The Melby Foundation publicly dissociates itself from the harmful and hateful rhetoric of Nugent’s comments section.
The Melby Foundation is publicly dissociating itself from the hurtful and dehumanizing, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of Nugent’s comments section. The final of many, many straws was its latest smear that if PZ Myers and Alex Gabriel were given power that they would send people to “re-education gulags”, and its subsequent description of the out-group as “a community of personality disordered individuals with high degrees of narcissism”. We are also asking all ethical organizations and individuals to consider how you can help to reverse Nugent’s comments section’s harmful impact on the individuals it targets and the atheist movement generally.
The Melby Foundation promotes atheism, reason and ethical secularism. We fight on twitter a lot. I mean – a lot. This work is really not directly affected by Nugent’s blog comments but such rhetoric is unjust and annoying to the individual people who it targets.
Some examples of rhetoric from the comments section of ONE of Nugent’s posts:
Nugent’s comments section said the out-group is a “little clique” engaging in a “pattern of lies, slander, misdirection, & general childish nastiness” that has done much to “discredit secular activism online” who aren’t “fooling [anyone] besides themselves” and are “despicable”. The out-group are called “Social Justice Warriors” who are a “negative and destructive [force]” that “won’t forgive [other’s] accomplishments, because these make them feel inferior” therefor other’s accomplishments are “the greatest sin you could have committed in their eyes”. They are described as “like minded bloggers and sycophants” who simply “blog for beer money” that represent a “toxic element” of “desperate liars” who are “inexcusable” and “spin so hard you could hook them up to a few dynamos and power a small city”. It also implied that the out-group accuses people of “internalized misogyny and deep xenophobia” for not “[promoting] speaking gigs”. It proclaimed that if someone continued to associate with the out-group they would “have choked on [their] own vomit” and accused the out-group of “kicking the corpses at Charlie Hebdo.”
The out-group is accused of “knee-jerk wagon circling” with “the near complete failure of skepticism and the inability to engage in good faith” and exhibiting “cultish behavior”. The out-group is said to “blow hot air from their protected spaces”, “need demons to fight” and “contort facts and abuse words to find them”. The out-group is said to fit the “definition of cults…in particular Scientology with the concept of ‘othering’ and mental control through emotional and verbal manipulation” who “should have been dealt with years ago when there was a chance of nipping it in the bud” but the “US AS [atheist secular] community” have “proven themselves cowards”. It proclaims that the out-group are “silly nits” who “given a leader saying the right things, they’ll agree to pretty much anything” who “love doubletalk escape hatches” to “[ensure] they won’t do much beyond squab imitations.” It asserts that the out-group are “authoritarian leftists” who “glorified their own psychological issues.” The out-group is called “identitarians [who] positively revel in being sociopathic victims” “to raise their victim-hood points” “with outright lying about themselves” and “ramping it up to insouciant criminal defamation of others”. Nugent’s comments section asserts that the out-group is “highly totalitarian”, “rewrite[s] history” and exhibits “inherent narcissism”
Nugent’s comment section is surprised that PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson’s “hate supporters even DARE to open their mouths anymore”. It insists that they should be “apologizing and groveling on their knees” and they are collectively “like a wounded animal thrashing out” that “need to be sidelined” because “a healthy secular, atheist, liberal movement SIMPLY CAN’T have” them involved.
Nugent’s comment’s section claimed that Alex Gabriel “is part of a group which believes that they’re always right” who follows “the Only Moral Way” and believes that “everyone who disagrees is either a monster or a brainwashed idiot”. It claims that Gabriel “denied that hate could lead to atrocious acts” and claims he “[does] not truly understand how dangerous hatred can be”. It accused Gabriel of being “an Islamist-enabler” (due to defending the “odious Sarah Jones”) “pseudo-liberal” who “has no future in the atheist, secular liberal movements” and then Nugent’s comment’s section referred to “puncturing life jackets”. Gabriel is called “disturbing” and a “product of the current education system which is more a system of indoctrination than one of knowledge accumulation and critical thinking” and part of a movement that has “created this entire madhouse we live in…as if the Enlightenment never happened.” He is accused of desiring “a Year Zero, a la Pol Pot”.
Nugent’s comments section claims that Alex Gabriel is worse than Pol Pot because “as evil as he was, Pol Pot actually did something besides write about how hurty he was at the world.” It asserts that “if you make Alex Gabriel et al walk a mile on a mildly sunny day, they’d be begging for death a quarter way through.” It characterizes Gabriel as a “classic Young Zealot” with “a burning sense of wide-ranging injustice” who has “found The Way and The Truth” and believes that “anyone who utters the slightest hint of criticism” is “deserving of the righteous fire of holy hatred.” It compares Alex Gabriel to ISIS recruits saying, “Groups like ISIS pull in a lot of similarly righteous young men.”
Nugent’s comments section accuses Ashley F. Miller of “parroting the party line untruths”. It holds her as an example “that cognitive ability does not by itself lead to rationality” because she is not “invested enough in expending the mental effort to do so” and instead finds “a thousand ways to deflect and shift focus than honestly evaluate the evidence.” It then implies that she will consider “every single scenario from brain parasites and…mind control techniques by a reptilian lookalike clone” before entertaining the truth. It said she required “help…to see things clearly” but expecting her to do so was “a little too optimistic”.
Nugent’s comment section ridiculed Ashley F. Miller for crying due to feeling betrayed by her friend, comparing her to “a devout religious person [who] reads about facts, science, evolution, et al” who “can’t handle the truth” and is not “the type of person the atheist, liberal, secular movement should welcome.” Then Nugent’s comment section suggested (as with Alex Gabriel) it was “time to puncture those life-jackets.”
Oddly, Nugent’s comment section says the out-group “happily attribute behaviors and motives to people without bothering to find out or know one thing about them” while engaging in similar conjecture. For example, proclaiming that Rebecca Watson is a “raging tool” who “[hyped] up a relatively trivial incident to distract attention from her obnoxious treatment of Stef McGraw” four years ago.
Nugent’s comments section praised a forum known for ridiculing a small number of targets for years on end, including jokes about kicking Ophelia Benson in the “cunt” and gifs of animals having sex labeled with people’s names, as “a fairly no-holds-barred but fun site” with “robust debate and a daft-laugh” where “humour takes some getting used to not simply because it appears tasteless” but because “there’s layer upon layer [of meaning] and you’ll probably have tears in your eyes long before you reach the center of them”. It was described as “practically the only opposition to the poison being spread amongst us” and “if you like irreverent, bawdy company and have a sense of humour, you will do absolutely find there.”
Nugent’s comment section went on to describe this forum as “rough & tumble” where “mentally adding a winkie or a [/sarcasm] tag to the end of every 3rd post … can enhance the … viewing experience for those who find themselves becoming concerned about what they read.” It is described as “an open, freewheeling and occasionally very crude and/or rude place” “sophomoric and brilliant” “hysterically funny” and the photoshop work is described as “satirically and artistically fantastic”. Nugent’s comments section explains that the forum provides “top-notch analysis of the failings of [named individuals]” and the “best way of keeping yourself up to date with [their] antics” and that the forum “deserve[s] our gratitude”. Nugent’s comment section says, “It [does] not matter…if the [forum] was sometimes offensive or sometimes angry.”
Nugent’s blog comments suggest that the “point of the [forum] is to see how far Myers has fallen” but that such information can now be found on Nugent’s blog.
Conclusion
These are only some examples of Nugent’s comments section’s harmful rhetoric.
It might be possible to interpret any one example of this unrelenting character assassination charitably, and certainly Nugent’s comments section can hide behind a wall of unkind, hyperbolic or polemic words written by PZ Myers over several YEARS; pretend that issues of civility were never addressed and continue to use Myers’ incivility to justify an obsessive harassment campaign against a number of targets.
Ironically, the sheer quantity of this obsessive rhetoric can seem to minimize the harm of each example. It is easy for us to become desensitized to the reality of four years of related ridicule and harassment framed as reasonable discourse. In fact, it might be really easy to just ignore it if you aren’t personally a target. Otherwise, it kind of sucks.
Many within the atheist movement have been concerned about Nugent’s comments section for months. Some have responded by publicly ignoring it, either to avoid giving Nugent’s blog comments or the forum it describes the credibility of a response, or to avoid becoming their next target. For example, the last person who strongly called out Nugent’s comment section endured an unprecedented number of blog posts dedicated to scolding him and subsequently the public spectacle of an atheist organization officially disassociating from him.
So The Melby Foundation is now publicly dissociating ourselves from the well-poisoning and dehumanizing, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of Nugent’s blog comments. We are asking all ethical organizations and individuals to consider how you can help to reverse its harmful impact.
The Melby Foundation
Executive Committee
14 April 2015
[Large portions of this post have been copied from a document publicly presented by Atheist Ireland. It has been modified and used for the purposes of political commentary. Don’t DMCA me bro.]
PS: Okay – I’ve had my fun. However, serious time:
I have no doubt that Michael Nugent and his organization are absolutely sincere and do great work. I don’t doubt one bit that they are flabbergasted at how angry some people are about what they see as a common sense call for civility but, in reality, consists of a loud and clumsy butting-in to a complex situation.
I already know that Atheist Ireland will interpret impatience caused by emotional exhaustion, irritability caused by being embattled for years and cynicism caused by chronic disappointment as evidence that those upset are part of the “hateful” horde of “cultists” that supposedly worship PZ Myers.
I’m pretty sure almost everyone, including PZ Myers, understands that he has a caustic style and that he is not some sinless innocent that has never said something unfair. If anyone feels the need to pass judgment on his style or any of his words – go right ahead. Though I encourage you to do so in context.
It is clear that PZ Myers’ post making public an account of rape is not the only problem Nugent and Atheist Ireland have with Myers. However, it is also clear that Atheist Ireland fails to grasp the implications of including that issue within a call for civility. Including the fact that Myers helped someone make public her rape in the same statement as complaining that he called someone a “wanker” is beyond the pale insulting. The often-repeated insistence that there is some magical perfect way to make public your rape and Myers should have followed that hypothetical protocol when considering Alison Smith’s request, is off-focus of the more serious issue of the rape itself and how that situation was handled by organizational leaders at the time. Atheist Ireland shows a profound naivete concerning details surrounding that situation as well as the U.S. justice system. It is a classic case of blaming the messenger and it absolutely gives more support to the accused than to those coming forward.
Focusing on Myers, especially exclusive of calling out the obsessive and abusive behavior of others can be excused to some degree since Atheist Ireland is likely not as familiar with those personalities as their targets are. However, allowing smears, insults, exaggerations, and hatred in Nugent’s own blog comments to remain completely unchallenged while preaching civility in platitudinous prolixity within his posts is just plain comedy.
[PS: Clarification: The phrase “exclusive of” refers to Atheist Ireland not acting as an organization in a similar manner regarding others. Nugent has addressed “the Pit” to some extent. Also, to be clear, I do not think that words like “endorsement” accurately describe Nugent’s or Atheist Ireland’s relationship with “the Pit”.]
Realize I went through ONE set of blog comments that were written over the course of three days. I went through ONE set.
I would like Atheist Ireland to consider how absurd their statement must appear to some of us. That, even though Atheist Ireland had expressed unease with PZ Myers’ tone previous to their statement – that the statement only came after Nugent fixated on something PZ Myers said about Nugent personally. After which, Nugent incessantly asked for an apology from Myers.
At the same time, Nugent was (and still is) being praised by members of an online forum that may very well (as Nugent’s comment section indicates) include great “skeptic” conversation, but none the less, has been largely dedicated to ridiculing a specific group of people for several years, including (but certainly not limited to) photos manipulated to show their favorite targets judging rapes at a rape competition and cartoons of Melody Hensley that spread half-truths concerning the cause of her mental illness.
I do not want to risk committing the fallacy of relative privation, but maybe you should read the comments?
If you want to set yourselves up as the atheist civility police – do your job.
SINMANTYX 
Usually when someone tells you you’ve cross a line, you address it directly. If you made a mistake you apologize. If you don’t believe you did you state that and why. You clarify what you can to eliminate misunderstandings.
To don’t ignore it for weeks, allow and encourage your BFFs to attack, continue with insults
PZ is a cunt.
You are a dipshit.
M.A. Melby:
While I will concede that you may have some reasonable points, and that at least some of the comments on Nugent’s blog qualify as “cheap shots”, I would say many of your other ones look rather untenable.
For instance, you say in your “concluding remarks”:
For one thing, one might say that Charlie Hebdo was also “largely dedicated to ridiculing a specific group of people for several years”. Is that too beyond the pale? Seems a better question for you would be asking whether the ridicule is justified or not.
Apropos of which, something from my comment on Ashley Miller’s blog (currently in moderation):
So you can’t really throw many stones at that particular rape joke unless you’re prepared to address the issue that the joke was designed to satirize. As was suggested relative to Charlie Hebdo, “Contexte!, Contexte! Toujours le contexte!”
While you suggest a reasonable case, it seems to consist mostly of accusations without any substance or evidence to support them.
—-
1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2015/04/10/the-background-of-atheist-irelands-breakup-with-pz-its-about-michael-shermer/#comment-484523”;
2) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=202353#p202353”;
You are obviously correct regarding civility – in every way. Thank you so much for your insight. I will adjust my actions accordingly.
The post should be taken as a comment concerning hypocrisy and priorities – not implying categorical support or condemnation for all the statements featured.
PS: But as far as the implication that Hensley deserves the ridicule she receives, I would frankly ask you to avoid that subject with me. If you want information concerning the issue, follow the link I provided.
Seems to me that whatever your argument is about “hypocrisy and priorities”, unless whatever evidence you’re adducing in support of it actually holds water then I can’t see that you have much of a case.
As for Hensley, I’ve generally argued, on several blogs and directly to Lindsay if I’m not mistaken, that she certainly didn’t deserve all of the ridicule directed her way. A portion of my comment in Ashley Miller’s blog on that point:
While I very much sympathize with her, my argument was that if she’s unable to differentiate between friend and foe, and is so quick to characterize all criticism as harassment then maybe she shouldn’t be on the front lines.
—-
3) “_https://twitter.com/MelodyHensley/status/453916234418253824”;
I think I prefer the brazen hatred on display from Ash to the interminable turgid scribble purporting to be an argument from one of the Slymepit’s pseudo-intellectuals below, but by all means, slimers, if all else fails just keep posting. It only makes you guys look worse (by demonstrating Marian’s point).
Pingback: Going ionic, dissociating all over the place - Atheist Boutique
We should discuss this at length – maybe a different day. However, suffice to say that I viewed that exchange very differently than you did.
I love it. DEEP RIFTS! Please continue … these situations bring clarity to the various issues and perspectives in the movement.
You may not be aware, but Michael Nugent has posted critically about the Slymepit before:
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/03/examples-of-nasty-pushback-against-some-feminists-on-the-internet/
and
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/07/slymepit-members-struggle-with-the-ethics-of-removing-photoshopped-naked-image/
In the latter example he collated a large number of comments (which he seemingly believed fit the description of “nasty pushback”) in rather the same manner as Atheist Ireland has done with comments made by P Z Myers. Although the context here is that he’s asking his interlocutor which of these examples he finds morally unjustified.
While I understand the crux of this post, Nugent only touched on the Pharyngula commentariat briefly . His primary focus has been PZ Myers, and there’s really no litany of past remarks from Nugent comparable to the one AI gathered and published with respect to Myers ( some of which were unfair and dubious, but many others legitimate in my view) which would have been a more appropriate focus of response.
Thanks so much! After I publish my post, a friend mentioned that Nugent had written about “the Pit” previously and I was planning to link one in the spirit of fairness once I found it – so you saved me some work. I’ll add a clarification onto the post.
Thanks again.
No problem ! ^^
I see no hatred.
Objectively, PZ’s response to Nugent asking PZ to retract his statement was cowardly. He never addressed the complaint. He dismissed it all as Nugent being obsessed and worse.
Marian and all you FTBullies bought into that, defended it, perpetrated it.
You are complicit in PZ’s bullshit. I assumed Marian did that out of ignorance, that would mark her as a dipshit. If Marian did that knowingly because she is also a cunt, well then she is also a cunt.
Noting this is not hatred.
Yes Nugent did post some criticisms of the ‘pit, but they are pretty weak tea compared to the outright and formal disassociation of Myers by his whole organization. His response there was to try and reconcile the people the ‘pitters with the people they were happily harassing.
Hypocritical is the nicest word I can think of to describe Nugent’s approach here.
https://twitter.com/MAMelby/status/587641334841786369
Pingback: And I’ll get to Scotland afore ye
“One” might say that, but “one” would be spectacularly wrong. Charlie Hebdo was, and is, dedicated to ridiculing and satirizing a large number of targets, including but not limited to the French Right Wing, the Catholic Church, xenophobia, sexism, and racism.
Your analogy is characteristically inapt. Your attempt to justify the Slymepit by comparing it to Charlie Hebdo would be laughable if it weren’t repellent.
“One” might say that, but “one” would be spectacularly wrong. Charlie Hebdo was not dedicated to ridiculing a specific group of people.* Charlie was, and is, dedicated to ridiculing and satirizing a large number of targets, including but not limited to the French Right Wing, the Catholic Church, xenophobia, sexism, and racism.
Your analogy is characteristically inapt. Your attempt to justify the Slymepit by comparing it to Charlie Hebdo would be laughable if it weren’t repellent.
* That would be harrassment.
This is to MAM since it seems I cannot reply directly due to WP limits.
1) If you have an issue directly with Nugent, well, take it up with him directly. Via blog post, email, phone call, or perhaps tweets.
2) Documenting your issue via a link to a twitter conversation is begging most people to skip it once it gets beyond a certain amount of twitter complexity. Twitter sucks. If you are claiming Nugent misquoted you and then ignored your reaching out, I encourage you to write a blog post detailing that, because rethreading Twitter conversations and then putting them in context causes migraines.
Sorry, I am not a tween girl nor have tween girls so your frozen reference is lost on me.
3) You are saying let it go? What does that mean?
a) you let your issue with nugent go?
b) nugent should let his issue with myers go?
Why should Nugent leave a defamatory post by a prominent american atheist leader go? Especially when it directly impacts his work at Atheists Ireland and the work of Atheist Ireland? Especially when it is especially scurrilous? Especially when if it was a small miscommunication it should be easily cleared up? Especially when the myers doubles down and doesn’t just ignore it but compounds it calling nugent obsessed etc.?
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and you have accepted so many many standards.
Yes.
Don’t worry about it so much.
Not all of it, but most of it.
He’s not required to, obviously, but best not to escalate.
There are more options than demanding apologies.
Highlighting this dispute to the public in official releases is likely counterproductive.
There is some truth to it.
It could even be easily ignored.
That is not “doubling-down”: http://www.michaelnugent.com/?s=myers
Lady Mondegreen:
So much fail, so little time. 😉 Though I appreciate that you at least conceded that “one might say X”. Commonly called suggesting a hypothesis. Which you obviously thought didn’t hold much water. But consider …
Apart from wondering which dictionary you’re using to base that (largely baseless) definition for “harassment” on, I might point out that the SlymePit is more or less an “equally opportunities” ridiculer: there are very few topics and people that don’t come under the guns at one point or another. Although I’ll concede that FTB gets the lion’s share of that – y’all should feel honoured. But you might note that the topics, for both discussion and ridicule, include [1] AtheismPlus, “feminism”, “Social Justice Warriors”, Skepchiks, music, musical instruments, skepticism, Israel-Palestine, and various Pitters including yours truly [2] – one of the ‘cleaner’ and more amusing ones although maybe not the most flattering.
Seems that you too are rather unclear on the concept of analogies [3], and the meaning of the word “compare” [4] – a deficiency, on both accounts, that you seem to share with Ophelia Benson so you’re maybe in “good” company. But while I know many of you in FreeFromThoughtBlogLand have an aversion to even the concept of dictionaries, much more so to opening one, you might at least consider a salient definition for the latter:
I certainly wasn’t arguing that the SlymePit and Charlie Hebdo were exactly the same; I was only suggesting that there were some significant similarities – e.g., some coarse humour that requires some effort to understand (AKA considering context & nuance); relatively wide range of targets for ridicule; and, notably, commitment to free speech – without in any way trying to deny that there were significant differences – e.g., size of readership; odious responses by the dogmatic (although PZ seems to get rather apoplectic when talking about the Pit); and wider range of targets.
But you might also note that the process of comparing lies at the heart of analogies which have been called “the core of cognition”. For example, consider this salient portion of that article:
Ergo, not a particularly “inapt” analogy. Q.E.D. 😉
—-
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=29”;
2) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=264969#p264969”;
3) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy#Identity_of_relation”;
4) “_http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compare”;
Xanthë:
Maybe there’s less problem with my argument than there is with your reading comprehension – maybe you’re just so narrow-minded that if you fell on a pin you’d be blind in both eyes ….
I’ve tripped on and fallen over many things which I did not see, but I can see empty sophistry by daylight.
On a post about the hypocrisy of Nugent wanting civility with respect to blog posts while allowing the same sort of perceived incivility in his comments, you have to try to shift the discussion to if the comments are justified. This is fascinating because I’ve been pointing out that Nugent’s outrage about PZ’s words have been unjustified since the beginning.
Literally unjustified. It’s all been arguments about the tone making atheists look bad, which are independent of if PZ’s words are justified. I’m sure your attempts to justify the quotes provided by Melby will look very fascinating.
In your opinion. Absent evidence – FLOOSH. So to speak ….
Joshua White:
Not at all; you can’t have read much of either Melby’s post or of Nugent’s response, both of which indicated that her post consisted of two parts: the first where she had had her “fun” satirizing (more or less) the comment section of Nugent’s earlier post, and the second – “the serious time” – where, as I indicated, she presented her argument. And a salient if not crucial element of that argument was her accusation that “an online forum … has been largely dedicated to ridiculing a specific group of people for several years”.
And since one might argue that if her argument is to hold any water then each of the elements, each of the compartments, has to do likewise, my challenge of her implied premise that ridicule is necessarily and categorically beyond the pale would seem to raise some serious questions about that element – and thereby about her entire argument. And given Myers’ own ridicule of the religious (“Crackergate”) – and likewise that by Ronald Lindsay (“International Blasphemy Day”), and by Bill Maher (“Religulous”) – I would say that Myers, and company, might have some difficulty in reasonably defending that premise. The standard you create or promote can’t be the one you walk by – so to speak.
Now one might reasonably question whether all of the ridicule by that nefarious “online forum” is actually beyond the pale or not. And I’ve certainly argued, as have other members thereof, that some of it qualifies as “cheap shots”, or as “gratuitously nasty”, or as simply juvenile. But Myers’ dismissing it all as “piss-poor satire”? (1). Methinks he’s just whistling past the graveyard.
—–
1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/15/going-ionic-dissociating-all-over-the-place/comment-page-1/#comment-933232”;
Re: Steersman
Oh I saw both parts. The Satire and the serious part. You will have to explain to poor uneducated me the reasons why this is important to the fact that you have ignored my entire comment independent of this very small part. You coward. Same as you ever were ( I’m Brony, Social Justice Cenobite to be fair).
Your words to Mondgreen,
Oh. So the Pit’s biases trend towards FTB. You said to me,
So you were lying about equal opportunities and used quotes for purely rhetorical gain. Fuck you are a dishonest piece of crap.
You have refuted yourself. Melby is even more justified in pointing to the Slymepit when it comes to criticism with respect to FTB and PZ. Thanks to you.
You really can’t see their premise can you? Did you see that thing about hypocrisy and comments (that I also talk about in this comment)? You might want to acknowledge that if you want to look honest.
They pointed that out to show the hypocrisy. It’s not a premise, it’s a supporting point. Nugent criticized ridicule and allows ridicule in his comments. Stop ignoring their actual premise. Coward X2.
That seems very unsupported. So far FTB is very comfortable with ridicule for you and other pitters, and Dawkins, Nugent…tough shit. What matters is if the ridicule is descriptive. Nugent has so far whined about ridicule without saying why the ridicule is a problem.
I’m sorry but you seem to be whining about something that happened after the OP. You need to explain the relevance.
Not based on your contribution.
Joshua White (AKA Brony):
Largely because the charge of hypocrisy from Melby – i.e., that Nugent was “wanting civility with respect to blog posts while allowing the same sort of perceived incivility in his comments” – was null and void because Nugent wasn’t criticizing the comments in Myers blog, but Myers’ own comments; it was a red-herring, a misdirection to take the heat off PZ. Although I’m happy to see that she conceded there was some justification for that heat. But if you want to enlarge the scope to blog comments then I expect someone will be prepared to accommodate you.
Up yours dickhead. For a supposed “rhetorical assassin” self-tasked with bringing enlightenment to the benighted masses, you sure don’t seem to be willing to come out from behind PZ’s skirts all that often.
Dickhead(x2). And you seem to be suffering from Tourette’s syndrome. Apart from other delusions.
I said “the SlymePit is more or less an ‘equal opportunities’ ridiculer”. And your point is largely splitting hairs, and throwing out a boat load of red herrings: ridicule is ridicule, regardless of the size or composition of the group. My point was that there’s frequently a justification for ridicule, and that Melby’s argument as to it’s validity and who gets to use it was largely null and void – at least absent an analysis of the reason and basis for it.
Apropos of which, you might note that Nugent also argued “I have no problem with satire if it is aimed at the right target.” So – both Nugent & Myers think satire/ridicule are not beyond the pale. So why is Melby throwing stones at blog commenters for using that instrument of rhetorical assassination?
To repeat, a red herring. Nugent’s arguments from square one have, apparently or largely, been about PZ’s own comments, not about those on his blog. Nugent and company aren’t disassociating from the Pharyngula commentariat, but from PZ himself. There is maybe some justification for questioning the merit of disassociating in general – bit of a two edged sword, and it may be more conducive to pyrrhic victories than not. However, given Richard Carrier’s post (1) kicking all of the CHUDs to the curb, and ushering in the birth of AtheismPlus – a bit of an abortion when you get right down to it – I would say PZ & Melby, among others, are living in a rather vulnerable glass house.
So we all – including Nugent – can agree ridicule is, in principle at least, well within the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Except when it’s directed at people like Myers. And Hensley. And Benson. And …. To which one might also say, “Tough shit”. Tit-for-tat, sauce for the goose and all that. Unless we can find some common ground here that the ridicule has to at least be fair, and that people should give due consideration to it if it is, then I can’t see that there’s likely to be much progress. Ony a degeneration into “Total War”.
What the hell does that have to do with it? Seems virtually all of the Pit satire/ridicule is descriptive in one way or another, although I’ll concede that some of it might not be particularly flattering or fair.
What difference does that make? I provided the link (2) to something that buttressed my suggestion that while PZ apparently makes a great to-do about championing the use of satire in general, he’s not very willing to consider that there might be some merit in some of that directed at him. Nor is he particularly consistent – which some people less charitable than I might characterize as hypocritical. (3)
Apart from noting that that kind of qualifies as a case of stereotyping – kind of like sexism, I guess that kind of depends on one’s point of view or frame of reference, doesn’t it? Kind of like the spinning dancer illusion. (4)
—–
1) “_https://web.archive.org/web/20150416092940/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207”;
2) “_https://web.archive.org/web/20150416025502/http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/15/going-ionic-dissociating-all-over-the-place/comment-page-1/#comment-933232”;
3) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=269106#p269106”;
4) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_Dancer”;
For goodness sakes Steersman – I never said that ridicule was categorically not okay. Nugent is the only one, as far as I know, who has come close to saying that.
My point is simple: Nugent and Atheist Ireland are calling out Myers for being rude and saying things that they think are unfair on his blog throughout the years. However, Nugent does not call the same behavior out on his own blog comments.
This is not a *direct comparison* – but it is a useful comparison. It is particularly useful since a conflict between Myers and Nugent (that preceded the statement by AI) was about Nugent’s blog comments.
Nugent’s defense was that he hadn’t moderated his comments yet – and he deleted a few. That wasn’t my problem though – I tend to go with relatively free comments sections myself.
My problem is that he and AI appear to be aggressively calling out behavior by Myers while Nugent is *giving a platform to* similar behavior (or even worse depending on how justified you believe it to be) WITH LITTLE OR NO CHALLENGE by any of them.
A while ago, Nugent attempted to impose a “dialog” between a few FtB bloggers and people they considered harassers – raising the legitimacy of “the Pit” to the level of some sort of aggrieved faction that needed to be “heard” and reconciled with. At that time, they seemed to have this bizarre idea that simply not wanting to be associated with a group of people was somehow a problem; even if the behavior of the group being ignored was particularly awful and hostile.
Saying they don’t want to associate with Myers when they previously where practically trying to force Benson and Myers to have “peace talks” with a group that enables and promotes abuse like this shit…
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/03/examples-of-nasty-pushback-against-some-feminists-on-the-internet/
…is bad enough – but they get to decide who they invite to parties – fine – cool – whatever. I don’t blame them for decided not to invite Myers to future cons. But the post they created about Myers was over-the-top and made a spectacle out of that disassociation – which appears to be a strong statement that *Myers* is THE problem – and the ONLY problem within this deep conflict.
I mean – they even mentioned the porcupine bullshit (which I thought was really awful too) – but was called out and retired over TWO YEARS ago.
I know there are differences between my post and AI’s – It’s the comments! Myers is more popular! Myers spoke at Atheist Ireland! That is why the comparison is not direct. However, that doesn’t mean the comparison is not meaningful.
You seem to have a habit of thinking that, what is not perfect, is worthless.
You and I disagree on a great number of things, very important things – but one thing that I appreciate about you, is that you, at least attempt, to call it as you see it.
So – I’d be interested in how you would answer Joshua’s question.
You seem terribly passive aggressive.
As I said, take it up with him directly on a medium other than twitter.
As to your advice he should let it go, I find it difficult to believe that you, a physics professor and so someone who requires the respect and consent of the community to teach and mentor students would let go similar scurrilous accusations.
You might let it go because you could not afford the cost of a lawyer.
I doubt that if you let it go and did not mention it again that internally you would not be very angry, very frustrated, resentful, and did not characterize your inability to seek redress as some form of oppression (if not patriarchal oppression.)
Instead of saying let it go, and offering their are better alternatives, you should be constructivist and make clear what those alternatives are.
I understand you think there is *some* merit to PZ’s claim, but that also suggests you think there is some merit to Nugent’s claim. If so, the ethical position is to stop blaming the victim and inform PZ that you think Nugent’s claim has merit and that PZ should behave ethically.
“1) If you have an issue directly with Nugent, well, take it up with him directly. Via blog post, email, phone call, or perhaps tweets.”
Then says:
“As I said, take it up with him directly on a medium other than twitter.”
I mean – I’ve been accused of goal-post moving before – but that – that was fantastic.
If you want to use twitter, by all means.
Don’t complain when no one can understand the spaghetti of tweets.
If you want me to admit I shifted the goalposts because you handed me a plate of spaghetti and assumed I could sort the threat out, fine.
But you handed me a plate of spaghetti, at which point I said, twitter sucks.
In the meantime, you haven’t answered any of the questions I raised.
As I said, you are passive aggressive.
I’m from Minnesota. We call that “nice” here.
PS: *psst* I also actually did answer all your questions. https://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/the-melby-foundation-official-statement-of-disassociation/#comment-3451
Pingback: Joey and Angel Foundation Disassociates from Pharyngula Horde | Blue Ball Skeptics
Pingback: New Flash: Pharyngula comments exhibit rudeness. | SINMANTYX
It was me who posted the comment “ridiculing” Ashley F. Miller crying. It was MEANT to be ridicule, although by Pharyngula standards, it was very tame. Ashley’s statement smacked of the cult in-group shock of realizing there are people (a LOT of people) who do not share the SJW-riddled agenda of the FTBullies. Plenty of abuse has been thrown from the FTBullies to “out-group” members, plenty of demands to shun “out-group” members, plenty of lies about “out-group” members sending threats and abusing their cult leaders (Watson, Myers, Benson, Szvan, etc.). Ashley NEVER said a thing, and her reaction to recent events simply smacks of a devout religious elder suddenly discovering their son/daughter does not follow their faith. Tears and anger follow.
Anyway, I certainly stand by my “puncture the life-jackets” statement with regard to ridding the likes of PZ, the Melby Foundation, the FTBullies, Skepchick, etc. from the atheist, secular, liberal movement. We don’t want you, and we don’t need you. You have hurt far too many people for us to believe you are part of any progressive movement. I said you were on the wrong side of history years ago. THE KING was correct, as per usual.
I wasn’t sure if I should approve Richard Sanderson’s comment or not.
Then, I thought, I really should give it the response it deserves.