So, PZ is a stone-cold racist.

[tantamount]

The headline should be: "PZ associates sexism from 50 years go... On Thunderfoot. No, wait Thunderfoot's youtube commenter", but that took too long.

So today's episode of issue-pharyngulation involves American female astronauts, who, due to endemic sexism at NASA became Astronaut-nots. It is obviously a shameful episode of our nation's history and deserves to be made more widely known. Bravo, PZ! Yet how does he end his tract? He finds the need to somehow make this come full circle, to his little FTB war with ejected blogger thunderfoot:

Would you believe I got a comment from a Thunderf00t acolyte on youtube just this morning?

[Monty Python Gumby] FEMINISM IS A NON ISSUE. WOMEN ALREEEEEEEEADY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS IN THE WEST. NO MORE NEED FOR FEMINISM IN THE WEST.

Nice to know these problems have all gone away already.

So, he's somehow finding a relevance between an event of sexism 50 years ago with Thunderfoot, wait no, not thunderfoot, a random thunderfoot acolyte (wait, so all sexist youtube trolls are now Thunderfoot's minions?) on the Youtube. Yes, PZ, in choosing a random sarcastic ALL-CAPS youtube troll, you have selected a Worthy Opponent.

I'm coming to the opinion that PZ is just a blog-hit whore. The same way HuffPo or Yahoo News put up some intriguing photo with a misleading caption and then you find out what they're reporting is altogether different from the blurb. Only PZ does it with his pet sexism and feminism topics. He's taking genuinely compelling topics, but he somehow feels the need to punch them up to increase the seething froth of his commenters. Or, maybe it's something in the FTB water; PZ was never this ridiculous when he was on ScienceBlogs.

(Oh, and as a postscript, NASA's Mercury 13 program entailed racism, too. NASA wasn't certainly training black or latino or asian female astronauts in 1962-- but you won't hear the lily-white PZ think to mention that because PZ is a stone-cold racist.)

[Wumbologist]

I've come to the conclusion that the publicity we got from Pharyngula is a positive thing.

[Bella Fortuna]

We do actually have more to offer than PZ-bashing, though...

...I think.

[Ian]

We do actually have more to offer than PZ-bashing, though...

...I think.

Say it ain't so!

[cogwheel]

We have cheese.

[Kristie]

We do actually have more to offer than PZ-bashing, though...

...I think.

Not until next week though.

[SteveB]

PZ hates white people.

You heard it here first.

[Svartalf]

We do actually have more to offer than PZ-bashing, though...

...I think.

We're supposed to... ther's the cheese, bacon and wine.

[Robert_S]

I've reported this thread. PZ Myers is a member here and as such should not be personally attacked.

We should feel free to have at what he says and does. You can say his views and actions are racist, but descending to name calling should be off limits.

[tantamount]

I've reported this thread. PZ Myers is a member here and as such should not be personally attacked.

We should feel free to have at what he says and does. You can say his views and actions are racist, but descending to name calling should be off limits.

I was calling him "racist" as (an attempt at) parody. That is, he started an interesting article about NASA's female astronaut program in the 1960s which was interesting and informative and the first I'd ever heard of it. Then, in his FTB-mind, he somehow thought it was appropriate to end the article by mentioning an anonymous youtube comment and his favorite whipping boy (good ole Tfoot) and trying to convince us they somehow have any relation to institutional sexism in the 1960s space program. His reference was a complete non sequitur. So, I thought I'd have a try and I threw my own in. I hope that the "racist" appellation was seen as a similar non sequitur.

I don't think what I posted was simply name-calling. I think what I posted referenced what he is saying and doing at his blog, which is make broad, unqualified, and often sloppy, attacks at people, without a shred of nuance. Everyone is either evil or blessed, to him and his Dothraki horde. From the thoughtful person I thought I knew at ScienceBlogs, he's become a ridiculous, shrill and repetitive Savonarola impersonator on freethoughtblogs, now that he's doing his daily drive-by bloggings on feminism and sexism. And I actually agree with 90% of what he says. But when you disagree with him at all, and have the temerity to say so, you are found to be intolerable and maintaining the patriarchy. "You are not of the Body! Lawgivers!"

Does his membership at rationalia, for which he shows contempt, give him a pass? Aren't there some tweaks on the rules if the rationalia member is also a creator of a major, comment-worthy blog? If Rupert Murdoch or Sarah Palin joined, would comments toward their persons and organizations have to be tempered? Would "Pharyngula is a stone-cold kitten murder advocate" be acceptable?

If an admin tells me to stop posting stuff on PZ, I'll back off. It's just a bit amusing that "descending to name calling" is restricted here, and if you go to PZ's blog and look at both his comments and those of his hive-mind, "descending to name calling" is where the commentary starts, and it keeps descending from there.

[Audley Strange]

Yes "Pharyngula" is not a member here. Nor is "Skepchick".

So if Rupert joined I couldn't say "Fuck You Murdoch, I want to fuck you up the arse with a katana on Live T.V. while you are on fire" But I could say "I think News international is a hive of ink black hearted monsters who wank over pictures of dead children for a laugh."

[fretmeister]

I just had bacon and eggs.

[Thinking Aloud]

It's just a bit amusing that "descending to name calling" is restricted here, and if you go to PZ's blog and look at both his comments and those of his hive-mind, "descending to name calling" is where the commentary starts, and it keeps descending from there.

I'd much rather have it that way around!

[Bella Fortuna]

It's just a bit amusing that "descending to name calling" is restricted here, and if you go to PZ's blog and look at both his comments and those of his hive-mind, "descending to name calling" is where the commentary starts, and it keeps descending from there.

I'd much rather have it that way around!

Not to mention that one person ridiculed this site early on for giving people "time outs" rather than immediately banning them outright. And which place is silencing people?

[pzmyers]

I've reported this thread. PZ Myers is a member here and as such should not be personally attacked.

I've got no complaints here. For a forum that regards rape threats as a reasonable way to criticize someone, I'm being treated kindly. Relatively.

It's also just more hypocrisy-wallowing. Do carry on.