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

[laklak]

He's a legend in his own mind, that's for sure.

[Svartalf]

I told my husband today that "PZ Myers thinks everyone on our forum are cockroaches, slimepit denizens, and troglodytes that deserve to be cut loose from the atheist community."

"He sounds like a jackass."

A little later, getting dinner ready:
"Wait a minute-- who the hell is PK Myers?!"

"PZ."

"Whatever."

Wait, There is an "atheist community" for us to get cut loose from?
I thought that was what happened to RDF goers 30 months ago... I'm cutt off already, how does he think he can do it again?

And I do maintain he thinks he's Dawkins' Camerlengo, if he believes he can excommunicate people like that.

[Robert_S]

I told my husband today that "PZ Myers thinks everyone on our forum are cockroaches, slimepit denizens, and troglodytes that deserve to be cut loose from the atheist community."

"He sounds like a jackass."

A little later, getting dinner ready:
"Wait a minute-- who the hell is PK Myers?!"

"PZ."

"Whatever."

Wait, There is an "atheist community" for us to get cut loose from?
I thought that was what happened to RDF goers 30 months ago... I'm cutt off already, how does he think he can do it again?

And I do maintain he thinks he's Dawkins' Camerlengo, if he believes he can excommunicate people like that.

We're all believers now. Not much we can do I guess.



*ring*
Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?

[Svartalf]

Yep, I prayed at him and he answered back "Fuck off, I'm just a figment of your subconscious".

[Seth]

Ah, schism! This is PZ's equivalent of nailing his screed to the door like Martin Luther.

Religion I tell you, it's a religion!

[maiforpeace]

What I want to know is, what is the goal? Pappa is not a public figure and rationalia makes no claims to be any kind of beacon for skepticism, so why post the thread at all? Someone that nobody has any knowledge of before said something offensive somewhere on the internet so members of FTB are outraged go demand they apologize while accusing every member of the site of being rape apologists? Where does it end? I am not arguing about the quality of the post, I just don't get why the fuck it's anyone's concern outside of the forum. Are PZ's minions going to rid the world of all people on forums who say hurtful things? Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of sites with legitimately violent and sexist content that is not apologetic or meant to be humorous, so why not spend your time there? It seems like the focus has been on shaming other people in what they see as their community, and alienating a lot of good people in the process. Maybe we should invite Thunderf00t over.

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

From Pharngula comments.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-413038

Why Pappa’s rape joke wasn’t funny

Dear PZ,

While it’s tricky and acceptable to tell a rape joke, there are instances where they are absolutely unacceptable and inappropriate.

A joke that threatens a specific individual sends this message: you have no value, are powerless, vulnerable and subordinate to me. You are no longer safe. It’s hateful and demeaning.

So I can only imagine what you must been thinking when you saw his post, and a couple of other people joining in the joking. A couple of others spoke out against the joke itself, without denouncing papa for his joke. The rest of the community didn’t say a word.

You may have visited some of our threads about the Skepchicks, reading quite a bit of derision and mockery towards them. And finally, the controversy surrounding the Skepchicks made this joke even more threatening. You had no way of knowing that Pappa wasn’t someone who would never do that by reading a few of posts of his. And frankly I would not expected you to go through the due diligence. If I had just read something that elicited the same his role anger and disgust that Pappa had to this post:http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1196689.

Given the choice of protecting someone’s safety, over someone’s reputation I would take the former.

What you did was the right thing to do, and your readers reaction was perfectly justified, given what they knew. You and your readers were not responsible for the shitstorm that hit Rationalia.

Sincerely,

Mai Dao-Horton

[amused]

Ah, schism! This is PZ's equivalent of nailing his screed to the door like Martin Luther.

Religion I tell you, it's a religion!

Oh do fuck off!

[Jason]

I would like to go on record as saying I do not support Mai's sentiment. If you're going to accuse someone, Pappa (and every member of Rationalia), of being a rapist, condoning rape, and guilty of being threatening and harassing to someone, then the burden on you, as on any rational person, is to fully investigate the matter BEFORE issuing your condemnations en masse. Unlike Mai, I DO expect anyone making such serious and damaging accusations to expend themselves in due diligence. If this had occurred in real life with our real names you can bet you'd have a nasty little lawsuit on your hands. Your conduct was irresponsible and conduct unbecoming for a so-called 'rationalist'. You're a disgrace. I can only hope you perform more diligently in your professional life.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[maiforpeace]

I would like to go on record as saying I do not support Mai's sentiment. If you're going to accuse someone, Pappa (and every member of Rationalia), of being a rapist, condoning rape, and guilty of threatening and harassing someone, then the burden on you, as on any rational person, is to fully investigate the matter BEFORE issuing your condemnations en masse. Unlike Mai, I DO expect anyone making such serious and damaging accusations to expend themselves in due diligence. If this had occurred in real life with our real names you can bet you'd have a nasty little lawsuit on your hands. Your conduct was irresponsible and conduct unbecoming for a so-called 'rationalist'. You're a disgrace. I can only hope you perform more diligently in your professional life.

And that's all I have to say about that.

So feel free to do your due diligence while cower and shake in the corner.

Pappa chose to play with a dangerous weapon, with different consequences than real life. He pointed it at PZ's friends who have been targeted before, and that was how PZ chose to protect them. One of the accidental shots hit us.
But we are an obscure forum, so all really happened is some people were made to feel uncomfortable by untrue accusations. So how exactly were his actions so much more serious? Maybe he's human doesn't respond rationally under when going into protect mode?

[Seth]

Ah, schism! This is PZ's equivalent of nailing his screed to the door like Martin Luther.

Religion I tell you, it's a religion!

Oh do fuck off!

Or what? You'll send out the Atheist Inquisition to cure me of my heresy? I'm right, you're wrong and you know it.

Hah! I wave my privates at your aunties! I fart in your general direction!

[Rum]

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.

[MiM]

I've been thinking some about this case, and e.g. about Audlys attempts to show why PZ was wrong in what he did, attempts which PZ quite easily dismissed as "don't shoot the messenger". So when is it right to "shoot the messenger"? I came to think of one IRL case, which has some interesting things in common. The case of the Mohammed caricatures in Jyllandsposten. There, as here, we have two rather different cultures (western/muslim, open forum/blogosphere) where someone made a statement, that in their own cultural area was relatively benign (I am not saying Pappas joke was ok, just that we are rather used to rough jokes, and everyone here saw it in that perspective), but in the other completely abhorrable.

Then what happened was, that someone else took that information, moved it to a different cultural area, added some of their own and used it to boost their own political agenda and to vilify the whole other culture. In the case of Jyllandsposten, at least the western media was quite clear about the mullahs relaying the message having a large responsibility of what happened afterwards, and not playing in good faith. I believe much of that is also true about PZ Mayers behaviour here.

This contrasts with what Mai have posted, but I don't believe either of our interpretations to be completely right. Life is not black and white.

[Rum]

I would like to go on record as saying I do not support Mai's sentiment. If you're going to accuse someone, Pappa (and every member of Rationalia), of being a rapist, condoning rape, and guilty of threatening and harassing someone, then the burden on you, as on any rational person, is to fully investigate the matter BEFORE issuing your condemnations en masse. Unlike Mai, I DO expect anyone making such serious and damaging accusations to expend themselves in due diligence. If this had occurred in real life with our real names you can bet you'd have a nasty little lawsuit on your hands. Your conduct was irresponsible and conduct unbecoming for a so-called 'rationalist'. You're a disgrace. I can only hope you perform more diligently in your professional life.

And that's all I have to say about that.

So feel free to do your due diligence while cower and shake in the corner.

Pappa chose to play with a dangerous weapon, with different consequences than real life. He pointed it at PZ's friends who have been targeted before, and that was how PZ chose to protect them. One of the accidental shots hit us.
But we are an obscure forum, so all really happened is some people were made to feel uncomfortable by untrue accusations. So how exactly were his actions so much more serious? Maybe he's human doesn't respond rationally under when going into protect mode?

I have a lot of time for your position Mai. I do think that the attack on Pappa was pretty over the top as it happens but since then it has been a case of escalation. We should all be grown up enough to let it simmer down.

[amused]

Ah, schism! This is PZ's equivalent of nailing his screed to the door like Martin Luther.

Religion I tell you, it's a religion!

Oh do fuck off!

Or what? ...

I'm a bleeding heart liberal.

Which means that nothing at all will happen to you.

We fucking love you that much.

[Audley Strange]

I've been thinking some about this case, and e.g. about Audlys attempts to show why PZ was wrong in what he did, attempts which PZ quite easily dismissed as "don't shoot the messenger". So when is it right to "shoot the messenger"? I came to think of one IRL case, which has some interesting things in common. The case of the Mohammed caricatures in Jyllandsposten. There, as here, we have two rather different cultures (western/muslim, open forum/blogosphere) where someone made a statement, that in their own cultural area was relatively benign (I am not saying Pappas joke was ok, just that we are rather used to rough jokes, and everyone here saw it in that perspective), but in the other completely abhorrable.

Then what happened was, that someone else took that information, moved it to a different cultural area, added some of their own and used it to boost their own political agenda and to vilify the whole other culture. In the case of Jyllandsposten, at least the western media was quite clear about the mullahs relaying the message having a large responsibility of what happened afterwards, and not playing in good faith. I believe much of that is also true about PZ Mayers behaviour here.

This contrasts with what Mai have posted, but I don't believe either of our interpretations to be completely right. Life is not black and white.

Wow, thank you MiM.

I have to say though I think in all fairness Mai's point is a strong one, which I did not consider, they're his friends. He was defending them just as we are defending ours. I guess we could question what kind of friend he is but that would imply knowing intent which we cannot know, however the only thing we can say is that for that crowd as they say time and time again intent does not matter.

Yes life is not black and white. However to some it is, they see things in absolute terms, no nuance, apriori assumption as fact. I think if skepticism is about anything it is about challenging that. There is no point in claiming to be "rational" or "skeptical" if you are not going to do that. In a rather crass and tasteless way, has that not been what all of this is about?