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

[cowiz]

Nobody has apologized for me. Nor will anybody but me do so. If you think you have seen an apology that includes me, you are wrong. I have nothing to apologize for.

I'm so sorry about Gawdzilla Sama.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nobody has apologized for me. Nor will anybody but me do so. If you think you have seen an apology that includes me, you are wrong. I have nothing to apologize for.

I'm so sorry about Gawdzilla Sama.

You should be. Living less than a thousand miles from here and not coming to the Train Wreck.

[cowiz]

Nobody has apologized for me. Nor will anybody but me do so. If you think you have seen an apology that includes me, you are wrong. I have nothing to apologize for.

I'm so sorry about Gawdzilla Sama.

You should be. Living less than a thousand miles from here and not coming to the Train Wreck.

The lord knows I'm a proper wanker

[hadespussercats]

I just want to say I'm getting more than a little tired of this 'we' stuff. Rationalia is comprised of individuals who make individual choices. There is no 'we' here. There is no group 'guilt'. This is coming uncomfortably close to group mentality for me.

I've made it clear that I speak for myself many times during this episode, I appreciate those who do the same and wish everyone else would as well.

[Robert_S]

I just want to say I'm getting more than a little tired of this 'we' stuff. Rationalia is comprised of individuals who make individual choices. There is no 'we' here. There is no group 'guilt'. This is coming uncomfortably close to group mentality for me.

I've made it clear that I speak for myself many times during this episode, I appreciate those who do the same and wish everyone else would as well.

WE don't recall giving you guys permission to speak on your own.

[DaveD]

That avatar pic, by the way, had PZs face with roaches on it.

Hang on a fucking minute. That was my avatar, and I didn't put cockroaches on it until after Myers called this forum a "nest of cockroaches".
Indeed, I didn't react at all until after he'd defamed every member of this forum, whether they'd seen Pappa's original post or not.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That avatar pic, by the way, had PZs face with roaches on it.

Hang on a fucking minute. That was my avatar, and I didn't put cockroaches on it until after Myers called this forum a "nest of cockroaches".
Indeed, I didn't react at all until after he'd defamed every member of this forum, whether they'd seen Pappa's original post or not.

And:

PZ is a Ratz.
PZ called Ratz roaches.
PZ is a roach.

[Robert_S]

That avatar pic, by the way, had PZs face with roaches on it.

Hang on a fucking minute. That was my avatar, and I didn't put cockroaches on it until after Myers called this forum a "nest of cockroaches".
Indeed, I didn't react at all until after he'd defamed every member of this forum, whether they'd seen Pappa's original post or not.

Oh yeah, well....

[Pappa]

To have a schism you need an orthodoxy and although Myers may be trying to impose one, there isn't one yet. If there ever is (which I doubt) I certainly will not be part of it.

I would simply like to see Pappa like to see my friend take responsibility for his actions without deflecting them with worse examples of PZ, and I'd like for my friends to do the same. I hold them to the standard they demand from others and in that department they failed pretty miserably I'm afraid.

And frankly, I am pretty disgusted with how much everyone is still crucifying PZ. That says much more about their own character than any dirty details about PZ's shortcomings. What do you think about the way he was bullied out of here? That was fucking deplorable, pitiful and shameful for me - they are friends claiming to want to engage in rational dialogue and didn't think for a moment about how they represented others in that light? I don't want any association that brand of hatefulness and derision. And I actually considered that we could show him a better way. So much for that fantasy.

Oh, come on Mai. PZ wasn't bullied out of here. He made a few embarrassingly stupid posts and was laughed at and ridiculed for it. Why should anyone attempt to engage him in rational dialogue when his starting point was so absurdly ridiculous?

I did attempt to engage him in rational dialogue though, as did others, but he chose to not respond directly to anyone's questions and then ask for his account to be deactivated.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

PZ doesn't want a better way, he's happy being spiteful and mean. It works for him.

[MiM]

This is all I will say on the subject.

To all - if you are going to support your friend's right to stir shit, then expect ANYTHING to happen - whether or not you think the reaction is out of proportion still makes Pappa the one responsible. So take your licks and stop blaming other guy, and wallowing in your victimhood and hypocrisy. Pappa was the one responsible.

Pappa, knowing that pushing boundaries on the internet can bring the wrath of hell down, and causes people hurt, anger and pain, you are having entertainment at other people's expense. Therefore, I will only accept your apology with a gift that expresses a value proportionate to what you put me through. I mean it too.

"Pappa was the one responsible" Pappa the only one responsibel???

Come on Mai. Pappa is responsible for his own joke, and for how he handled his part of the aftermath. But there are so many players palying so many games in the aftermath, that you cannot seriously think Pappa is responsible for this whole hulabaloo?

[MiM]

@ MiM

I'm getting tired so I don't know if I'm expressing this properly.

To believe that exposure to "the truth" so to speak is important, one cannot be seriously against the censorship of speech or ideas. So can we discount that as a motivation when the people "speaking the truth" are taking an absolute stance that specific things are "NEVER" funny or should "NEVER" be uttered? I think we might, but then what motivations does that leave us with? Well meaning thoughtlessness? Rabble Rousing? Or manipulation for ones own ends?

If Myers is as smart as he projects (and I have no reason to assume he is based on this, but let's be charitable) I think it safe to discount the first. From his own words he sees himself as a "leader" who wants to rid the Skeptic community of those who don't agree with his political views. So, what does that leave us with?

Not being a skeptic leader genius, I may have missed other motivations out. I'd be more than happy to hear them.

No. I'm not sure if I am getting your question here.

I don't see where sensorship comes into this brawl at all? Let us remember that sensorship is something done by someone in power, usually a state. And it includes prescreening of texts or very hard punishments, if it doesnt it's not sensorship. Nothing what PZ or the hoard did was even close to sensorship. As you have pointed out yurself, they have all right in the world to shout fouls things our ways, the same way we have the right to be foul at them. PZ has the rigtht to define his own group of buddies, and tell us we are not among them.

Then there is the issue of decensy. What I see PZ and the hoard doing, is setting their line for what is decent to do, and what is not. You can agree or differ. if you differ, theyll shout foul words at you, and say they will not let you into their sandbox, so what

[Pappa]

Mai... I'm failing to see what's so significant (in a negative sense) about this whole incident. We had a few days of forum drama because of it. That's really not unusual and we've had many dramas much bigger than this that have actually caused us real problems and frictions. We got several new, interesting members and attracted a few old faces back. The initial OP that spawned the whole thing was stupid, but the discussions it relates to are worth having and we seem to have been having a lot of them in between the parody threads. In the past, the general feeling I got about how Rationalia was perceived by a lot of RatSkep members was a little like that we are Dawkin's retarded, deformed, bastard son. But we seem to have gone up in their estimation because of this.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

On the gripping hand I saw PZ take a cheap shot at a dumb joke and send his hordes on a rampage of unthinking carpet-chewing. `

[Badger3k]

At the risk of stirring the pot again, someone found this bit on PZ's blog (relevant post to elsewhere where it was reported here) - apparently it is getting a bit to vocal and aggressive for some people, and they are hanging it up.

PZ Myers
28 July 2012 at 7:04 am

This is getting annoying. It seems that every time there’s a group of regulars getting exasperated and giving up on this place, there’s ixchel sitting placidly in the middle of it. I don’t know and I don’t care about the details of what’s going on: I’m just doing the math, and seeing that ixchel is being an anti-catalyst, quenching the range of interactions I like to see going on.

Don’t argue, don’t try to rationalize. Ixchel, just try to do some serious introspection here and change whatever the hell you’re doing. Because I’m just going to look at the numbers and if you’re driving away more good people than you can possibly compensate for, I’ll make some harsh decisions based on cost/benefit ratios here.

It apparently continues for a while until even PZ has had enough and he flounces out of there (hos own blog) as well - here

#80: I had the same thought. I’m done.

I won’t be monitoring or in any way policing any of the comment threads around here for a while. I’m taking the opposite of Fincke’s approach: I’m turning you all loose. Gouge, kick, and slash each other, or achieve some sort of stable equilibrium — but don’t pester me to ban anyone, clean up any messes, or fix any bad edits, I’m leaving the comments section all to you.

The sheriff is taking a vacation. The wild west is back.

To be relevant here, it's a warning about behavior. At the site of the original link, we really don't censor, but so far most people have obeyed the really unwritten rule of "play nice" - we try for rational discourse (and a lot of snark, definitely, and open mockery). A bit different from here. It's also a bit of the old "as ye sow..." bit. PZ let his commenters go after people, and he's seeing the effect it has on his readers and ET: hits (I used "income" before, and while that is my opinion, I didn't want to imply that as a fact - apologies). People here are more restrained, and I haven't seen anyone running off. People may be tired of the drama llama, but that's a different ball of wax. Of course there is a difference, they can always stay away from these threads, and in a blog that's a bit harder (one reason I prefer places like this).

Damn Olympics and getting older - I did have a bigger point than just schadenfraude and I lost it already. It was more than a compliment about the rules and people here....damn. Well, if I remember it I'll bring it back, but I'll let this stand as an object lesson.

Ah - I think this is part of a larger pattern of pushback against this type of internet drama. Several others have commented on this behavior. Jerry Coyne (here) has changed his policy, and Daniel Fincke (on the same network as PZ here) says something similar.

While I dislike tone trolling, and setting limits on speech, I do have to agree that for actual discussion to happen, everybody needs to play a bit nice - if your goal is discussion. Many of us, in certain places, have given up on any attempt at discussion and restrict ourselves to mockery and insults. It has it's place, but ultimately, I think discussion is better. In many cases, I am doubtful that some people want discussion, though. But that's just my opinion and open to change.

MiM - I think part of what you are missing is that if you want to have standards of decency, you should have them the same across the board. When PZ's commenters find something as unacceptable, they go out into full attack mode, often using the same (or worse) behavior they say they are against. Seeing a "rape threat" where there is one might be understandable, and saying Rape Jokes are NEVER ok is fine, except that PZ makes a twitter rape joke and isn't called on it (in fact, some were saying it was just a point taken to it's absurd conclusion, but how that absurdity is not a form of humor, I don't get). It's the hypocrisy, as well as the attempts to define what is acceptable for other people. I oppose the religious right's desires to get their religious views as law for many reasons, especially because they want to unilaterally impose their religious beliefs on others without any kind of discussion, compromise, or rational/secular reasons for them. I'll oppose others who try to do the same. Conversation is give and take. That's not what some people want.