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

[rachelbean]

It would be a lot easier if people would realize that being an atheist doesn't make you any kind of person. There are horrible, despicable, thoughtless atheists just like there are thoughtful, kind and lovely christians (I know several). Being an atheist means you don't believe in a God. I think this site is actually one of the best representations of that truth, we have people of all sorts of political and ethical standings. Atheism is not some exclusive club for progressive liberal rational thinkers even if that's what some people really want it to be (and how I may even like to think of myself). The idea that anybody needs to be shamed out of the "atheist community" because their views aren't pretty is ludicrous. I didn't elect any leaders and I don't need any.

[MiM]

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.

Why Who sais you have to ask the same behaviour of your friends as of your enemies. There certainly was a phase of this brawl when razzians didin't apply those standards.

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.

as did the Razz.

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.

This is actually one of my major problems with this whole discussion. Don't you guys really see the wast difference between Pappas "joke", and the comments made by PZ? In Pappas post there was a very real concealed threat (at leas for everyone who didn't know Pappa, or didn't have prior knowledge of the tone of this forum) PZ:s batman/rape tweats had no flavour of threat at all. The difference is wast. PLEASE GET THIS EVERYONE, and stop making yourself stupid by trying to equate those with each other.

[dj357]

This is actually one of my major problems with this whole discussion. Don't you guys really see the wast difference between Pappas "joke", and the comments made by PZ? In Pappas post there was a very real concealed threat (at leas for everyone who didn't know Pappa, or didn't have prior knowledge of the tone of this forum) PZ:s batman/rape tweats had no flavour of threat at all. The difference is wast. PLEASE GET THIS EVERYONE, and stop making yourself stupid by trying to equate those with each other.

This whole debacle started because people assumed the intent of the comments. Given that people on both sides are/were taking/took the comments at face value without doing any critical checking means that the comments can be equated at face value from that point of view.

Furthermore both comments featured elements of humor, so, there's always that.

[orpheus]

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.

Mai, I find this quite disturbing. This is precisely the reasoning many around the world used to blame the Danish cartoonists for the violent response to their work; also to blame Rushdie, etc.

[Badger3k]

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.

Why Who sais you have to ask the same behaviour of your friends as of your enemies. There certainly was a phase of this brawl when razzians didin't apply those standards. [/quote}

Anyone who doesn't want to be a hypocrite, especially if you want to claim some kind of moral high ground. You can't preach for others to do things that you yourself fail to do.

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.

as did the Razz.

Riiiiiight. Who was calling for outing? Who was saying that PZs commentors were rape apologists? Who was saying everyone over there supported rape? Hmm.

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.

This is actually one of my major problems with this whole discussion. Don't you guys really see the wast difference between Pappas "joke", and the comments made by PZ? In Pappas post there was a very real concealed threat (at leas for everyone who didn't know Pappa, or didn't have prior knowledge of the tone of this forum) PZ:s batman/rape tweats had no flavour of threat at all. The difference is wast. PLEASE GET THIS EVERYONE, and stop making yourself stupid by trying to equate those with each other.

See, there your wrong, again. Please, for once, will somebody please point out, in specific, the "threat" in that joke. I'm sorry, still can't see any threat. No one is responsible for what someone sees in their own head. Please, let some people take responsibility for their own delusions and stop trying to make things what they are not. I've had real threats made against me, usually in person, sometimes with weapons. I would have loved for some of them to be jokes with "concealed" threats. I would have given them the response they deserved - a laugh. Before I happened to catch wind of PZs hysterics, I had never heard of Pappa. Never knew him from Adam. I went and looked at the thread, said "Meh" and that was it. Never saw any kind of threat. I suspect you feel differently because you know some of the people involved from the other side. All I know of PZ is what I've learned from reading his blog for the last, hell, I don't know - 7-8 years maybe. The only difference between our points of view is that I see both as jokes - I just hold them to the standards that they themselves espouse. Pappa defends speech even when it is tasteless and rude. PZ wants to control speech that is done by others, but holds a double standard for his friends. That's cheap and morally despicable. It's moral and intellectual cowardice.

There is no difference at all between PZs jokes about the murders in Aurora and his Official Raper and Pappa's. None. Hypocrisy is a nasty word, but you seem fine with double standards in this case. Why? If all you have is, there is a difference, then I can't see continuing this conversation, since it will go nowhere.

Edited to try to fix formatting, but unable to. Not sure why.

[Badger3k]

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.

Mai, I find this quite disturbing. This is precisely the reasoning many around the world used to blame the Danish cartoonists for the violent response to their work; also to blame Rushdie, etc.

In some circles, it's called Victim Blaming, when it's done by your enemies. Apparently it's different when it's done by your friends.

[Badger3k]

It would be a lot easier if people would realize that being an atheist doesn't make you any kind of person. There are horrible, despicable, thoughtless atheists just like there are thoughtful, kind and lovely christians (I know several). Being an atheist means you don't believe in a God. I think this site is actually one of the best representations of that truth, we have people of all sorts of political and ethical standings. Atheism is not some exclusive club for progressive liberal rational thinkers even if that's what some people really want it to be (and how I may even like to think of myself). The idea that anybody needs to be shamed out of the "atheist community" because their views aren't pretty is ludicrous. I didn't elect any leaders and I don't need any.

Granted. It's the same assumption that people have that being any kind of skeptic is going to make you an atheist, or rational about everything. This has been shown to be false many many times.

[Badger3k]

My apologies if anything I said is considered a personal attack - if anything was, please let me know - I'm still learning the ropes here and want to follow the rules.

To add fuel, possibly (but also because I'm curious) is this joke funny?

I won't link to where I got it from, although if anyone wants they can find it pretty easily (or pm me), I don't want to get them involved in the hate fest. I'm torn - it's sarcastic since it refers to both a comment by someone I loath, and refers to the common idea of abuse (which has some basis in reality, if I remember the studies correctly). Other than that, I don't really find it that funny. Funny? No? Inappropriate? Worst sin in the world? Would it have been better if he was talking about murder? Cannibalism?

(ok, maybe cannibalism would be funnier)

ETA - I didn't find it at the downwith... site, I found it reposted elsewhere.

[Rum]

Seems to me we need to move on or at least give this issue a break.

[colubridae]

My apologies if anything I said is considered a personal attack - if anything was, please let me know - I'm still learning the ropes here and want to follow the rules.

To add fuel, possibly (but also because I'm curious) is this joke funny?

I won't link to where I got it from, although if anyone wants they can find it pretty easily (or pm me), I don't want to get them involved in the hate fest. I'm torn - it's sarcastic since it refers to both a comment by someone I loath, and refers to the common idea of abuse (which has some basis in reality, if I remember the studies correctly). Other than that, I don't really find it that funny. Funny? No? Inappropriate? Worst sin in the world? Would it have been better if he was talking about murder? Cannibalism?

(ok, maybe cannibalism would be funnier)

ETA - I didn't find it at the downwith... site, I found it reposted elsewhere.

By 'cannibalism is funnier' do you mean 'murdering someone then eating them' is funnier or do you mean 'eating human road-kill' is funnier?

[Audley Strange]

My apologies if anything I said is considered a personal attack - if anything was, please let me know - I'm still learning the ropes here and want to follow the rules.

To add fuel, possibly (but also because I'm curious) is this joke funny?

I won't link to where I got it from, although if anyone wants they can find it pretty easily (or pm me), I don't want to get them involved in the hate fest. I'm torn - it's sarcastic since it refers to both a comment by someone I loath, and refers to the common idea of abuse (which has some basis in reality, if I remember the studies correctly). Other than that, I don't really find it that funny. Funny? No? Inappropriate? Worst sin in the world? Would it have been better if he was talking about murder? Cannibalism?

(ok, maybe cannibalism would be funnier)

ETA - I didn't find it at the downwith... site, I found it reposted elsewhere.

I don't find it funny. Was it intended to be funny? It's not offensive either because it highlights a very real problem with abuse cycles from generation to generation. Where is the juxtaposition or the reveal or any of the other important factors necessary for humour? At least I could see there was something in Pappa's that related to irony, this sounds merely like a conversation. So no, its not funny and since the subject matter is irrelevant it wouldn't make any difference what it was about.

[Svartalf]

PZ believes way too much of his own press, he actually thinks he is big and strong and powerful and influential enough to redefine the word "atheist". Well, fuck him.

Ok, we get it, PZ is self centered and thinks way too much of himself. Do we have to keep bringing it up and talking about the same thing over and over?

You'd rather we kept coming back over and over, and talking all the time about how much every red blooded male on Rationalia wants to sleep with you? I hear one can get tired of that too

[Wumbologist]

You'd rather we kept coming back over and over, and talking all the time about how much every red blooded male on Rationalia wants to sleep with you? I hear one can get tired of that too

I hear that one can also get tired of people who apparently think that comments like this all the damn time are anything other than rude, obnoxious and off-putting. It may come as a surprise, but I also hear that men and women are capable of having conversations sometimes that don't even have anything to do with sex.

[Jason]

Says the oversexed student from Massachusetts.

[rachelbean]

You'd rather we kept coming back over and over, and talking all the time about how much every red blooded male on Rationalia wants to sleep with you? I hear one can get tired of that too

I hear that one can also get tired of people who apparently think that comments like this all the damn time are anything other than rude, obnoxious and off-putting. It may come as a surprise, but I also hear that men and women are capable of having conversations sometimes that don't even have anything to do with sex.

ARE YOU SERIAL? Me and Pappa only ever talk about the ways he wants me to serve him. I did fall in love with him largely because of the amazing depth of conversation we seemed able to maintain but it turned out it was all a trap and bla bla bla tool of the patriarchy.