]
Hmm, that word. Strident. Rings a bell.
What… could it be?
Ah, I remember.
If this bunch wants to look more “professional” they could start by firing the marketing guy who insults people who decline to join their “coalition”.
I really wonder how these people rationalize the various Twitter shitstorms Dawkins has been in, especially over the last summer when it basically became an item in mainstream news and not just the atheist blogosphere. I imagine it is similar to the way they try to rationalize dealing with the rape allegations against Shermer.
“Skepticism!”: Denialism for the non-religious types!
@yazikus:
Yeah, y’know I think every time I met Patricia Ireland she was wearing lipstick. Definitely the first time, I remember noticing that first time. And a good thing, too, for the sexists. Otherwise people might have had to listen to her criticisms!
This is nice (from Comments at Atheist Ireland):
At last, a definition! A completely absurd one, but …
Dammit, PZ, if you had an organization I’d be tempted to ditch the habits of a lifetime and sign up.
re: partner
I found one source that blames Shakespeare.
I should have known.
——
The Global Institute Totally Secular could use an editor, they don’t english very good.
chigau @38:
Watch out, it has a couple of pairs of reinforcements.
Pete Shanks: So the definition of social justice warrior is someone who uses the benefits of the progressive morality as a weapon to further their position….and that position being social justice, i.e. progressive morality. How…sinister, I guess?
@53 Eamon
Fucking hell, that’s right, that was these fuckers…xDDDDDDD
Yeah, sexism, homophobia, racism, etc, are not a problem, it’s the inconvenience of people pointing out that you are those things that’s a problem. If only people shut the fuck up about how they are not being treated like equals, everything would be just so much better….They are perfect and anyone who doesn’t agree is evil. How much more narcissistic and self-absorved can these people get?
I’m going to get myself a shovel, these rifts aren’t deep enough.
Over yonder they’re also making a big deal about Ogvorbis and PZ’s failure to denounce him/turn him in as a sexual predator, and how that is high hypocrisy vis a vis PZ’s treatment of Shermer et al. I only know pieces of this back story, but given that the rest of their gotchas are shite, I’m not holding my breath that this one has legs. Still, if anyone would care to explain this one or provide a helpful linky, it’d be much appreciated.
That statement was so vague and roundabout it was practically a Rand Cruz “I’m running for president” announcement.
Wandering over to SPI’s Facebook page, they don’t even have a dedicated post for the PZ thread. Only one person has bothered to post a comment to their wall about this topic, and although it’s not exactly favorable of PZ, it also asks SPI to “please, continue to act like adults and stay focused on public policy initiatives”. (2 likes)
Really, this just seems like a marketing stunt to drive visitors to make SPI relevant on social media.
Shouldn’t that be squidrons ?
Oh the calimarity!
Another really fun thing that I gather both from comments on Friend Atheist and general criticism against PZ:
PZ is some random, unsuccessful wannabe with a stupid blog no one except a couple of sycophants reads, throwing shit at everyone in hope someone finally pays attention to him.
PZ is a leader in the atheist/skeptic community who starts smear campaigns against people, sending his numerous fans to attack and threaten innocents, his might actually silencing people.
At the same time.
Their invitation to provide feedback is transparently insincere. It’s followed by a massively loaded question, then directs you to their Facebook page, which contains nothing but SPI posts.
@61…As I recall, Ogvorbis was the victim of child abuse, and as a part of that scenario admitted to having sexual contact with children.
Not interested enough in “over yonder” to go through the tedium of finding the relevant links.
anteprepro:
I think the idea is that you’re supposed to bask in the glory of your own superiority. You shouldn’t take it so literally as “furthering” or “progressing” toward anything — that’s a metaphor for not doing jack shit, while in a transcendent state of authority and power and pompousness, having cleansed yourself of any coherent positions about anything. I’m not too clear on how exactly one could weaponize a benefit like this, but it happens somehow.
This post by Stephanie Zvan should help clear up the issues surrounding Ogvorbis.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2014/10/31/the-ogvorbis-boondoggle/
Obvorbis was 12 years old at the time.
Don’t know whether to laugh or … nope, pretty much just laughing.
… the global secular thought-leadery globalness of globality crew should perhaps take a moment to look in the mirror.
The Global Thought Leaders are holding a social media poll to find out what they should think of the existence of stridently critical voices?
The Schoolyard Secular Council will destroy you via a series of poorly drafted communiques. Very soon, you will be persona non grata, receiving fewer than one or two direct mentiond and possibly less than five oblique references per week.
The next thing you know – BAM! – no more Secular Xmas cards…
That’s right, folks. We’re weaponizing the benefits of being morally progressive. All units: Return to base. Repeat, return to base. You will be issued your mark-1 FTB5000 +1 flamethrower of empathy. Only glitch is, you feel the target’s pain.
Re: gmacs @10
Just for fun, I went over to Patheos and read what “even” JT had to say about the situation; since I really very quite strongly dislike him, sometimes I feel the need to make sure I still have good reasons for that. My efforts did not go unrewarded in this instance. Here are my two favorite parts.
Ooohh, he’s so popular! Look at me being impressed by his importance!!
I’ll just quietly roll away now on a cycle built of LOLs.
… and they way they latch onto attacking Ogvorbis – considering he was a then-12-years-old victim of child abuse by powerful adults – is particularly vile.
@LicoriceAllsort, #61:
Not here.
I’m posting in the ThunderDome.
Speaking of grammar, when did “professional” become a positive moral value?
I just did a Google news search on “Secular Policy Institute” and got six results. One was a press release and the rest were about their presence at CPAC, and two of the CPAC articles were about their booth swag. What are these guys for again?
Comic relief, so far as I can work out.
specialffrog,
For thinking and leading. Duh.
Can’t see them? Look up, up, up. Yes, I know you can’t see who’s up on that pedestal they’ve made for themselves. But there they are. Thinking for you.
Edwina Rogers needs to pay the bills. That’s pretty much what it’s for.
…. so now she’s CEO of the Secular Policy Institute.
I keep thinking of this quote by Howard Zinn
Enough minorities are killed, terrorized, raped or imprisoned to consider our culture to truly be at war. The war is on the minorities, not on these Brave Hero Thinky Kings. That’s why they hate hearing about it. They hate the passion and the strength of the people who continue to get mad and act up. The only thing that makes them remotely vulnerable to cultural prejudice is their atheism and that is why it is the only sort social justice they want to hear about. They only want to see enough change in society to put them closer to the top. They don’t want to dismantle an oppressive system. They want to run it.
@78: Decades ago, in my experience. And in that sense, I understand it to mean things like: competent administration, funds properly accounted for, official statements are on-message and correct as to spelling and grammar, a clear agenda and plan to execute on it, office space (if needed) duly leased and furnished in a timely manner. And yes, it means official communications should omit swear words and name-calling (and you can still be pretty condemnatory even within limitation). But if that also means that No One Associated With Us Shall Ever Use Rude Language, Even In Their Own Space, then perhaps one might choose to decline such an association.
Oh, but then their marketing guy will be rude to you, won’t he?
The way the slymers try to distort and weaponize Ogvorbis’s abuse is utterly fucking sickening. To compare what happened to him to the things that Shermer fucking did, of his own accord and calculatingly as a fucking adult, is beyond the fucking pale.
What position? WTF? The suggestion that PZ is not actually an ally because he calls bigots out as bigots is so convoluted. He must be faking it to gain something? Gain what? If that head was any further up that boot licker’s ass…
#75: JT needs to read Amanda Marcotte’s latest. Oh, wait, he probably hates her, too.
#56: Do these people even realize the cost of supporting feminism in the current skeptic/atheist movement? It’s the fastest way to get ostracized/despised by a large number of very vocal, stupid people…and to get blacklisted by the ‘leadership’. If I wanted greater support and rewards, I’d have followed Hemant Mehta’s path of always saying “yessir” to the Big Names, and never ever criticizing my “betters”.
@ 23 & 28 – you’re sorely missed!
Just kidding.
Oh come on, PZ, everybody knows about those big bags of gold we pick up every Tuesday.
JT says he doesn’t identify as feminist because of Mean Strident People, like PZ?
One, the same argument could be used to not identify as atheist.
Two, the same characterization of feminism has existed for fucking ever and it has always been a strawman of feminism used to support either the status quo or fucking reactionaries.
It is also very telling. That is their level of dishonesty. That is how low and nasty they will get. That is how little they actually care for skeptisism, reason, fact or decency. They’ll use a good man’s horrible childhood abuse as a stone to throw at people (including that good man) who stand up to their bigotry. They threatened that man and his family. They do not care who they hurt. In fact, they make a big deal about how much they enjoy it. The people at the pit are having fun. That’s fucking morbid.
But then, we’re talking about people who have been terrorizing women online for daring to be feminists or daring to talk about their experiences of being raped. Anyone who can’t see from that what a load of hateful bigoted pigs these people are probably won’t see anything wrong with going after one more rape victim. They don’t care that he was a child when he was raped. Open season on rape victims is how these people roll. They aren’t going to give kids a pass.
…and they claim the moral high ground. They are going to “save” atheism from social justice.
…and is it just me or does “professional” read as “white and male” to anyone else in this context?
PZ,
You should be so proud. This is a great honor.
@75 Wow, I didn’t get as far as that last statement. But it seems pretty fucking lazy to give up on a movement and wish it had a better activist face when you yourself are a professional fucking activist.
Unless I’m confusing activism with pandering.
Many thanks for the links about Ogvorbis.
One other answer I went poking around for. In the midst of commenters in FA’s and JT’s threads saying that they don’t read Pharyngula anymore for x or y reasons, they’re trying to create the impression that Pharyngula readership is way down overall because of its growing SJW content.
While I can’t see stats for Pharyngula precisely, Quantcast shows that Freethoughtblogs’ traffic overall has remained about the same since 2012, at least in terms of people and unique visitors. Overall visits and pageviews might be trending down a bit (but are still incredibly high). It’s certainly not the precipitous drop they’re crowing about. Seems that the readership may have shifted but that plenty of folks (many of whom are atheists, presumably) are still interested in reading what FTB is producing.
(Another interesting tidbit about FTB: 2% of addicts and 40% of regulars comprise ~43% of global traffic—each. Whereas 79% of visitors/50% of visits to Patheos are classified as “passersby”.)
Stephanie Zvan provided some context on the Secular Policy Institute:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2015/04/10/a-little-background-on-the-secular-policy-institute/
Wow, I thought SPI was simply useless, but they’re worse than I could have possibly imagined.
Wow.
This is what SPI wants to concern itself with? Vilifying a popular blogger in the Atheist Movement who uses his platform to discuss social justice issues and criticize people-regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof-for saying or doing horrible things? Meanwhile, they’ve accomplished…what exactly?
Meanwhile, meanwhile…it’s rich that they’re criticizing PZ for being so strident (and whining about tone, my god but there are a lot of fucking whiny little pissants out there that cannot handle coarse language) while they have assholes like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris in their little group. I guess strident advocacy for social justice issues is so much worse than someone who engages in Rape Culture apologetics and someone who advocates for racial profiling.
Someone fetch the fainting couch for these fools. I’ll be on standby waiting to catch all their pearls when they fall.
Oh dear, they probably would consider that violent rhetoric on my part.
LicoriceAllsort: Yes, I noticed that meme too. Though the version I saw was specifically about people “waking up” to how horrible PZ is over the course of the “last few months” i.e. when he finally cut ties with Dawkins and around the time Nugent began his great crusade. And data from Alexa refutes the idea of precipitous decline during that time scale too:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/freethoughtblogs.com
Yeah, but JT ain’t an activist for anything except JT.
#94: There was a brief drop for me when we first set up the network, but it rose rapidly back to original levels. It’s been pretty constant (aside from the typical fluctuations on weekends and holidays). There is turnover, but there always has been — typically people hang about commenting for a few years, then move on, which is fine…and it’s also fine that there are a few hardy souls who are still here since 2003ish.
I don’t fuss over traffic … I have zero interest in watching numbers flicker. But WordPress does put this damned meter on the top of my page, plotting hour by hour traffic for the last 48 hours or whatever, and I know that tops out at around 5,000+ hits per hour on weekdays, and it’s been roughly in that zone for years, so I just laugh when people who don’t know a thing and have no metrics at all crow about how traffic is all the time.
P.S. Controversy doesn’t matter. There’s ‘controversy’ right now, and the stupid meter says “4,549” for the last hour, which is right in my standard range. I also laugh when ignoramuses declare that we spawn drama , because I know from over 10 years of blogging that that doesn’t work.
@83
You might want to remove any comments of mine you’ve used as content on your blog then. Otherwise, I might not believe how little you want readers like me.
In fact, why don’t you remove any or all of the years worth of supportive comments I’ve made on your blog. That’ll teach me not to provide you with readership, encouragement and content.
Wow, I don’t know what to say. They are embarrassing, they say they want to look professional but then post an utterly unprofessional announcement, they lack any self awareness. It is just amazing.
Before this I thought they were simply useless, a group of people that thinks highly of themselves and have appointed themselves “thought leaders” but offering precious little thought. Their reaction to being turned down by a group was amazingly arrogant as well. But now I see they are worse than useless, they are petty people that are actively malicious, and do almost nothing. Then I read Stephanie Zvan’s post and I cannot see why anyone would want to touch them. I would not want to be part of any group that thought they were an asset. What a toxic group. Yet another event that pushes me farther and farther away from wanting any sort of involvement with secular and sceptic groups. Their reaction is far too common within that world.
@75 heather:
What an awful quote from JT. I’m sad to see he’s continued on the path of feminist hatred.
You know, I still credit JT as saving my life 3 or so years back, as his writing helped push me towards getting help for my depression.
But MAN, did he ever get pissed at the idea that he had any privilege at all, like when he made a silly gay joke and refused to accept being called out on his straight privilege. Pretty sure he doubled down and banned the commenter, too, for refusing to accept JT’s rationalizations about intent.
Goddamn, does he have some stupid ass views about what a “feminist ally” or “LGBT ally” is. His rationality doesn’t seem to extend to those topics.
He supports them on his own terms, so he refuses to hear any guff from others about it. That’s how allies, work, right guys?
The persecuted have to take what they can get, and never bite the hands that *feed* them? “I fight against some sexism and homophobia, so I couldn’t possibly have my own hand in them in any way whatsoever”? If one persecuted minority crosses you, you dismiss all of them with that identify, right?
His massive rant about his privilege (or lack thereof) a while back was why I stopped reading him. Apparently, he’s now even more full of shit and self-righteousness on the topic. Quite saddening, as a former reader.
@93,
There’s nothing inherently wrong with giving up on activism because you don’t like the most prominent activists. I pretty much gave up on organized skepticism after years of bad behavior from Shermer and Grothe. That’s not laziness, I just have better things to do with my time.
@Tony!
Um, used their platform to criticize one person-possibly regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof-for not liking some of the SPI insiders and some of the very people the SPI insiders consider friends?
kagekiri @ 102 – was the banned commenter Josh? I know JT banned him at some point.
Oh and JT. I wish in hindsight that I didn’t start frequenting his blog while he was here. I still don’t quite get him. It’s like you flip a switch and he becomes an asshole. Probably just the effect of a very pronounced blindspot, combined with a touch of inflated ego.
I can confirm what PZ says about the stats. He dwarfs all of us. No, Nugent hasn’t caused him to tank hahahahahahaha that’s so funny.
@102 kagekiri
That, right there, is truth. That’s exactly how most progressives behave in my experience. In some cases i’ve even met people who seem to think that being “nice” to whatever persecuted minority actively entitles them to dish out some “jokes”. Kind of like a reward…you’ve been a good boy, so now you may be a little naughty…. To that i say FUCK RIGHT OFF. The only reason such people don’t act more openly on their bigotry is basically to save face…it’s certainly not because they aren’t bigots.
Ophelia Benson: Oh shit, I remember that now. Josh and a few others (research confirms: also happiestsadist and Ms. Daisy Cutter) were banned for being too impolite in regards to an argument regarding transphobia I believe. The post in question was from a guest blogger that was also romantically involved with JT, which at very least I wondered about factoring into his knee-jerk responses and otherwise uncharacteristic sensitivity to tone.
The relevant for posts for those interested:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/05/i-have-die-cis-scum-questions/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/05/want-to-keep-commenting-here-dont-derail-threads/
@105 Ophelia Benson:
Yeah, Josh. Banned over vocally disliking some in-joke about how JT and Ian Cromwell were going on a date, or something, with the punchline being that they’re not actually gay. JT’s reaction was… not great, and in hindsight, hinted at the privilege rants to come.
I probably should have stopped reading him at that point, but JT helped me out a lot through his writing, and I figured he would face up to it eventually given his rationality when it came to atheism. He…did not do that.
@109 anteprepro, @110:
Ha or I totally forgot those other posts…yeah probably should have just looked it up instead of going by crappy memory.
What a minute! Big? Gold? Every Tuesday? All I get is an empty paper sack, smelling strongly of squid, one or twice a month. Hey, poopyhead, what is this bait(-and-switch?) yer sending?
I don’t have energy for a lengthy comment so, just, holy cupcake what a bunch od assholes.
I just hope they inform Harris that they don’t bash religion.
Jackie
I’ll leave you some hugs in the Lounge
I think I had known for a while that this what the current state of the atheist movement was. Most of the people with power and prominence. Most of the organizations. All of the biggest names. I had known at an intellectual level for years that it was like this. But I don’t think until today I really had a chance to step back, look at all, take it all in, think about how everything had looked for a more privilege blinded position a decade ago, and think to myself “the atheist movement is fucking doomed”. It was in the back of my mind the whole time, but suddenly it comes now as one depressing epiphany. Oh well. The social justice movement, not just within atheism, is gaining traction and that is far more fucking important than Teh Smart White Menz Klubb that capital A Atheism had been turned into anyway.
Giliell:
Isn’t bashing religion literally the core thing that defined New Atheism (insofar as New Atheism was even accepted as a thing that existed)?
Bashing religion was an innovation circa 2006, when the status quo had been to not bash it at all while the Jesus-soaked Bush administration ran amok. But it should have been a starting block to build a better world upon, not an end in itself.
Maybe it’s me, but this “professionalism” sounds an awful lot like “respectability politics.” IOW, no.
Travis @ 101
A little bird told me that Edwina’s table for SPI at AAcon was very, very lonely all weekend.
#109: The thing that made me cringe in that post was this, from JT:
I would never say that — I’m an older straight guy, and maybe I try, but I’m all too aware that I can be oblivious and occasionally have to be reminded. A straight guy can never claim to be the perfect feminist, or pro-gay/trans supporter. There always has to be that preparedness to step back and accept a correction.
I am to some degree a sexist, racist person, as are we all. When a white man says he isn’t, that means he isn’t trying any more.
Once again, Sastra says everything eloquently that I would try but fail to be able to say as well.
I just look at polemics like theirs and Nugent’s and wonder how their views manage to be so heavily skewed away from reality. In all honesty, that really concerns me. We have a “movement” wherein a lot of people, the ones who are the biggest and loudest voices right now, are existing in their own pseudo-reality where they actually are the righteous ones and everyone else is an enemy to be vilified. I’ve heard the saying before that the most dangerous person is a zealot who is convinced what they’re doing is right in the face of all evidence to the contrary. That’s Nugent, and SPI, and their supporters.
#112: Well, not all of us. They get gold. I get diamonds. Any Libertarians on the network get paid in bitcoins. It’s all in the contract.
There’s also a bit about first-born children serving in the feminist temple, but that’s in very, very tiny print that I don’t think the others know about yet. I’m looking forward to our first FtB pregnancy, and showing up at the hospital with a pet carrier and a copy of the contract.
Beatrice @65
It’s Schrodinger’s PZ, you know.
Or… more accurately… PZ’s Schrodinger! Figure that one out!
+++
At any rate, I’ve built this nice woodpile here and sharpened my pitchfork. When’s the witchhunt due to start?
…
That is the Squidly Overlord’s next step, right?
PZ @ 118:
I think he meant “Regardless of all the lip service I’ve given to those uppity minority groups that totally don’t deserve my love…”
I bet you didn’t expect it, but next is the Inquisition. There’s a formal process we need to follow if we’re going to do this right (all of the paperwork sorted out, press releases, photo-ops, releasing the Kraken, that sort of thing) before we proceed to actually hunting the witches.
Paperwork has to be done before releasing the Kraken?
…fuck. Um. Nothing to see here. No, that’s not a sea monster on a rampage. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
TMM,
I’m sure what you meant to say was “Kraken ate my paperwork”.
*sigh*
Well, let me know when the paperwork comes through – in the meantime, I’ll have to find a nice
tarpkrakenskin to keep this pile dry.Oh wait, were we needing that?
You can’t release the Kraken without signing a Kraken Release Release form.
Great, I think we’ll have to start all over again. Not cool, Mellow Monkey.
I’m going to see the Kraken
As others (above) have pointed out in various ways, the declaration does seem pretty dramatic for a group concerned about atheists stirring up online drama. “This fire is terrible; we must pile kindling upon it in order to put it out.”
I absolutely love this blog, and feel the same way about Hemant Mehta’s blog, so I can’t really take sides and I’m sad about this whole mess. I plan to continue enjoying both blogs (among others). and I won’t feel disloyal to anyone about that. But it would be better if the hyperbolic language and reciprocal accusations remained at the level of individual bloggers, and wouldn’t be taken up by organizations purporting to represent all of us.
I don’t think atheists need to worry that this kind of drama and splitting will make us look bad to religous people, what with their tendency toward conflict and splits in their groups. In fact, that seems to be precisely the growth model of religion, with their sects splitting and growing and splitting again, much the way single-celled organisms reproduce themselves. But considering that religious splits have at times resulted in mass murder and torture and centuries of war, it would be absurdly hypocritical of believers to point the finger at us, and we would be quick to point that out. I just hope that our community can grow from such splits without ever seeing the violence that has plagued organized religion.
I also hope that this isn’t going to end up resulting in blackballing of bloggers or other speakers/writers by secular conferences, because considering how little the compensation is to those who speak and present at the events, the only people who will really suffer is the base of fans who enjoy and are informed by our favorite atheist writers.
I think criticism has a place as well. An organization that can’t be criticized is one that can’t even stay on track, nevermind improving. And when things go seriously wrong and there’s no larger attempt to course correct then engaging in a mild, measured response politely requesting some attention to the matter when it may be convenient is just not what is called for.
People like this keep prompting me to think about leaderless movements. Or at the very least, the desirability of convenient labels. Something like “I’m an atheist. I’m on the equality for all, constant personal growth side of things.” is convenient. “I’m an atheist. But you may have heard a lot of things about atheism that don’t apply to me. I also believe in equality of the sexes, sexual orientations and identity. ‘Race’ also seems like a silly idea to begin with in a time when it’s been profoundly proven that we’re all just one big teeming mass of humanity down to whatever level you care to take up the matter. But I come from a society that believes in none of these things very strongly or consistently, I had to think my way to them myself. I may screw up. Please let me know in a respectful manner if I do. Also, as far as I know I do not actually corrupt small children at short distances but extremists who believe such things are welcome to carry around yard sticks to help make sure; I find them rather disturbing as well.” <– this works too but it's way too long for most situations.
Jeanette Norman:
It’s not “drama” for fuck’s sake. Do you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about? I want nothing to do with the whole lot of these bigoted fuckwits, nor do I care if religious people will think we “look bad” because of it. Doing nothing about it looks bad to me, because it fucking is bad.
And that’s what you’re saying. We’re not even getting to the point of tossing them out of anything, much less criticizing them — you say we shouldn’t even worry, because of how we’ll superficially “look” to people who want nothing to do with us anyway. You must say that because you’re either fucking ignorant about a lot of shit or you’re being dishonest. If somehow you’re genuinely ignorant but well-meaning somehow, it’s still not exactly honest to preach at us about what we ought to be doing, is it? Those are the only two options you get. Liar and/or bullshitter.
On second thought, maybe I misread that, and you’re just saying we don’t need to worry about religious people, not about the asshole atheists. It all just comes out of left field, especially the talk about violence later, so I don’t know what that’s even about.
Jeanette Norman,
Since I have more in common with some religious people in my life than these thinky anti-humanism atheists, I’m not too worried about “looking bad” by wanting nothing to do with them.
God-belief isn’t the only important thing. I don’t intend to associate solely on its basis.
I feel free thought blogs is “my tribe,” but I do wonder if we are getting into a we vs. them situation. To a certain extent it is true. I do think that one had be careful about using an organization to go after one person. Michael Nugent was wrong in saying atheist Ireland is dissociating itself from PZ Myers. He could have just not invited Myers back but not make a public stink about it. Also saying that Myers engages in violent rhetoric is just wrong. We all know from Myer’s writings that he doesn’t advocate violence. There has been joking about violence but that has been corrected.
I would suggest that name calling is not a good idea, but I’m sure there are exceptions. We certainly should be able to vehemently criticize other peoples’ thinking and behavior.
Have to pay attention to my child now. I will come back to this. Maybe I will have clearer thoughts on it
To clarify on my position, I am really not advocating for any particular response to Nugent and others or any other actions. I’m just doing some introspection on my impulses as well as my impulses in the context of being with a group.
I first heard JT talk at the American Atheists con in Des Moines in ’11. I was so impressed and loved the guy, both as a speaker, and as someone who seemed to be a genuinely good person.
I realized how horrifically wrong I was after he publicly lectured a middle-aged black woman about how to deal with an unprovoked act of racism at an atheist event.
OOOkaaaaay. Oh shit. I’m the worst judge of character ever.
After the post, JT was enraged that anyone dared to criticize his sexist and racist censuring post as sexist and racist. Note that I’m not saying that JT is a racist person, (I’m with PZ, I’m as racist/sexist as the next person, but try to learn from my many mistakes.) I’m saying that JT’s behavior was racist and condescending as hell and that the people telling him the truth were helping him. The Slymepit had been strategically love-bombing JT for some time and his support of that hate-group has only grown and grown.
As far as I know, JT has never apologized to the person he publicly lambasted for not dealing with an act of racism as rationally and effectively as he, a straight white man, would have. JT is nowhere near as awesome as he thinks he is. Not identifying as feminist may be the most honest thing about him.
kellym, that was Bria Crutchfield, correct? That whole thing was handled very, very badly by JT.
Correct. It was terrible. I’m glad though that it made me ask who Bria was then meet her online and develop a friendship with a quality person to help offset the losses of seeing people for who they really are. There’s been so very much of that.
PZ, as regular visitors may possibly have noticed, is now and again a little rambunctious in his phrasing. From time to time, one might even say he leans to being somewhat dogmatic on subjects about which he has expert and deeply considered opinions. Occasionally, he falls short of following the advice of my beloved (up to a point) housemaster to “call a spade a spade, not a bloody shovel.” It might even be said that he is intermittently intolerant of excesses of tolerance, when such charity is being given to the deeply racist, sexist and classist among our number.
One has to wonder, however, how these could be considered flaws in one who attempts to write or speak in an entertaining manner.
Can it be that certain people dislike his opinion of prejudice in regard to beings they consider lesser, on account of their parentage or habits or beliefs or chromosomal, patriotic, erotic or other identity? Or perhaps it is his taste in speculative fiction? Yeah, that’s the ticket. That must be it. Glad we had this little chat. Toodle-pip.
@kellym…the Bria incident in 2013 was the turning point for me with JT as well. I was stunned by his conduct, and I was stunned even further when he dug in and burned bridges with his friends Greta and Jason rather than admit that he was wrong once in his life.
I liked him as long as he was razor-focused on the SSA. Those days are gone…
Gen… @ # 23: … B&W (which I rarely visit anymore) …
Jackie… @ # 28: You too?
SPLITTERS!!!1!
Much of this reminds me of the accommodationalist/confrontationalist spats that served as The Great Atheist Schism™ back before Rebecca Watson brought about our expulsion from the idyllic garden of online harmonizing. It now looks like the ensuing feminist/antifeminist feud is merging with the previous donnybrook, in utter defiance of the Hegelian thesis-antithesis, uh, thesis. Where is Prof. Fincke now that we really him?
@consciousness razor:
Clarification
Why I brought up drama:
1. SPI calls PZ is a “shock jock” blogger, seemingly accusing him of stirring up drama on the internet.
2. The accusation itself is drama on the internet, and therefore hypocrisy.
Why I brough up violence between religious factions:
1. SPI: “No wonder the stereotype of a secular person is condescending and angry.”
2. Those looking at atheists from the outside and stereotyping us would be non-atheists.
3. If you Google “violence between religious groups,” you will see what I meant by splits between them including more than just verbal disagreements. The religious can call us “crankypants” all day long, but they have been known to kill each other over their conflicting views. For like hundreds of years. Which makes them seem a lot crankier in my book.
I suspect those “liberal churches” would have been mighty thin on the ground at CPAC.
Saad
I would take a liberal muslim like Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi over an randroid atheist any day of the week and twice on
SundaysFridays.PZ saying he would stab Christians who would try to convert him as he lay dying instead of trying to save his life in the context of a Christian glurge movie – violent rhetoric.
Sam Harris advocating bombing Iran or whoever the evil muslims of the day are – not violent rhetoric.
I guess this thought leader thinking is to complicated for me.
So let me get this straight:
-They are self-styled ‘leaders’ who are not chosen by their ‘followers’
-There’s no transparency in how they gain their position.
-There’s no obvious organisational mechanism to hold them accountable.
-They want to stifle criticism for some kind of greater good.
-They have a member who has serious accusations of sexual misconduct.
-They want people’s money.
Fucking hell.
If I wanted to be part of such an organisation I’d join the Catholic church.
At least they have pretty buildings and some fine music.
“Moved on” as in fired. After two of her hires were caught embezzling.
No.
Yeah, the problem with JT Eberhard is NOT that he fucks up from time to time, we all do that. The problem is that he thinks that goodness is radiating from his very pores and that the sun is shining out of his asshole, so people, very knowledgable people, people who belong to the very minorities he’s talking about, are just plain wrong and nasty meanies when they criticise him.
They really don’t have to worry about social justice until someone develops the tech to aerosolize it.
Empathy bombs bursting high above the city, wafting the silent, deadly gas of interpersonal decency over the entire populace.
The problem is that he’s so fucking graceless about it.
He couldn’t even bring himself to any gesture of empty decorum allowing that the person on the receiving end of racist/sexist/anyotherist shit might have a valid point of view that he reluctantly had to disagree with. I remember all that stuff when it happened and I haven’t been back to his blog since then IIRC, he couldn’t even manage a clumsy not-pology. (Or, I suppose it’s possible that he used a form of words that he thinks would fill that gap, but they were so weak/dodgy/evasive I can’t remember them.)
I was more disturbed by the One Of Our Owns who got in on the act, frankly. (Was it just one? I can’t remember any more.)
Perhaps the next name change should be to the Secular Policing Institute.
Jafafa Hots,
Considering they willingly call themselves a “think thank of thought leaders”, it wouldn’t surprise me if they took that suggestion into consideration.
think tank not thank
We have a candidate for “least self aware slimepitter”. Probably not a #NewHugoCategory
With thanks to Frank Herbert:
Here lies the SPI
their fall was not a small one.
They did but build their pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.
What a hilariously pompous statement, by some “leaders” I have neither voted for nor admire. On what basis, then, are they “leaders” of anything?
Shorter SPI: “There’s this controversy going on. Come talk about it on our facebook page. Or our twitter. Anywhere, really. Pleeeeeeeease notice us!”
Looks like we found the intersection between atheism and Daily Mail readers.
@154 Beatrice
Actually I like it.
They think, they thank (themselves) and then, hopefully, they go thunk
Hm. I’ve just noticed something strange about their list of coalition partners. Excuse me while I go and do a bit of checking.
Dan
@Giliell #155: That’s a tough competition, especially given the one in the same comment thread who denies that there are rape jokes at the Slymepit on a post topped by a Slymepit rape joke.
Jeanette Norman, #143:
Okay, that does make it clearer. I’m sure we disagree about Hemant, but anyway, I guess that and some other ambiguous parts primed me to read most of it differently. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
tl;dr: We’re mostly white men who are mad that the wimmins and the browns are speaking on their own behalf.
Minor nitpick:
That’s not quite the same as “I’m not a leader”.
Andrew T @ 115
That was a big part of my deconversion about ten years before that: I wasn’t Christian, and was concerned over what I saw as increasing Christian hedgemony (though in hindsight a lot of that was my increasing awareness of it) and fell in with people who were likewise concerned — #atheism on DALnet
Lady Mondegreen @ # 147: No.
Uh, couldya elaborate on that one just a little, please?
I’m not the Princeps, either. You can’t impeach me or vote me out, nor can you depose me. I don’t have any power to regulate anyone’s behavior outside of my own little blog, I’m not even on a committee.
I especially don’t have any legions under my command, damn it.
Now that’s just a blatant lie!
FOR THE HORDE!
Pierce R. Butler, sorry, I misread your comment.
I’ve been doing that a lot lately. (Misreading things in general, I mean. Not just your comments.)
Miss Emily Litella voice: Never mind.
PZ, you can’t quit, you’re fired! (Seriously, that’s the sum total of their position–with the added amusement that you never were ’employed’ by them in the first place.)
Yes, well, to be blunt, Thomas Pendergast could have said the same thing.
Clearly this “announcement” is balderdash of the highest order from some grade-A shitlords (judging from Almost Diamonds). But I imagine anyone who’s been involved with or dealt with bureaucracy or politics (in any sense of the word) recognizes the difference between power and authority; if someone were to accuse me of misusing my power, I hope I wouldn’t respond with “whatever do you mean? I have no authority.”
Of course, if you were as terrible and fearsome as the Secular Edwina Whateverthefuck is making you out to be, I wouldn’t dare post this and risk squid in my bed (especially since everyone knows beds are for oysters).
Just curious, has Atheist Ireland dissociated itself from Slyme Pitters? If the answer is “no”, that says it all about their so-called concern for civil discourse. Slyme Pitters are infamous for their nastiness directed specifically at individuals who they deem social justice warriors (as if that’s a bad thing).
This attack on PZ is simply a tactic to silence those who loudly oppose racists, sexists, Islamphobes, etc. within the atheist movement. Sad to see someone like Mehta Hemant jumping into the fray on the side of the Slyme Pitters.
kayden:
That’s the superb irony of all of this: The Slymepitters are the ones who have been rubbing elbows with Nugent from the start, and PZ pointing out how odious they are is what got him started on an loud, ceaseless, indignant crusade for an apology. Because pointing out the horribleness of the slymepit was a personal affront to Sir Nugent’s delicate sensibilities.
I certainly agree. It’s all horribly depressing.
I want to walk back the comparison to Thomas Pendergast. Granny Weatherwax is a better analogy.