Those who have come from Pz's blog, aka THAT thread

[Robert_S]

The amount of hate being directed toward a group that most of the speakers have no real knowledge of makes me proud to say I don't belong to the blogosphere.

How have we responded? More of the same.

The first salvo came from over here.

I disagree, but I'm sick of this shit, so you win.

Surely you have friends you would get kinda pissed off at if it was their name instead of "A Skepchick"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Robert, my friends used to tell jokes with explosives.

[lordpasternack]

As a counterpoint to Mai's post - this is something I posted on the Rationalia Facebook group the other day - very slightly edited:

I think the main problem is that these people don't know anything about Pappa, other than this comment. And they have, understandably, taken it at some kind of face-value, and assumed that Pappa generally finds rape a joke-worthy topic.

I really do think it was in terrible taste to joke about the relative morality of raping an identifiable group of women - and can imagine how truly SHOCKING it would appear to outsiders (and not just permanently outraged Pharyngulites). Rachel herself cringed - and she knows Pappa more than well enough to know how flippantly he had intended the comment.

I was also a bit disappointed when Pappa doubled down - instead of acknowledging and regretting the offence caused to women who really do fear rape, receive GENUINE remarks about people considering raping them, or have been raped - and also showing more awareness of how the comment in the OP would appear to those who have never known him. (I'm aware also that PZ's insistence on stoking outrage over the issue put Pappa on the defensive.)

And it's a fucking bother that now that THEY THINK PAPPA HAS MADE THEIR POINT FOR THEM. All of the occasionally annoying feminists in the atheist movement feel utterly vindicated by Pappa's comment. They, quite forgivably, don't catch practically ANY of the nuance. They take it seriously. For some it's a jackpot of victimhood and entrenched misogyny, served on a platter - and for others it's just a bit of a shock to the system. But the thrust of the matter is that they think it's 'real'. They feel as shocked by it as Pappa would feel about a joke on the morality of lynching an annoying group of black atheists, or giving an annoying group of gay male atheists HIV.

And also - I really regret that this is now the sole impression that some people now have of Rationalia - the thread started by this stupid comment, written by a guy who founded the forum, which they had every right to miss the nuances of. NOTHING of how closely knit we are - of the deep friendships, the camaraderie, the meets, the transatlantic romances, the weddings to which we've traveled to celebrate with friends from the forum, and the funerals to which we have turned up to mourn friends from the forum who are now gone. Nothing of how genuinely easy-going and nice Pappa is… (If we're lucky, they might remember us as the forum where all the drama was happening at the time of forumgate.)

No, all they see is this crass joke, uttered by some apparently clueless stranger on the internet, who hasn't had the decency to apologise or express any kind of regret as to how his words may have been received. And PZombies aside - there will be many decent silent strangers watching that thread who will walk away thinking that Pappa is a bit of a clueless berk, and that this tenor of 'joking' is somehow representative of Rationalia.

And now Rationalia is the focus of vexation - some of which not unlike Pappa's vexation with Skepchicks. And that bothers me.

And it bothers me that there is practically nothing I can say in our defence other than "I know him and he's not like that", and "I know us and we're not like that"…

Did you post that at Myer's blog?

Nah...

[Badger3k]

As a counterpoint to Mai's post - this is something I posted on the Rationalia Facebook group the other day - very slightly edited:

I think the main problem is that these people don't know anything about Pappa, other than this comment. And they have, understandably, taken it at some kind of face-value, and assumed that Pappa generally finds rape a joke-worthy topic.

I really do think it was in terrible taste to joke about the relative morality of raping an identifiable group of women - and can imagine how truly SHOCKING it would appear to outsiders (and not just permanently outraged Pharyngulites). Rachel herself cringed - and she knows Pappa more than well enough to know how flippantly he had intended the comment.

I was also a bit disappointed when Pappa doubled down - instead of acknowledging and regretting the offence caused to women who really do fear rape, receive GENUINE remarks about people considering raping them, or have been raped - and also showing more awareness of how the comment in the OP would appear to those who have never known him. (I'm aware also that PZ's insistence on stoking outrage over the issue put Pappa on the defensive.)

And it's a fucking bother that now that THEY THINK PAPPA HAS MADE THEIR POINT FOR THEM. All of the occasionally annoying feminists in the atheist movement feel utterly vindicated by Pappa's comment. They, quite forgivably, don't catch practically ANY of the nuance. They take it seriously. For some it's a jackpot of victimhood and entrenched misogyny, served on a platter - and for others it's just a bit of a shock to the system. But the thrust of the matter is that they think it's 'real'. They feel as shocked by it as Pappa would feel about a joke on the morality of lynching an annoying group of black atheists, or giving an annoying group of gay male atheists HIV.

And also - I really regret that this is now the sole impression that some people now have of Rationalia - the thread started by this stupid comment, written by a guy who founded the forum, which they had every right to miss the nuances of. NOTHING of how closely knit we are - of the deep friendships, the camaraderie, the meets, the transatlantic romances, the weddings to which we've traveled to celebrate with friends from the forum, and the funerals to which we have turned up to mourn friends from the forum who are now gone. Nothing of how genuinely easy-going and nice Pappa is… (If we're lucky, they might remember us as the forum where all the drama was happening at the time of forumgate.)

No, all they see is this crass joke, uttered by some apparently clueless stranger on the internet, who hasn't had the decency to apologise or express any kind of regret as to how his words may have been received. And PZombies aside - there will be many decent silent strangers watching that thread who will walk away thinking that Pappa is a bit of a clueless berk, and that this tenor of 'joking' is somehow representative of Rationalia.

And now Rationalia is the focus of vexation - some of which not unlike Pappa's vexation with Skepchicks. And that bothers me.

And it bothers me that there is practically nothing I can say in our defence other than "I know him and he's not like that", and "I know us and we're not like that"…

Did you post that at Myer's blog?

Nah...

You could try, but knowing how things go, I wouldn't be surprised if you were banned already. That's not a joke - people who posted once with us in one of the "slime pit" incarnations have been banned just for associating with "those MRAs, misogynists, etc, etc". I don't post at FftB so I have no idea if I am banned or not (well, I have posted a couple on the less extreme blogs, but not the FC5). Even then, as a first post it'll probably be moderated, and it might never see the light of day. Or if you tried certain blogs, like Ophelia (Orwellia) Benson, you might be edited into saying something you never did. Even a link is suspect. They really do try to limit exposure to dangerous thoughts (ie. anything that rocks the narrative they have constructed).

[Badger3k]

I wonder if Tim Minchin will get the treatment next:

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah I couldn't fucking believe my eyes when I read that. There's been a whole lot of back and forth bickering over all this, a lot of it amounting to absurd horseshit, but really? LEADING atheists? What a presumptuous pile of trash. I suppose it's par for the course from him though, more proof that PZ's idea of "free thought" only goes so far as the free thought he agrees with. Step out of line and you'll find yourself at odds with the "leaders" of a concept that by its very definition ought not to have a leadership. Atheism is the lack of a fucking religion, I don't need a fucking priest to tell me how to not worship a non-existent deity.

That sort of controlling attitude was one of the biggest factors in my turning away from religion in the first place. The idea that another fallible and imperfect human would dare to suggest that they are in a position to tell me how to be a good atheist is unimaginable. I had my fill of that shit going to a church where the pastor wanted to tell me, as the spokesperson of God himself, how I needed to give X amount of money to the church and pray so-and-so many times a day and repent to sins X, Y, and Z in order to get into heaven. I sure as fuck will not be lining up to have someone tell me how to live my life again.

Hear, hear!

[Jaygray]

Yeah I couldn't fucking believe my eyes when I read that. There's been a whole lot of back and forth bickering over all this, a lot of it amounting to absurd horseshit, but really? LEADING atheists? What a presumptuous pile of trash. I suppose it's par for the course from him though, more proof that PZ's idea of "free thought" only goes so far as the free thought he agrees with. Step out of line and you'll find yourself at odds with the "leaders" of a concept that by its very definition ought not to have a leadership. Atheism is the lack of a fucking religion, I don't need a fucking priest to tell me how to not worship a non-existent deity.

That sort of controlling attitude was one of the biggest factors in my turning away from religion in the first place. The idea that another fallible and imperfect human would dare to suggest that they are in a position to tell me how to be a good atheist is unimaginable. I had my fill of that shit going to a church where the pastor wanted to tell me, as the spokesperson of God himself, how I needed to give X amount of money to the church and pray so-and-so many times a day and repent to sins X, Y, and Z in order to get into heaven. I sure as fuck will not be lining up to have someone tell me how to live my life again.

I couldn't agree more. The idea of a community of a movement of atheists makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. Maybe I'm being a little too English, but it reminds me of stuff like model railway societies where it is impossible to fart without consulting a commitee. Fuck that.

I like hanging around Rationalia (and I still sometimes lurk at Ratskep although I m no longer a member there). I do it to maybe learn some stuff and/or have a giggle. Without wanting to fan the flames, what I have learned about PZ Myers in this whole convoluted mess is quite illuminating. I've met a few of his type in school playgrounds: It ain't pretty.

I would probably break the rules here if I stated exactly what I think of him and the tawdry and potentially dangerous game he plays (far more serious than a misjudged thread title), but suffice it to say that if he is a leading atheist, what must the others be like?

Perhaps he should read a history book or two. Mind-control over a crowd always come back to bite the instigator on the butt, and all the letters after his name or associate professorships in the world won't save him from the fallout that will head his way when people finally wake up.

Enjoy it while you got it PZ, it won't last.

[Za-zen]

It's an obscene need to be part of a heirarchal system, the rebuttal to theists that atheism isn't a religion is severly undermined by assholes like pz who need to belong (and in his case be at the top table) to a church.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A pox on high priests of any (or no) religion.

[Jaygray]

It's an obscene need to be part of a heirarchal system, the rebuttal to theists that atheism isn't a religion is severly undermined by assholes like pz who need to belong (and in his case be at the top table) to a church.

Yes

I'm all for dialogue, but IMHO this is a bedrock issue over which there must be no compromise.

[Mysturji]

It's an obscene need to be part of a heirarchal system, the rebuttal to theists that atheism isn't a religion is severly undermined by assholes like pz who need to belong (and in his case be at the top table) to a church.

I started reading that post, and started thinking what crap it was because I have no such need and don't tell me I do , but unlike some pzeople, I actually finished reading it before I finished forming an opinion about it, and I totally agree.

[Rum]

I actually do think there is some value in organising around the principle of secularism as a means of trying to drive religion and religious based practices out of every day life. But there are already organizations which do that of course, not least the Secular Society here in the UK.

However I do not personally have any desire at all to be defined by my lack of belief in something silly and certainly have no intention of allowing anyone to make any assumptions about being a leader or having some sort of authority over people who don' believe in something silly!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We have pros and cons to having "leaders" in this. It helps us focus, but it also gives the godbotherers a way to say "You're just like us."

And there's the obvious problem of the leaders deciding what we believe, of course.

[Audley Strange]

My politics have fuck all to do with my disbelief in Gods. I needed no one to "lead" me to it, I need no figureheads or leaders or role models. Any skeptic or atheist movement needs to remain political neutral. To let ideological propagandists in, whether they be feminists, separatists, socialists, liberals, libertarians or totalitarians does not matter. It is an attempt to usurp a single simple message.

I don't accept that your fantasy beliefs in the Cosmic Monkey should affect me or be influential in politics.

If we allow that message to be sullied by political pandering, considered an offshoot of a political group and we will turn off a great proportion of potential support and end up infighting.


Oh wait some fucking idiot has been doing exactly that for about 18 months.

[Coito ergo sum]

In case anyone actually wanted this to die down and get back to more constructive things... sorry to say, he's keeping it going. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -the-smug/

We’re in the midst of a little civil war,

Yes, Prof. Myers. I've been saying this for some time now. See - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =civil+war

I agree with Myers that this is an important issue. But, I disagree when he places all the blame on those he calls "denizens of the slime pit" and all that sort of thing. It seems his big issue here is that after Michael Nugent published his unfortunately described "good set of guidelines for how atheists and skeptics should interact," some of the first comments were from detractors.

I'll point out that in the skeptic community - at its very core, actually - is discussion and debate. Advocating a position, basing it in evidence and/or reason, and defending it against dissent is what skepticism is all about. Yet, Myers describes these folks as "denizens of the slime pit" and these folks are the problem.

Why not fight the good fight and argue these slime pit denizens out of their position? If your view of it is so strong and meritorious, argue it. And, keep repeating the argument to every new slime pit denizen who rears his or her ugly head.

But, of course, please do the slime pit denizens the same courtesy of understanding that even slime pit denizens may adopt a position and defend it. They too may try to argue you out of your position. They say that you have your facts wrong. They may say that your logic doesn't follow. They may argue with your premises. They may draw different conclusions from the same facts.

What happens all too often nowadays in our "community" is that folks look to silence rather than argue. Folks of the Skepchick ilk very often view raising a dissenting argument as itself being an attempt to silence them. Some folks of the Skepchick ilk belabor the term "gaslighting" -- gaslighting is when someone tries to convince someone that reality isn't what it is, because they're crazy -- this term has now been coopted to mean "if you tell me I'm wrong on the facts, then you're gaslighting me." Attempts to argue points are now also considered "derailing" by many folks on the non-slime-pit denizen side of things.

Then there is this bit of "irony" -- lol

We are all people who have taken that first step towards real intellectual freedom, and some of us like to just stand in wonderment and demand applause for that one step…while others of us are saying, “good, now we can march forward.” And of course that opens up rifts between us, and of course the smug are sitting there incredulous, resentful that we aren’t content just to applaud those who made that first effort, and laud them as heroes. They want a cookie right now just for being atheists.

If you're with "me" (Mr. Myers says) then you are among those brave, forward thinking folks who say "good, we've moved toward intellectual freedom, now move forward." The denizens of the slime pit, they want a cookie for being atheists and just want to be applauded for being atheists. Who is smug in this picture? Really.

And, look. You're also wrong, sir.

"Being" an atheist is not in and of itself necessarily a "first step towards intellectual freedom." Some folks are atheists just for the same reason folks are religious. It's how they are raised. Some adopt it to be bad-ass and rebellious, because so many folks are afraid to say they don't believe in a god. Some folks don't think about it at all. Some folks, of course, did go through a thinking process to reach their beliefs or non-beliefs, and this may have been through reason and evidentiary analysis, a study of some level of modern scientific thought, and likewise.

But, to suggest that folks are somehow automatically awarded a gold star for "being" an atheist -- well, that may be something your claiming. But, many of us here in the slime pit are not so "smug" to claim intellectual superiority because we don't believe in gods.

And, of course, you're wrong that folks who may not fall into lock-step with your assessment of "the problem" of sexism and various "-phobias" are not willing or desirous of moving forward in intellectual freedom. Many of us out here in the slime pit are very much looking forward to moving forward. Many of see the Skepchickish influence as itself a hindrance to that movement forward, for a variety of reasons that have been expressed on the many threads related to the various issue that have arisen over the last 18 months. See my link above. And, see the discussions here about sexism.

It's fine if you think all those arguments are bollocks. Folks often think arguments that others hold dear are complete bollocks. It's a pretty common thing for people to do. That's why skepticism is important, because these arguments ebb and flow and the processes of argumentation, debate, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, dialectic, discussion, argument, etc. ultimately are never ending. I love taking part in that argument. I tend to gravitate toward arguments and debates where I am standing among a few, or even alone, in holding my view. Those are the fun arguments.

This denizen of the slime pit LIKES to be disagreed with. If you're looking to create a blog where you post things and everyone else shows up and tells you how right you are, or presents additional back-up showing why you're right, then you'll have a pretty tame and boring blog. It'll certainly be "welcoming" for sure, because nobody would have their feelings hurt by dissenting opinions, perhaps even harshly expressed. No untoward jokes will be made, because you'll have a stiff policy banning anyone who says anything that might "offend" someone somewhere.

So - then there is this:

So on one side we have smug jerks who hate the idea of being progressive, but on the other, on my side, we’re quite ready to cut the troglodytes loose, and we’re quite ready to move on without them.

So move on, already. Who is stopping you? You ban people by the boat load over there, as do the Skepchicks, keeping your sites warm, and welcoming. You announce that everyone's position should be "ripped to shreds" but, really, you know that only applies to the positions of troglodytes, right? Denizens of the slime pits, they have their positions ripped to shreds. When Thunderf00t sought rip one of the unsmug progressive folks to shreds, he was banned.

So, you've moved on. Good for you.

We too, can move on. We can move on in intellectual honesty, vigorous, passionate debate, argumentation, etc. We can address all sides of these issues without fear or favor. May the best argument win. People aren't banned for their arguments here. That's us, the smug, troglodyte, denizens of the slime pit.

I wonder how many folks posting here would have to be banned for us to be truly progressive, Mr. Myers. Think about that.

And, then there is this doozy....

he hasn’t convinced the smug anti-progressives that maybe they should embrace a wider scope for atheism, and he really hasn’t tried yet to convince the people on the other side that maybe the angry sexists and racists and sneering self-satisfied libertarians are worth bringing on board. I’m inclined to say they’re not, until they grow up and change.

I had to read that a couple times to believe my eyes.

So, non-progressives and libertarians are "sneering and self-satisfied?" and, they aren't "worth bringing on board." And, you're inclined to say "not?" Lucky for most of us, you're in no position to "bring anyone on board" or throw them from the train. This is not a club that you run, sir.

Wider scope of atheism? Define that please. Libertarian atheists don't, as you say, fit into the wider scope, obviously. Who else would you purge from the ranks? Objectivists? Ayn Rand, she's a troglodyte for sure, so all her fans are probably right out. Atheists or not, they're not "really" atheists, right? Not letting them on board.... who else, PZ? Who else can't be an atheist now?

In your most humble and unsmug manner, please, tell us all who gets to be an real atheist, who can't be allowed "on board."