Yeesh. This one landed in my spam bin – it would be nice to think it was because Akismet is hyper-intelligent enough to detect substance free nonsense, but I am not that optimistic. It is however the first false positive I’ve found. Quantum sardonics again.
Suffice it to say, it took a while to pick my jaw up off the ground. It’s the sort of thing you want to dismiss as a troll, but to my eye, looking at the pointers, logs and links, it’s the real thing. And that is what is so disturbing. I wanted to reply in the comment thread, but for space considerations it’s here. In any case, it really does need to be filed in its own compartment so it’s not lost in the other noise. It’s just too staggering, in an abandon-all-hope kind of way. Here we go –
PZ Myers Says:
July 24, 2011 at 9:36 pm eI read the blog post in question. I also read this one. Recall that my criticism was this:
If your version of the events requires comically strident exaggeration in order to make a case, you’re definitely wrong, and you are to blame for the discord and confusion.
Your post was exhibit #1 as an example of comically strident exaggeration. What was all that nonsense about a “divine yoni”, “Grand Guignol”, and on and on? None of that was in the video that set the manly world aflame.
It wasn’t Rebecca Watson who made atheists look misogynistic. It is people like you who rant and rave about your god-given right to hit on women and make them uncomfortable any time you feel like it, and who express such inflated outrage at a woman calmly mentioning that she was made uncomfortable (nothing more) by one guy. You represent the creepy segment of the atheist community; are you proud?
After everything that has been said and written, how do you even begin?
“I read the blog post in question” –
No PZ, you did not. Don’t tell fibs. The only way that could possibly be true is if you read it with fem-bot eyes, in which case you would have seen masses of blank space and a few trigger words. This is actually not that unlikely once you consider it for a while.
“you’re definitely wrong, and you are to blame for the discord and confusion” –
Blame shifting? Funny you should say that. I have a local imam that says rape victims are responsible for rape if they want to be sluts and walk around like uncovered meat. You guys should get together.
This is your patented Courtier’s reply again – a distraction. It still begs the question – how do you know I am wrong if you haven’t read anything? What, precisely, is it that I’m wrong about? Emperor, you are buck naked and very cross with me because I know it.
“Your post was exhibit #1 as an example of comically strident exaggeration. What was all that nonsense about…” –
So I take it your ad himinems are also comical, but unlike mine, should be taken as poignant insights? Because when you write on Pharyngula, it has the authority of appealing to yourself? That your implications that anyone that disagrees with you or Watson is sexually impotent, insecure and has a tiny penis meets all acceptable standards of public discourse as far as you are concerned, whereas I do not, and have not earned enough stripes to take such liberties? Thanks for the tip.
“It is people like you who rant and rave about your god-given right to hit on women and make them uncomfortable any time you feel like it”
Reductio ad Watsonum. I believe I covered this in detail here, in one of the very posts you claim to have read. I’ll reiterate for your sake – it was about demonising the other, by equating them to subhumans that consider the brutalisation and rape of women to be sport. I also pointed out how remarkably similar both the language and the approach you are using is to Stormfront posts about Jews. Evidently, this observation causes you no discomfort and you have no inhibitions about carrying on in that manner in public, because you seem to be in the habit of it.
You represent the creepy segment of the atheist community; are you proud?
If it’s by your definition of “creepy“, damn right I’m proud. I am especially proud of the “creepy” women who are similarly coming forward and challenging this repugnant nonsense for what it is. Unfortunately for you, it’s starting to look like they may not be a minority either. There are many who have even done what you are incapable of doing1 and spotted the Watson / Skepchick hypocrisy, manipulations and double standards long before elevators became a google trend.
PZ, it is time to call you and your bullshit for what it is – BULLSHIT.
At least you have shown beyond doubt that you are neither a free- nor a clear-thinker, and that for the perceived benefit of some short term advantage, you are quite prepared to spit on the entire community, including old supposed friends like Dawkins. For what? For pussy that uses crocodile tears and whining as a business model – and itself treats many female community members like shit. Misogynist women fighting misogyny. You are blindly supporting a pack of self-serving, sociopathic maniacs who manage to merge the worst traits of the Holy Inquisition and the RIAA. A destructive, vindictive and spiteful bunch of manipulators that are quite happy to fragment and destroy our entire communities for their own selfish ends.
You sir, are a fucking disgrace. QED.
1 – PZ, one could in fact come to the conclusion, with a higher degree of certainty than your various conclusions about me, that the reason you are so blind to all of this shameless and amoral deceit and manipulation is because you think with your penis.
July 25, 2011 at 2:39 am
FYI –
s: it won’t phase him.
He has decided you are a misogynistic asshole
me: its not for his benefit
And s is a female that’s been on the receiving end of Skepchick misogyny at two separate TAMs. Her description of one –
“I went to introduce myself and I received the coldest response. As if I was in high school and it was as if i dared to talk to one of the popular girls. I even got an “eye roll”. Quite unexpected I might say… I just smiled and pretended I did not receive the response I did. But I watched her, she’s a flirt, a huge flirt with the men (nothing wrong with that, I’m a flirt too), and the women she seems to be nice to, are famous, fellow Skepchicks, and those that can promote her.”
July 25, 2011 at 3:16 am
One name dropped in this whole mess at some point and made me recoil from Watson, PZ et all: Amanda Marcotte.
Read her background (Lacross comes to mind).
It’s not a personal crusade on my part (never heard of Watson or Marcotte before), but damn, that’s some crazy shit allright.
July 25, 2011 at 2:56 am
I’m going to start replying like PZ Myers, instead of reading what he’s written, I’ll skip to a bit and just answer that one statement, but really dishonestly.
Let’s give it a go.
… rant and rave about your god-given right to hit on women and make them uncomfortable any time you feel like it
So after all the years of living a lie, you’ve finally come out of the theist closet and declared yourself a believer who thinks that all morality is handed down by an invisible sky daddy. For shame, PZ Myers, for shame.
July 25, 2011 at 2:57 am
PZ has proven that his feminist leberalosity has clouded his normally rational self. PZ must think he is some fucking knight in shining fembot armor protecting the innocent and helpless princesses. Disgusting.
July 28, 2011 at 8:48 pm
A succinct & accurate summary.
July 25, 2011 at 3:36 am
PZ has to be the elevator guy. It’s why Watson won’t name him and why PZ is so abject – he’s guilt ridden.
July 25, 2011 at 8:17 am
I like that possibility… 🙂
July 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Y’know, the more you think about this, the less ridiculous it sounds. It’s like fundie anti-homo preachers getting caught in a public toilet sucking off a teenager.
July 25, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Throw into the mix that PZ drinks a lot, was at the bar and was almost certainly inebriated, and he snapped the photo of the group at the bar with Watson the center of focus.
Not much to go on, but his posturing on this issue sure looks like penitential self-mortification.
July 25, 2011 at 9:13 pm
On reflection, it’s not fair to say he was inebriated or even that he drinks a lot. It just seems from his posts and vids that he often expresses a fondness for drinking.
July 25, 2011 at 9:47 pm
I don’t even want to go here – booze hating and drug-free atheist jihadis are another awful symptom of the new, new atheist neo-puritanism. I have had equally protracted, and filthy, arguments with those idiots because I defend booze and substance abusers. Hardly need “straight edge” dogma muddying the waters further.
It is a faulty argument to blame chemicals for most things. It’s another way to scapegoat, like blaming “white males” – and I doubt PZ’s corrupted and deranged thinking on this matter can be blamed on just booze. If anything, it’s the kind of holier-than-thou idiocy more indicative of a born again teetotaler.
As for being drunk and elevator groping – that OTOH I could believe. And I would probably have a coronary laughing if that was indeed the case. Just like a homophobe preacher sucking off a minor in a carpark… Unsurprising, but fucking hilarious.
July 25, 2011 at 5:03 am
PZ is still in denial about this. His posts are just bluff and bluster, content-free accusations of misogyny and privilege, because that’s all he’s got.
He is also in denial about what happened. In comments he tends to narrowly discuss the elevator incident and Watson’s original youtube video. He won’t mention the young liberal feminists who asked polite questions of the video. He won’t mention Watson’s choice to not answer the polite questions, but unleash a vicious tirade of abuse at them from a podium. He won’t talk about the patriarchal, arrogant, illiberal and divisive demands on men, based on the whims of Watson’s fears, that were posted at his blog and Laden’s blog. These were the real reason Dawkins weighed in.
And PZ accused many at ERV of lying, of dishonesty, but failed even once to back those claims up with evidence. He denied quashing dissent, insisting saying he closed threads because the blog software couldn’t cope with large numbers of comments. Even though one of the posts had zero comments. This shows he is deluded even about his own actions.
Finally, PZ pushes the idea this is about misogyny, a male vs. female thing. Bullshit. It is a radical feminist vs. liberal feminist issue. That doesn’t split the population along gender lines, it cuts orthogonally across them. And the liberal feminists opposed to this have made powerful points to which PZ has no answer. But PZ would rather throw friends under a bus than accept any criticism of radical feminist dogma.
July 25, 2011 at 5:17 am
Let’s not forget he posted his claims about the size of threads in a thread now well above the size he claimed would break the site. He’s not even trying. He thought the weight of his mighty name would cow people, and when he found that shit only works on his own shithole blog (if then), he fled.
July 25, 2011 at 11:14 am
Spence, I more or less said this was not even strictly a gender issue way back here and that it is peripheral to the larger disease. The main issue here is that of the hive collective versus the autonomous mammal, and that of crypto-fascism in faux liberal clothing versus actual liberalism.
July 25, 2011 at 12:00 pm
It is really strange to see someone not answer the basic questions addressed. Content free accusations of misogyny and privilege sums up much of this disagreement. There is an opportunity here for discussion that PZ is missing entirely and I am not sure why he “chooses” to do so. All he has is name-calling — it seems like he has morphed into a fundamentalist. The irony is dripping.
July 25, 2011 at 12:31 pm
He chooses not to because he is pwned.
July 25, 2011 at 6:54 pm
“I am not sure why he “chooses” to do so”
Because he is an arrogant asshole. Try to find when he has admitted to being wrong. He rarely engages in dialog at all.
July 26, 2011 at 7:59 am
You have a point, bluejohn. PZ’s attitude does smell of fundamentalism. There is no denying that the word fits.
It has the same intolerant and prejudicial posture against those who dare disagree with a holy writ of sorts, in this instance Watson’s pathetic version of what she calls “feminism”.
A very sad part of all this is that it seriously damages whatever little sense of cohesion the atheist “movement” (whatever that may be in actual practice) does possess.
But on the other hand, with “atheists” like these, who turn into fundies at the slightest pretext, who needs them?
July 27, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Nicely done! We called them out on my blog as well. I don’t think we can talk about this enough… if we’re silent then no one will see the opposition. And SO MANY are terrified of voicing their opposition for fear of being drug through the mud and forever deemed “sexist assholes.” So thank you for speaking out as well.
July 27, 2011 at 6:25 pm
[…] was a question posed in jest in several places, even here, and it is one of those rare, ridiculous ideas that stops seeming so outrageous the more you think […]
July 27, 2011 at 10:19 pm
yeah, what a poopyhead!!!!!
August 1, 2011 at 10:38 pm
[…] Chumpy. Shall all of us children simply go to bed and leave it to grownups like you? It beggars belief how […]
August 2, 2011 at 5:59 pm
[…] The Watson Circus – Evidently PZ Has Not Disgraced Himself Sufficiently Yet […]
May 2, 2012 at 4:00 pm
electric massager…
[…]The Watson Circus – Evidently PZ Has Not Disgraced Himself Sufficiently Yet « grey lining[…]…