I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I should be all tickled pink. The Blue Ball Skeptics have finally done the inevitable and pointed out that *gasp* the comments section on Pharyngula is really rude.
I know.
This is news to all of us.
None of us were aware of this.
The sky has fallen.
For the record, the comparison I made between Myers comments throughout the years and Nugent’s comment section throughout a three day period was simply to point out Nugent’s (and Atheist Ireland’s and the Secular Policy Institute’s, etc) selective policing; as well as how odd it seemed that an organization would “dissociate” from a blogger with whom they had no on-going formal relationship.
I was not trying to make any sort of blanket defense of Myers (or his comment section) as I do absolutely think they occasionally cross the line. I had hoped that I had made that clear in the second part of my post. I also think it is true, however, that quite a bit of criticism that is hurled their way is exaggerated and needlessly persistent.
Something that struck me, when reading The Blue Ball Skeptics piece is that almost all of the examples from Myers’ comments section were just variations of “Fuck off”.
Fuck you, you piece of shit.”
“FUCK YOU. SERIOUSLY, FUCK YOU.”
“Fuck you, you lying sack of shit.”
“And before I forget: fuck you too!”
“Fuck you and your alleged skepticism.”
“…while you’re at it, go fuck yourself.”
“Oh fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
While the examples that I found from Nugent’s comment section were of a different variety.
Instead of angry expletives, many of them were fanciful flights of whimsy and fear mongering. They painted this bizarre picture where people that they disagreed with were a vast conspiracy of raging do-nothing sociopath cultists ripe for ISIS recruitment and worse than Pol Pot.
That bizarre narrative is not unlike the more general dismissals of people with new ideas as “Social Justice Warriors” “Cultural Marxists” “special snowflakes” “professional victims” and whatever-the-hell-else. This isn’t a new phenomena and they are completely and utterly on-message. I could play talking-points bingo all day.
The mad dash to make comparisons concerning civility is in full force, as well as simultaneously saying it’s not about civility but about “smears”.
For example, someone challenged me to find *anything* as bad as what Myers’ has said anywhere in the Slyme Pit.
In about a minute, I found a thread called “Bleeding from the Bunghole” which I thought was similar in tone to the cringe-worthy “porcupine” shoving variations that Myers’ comments were once known for. I’m not keen on either of those things, but it’s just crudeness really. I know there was much worse at the Slyme Pit and so does Michael Nugent, but I thought I’d find something that was comparable.
I mentioned this challenge on my twitter and was shortly shown something from a long time ago that I hadn’t yet seen. Apparently, allusions to possibly sticking an ice-pick into the base of the skull of a friend of mine, doesn’t count as “anything” to the person who challenged me.
But that’s not why I’m writing this. I’m writing this because, among all the “Fuck you” comments that the Blue Ball Skeptics pointed out, they included these:
…it is better that someone might occasionally get a bad reputation they do not deserve than that serial rapists should continue to get away with being serial rapists.”
“What’s happening is some women want to warn other women that Michael Shermer is a serial rapist.
What I have pointed out, what Ashley Miller has pointed out and what Secular Woman has pointed out is that scolding someone for speaking about their rape is different than scolding someone for saying other shit you find embarrassing.
Michael Nugent:
Go ahead and be annoyed about name-calling or get defensive because God-Dawkins is being “smeared” for using the term “mild” in the most inappropriate way imaginable. Express how you think attacking prominent atheists is counter-productive by attacking not-quite-as-prominent ones.
Do whatever floats your boat. You can claim the moral high-ground and play pious peace-maker. And yes, I absolutely know that you are trying to do the right thing however much I think you’ve stepped in it.
You may feel overwhelmed by the criticism, but there is something that you could do.
Please ask Atheist Ireland to amend their statement to not include “he has accused a named person of committing a serious crime without employing the journalistic ethics expected in reporting on such an allegation” because we all know what that statement is referring to.
The ethics of such a disclosure is a discussion that must not be conflated with discussions of civility and certainly not discussions of what you think makes atheists look bad. However much you want to believe that attacking Myers on this point is attacking his lack of “journalistic ethics” and not attacking the woman who made the disclosure, you’re wrong.
And to everyone else, if you think that a woman disclosing a traumatic experience in an effort to prevent other women from being raped should be in the same list of sins as “colorful suggestions about what they may or may not do with a rotting porcupine” well…
…go fuck yourself.
SINMANTYX 
So Nugent’s employing the Ethics-in-Games-Journalism defense, then (the Real Sexists are the ones who are judging my toys / my idols / my conferences as sexist). It hadn’t occurred to me before, but you’re quite right.
To be clear, do you see no problem in accusing someone of being a serial rapist based on the information available at the time of the grenade post?
Also – making public an accusation and “accusing” are two different things. Presumably the person making the accusation has much more information than we do.
PS: If you are asking if I think using the term “rapist” to describe Michael Shermer was appropriate at the time, assuming the post was the only information someone knew, I don’t believe so. I personally would have (and still tend to) use qualifying language such as “accused” when specifically referencing Michael Shermer. There is evidence of other victims, but I also think “serial” is inappropriate, especially at the time. When referencing the disclosure, however, I call it a disclosure of being raped because that’s what it is.
Also – a comment I made on Nugent’s blog.
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/15/response-to-part-ma-melby/#comment-1725801
“Shermer could have put this case in front of a court himself by forwarding a libel case. He decided not to do that.
The statute of limitations has passed for both sexual assault and libel.
Yet people still say these things:
“That’s why we foolish sheeple would prefer to wait for the courts before trashing reputations over criminal matters rather than letting citizen sooper sleuths pass judgement on people they hold grudges against.”
That is what I’m talking about.
There is no court coming to save you from having to make your own decision about this. Sorry.
Further – NOBODY that I have seen has even hinted at any sort of “lynching” – so the ridiculous notion that anyone is assuming the same sort of authority as an actually honest-to-goodness court is just a cop-out.
(Get it – a cop-out.)
I know you are unhappy about how the allegations originally were made public because you wanted a situation where Shermer had a chance to defend himself – but the only way that could happen is if the accuser gave up her anonymity.
In some ways, making public the allegation which was already rumor – gave him more of a chance to defend himself than he would have otherwise.
I know you want to make parallels with the Rolling Stone case. I think that Oppenheimer did a much better job living up to journalistic ethics than that.
Whether or not PZ Myer should have published what he did is not a clear-cut ethical question. He certainly had a responsibility to not publish if there was evidence that the account was impossible or otherwise not credible.
For example, remember when someone made up a claim of rape against a FtB blogger was wasn’t in the same country at the time it supposedly happened? I do. I suspect that was some sort of weird “object lesson” but it illustrated how it is not as easy as people think to just make something up and have it stick.
I am well aware that this whole situation is much much less than ideal.
In a better world where our culture considers accounts of rape more reasonably, the people that were told what happened at the time would have acted much better and the person making the claim would not have to worry that she would be retaliated against or otherwise harassed and assumed to be lying and malicious motivations manufactured to rationalize convenient dismissals.
There are serious ethical questions about how events unfolded and how information was made public – and some of that rests with PZ Myers – but a large portion of it does not.
As far as I know, PZ Myers relayed information that he had every reason to believe was accurate, making clear how he obtained the information – and the people reading that information had a responsibility to act on it *given it’s level of uncertainty*.
If the only information made available was that post – the only action I would have taken in response was not to party with him [Shermer].
Given the subsequent information made available – I would rather not be near him.
That is a choice I get to make.”
M.A. Melby (OP):
GMAFB. Sure, some of them qualify as that. And I’ve even argued that one person in particular, though hardly unique in this regard, was “long on theory but short on evidence” – and at some length. But one might argue the same thing takes place on Pharyngula and on your blog – “patriarchy”, and “rape culture!!111!!”, and “sex is a social construct”, and “blacks can’t be racist”, anyone?
Seems to me that you, everyone actually, might want to give some serious thought to the concepts of reification (1) & pareidolia (2). Although I’ve just had a tweet come across my desk informing me of “33 conspiracies that turned out to be true” (3) which is, I’m sure, entirely credible …..
I can sympathize, although I might point out that you’re not really comparing apples and oranges. In one case there are comments on various blogs – Pharyngula, SlymePit, Nugent’s – and in the other case there are the websites themselves and their owners. Maybe it’s a somewhat minor point, but I think one can still argue that the latter should be held to a higher standard.
However, it seems to me that there might still be some merit in pushing the concept of reasonable levels of civility. Unless you want to see the continued existence of the type of “ridicule” directed Hensley’s way. The standard you walk by, sauce for the goose, and all that.
But this seems the crux of your argument:
While I have a number of criticisms of that position, I do sympathize with it, and will actually concede that Nugent may not have been entirely fair to Myers regarding the latter’s “Grenade” post. Which I have argued at some length on Ashley’s blog (4).
However, it looks rather disingenuous, if not actually dishonest, for the 3 of you, apparently, to be conflating “scolding someone for speaking about their rape” with having to deal with barefaced accusations from Myers that Shermer was in fact a rapist – and that Nugent himself was defending him. As Nugent has pointed out, in no small amount if in prolix detail, the laws about libel in the UK & Ireland seem to be rather different and substantially “stickier” than they are in the US. And while one might reasonably question what justification Nugent has for trying to impose the consequences of the former on Myers, given the efforts to develop some international standards and objectives and policies for “the atheist movement”, I don’t see that the issue is at all trivial, or one that can be swept under the rug.
—–
1) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)”;
2) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia”;
3) “_http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/”;
4) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2015/04/18/an-open-letter-to-michael-nugent/#comment-485442”;
If we agree that it was especially inappropriate to label him a serial rapist, at the time, based on the publicly available evidence, then your major complaint seems to be that the hateful and violent rhetoric (fuckoffery and bizarre fantasies of sexualised violence, respectively) was admixed with the defamatory rhetoric (accusations of serial rape). We stand guilty as charged, but consider that we were copying of a template of a copied template. Too many modifications and the satire just isn’t sticky.
“For example, remember when someone made up a claim of rape against a FtB blogger [who] wasn’t in the same country at the time it supposedly happened?”
Wasn’t that the same blogger who took repeatedly credit for other people’s words and made up a number of fabulous tales?
http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2015/01/04/a-farewell-to-avicenna/
Keep in mind that I make a distinction between “inappropriate” and “defamatory”.
In my opinion, none of those statements were defamatory. “Defamation” and “libel” require *knowledge of falsity* or *reckless disregard for the truth*.
I also don’t see all the porcupine business as being “bizarre fantasies of sexualized violence” – but simply needlessly crude, to the point where it may certainly make someone uncomfortable in the way you describe.
“Go fuck yourself with a [something nasty]” is not the same as “I hope you get r***d” – but it’s close enough conceptually that it should be avoided.
There is a real difference though – and an important one. The former is something outlandish enough not to be treated seriously, while the latter is too close to reality to be divorced from it’s literal meaning.
The same thing with “Die in a Fire” – it’s a really nasty thing to say to someone but it is generally understood as just a very strong way of telling someone to “Go away” and not some sort of threat of arson or even a literal wish for them to “die in a fire”.
Yes.
What does that have to do with it?
PS: Oh. If you’re implying that the e-mail he talked about could have been a lie? I have no idea. I’ll try to find the tweets I’m thinking about, but I suspect they have since been deleted.
Let’s talk about reckless disregard for the truth. Were any of the Pharyngula commenters who accused Shermer of serial rape in a position to confirm or refute the claim of rape which was on the table at the time? If not, how could it have been anything other than reckless to make those claims?
You’re making an assumption there – which might be true – but I certainly don’t know if it is.
Good question. Directed at me or at Melby? In any case, seems it might be useful to determine precisely which commenters said what and when. As I don’t have the “spoons” at the moment [ 😉 ], someone else may wish to do so by starting here. 🙂
I don’t think I’ll ever agree with anyone at Pharyngula now or you or the slymepit about the porcupine-laden goodbyes. They were meant to be funny send offs to people who may as well have been clowns. “Thanks for stopping by. There’s the door. And do grab a porcupine on your way out. :)” People who made them out to be more than that were and are being disingenuous spoilsports. It didn’t make fun of people’s appearances or anything else about them, it wasn’t a slur made against them, it wasn’t anything but comic relief.
Besides, what did Pharyngula get by giving in and eliminating it? Nothing. Nothing has changed. No one stopped hating on PZ or Pharyngula because of it, did they? It was a completely pointless concession, IMO. And look, they still bring it up to whine about even though it hasn’t been allowed there for years!
Gosh – not implying parity at all. I just think the porcupine things is —- gross. And, depending on what is said about the porcupine, the statement can be a little more than gross.
Maybe it’s because I have a vivid imagination and I grew up on a farm – ick.
While I know you know this, M.A., I’d just like to have this up here for those who mightn’t be so familiar.
It’s bullshit false equivalence of the most egregious and intellectually dishonest kind. The pitters and their defenders are either wilfully ignorant or blatantly lying when they try to liken the two, for quite a few reasons – the most significant being the purpose behind the aggression.
Yes, the Pharyngulites can be needlessly harsh, aggressive and offensive. But who is on the receiving end of that? Individuals who’ve come there, at best to debate and at worst to troll. A lot of these people are either anonymous, pseudonymous or blatantly sock-puppeting.
The ‘pitters, on the other hand, co-ordinate to swarm all over different blogs and social media, seeking out people who they wish to shut down and bully out of expressing their opinions. These people are public figures in the atheist community – Rebecca Watson, Stephanie Szvan, Melody Hensley, Jen McCreight and on and on and on. Not anonymous or pseudonymous. Not two people arguing on a blog, but people being targeted by an online hate mob with an agenda of silencing.
I’m responsible for one of the ‘die in a fire’ comments the ‘pitters like to keep referring to. Can any of them tell me the real name of who it was directed towards? No, because I had no idea, and I still have no idea. Richie ‘King Pissant’ Sanderson likes to call me a ‘woman abuser’ because of it, but he’s yet to demonstrate how I knew the poster was a woman given the non-gender specific ‘nym they were using when I said that.
I, however, can look at any number of posts (a large number) on the Slymepit that targets one of the named people I named above. Written days or weeks ago – my ‘die in a fire comment’ was probably two years ago now.
Because I was rightfully called out for what I wrote – by fellow Pharyngula commenters. I tried to argue, but after a while, I realised I was in the wrong. So, when not that long after the incident, I came across the person I’d said it to, I apologised and admitted that it was inappropriate, and an asshole thing to say.
And that apology was accepted by that person. Since then I have not suggested to anyone that they should die in a fire. Nor will I again.
“Just as bad”? Utter fucking bullshit.
As far as I know the whole “women abusers” thing is supposed to be one of his many “object lesson” things he does – in reference to The Block Bot.
I’ve been on that list for a very long time.
My rant on that type of thing: https://twitter.com/MAMelby/status/572274099302608896
If the Pitters have ever openly fantasized about shoving spiky things into private places (which many people associate with sexual pleasure) I do not recall seeing it. Had they done so, I’m guessing it would have been made famous in the manner of the Hoggle c*** punt. But hey, double standards and all.
d4m10n:
True that, they seem to prefer public places.
M.A. Melby:
About the threatened ice-picking, here is the original passage:
I think it’s fair to say that (erstwhile Pitter) Mykeru is getting pretty carried away here in terms of what he’d like to do to Oolon under highly specified and unlikely conditions.
I think it’s also fair to say that Nugent would never permit a post like this to stand on his website, though. While it reflects poorly on the SlymePit, it does not reflect on Mick at all.
It was one of the Slyme PIt mods that gave me the “challenge” – he was defending the Pit in general it seemed. As if a valid reason for AI “disassociating” from Myers and not the Pit was that Myers et. al. are much more terrible than the Pit.
Which seriously – what honest person thinks that’s why?
It’s because the people in the Pit are not treated as seriously as Myers is. Nugent told me as much. Which really, is the only defensible reason to go after Myers for incivility instead of a host of assorted atheist assholes – including some of the folks who comment on Nugent’s blog and constantly love-bomb him for saying bad things about Myers.