The myth-making machine is chugging away, full steam ahead. One thing I’ve learned these last few years is that atheists are damned gullible, and all you need is a small number of people repeating the same crap endlessly (and oh, twitter is such a perfect medium for repetition), and there’s a solid chunk of the atheist community that will promptly just believe, because they want to have faith in their leaders.
Case in point: there is a rump of delusional atheists who have faith that a legal document is proof that Ben Radford is not a serial harasser. It’s sad to see. It’s too bad Radford didn’t save a lot of money and spend just $100 on some gold leaf and a sheepskin and get a certificate declaring that he was the second coming of Jesus Christ, because that would have at least gotten those atheists tithing to him.
Do read this clear-headed perspective at Dubito Ergo Sum on the matter if you still believe a civil case cleared out of court is indisputable proof of innocence. You clearly aren’t cynical enough to be a good atheist.
First, Radford hasn’t actually been cleared of any wrongdoing; CFI found sufficient cause to punish him for wrongdoing when the complaint was first made privately, and hasn’t (to my knowledge) since recanted or apologized or said they were wrong to do so.
Second, the court did not clear Radford of any wrongdoing, because the case was dismissed by consent of both parties. The court makes no statement regarding Radford’s wrongdoing, because the matter was settled out of court.
Third, no matter what the outcome of this case was, it couldn’t possibly clear Radford of any wrongdoing, because he was the plaintiff. The one accused of wrongdoing in this case was Karen Stollznow. At best, you could say that Karen Stollznow has been cleared of libel, assault, and slander, but even that would be an overstatement since, again, they settled out of court.
So yes, I will continue to believe this narrative, brah, because it actually is true that Mehta has misrepresented various aspects of this case, whether through ignorance, incompetence, bias, or some combination of the three. The question remains, though: if you characterize a situation in a way that turns out to be false, don’t you have an obligation to correct it?
You don’t understand what real skepticism is…man…everybody knows you believe the man and ignore any evidence against him, and assume the woman is a lying whore and ignore any evidence for her case. Tru Intellectualising brah!
Atheist Leaders like Hemant Mehta and Michael Nugent have made it clear that those who discuss sexual harassment/assault within the atheist community are not welcome in Atheism. We are literally to be shunned. Conversely, Mehta and Nugent have consciously allied with and promoted a group of people who advocate misogyny and harassment. I don’t give a fuck how that works out for them.
I’m all for redefining atheism to exclude the liberturds and misogynists. Bullies all. They won’t be missed.
The only way Mehta, Nugent, et al would care is if people stopped giving them money. And as has been proved time and time again, nobody will ever go broke underestimating the intelligence of the atheist community,
Great name for a band.
Thanks for the link, PZ!
I used to call myself an atheist. Now I call myself a secular humanist, feminist, democratic socialist atheist. It might take many more words. but I want to distance myself from all the bigot asshole atheists.
Nice dig at the end there. I was embarrassed for Hemant when I read his credulous piece, and for all the people in his comment section that ate it right up, including JT Eberhard. They really don’t like you PZ, and are eager to jump on anything that confirms their opinion of you as a bomb-throwing demagogue with a lynch mob.
I’ve always wondered, with these Deep Rifts™.. what happens to people who fall in? A more apt analogy would be a Deep Pit™. It’s full of excavators and sweaty dudes with shovels and a few women with drills, all with ear muffs and helmets to protect them from any actual information.
I used to really be vocal about atheism because I legitimately thought it makes one a better person, but no more. Liberalism and secularism should lead to atheism, but if a liberal secularist still has some silly religious beliefs, I no longer give any type of shit about it. I’d much rather be around them than a fucking neckbeard fedora asshole who needs to tell me why My Little Pony is a perfect representation of the libertarian ideal or some stupid shit like that, and who thinks that he’s somehow contributing to humanity by trying to win arguments against theists on reddit.
I still refer to myself as simply an atheist when asked, but I’m much more likely to specify these days.
I’m glad about it, though. I’d rather get some confusion and have to give some explanations, than be conflated with each and every other atheist in existence.
I used to think this mostly when I thought of people like Ayn Rand, S. E. Cupp or Bill Maher or what have you; prominent atheists I strongly disagree with.
But as it becomes more and more apparent, how diverse (including the awful parts and fringes) the overall atheist demographic (I don’t really view it as a community) is, I also do it more and more for differentiating myself from many, more “regular” folks I disagree with.
The “house of atheism” (I’m never going forget that idiocy) should be as divided as its many subgroups need it to be.
The wording of that agreement is really rather odd: “no one has any reason to believe that Radford harassed Stollznow” (not an exact quote). Excuse me? A community that styles itself “freethinking” can damn well decide for themselves what they believe and on what grounds, and we don’t need no Thought Leaders™ to tell us, even if it’s done under legal letterhead.
@ PZ [OP]
Hehehe, I’ve just been dealing with this in my journalism course:
[From Carlene Groen]
When asked “What are you?” (implying religion) I’ll just say “none.” (or, with a grin, reply “human”). I don’t see any reason to get more specific. If required for specificity, I’ll say “lapsed Cathlick”.
To acquiesce to picking a label, is in my sense a “religion” itself. To be atheist, to reject religion, implies rejecting labeling oneself as something in particular (including “atheist”).
This somewhat sounds all “free spirit hippie” kind of nonsense, but, eh, all I can say. till the caffeine kicks in.
I think that we should be more careful with references to religion here, and we should be honest about shunning.
My view is that the biggest and most significant difference between atheists and the religious is that of narrative. The story we tell that puts us into a context relative to one another, the world and ourselves. Mythology is a perfectly good word to attach to this but that fact should be telling us that mythologizing is a human behavior.
Collections of screwed up stories about kinds of people (women, LGBT+, racial minorities, even us “FTBullies”) and how they relate to a particular shitty atheist person is a narrative and one that atheists are apparently perfectly able to latch onto. So appeals to religion muddy the issue here. The religious and us are both in that same box when it comes to a narrative driven society.
When it comes to fucked up applications of dominance and power with all the little excuses that maintain the beliefs and behaviors we atheism=religion. Is the rational skepticism, self-reflection and overt attempts to create empathy (to create perspective that helps us consider another person’s reality) and other things that distinguish us. What matters to me is how the narrative reflects reality because narrative is culture and culture is basically part of human social software.
We should also be honest that we are also shunning them*. We are in many ways refusing to interact with other people in our atheist community outside of larger community functions, criticism and other social conflict events. Shunning is a perfectly decent and ultimately neutral tool like shaming and other social tools that and cause pain and outrage. It needs ethics and morals to be applied properly and we should be honest about its use. What matters to me is which side has the better case with respect to shunning the other.
*I’m some people on this side of the rift actively try to reach out (same for that side). But we are speaking of apparent group-behaviors here.
That’s inspired by Arlo Guthrie’s ~~song, Alice’s Restaurant. “If 50 people come in, singing ‘Alice’s Restaurant’, they’ll think it’s a _movement_!!”
I recently read that the song was a brilliant, subtle form of subversive advice to avoid being drafted. That being: Get arrested. (for the most minor offense, like littering), Then the army will declare you not moral enough to go to war, to kill and rape and slaughter, and etc. The song was simply relating a true story in musical form, with occasional guitar sounds behind it.
erch, I just got back from a visit to the diner in Stockton “formerly Alice’s Restaurant” (that quote being painted directly on the diner’s own sign), and re-listened to the “song” on the way back.
Sorry about the left out words and grammatical confusion in #15. I’m not quite sure why I’m missing so many things when editing a comment lately.
#5 Morgan:
Stringing together novel insults from the Slymepit and Manosphere has produced a lot of great band names, my personal favourites being “Pussy Power Tantrum,” “Ruthless Agents of Zion,” “Infinitely Pedestrian,” and “White Knight Manginas.” Honestly, Free Thought Bullies is pretty funny too. I used to play oboe. Anyone want to start an FTB band? x)
Back on topic:
#15: You have put into words a phenomenon I’ve always kind of noticed but never quite been able to describe. Thank you! This, combined with another thread where folks were pointing out that courts are not “truth machines” actually gave me a few well deserved knocks to the head in terms of estimating my own knowledge of the legal system. The phrase “You [I] know nothing, Jon Snuuu” seems to apply.
At anyone shirking from the label atheist because the Slymepit has “ruined the label”: I don’t buy that as an acceptable reason. There are a lot of good reasons to avoid the atheist label: fear of retribution, not being in a position to distance yourself from religious relatives on which you depend, etc. But that’s like avoiding the term “Socialist” because someone like Andrew Dworkin shot off a lot off headachey nonsense mixed in with possibly valid anti-capitalist overtures. Anyone who defines your argument by your label instead of, well, your frickin’ argument, is arguing in bad faith, and not a person whose interaction with you is going to improve simply because you make the concession of not associating with a label they hate.
Well, on the bright side, it’s nice to have such a vivid litmus test indicating who I want exactly nothing to do with, I guess…
(/Whistles ‘Always look on the bright side’…)
PZ Myers is specifically being shunned by Michael Nugent, Hemant Mehta, Richard Dawkins (who also minimized “mild pedophilia”), and JT Eberhardt, because he tried to protect young women from a known likely sexual predator, Michael Shermer. Other crimes include stating that Important Skeptical Leader, Ben Radford, is a vindictive, creepy, litigious jerk.
I’m shunning these leaders, and the Atheist movement because I think that attempting to prevent sexual assault is more important than protecting the reputations of Very Important Men.
I shun Atheist Leaders like Dave Silverman because I find his “fiscal conservatism” racist, sexist, and morally repugnant.
Bill Cosby, Ben Radford, Bill O’Riley.
@Lesbian Catnip
Maybe its one of the “benefits” of how my social emotions are arranged. Having lots of difficulty with social rules means lots of watching what people do independent of what society feels about it. I get to see some parts of social behavior in more functional terms, but I have to work harder at understanding other perspectives and other things. Having an authoritarian inside of you help with the rhetoric too.
This may have been said elsewhere but there’s some bonus hilarity about Hemant Mehta’s post. It completely ignores the wishes expressed in the joint statement.
So Mehta reads this and figures, “Hey, lets get as many people talking about this as possible.” The ‘responsible’ action would have been to contact the bloggers who had posted on the subject and informed them of the above paragraph and then shut the fuck up about it. I’m actually quite confused as to why Radford & Stollznow didn’t forward the statement to bloggers themselves.
Is there a name for proxy-Streisand? Maybe we could call it the Mehta Effect.
From wikipedia:
The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.
Suggested new definition:
The Mehta effect is the phenomenon whereby a third party’s desire to claim victory on a subject contravenes the wishes of the people directly involved, and has the consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.
@Lesbian Catnip, #18:
Re: band.
We were just talking about that in the lounge, at rq’s suggestion. My skills, as I noted, are probably sufficient for the triangle. Ironically, given you were responding to Morgan!?, it so happens that Morgan!? was in that thread. Morgan!? has claimed the maracas, IIRC.
I remember someone offering to be a jack-of-all-woodwinds, but no one specifically claimed the ill-wind-that-no-one-blows-good. So it looks like you get your first choice!
Come to the lounge and tell us all about what you want out of what is currently called Da Lounge Band. (Though if it turns out to be necessary, Da FtB Orchestra miight form as a larger group that encompasses Da Lounge Band.)
“there is a rump of delusional atheists who have faith that a legal document is proof that Ben Radford is not a serial harasser.”
Forgive me for having not followed this case, but I’m really confused. What evidence exists that Radford is a serial harasser? Aside from the CFI punishment that is? He appears to be at least partly a victim of Stollznow’s claims. But I’m not up to speed. Can someone make a case?
Crip Dyke @24 (and Lesbian Catnip)
We can always have a maracas ensemble, with solo triangle. You only need to learn the one song, and we could sell it to the Other Side as their official theme song. It’ll be a hit.
#20, a correction. Protecting young women sounds so patronizing — I did not protect anyone. I allowed information to be posted that would allow them to protect themselves, which is actually a very small thing to do. Kind of the minimum, I would think.
Tom Weiss
uh-huh
You’re on the internet, try google or yahoo or any search engine.
Tom Weiss: You’ve never commented here before, but suddenly you feel the need to have everything explained to you? Look it up. It’s rude and suspicious to barge into a group that’s been dealing with this crap for years and beg to be spoonfed.
It’s also a common derailing tactic.
Where is your evidence he isn’t a harasser. He is one based on his actions and bullying tactics. Period, end of story. If you disbelieve women automatically, you are Slyme™.
Nerd
Please don’t start.
Re my #23 and Mehta’s “desire to claim victory”.
I suspect many people who support Radford will view that post as an attempt to set the record straight, rather than claim victory. The thing is, the joint statement is clearly an attempt by Radford and Stollznow to move on from something that is hurting both of them. It’s full of lawyer-speak and in no way is it clear enough to claim vindication for either side.
The fact that Mehta interprets:
to mean:
shows his perspective.
If she was admitting that “the allegations weren’t true,” it would have clearly stated that. The roundabout way that it was worded means that it’s unlikely that either side’s supporters were going to change their minds. The best they could hope for is for people to just drop the issue and let it go down the memory hole. Which is exactly what they requested. I suspect that’s what would have happened if not for Hemant Mehta and the ‘pitters demanding a response (or if Radford & Stollznow had contacted bloggers themselves before releasing the statement).
If Mehta actually cared about Radford (or Stollznow), there was no good reason to write a public post on the subject.
@23 Golgafrinchan Captain
I’m kinda looking forward to being able to say “wow, that is so Mehta”…kinda….
Tom Weiss: for a starting point, look up Lousy Canuck’s blog posts, he has a couple of timelines of events regarding the subject of sexual harassment/assault in the atheist community.
PZ – pardon me but I’m now even more confused. It’s rude to ask a skeptic for evidence to substantiate a claim? I asked the question because I have read about this issue a little, and what I’ve read doesn’t jibe with what you’re saying. I don’t know that Radford is a “serial harasser” based on what I’ve read, so by all means point me to the evidence you have.
Tom Weiss @ 35:
Find it yourself. It’s easily available, from the beginning, not just here, but various places on the ‘net. We are not obligated to educate you, or facilitate your rather awful attempts at trolling.
When the evidence is widely available, yes, it is rude. Would you step into an astronomy forum and declare, “I don’t know anything about this Neptune thingie. What’s your evidence that it is a planet?”
Also, you pretty obviously didn’t read the link I gave you.
Tom Weiss,
It seems like the least a skeptic could do it click the links in the post they are commenting on if they really wanted more information. This would lead you to the Lousy Canuck post mentioned by SallyStrange. Almost like the evidence what right there! It’s rude to jump into the middle of a conversation and expect everyone to stop talking and patiently catch you up on what you’ve missed. It’s also a common distraction technique used by those on the wrong side of the rift.
From the (quote in the) OP:
Wellll… not if makes you all uncomfy inside.
. . .
Tom Weiss @ 35:
That’s not what was said. Read it again:
See those bits explaining why this sort of question is met with that sort of answer?
You were given just as much information about sources you might want to read as you did about sources you have read.
More, in fact.
Out of curiosity, what have you read about the case?
I’m just asking to see if you did any sort of actual looking around before asking.
In this case yes. It is called Just Asking Questions, or JAQing off, a SLYME tactic. Which you are doing. And using misogynist talking points. Either do your own leg work, or shut the fuck up.
For anyone other than Tom Weiss:
From TW’s #25:
From TW’s #35
Right, you asked the question because you didn’t know anything, but then you asked the question because you know a bunch of things and they contradict PZ.
Has anyone here heard the phrase deriving from this news footage of an infamous incident that occurred in The City:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tAGIH3FGBU
I think it somehow might apply to Tom Weiss, but maybe I’m missing something.
chigau,
Give the condescension a fucking rest. Nerd is right on. Tom’s JAQing off. He suggests Bradford is the real victim here and you want Nerd to back off? FFS.
Jackie
Nerd’s first question was to ask for evidence for the non-existence of a behaviour.
That was my point.
and bless your heart.
Is this time Tom Weiss new? Because we had some small recent contributions from a Tom Weiss with a different symbol next to his name.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/05/15/four-million-dollars-is-not-free/comment-page-1/#comment-942197
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/05/25/self-awareness-acquire-it/comment-page-1/#comment-944764
If it is the same person with a different account, then it would certainly back up the suspicions of JAQing off….
The Thunderdome is open.
@37 PZ – I did read the link, and I still don’t understand how that amounts to “serial harassment,” unless you are using “serial” to mean multiple episodes of harassment of one person – in which case your phrasing is confusing. Secondly – you’ve now responded to me twice without posting any actual evidence of “serial harassment.” Wouldn’t it be easier to just explain what you mean by that phrase and provide some evidence to back up that claim?
@41 Crip – I was trying to be polite asking for evidence of “serial harassment” that I hadn’t found online elsewhere. I’m not quite sure what the problem is with people pointing me to a police report or a blog post detailing all this serial harassment Radford is supposedly guilty of.
Tom Weiss @46:
You’ve already been pointed to a blog post. The link is in the OP, and you claimed to have read it. If you did, then you must not have clicked on the first link which is to a blog post that greatly details (with links) the events under discussion. Now, stop requesting that people spoon-feed you.
@Tom Weiss, #46:
Except when you said, “I haven’t been following this story” you were fucking lying.
Pro Tip: lying isn’t actually considered polite. If the only strategy for being polite that you know is lying, then you need to seriously brush up.
If you know other strategies for being polite besides lying, then explaining away your lying by saying you were trying to be polite is… yet another lie.
I have no problem discussing evidence, but your very first comment is a lie.
What confidence do I have that you enter the conversation in good faith if you start off with a lie?
If I have no reason to believe you enter the conversation in good faith, and a lie is clear evidence of bad faith, why the fuck should I converse with you at all. I could point you to the evidence and you could come back and lie about what you found.
Lying isn’t the way to start this conversation, and saying your lie was justified by being “polite” wins you no points.
Saying your lie was completely unjustified, apologizing, and being honest about what your specific disagreements are given that you have specific opinions about evidence you’ve already seen together constitute the bare minimum you’d need to get me to engage in an actual conversation with you.
Until then, as a proven liar, I have no interest in anything but mocking you and pointing out your lies to people who didn’t read carefully and might have been deceived for half a minute.
All I got for the moment is I kinda like ‘Neptuning’ as a rough synonym for ‘JAQing off’.
Tom Weiss
Umm… isn’t that a definition of ‘serial’? I’m pretty sure only serial killers have a different victim every time. Serial harrassers can, in fact, harrass one, and only one, person multiple times and be considered a serial harrasser. It’s the repetition of the offense that makes it serial, not a variety of victims.
To be clear, serial:
via Merriam-Webster,
(see definition 5);
via Oxford:
(see link for more).
And you can check MacMillan on your own.
@Tom Weiss
I’m going to be charitable and assume that you are unfamiliar with what you have stumbled into. We are part of a community in the middle of a social disagreement. Conflicts are common. As a result we are sensitive to certain patterns of behavior that are common in social conflicts and you have set off some filters that are there for important reason. It’s why you are being painted with some of our local cultural terms.
Saying that you are not following the case and then referring to information that contrasts or contradicts the discussion here without citing it makes us do some work that you should have done. It also looks deceptive, after all if you have not been following the case how can you have seen information that contrasts with what we are saying? If you want to counter what is being said you should at the minimum post what you are referring to so that anyone nice enough to fill you in knows exactly what to give you. You should also cite what you are contrasting with for similar reasons.
One way of attacking what a person does like is to badger it with questions and endlessly demand related information that is not hard to find for a person involved in the conflict.
The contrast itself is a contradiction weapon in a social conflict. It reduces the signal that a social message has and in some places on the internet this is a repeated strategy. Go to most articles talking about feminism and things that make women suffer and you will see many people filling the discussion with the opposite information. Similar for articles discussing institutionalized racism and bigotry. So we tend to be sensitive to efforts to steer the flow of conversation here.
Skepticism itself is often a social weapon. We refer to that as “hyper-skepticism” where people will be aggressively skeptical about something they socially oppose as yet another strategy. What distinguishes that from a decent application of skepticism is the reasoning that goes into why someone is being skeptical. We are not simply skeptical of every chair we sit in because of reason. Many are opposing attention drawn to some pretty important social issues with some very bad reasoning. (Google “sealioning” for a similar situation).
It’s unpleasant but you were lazy in #25 when you alluded to things people are passionate about without showing them to us. This is the understandable result.
Anyone who accepts as valid the settlement of Stollznow with Radford by the same logic pretty much has to accept the legitimacy of the “forgiveness” by his victims of Josh Duggar.
I don’t have the time or inclination for a thorough compare ‘n’ contrast of the two simultaneously-unfolding sordidnesses, but the parallels show up pretty quickly if you look for them. Maybe CFI & TLC will cosponsor a joint speaking tour/dancing contest, or they can perform warm-ups for Bill Cosby.
I’m pretty sure it’s just trolling but, in defense of Weiss, I couldn’t tell that PZ had posted a link. It may just be browser settings on my part, though. :-/
@Tekore:
Oh, it’s trolling. PZ never even made the positive claim that Radford is a serial harasser. At least not in this post.
But super-articulate and -polite Tom Weiss insists on proof that Radford is one. He insists that PZ didn’t evidence his argument.
But what was PZ’s claim?
While he doesn’t say it precisely this way, “It’s sad to see,” makes it clear that his assertion is that the settlement agreement Radford released is not proof of Radford’s innocence.
That’s all. He’s making a claim about the evidentiary value of a particular document and whether that document alone can exculpate Radford.
Did PZ evidence this claim?
For-fucking-sure: he links to and quotes extensively from the analysis of the evidentiary value of the document in question.
Does Tom Weiss bring to bear any evidence that the document DOES have more evidentiary value than Dubito Ergo Sum argues?
Nope.
Does Tom Weiss bring to bear ANY evidence of anything at all?
Nope.
What Tom Weiss DOES do is demand evidence of a claim not made, by twisting PZ’s words beyond all recognition …
…while lying about the fact that he has been following the case, maliciously taking on the mendacious pose of innocent curiosity when in fact he believes he has evidence against this proposition that PZ has not made here but with which Tom Weiss is vitally concerned.
Tom Weiss, when obviously caught out, claims to have done this in an effort to be “polite”.
Uh huh.
“pretty sure it’s just trolling” is hella generous considering the evidence we have before us.
Further to Tekore’s #53,
I also didn’t realize it was a link, but I’m quite confident that he’s trolling. When I followed anteprepro’s second link from #44, there’s an even more relevant comment further down:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/05/25/self-awareness-acquire-it/comment-page-1/#comment-945863
In a post about racism,
It’s also kind of odd that this response is to CatieCat, who identified as ex-military in the exact post he was responding to. The only ‘challenge’ I could could find to his mention of Memorial Day was someone saying it shouldn’t be happy Memorial Day. I realize our cultures are different, but I can’t imagine anyone saying “Happy Remembrance Day” here in Canada. It’s a day for solemn reflection and moments of silence.
There is an obvious link to Dubito Ergo Sum in both IE and Firefox in the paragraph above the blockquoted section. PZ, being a conscientious academic, always provides links for quoted material. And gets called out if he doesn’t, or the link is borked. So claiming to not see a link means one isn’t looking for it.
@ Crip Dyke, Nerd; You’re right in that I’m being to generous, sorry. However the link to finallyfeminism101 in PZ’s 29 is/was as red as the rest of the text, and I only noticed it was a link when I hovered over the bolded text after reading 37. (had previously assumed it was just bolded for emphasis)
@ Golgafrinchan : Much obliged for the quote/link, thanks!
PZ’s comments have the exact same text color as links. PZ has noticed and now puts links in boldface. I had forgotten and thought the boldface was emphasis, which would make perfect sense in comment 29…
Haha, what? Just read the OP.
There is no way to interpret the dismissal of a case as anything but a failure by the Plaintiff. There maybe be counter-petitions filed, and all sorts of interlocutory action, but the dismissal is about the Plaintiff failing to prove their case or deciding it isn’t worth their effort.
Hilarious.
@TW
How very disingenuous of you. “Serial” in this context means repeated.* It doesn’t matter whether it’s one person repeatedly harassing one person (the case under discussion), one person harassing multiple people (Michael Shermer) or a group of people harassing one person (The Slymepit and just about any individual) or a group of people harassing another group (the Slymepit, #gamergate, etc.) There’s nothing confusing about what “serial” means.
Unless, of course, you think that the stuff that comes in a box from Kellogs or General Mills is “serial.”
* For soccer nerds, this is referred to as “Persistent Infringement” and gets you a yellow card — do it again and you’re gone.
Tom Weiss @ 46, the Serial Cereal,
If you want to use your reason so you know that you are right,
(or at least a supposition that won’t give your friends a fright)
think of this little premise and you’ll be looking pretty bright,
It’s the Principle
of Charitable
Interpretation.
See, you’re human! And we get that! It’s no sin to be a guy,
or girl, or human being! There’s no reason to be shy,
But you’re mortal, you make errors, every time you wonder “why”.
It’s a Principle
of our biased
Interpretation.
So when you see an argument you really don’t agree with,
Don’t think of a rebuttal you can hit it in the knee with,
Stop and find the strongest form of it, it’s a tool that you can see with,
It’s a Principle
of Charitable
Interpretation.
rq, #50
And even that’s only because of necessity.
It’s interesting, PZ accused me of trying to derail the comment thread here, a charge I thought was strange given that I simply asked for supporting evidence of a claim he had made. Turns out he was right – instead of trying to persuade me that Radford is, indeed, a “serial harasser” quite a bit of ink has been spilled questioning my motives, parsing the definition of “serial”, and accusing me of holding an informed opinion on this case beyond the superficial reading I did about it yesterday.
For the record – I don’t have enough information about the Radford case to make an informed decision about whether or not he is a “serial harasser.” I have initial impressions only. Because PZ appears to have such information, I asked him for it. Any of you could have pointed me to a webpage or a police report and I would have shut up, or perhaps then argued from a position of slightly less ignorance. Some of you have managed to look up the couple other comments I’ve posted on this blog before, others have quoted the dictionary, and Brony even (much thanks actually) tried to explain what the hell I’d gotten myself into.
What none of you did – strangely enough – was provide evidence to support the charge that Radford is a “serial harasser.” Am I supposed to take that on faith? I mean if this is a community that likes to talk amongst itself and doesn’t tolerate outsiders then fine, PZ or someone else can ban me an I’ll say auf weidersehen.
If you’d prefer to argue your case and persuade me that case is correct and the other side is wrong, I’d welcome that.
Finally – @54 Crip: that’s an interesting argument but not persuasive. Were PZ not implicitly calling Radford a “serial harasser” he would have outright denied doing so in his two responses to my question. Not only does he not deny the claim, he obliquely suggests that the proof I seek is in the link provided in the OP. It is therefore clear that I did not misunderstand PZ’s original post and he does indeed claim that Radford is a “serial harasser.”
It’s your job to type radford site:freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula or radford site:freethoughtblogs.com into your Google window and wade through the results. Why should we do it for you?
And, seriously, serial means “in a series”. Like… “several times in a row”.
Auf Wiedersehen, with “ee”, not with “eye”.
I think he thinks we are buying his act.
Do you realise that at this point i doubt anybody is going to waste their time to show you anything? Look for it yourself. You DO NOT have to take anything on faith at all…but you do have to do the work yourself, because people don’t like you here, for excellent fucking reasons, and they are not going to do your homework. If you care about the subject, do your work, otherwise shut the fuck up already with your transparently disingenous crap.
Obviously you didn’t follow the story when it came out, and now want to be hand fed information. Ever hear of Google, Bing, Yahoo, and a couple of other services? Your failure to use them makes you look like you have a misogynist agenda, and are using the JAQ technique to make your point.
Those of use who went through the revelations don’t have any problem seeing Radford as a serial harasser and arrogant bully. But you need to do your own work.
No, everybody said “look it up for yourself”. Deliberate ignorance is misogynist tactic, and you, with your attitude, fall into those claims. Look in the mirror. You don’t come across as looking for information. You aren’t doing your homework, and come across as just another misogynist liar and bullshitter trying to sow doubt. So we doubt you first. Don’t like it, shut the fuck up. That is always an option.
Tom Weiss,
Yet you ignored, at least, Sally and myself telling you where the information could be found. I know it would take two clicks and that must be a strain. Surfing the internet is hard.
I know you think you are the #1 special cupcake on earth, but this blog isn’t about persuading you of anything. Also, you aren’t arguing you are being, at best, obtuse. For someone who admits they are ignorant of the situation you don’t seem very interested in changing your ignorance.
Outsiders are fine, but we tend to be a “hivemind” when it comes to asshats walking in and demanding we cater to every whim.
Tom Weiss @63:
Actually, what he said was that this was a common derailing tactic. (He even bolded it in case you were hard of reading.) To actually derail the thread, you would have had to have gone on and on, in numerous posts, about how no-one would teach you, and that, although you (of course) didn’t actually bother reading the literally dozens of links the initial linked article branched out into, your opinion on the matter was worth everyone here getting all frothed up about. You would have had to have quibbled about definitions of words, while specifically still claiming ignorance in the matter, and finally wrapped up with “echo chamber” accusations and a “I’ll take my bat and ball and go home!” playground flounce.
If you had done that, you would have been derailing the thread.
Fortunately, you didn’t do any of that… right?
I have to assume you didn’t read the links provided, as you claim to still be ignorant.
If you chose to remain ignorant, no-one here can help you.
Just remember, it’s your call.
It’s hard out there for a troll. Eh Tom?