…and this is a 
A short while ago, the blogosphere was irate over the outing of the identity of a pseudonymous blogger, Publius. The outing followed the usual pattern: pseudonymous blogger annoys right-winger who can't cope, right-winger lashes out by revealing the name behind the pseudonym (as if that somehow addresses the criticisms), then right-winger sits back and starts defending himself: "he deserved it", "he shouldn't expect to be anonymous", "anonymity is bad, anyways". It's so damned stupid.
I have no problem with people using pseudonyms, especially since, as in the case of Publius, there was a consistent voice behind the name, and the person was not trying to avoid being called on his ideas (the fly-by-night, daily change of names by some trolls and sock puppets is a different thing altogether — that is an attempt to avoid being pinned down). When an outer decides to reveal a name behind the identity, though, that is simply an act of cowardice — an attempt to run away from engagement with the ideas to switch to personal intimidation. It is contemptible, no matter what your motivation.
Now we have another example: the Canadian Cynic has been outed. A sanctimonious right-wing she-git declared his identity because he called her mean names, and then justified it this way:
Outing bloggers isn't usually my thing. I don't see a point to it. But when you repeatedly abuse and demean people because they do not march in lockstep with you, I'm sorry but you deserve it.
Ah, sweetly stupid rationalizations — don't they do such a good job of exposing the quality of the intellect behind them? It usually isn't her thing…but she did it. I want to see a murderer try this defense: "I don't kill people every day, it was just this one time!" Yeah, that makes it OK. Then she says she didn't see a point to it…so what was her point? She doesn't have one. She's just lashing out angrily, as we can see in her next excuse: he deserved it. She sees it as a punishment. Which, of course, is why she also links to his business in her outing post.
If you know that something is wrong, since you admit to avoiding doing it, and if you know that there is no point to it other than to try to hurt someone personally and materially, there is a simple rule to follow: don't do it. If you do it anyway, that just means you're a self-confessed douchebag.
Besides, those of us who have known Canadian Cynic for a long time are just laughing. Larry Moran has known his identity for years. So have I.
It's an open secret — the people who outed him are no geniuses, that's for sure, and it wasn't that hard to track him down. It was pointless, trivial, and accomplished nothing but expose his critics as petty cranks, confirming what CC has been saying about them all along.
And will his exposure change his behavior? Why, no. Like I said, many of us have known him for a long time, and by his work against creationism (under his full name) and his acerbic posts on usenet (under his own name). I expect him to be even more vocal now.
Case in point: he'll be speaking in Toronto on 3 July, on the subject of Creationism, ID and the Douchebaggery of Really Bad Arguments: An Evening with the Canadian Cynic.
Ooooh. He sounds really intimidated.
Comments
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 8:27 AM
Yep, they have him hiding deep in the woods without a computer link...NOT ;)
Posted by: AJ Milne | June 16, 2009 8:30 AM
Ah yes... I see Canada's (ahem) intellectual right wing rolls on...
(/Full disclosure, in case anyone's, y'know, looking for me: 'AJ Milne' is actually a pseudonym. Oddly enough, my legally registered name is 'l337 h4xx0r'...)
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 16, 2009 8:34 AM
...Snort, she said that to hurt him? I'll tell you something that will hurt.
Hey, CC? Your title banner... IT'S FUGGLY.
There! I said it! Cry like a baby now!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 8:38 AM
Now that's a good title
Posted by: Zeno | June 16, 2009 8:41 AM
Geez, thin-skinned nutbags are so self-righteous about exposing the identities of those they can't otherwise lay a glove on. Petty little whiners, aren't they? "I don't see a point to it" -- but then they did it anyway?! Sadly lame.
On top of all that, outing anonymous bloggers is such an accomplishment! What detective skills! I tremble in awe at their perspicacity!
If I ever attracted enough attention for someone to go on an outing vendetta against me, it's not like it would be the toughest job in the world. Check all the community college math department rosters in northern California and you already have me boxed in. Narrow it down to the middle-aged male profs and -- damn! -- I nearly outed myself! (Of course, on the Internet no one knows that you're a dog. I could be a precocious teenage girl, right?)
Big whoop.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
June 16, 2009 8:42 AM
I get annoyed whenever some jerk "outs"/"drops docs on" somebody; I find that behavior childish and aggressive. Even if I severely dislike the person who was outed, I can't stand it.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes | June 16, 2009 8:46 AM
I know most of the reason I use a handle online is because I'd rather people searching for my real name -- say, because I gave a talk at a conference and they want to see what I'm up to -- get the science-related homepage and contact info and not my personal homepage full of my cartoons and scribbles.
Posted by: Tim Fuller | June 16, 2009 8:47 AM
Not hiding from anybody. Never have, never will. Maybe I am doing it wrong? I have no problem standing up for my right to publicly ridicule rightwing and religious nutjobs.
Enjoy.
Posted by: CC | June 16, 2009 8:48 AM
Crap ... I still look like a dork in that shot. I'm much better looking in person. Really. Ask my mom.
Posted by: maddogdelta | June 16, 2009 8:53 AM
[warning...very bad joke follows]
Hey everybody!! The guy who writes this blog is really named Pharyngula!
there, he's outed...
[/warning]
Something similar happened on fark.com a few months ago. A really hyper theist ran out of arguments against an atheist who, while very soft spoken and nice, still was fairly resolute in his defense of his position. (like..he had facts and everything, man..)
So the theist started posting real names, and some personal history about the atheist which, in certain circles could have personally damaged the atheist.
The folks at fark shut down mr strident for a couple of weeks. He's a little nicer now, and hasn't tried to pull the same crap since then.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | June 16, 2009 8:54 AM
I just like how cheery CC looks in that pic like he’s saying, “Come on PZ, this’ll be fun” combined with the 'I'm not sure about this' expression on PZ's face.
Posted by: CC | June 16, 2009 8:56 AM
And just so you folks know, the abusive, threatening e-mail has already started. So I'm just going to go full-metal PZ on them and post such e-mails publicly for the world to read. Where are you going to get that kind of entertainment value for the money?
Posted by: bungoton | June 16, 2009 8:58 AM
I'm happy Rob was 'outed' for my own selfish reasons. I have long been a big fan of CC (being Canadian and a cynic myself). Now I can avail myself of even more of his brilliance and slam-dunk logic against the nitwits in society.
I only wish I could be in Toronto for his talk. I'm stuck here in Beautiful British Columbia among the flowers and the trees but I will be in Toronto in spirit.
Posted by: speedwell | June 16, 2009 9:00 AM
Christ. I've been using "speedwell" online as my 'nym for eighteen years. A few people who know me because they met me online even call me that. It practically IS my name, by now.
That said, I'm stoked that Publius is a Houston resident; maybe I'll go by and show him some support. If I was Canadian, I'd cheer CC, too. :)
Posted by: Mobius | June 16, 2009 9:01 AM
I don't think this is a problem with just right-wingers. I think it is a problem with douchebags in general. However, the far right does seem to have much more than its fair share of douchebags in recent years.
The pettiness of this is just appalling. It is more reminiscent of school yard behavior than of the actions of an adult.
Posted by: speedwell | June 16, 2009 9:03 AM
Christ. I've been using "speedwell" online as my 'nym for eighteen years. A few people who know me because they met me online even call me that. It practically IS my name, by now.
That said, I'm stoked that Publius is a Houston resident; maybe I'll go by and show him some support. If I was Canadian, I'd cheer CC, too. :)
Posted by: speedwell | June 16, 2009 9:05 AM
Sorry, lost track of what I was doing and thought I already hit "refresh." Back to work!
Posted by: JustJoeP | June 16, 2009 9:14 AM
"Douchebaggery" - what an awesome word. =)
Posted by: Epinephrine | June 16, 2009 9:15 AM
It's too bad that the eejits felt they had to do some big reveal, but I'm glad to see that like most who use a pseudonym, Canadian Cynic doesn't really care much. I've only been online as Epinephrine for ~8-9 years, so not as long as Speedwell, but it doesn't have its root in hiding my identity; rather, it's from having been active in online gaming. There are many people I know IRL who still call me "Epi," and we've met up with my fellow gamers both here and over in Scotland.
Keep it up Canadian Cynic! I'd love to attend the talk in Toronto, but I doubt I'll be able to make it, we're expecting pretty close to that date.
Posted by: ArchangelChuck | June 16, 2009 9:16 AM
@Mobius: True, but right-wingers are almost always douchebags...
Posted by: JustJoeP | June 16, 2009 9:18 AM
"Douchebaggery" - what an awesome word. =)
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 9:19 AM
*cough* Dr. Jay *cough*
That's what's interesting. I've discovered inadvertently (OK, occasionally with a little research - I'm human and I'm nosy), because of something they did, who some pseudonymous bloggers and commenters are. In some cases, it's "sloppiness" people aren't trying particularly to avoid - they know it's easy enough to figure out their identity, and the (semi-)pseudonymity preserves some sort of professional/blogging wall - so people who know just ignore it. In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Erving Goffman talks about how our "performances" (the images of ourselves we're trying to get others to accept) often fail, but this results in truly problematic situations and extreme embarrassment less often than we might expect because people often use tact, ignoring or minimizing the slip-up and allowing the performance to continue. Well, decent people do. Sin vergüenzas are another matter entirely.
Excellent.
It's just swell that this person is blissfully untroubled by the fact that she's potentially exposed you to violence.
Posted by: King Aardvark | June 16, 2009 9:19 AM
@DGKnipfer
I think PZ's "I'm not sure about this" expression comes from concerns that CC is trying to steal his (very carefully held) beverage.
Posted by: Echo | June 16, 2009 9:25 AM
Where logic is the underpinning of mathematical and scientific thought, illogical thought forms the basis of the *Douchebagorean Theorem* - proven above.
Posted by: rrt | June 16, 2009 9:28 AM
Orac's another example. He's been "outed" lots of times, but he doesn't care...his identity was an open secret, and his persona as Orac is too valuable to abandon. It sounds like sour grapes when we say "and we really didn't care anyway," but for some bloggers that really is pretty much true. And it doesn't change the sliminess of those comitting the act.
Posted by: georgiadem
|
June 16, 2009 9:33 AM
I think that the right-wing needs to out people because generally their style of attack is on the person, not the idea. When denying climate change they almost always attack Al Gore. When defending religion it's "Hitler was an Atheist!" Or Darwin was a racist. Whatever the issue, the attack is not on the idea, it's the person.
Posted by: CWTF | June 16, 2009 9:43 AM
It's just swell that this person is blissfully untroubled by the fact that she's potentially exposed you to violence.
They take pride and encourage it.
It's their style.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 16, 2009 9:43 AM
It would be very easy to find out who I am--I know that some commenters here have found out. Fortunately, they are thus far wonderful people. That, and I always write under the assumption that anyone could find out, anyway. I also post under another pseudonym, but I use the same contact info (i.e., I don't try to hide who I am from the blog owners); I simply do not write in verse under that name.
inkily, slinkily,
Digital Cuttlefish
keeps his identity
hidden from most--
knowing, at best, he's just
pseudo-anonymous,
has to be careful in
what he will post
Posted by: Geds | June 16, 2009 9:51 AM
When I started my current blog I actually used my real name for a couple months. Then I realized that I didn't want it to be that easy to find me just in case. I wasn't concerned about people tracking me down, but we live in a world where you never know if a potential employer is going to be finding your Facebook page, so I figured it was best to make it at least a little difficult to find me...
Besides, "Geds" was a nickname bestowed upon me in junior high, it ends up in my personal emails in some variation or another, and it's even on my license plates. I'd also been using it in various places on the internet for six or seven years. So it's not like I picked something that wouldn't make me identifiable.
I think that the right-wing needs to out people because generally their style of attack is on the person, not the idea.
I totally agree. And it tends to be funny, because I'm sure that the vast majority of the time someone reads, "[Pseudonym] is actually [Real Name]," and they shrug. Because chances are they don't know who that person is, anyway.
It's that tiny percentage who then think the outing is license to make someone's life miserable that make it all a pain in the ass, though.
Posted by: africangenesis | June 16, 2009 9:53 AM
No one who outs an anonymous blogger is a true rightwinger.
But why are those outed, acknowledging it, and essentially shouting it to the heavens? An admonishment to the outer about their breech of etiquette and then ignoring the outing and them. Don't give them the satisfaction of an acknowledgement. The outing would eventually get buried in the heaps of postings, requiring persistence to be dug up.
Posted by: pikeamus | June 16, 2009 9:54 AM
For people that want to blog annonymously I got this link from Kafir Girl a while back: http://www.eff.org/wp/blog-safely
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 9:57 AM
Good one, ag!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 9:58 AM
Meself, I've always posted either under my own name, or under nicknames clearly linked to my name (chosen as nicknames, without any intent to conceal identity), in part because it never occurred to me that I had anything to hide. IIRC, I've never posted anything on teh intertoobz that I'm ashamed of, or that I couldn't stand behind... but it occurs to me that some of what I've posted would be awkward to explain to some people (esp.if I do in fact run for municipal office this year) if everyone I knew had a digest of everything I've ever posted.
But the web is a cosmically large haystack and my few needles are small: Absent a concerted effort to dig up dirt on me, I'm not worried. Call me naive, but I have a hard time imagining that anyone out there really gives that much of a rat's ass about my insignificant little self.
Posted by: Larry Moran | June 16, 2009 10:06 AM
I recognize my old friend CC in the photo, but who's the other dork?
If you come and hear CC speak on July 3rd there will be plenty of opportunity to meet with him afterward at one of our local Toronto establishments. We may even try to get together for a meal *before* his talk. Contact me for more information.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 16, 2009 10:09 AM
Yeah, the dorks all blur together after a while. Who can tell them apart anymore?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 10:10 AM
Now yer thinkin' with yer dipstick, Johnny!</scots>
Posted by: Larry Moran | June 16, 2009 10:13 AM
I recognize my old friend CC in the photo, but who's the other dork?
If you come and hear CC speak on July 3rd there will be plenty of opportunity to meet with him afterward at one of our local Toronto establishments. We may even try to get together for a meal *before* his talk. Contact me for more information.
Posted by: Watchman | June 16, 2009 10:19 AM
Take a look at today's Frank Rich column in the NYT. I posted a link to it over on the "Weak in Wisconsin" thread, but I see now that it belongs here.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 16, 2009 10:24 AM
Hey, I've faced threats, complaints to my employer. Hell one guy even went so far as to use an on-line handle of mine and write some very adolescent bad porn. I wouldn't have objected to good stuff, mind you. I just didn't want anyone to think I wrote that poorly.
Posted by: Watchman | June 16, 2009 10:24 AM
af-gen:
Is that a joke? If so... hahahah... good one!
I could get behind that idea.
Posted by: Jessica | June 16, 2009 10:32 AM
Why "she-git"? Would you have said "he-git" if the sanctimonious right-winger was a man? Just asking. Overall, PZ, I think you're more aware of feminist concerns than many people, and I thank you for that. And I'm not saying that using "she-" as a prefix is The Most Sexist Horrible Thing Ever, but it still amounts to unequal treatment.
Posted by: Geoff | June 16, 2009 10:40 AM
Weird. I just saw myself in the background of that photo.
Posted by: Fleegle MacDoom | June 16, 2009 10:42 AM
Aye! In this case, one ought to have written foolish wee lass.
Posted by: robotaholic
|
June 16, 2009 10:43 AM
Haha, you're writing style is great PZ
Posted by: Bruce Everett | June 16, 2009 10:44 AM
af-gen:
"No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Some time back (2006), I was outed by a right wing blogger. The embarassing thing (for him) was that...
A) I wasn't anonymous to begin with.
B) He wrongly outed me. As a super-villain. It was truly stupid.
Said right-winger had a track record for doing the same to another blogger. Posting his work email address and so forth. And oh, the mental gymnastics.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 10:44 AM
Maybe, maybe not. Likely it will even with the acknowledgement. In these as every one of the previous cases in which the outing was acknowledged, I've forgotten the person's real name almost immediately (just not good with names, and if I don't take special note of it or write it down I'm unlikely to remember). And acknowledging it publicly has the added benefit of calling attention to the sort of intellectually-bankrupt thugs the blogger is dealing with, and reinforcing the importance of human decency, neither of which is inconsequential. It's a form of intimidation, and they're brave to stand up to it.
Posted by: CC | June 16, 2009 10:46 AM
Regarding "she-git," it's actually a dude who did the original outing -- I think PZ is just picking up on one of the later hangers-on. If you read the latest posts at my place, you'll figure out pretty quickly who I'm talking about. The abbreviation "NAMBLA" figures prominently.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 16, 2009 10:47 AM
I remember when this happened to Thersites, over at Whiskey Fire/Ashes or whatever his blog was called at the time. The scumbag who outed him was an odious little turd with a massive inferiority complex about liberals with PhDs in the humanities, by the name of Jeff Goldstein. Funny how he was losing an argument very, very badly against Theri. And funny how this Goldstein twerp couldn't cut in grad school (for English Lit, which happened to be Theri's field). And so Goldstein outed Theri.
But there was no connection, if you confronted Goldstein about his PhD envy. Nope. Not a bit. Then again, when someone's world is built on delusion, it usually starts after a person has deluded himself. So no surprise there.
Of course, Leadhead failed to realize he might have accomplished more in life if he weren't looking for someone to blame for everything, rather than realizing that he was a failure because he was so weak of mind and will. Then again, it's always ironic how it's exactly that sort of person who's so ready to preach "personal responsibility" to the rest of us, while having so little of it themselves.
Funny, that.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 16, 2009 10:52 AM
When I started blogging about this stuff, I figured I'd save the douchebags the five minutes of effort it would take to "investigate" and figure out who I was. Knowing what I know about how easy it is to figure out someone's pseudonymous identity, it's just not worth the effort to conceal any of that info. I can see lots of very good arguments for hiding your identity, I just can't bring myself to bother as I don't have any reason to redirect people googling my name to anything other than my real opinion.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 16, 2009 10:58 AM
I use a nym because 1) I've been the victim of a cyber-stalker in the past and 2) I just find it fun to have a different name. I didn't pick the name I have in real life. This one, I did pick, I think it's fun, and I didn't have to go through lawyers for it. Why not have one I like better? :)
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 16, 2009 10:59 AM
Her rationalization reminded me of a passage in the classic Dutch novel Max Havelaar by Multatuli, in which one of the main characters, a religious bigot, says, to justify his secretly reading a letter that wasn't meant for him:
"Now, it's a firm principle of mine never to read anything that is not addressed to me, as I consider that improper. Therefore I will never do so if it is not in my own interest." [my translation]
Posted by: Zorpheous
|
June 16, 2009 11:00 AM
Posted by: Michelle R Author Profile Page | June 16, 2009 8:34 AM
...Snort, she said that to hurt him? I'll tell you something that will hurt.
Hey, CC? Your title banner... IT'S FUGGLY.
There! I said it! Cry like a baby now!
----------------------------------------
Hey I resent that! I made his masthead for him,... oh well, nothing is forever CC is retooling his blog since being outed and is looking for a new look.
His outing was like a fart in a wind storm,... not many people cared. It was a huge ubber secret anyways, since about a 100 bloggers knew who he was,... frankly I am surprised it took these goobers this long to figure it out.
Posted by: Jacob-Paul | June 16, 2009 11:02 AM
Do you have something against the right-wing, PZ?
I always hear "a right-wing this, a right-wing that", but strangely enough I never hear you attacking extreme leftists.
Maybe you should get more balanced politically. I am a staunch rightist and I adore your blog so don't alienate people like me.
Posted by: Mark Francis | June 16, 2009 11:04 AM
Meanwhile, these same folks who worked to out him support persons currently being sued for libel for disseminating outright malicious lies about other persons. Related, these supporters rose up in alarm over an online forum being forced by Canadian courts to hand over IP addresses in order to identify anonymous libellers.
Now, I too was alarmed, but at least I'm consistent.
The outing of CC, whom I too have had the pleasure of meeting in person, is obviously based on "it's ok to reveal him because I don't agree with his opinions." Ya. High ethics in play there.
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 11:15 AM
Jacob-Paul..
Ummm... did you seriously just write that load of tripe?
...Heh.... How about you stop writing comments, because I say so.
After all, I read your comment, and I'm a "left-winger"... so you have to stop now... because... because... ummmm....
Ah, screw it. I can't even play-act at being as self-absorbed and vapidly stupid as you seem to be.
Posted by: clheiny | June 16, 2009 11:16 AM
I have some theories on this.
First, the wingnuts believe that the repressive police state the so fervently desire is already in power, and that outing the pseudonymous opponents of the regime will bring the black vans and thugs in jackboots round to the outed house at 2AM the following morning.
Second, the wingnuts believe in magic, and think that knowing the True Name of the pseudonymous will grant them power over them. Even now they are probably dunking voodoo dolls made of old soup spoons in rancid pickle juice.
Third, the wingnuts believe that comic books are an accurate depiction of reality, and that liberal bloggers are superheroes. In this belief system, revealing the pseudonymous blogger's Secret Identity will render them utterly powerless, much in the same way that if the world knew the Clark Kent was really Superman, it would in some unspecified way impair Superman's ability to get his job done.
Posted by: Bruce | June 16, 2009 11:19 AM
Maybe you should get more balanced politically. I am a staunch rightist and I adore your blog so don't alienate people like me.
Altering politics to preserve blog traffic. Sounds intellectually dishonest.
Now if more right-wing sites would criticise creationism and promote science...
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 16, 2009 11:32 AM
(a) Then you should investigate the mental blocks preventing you from seeing those posts.
(b) Come back when "extreme leftists" are running one of the two major US political parties. There may be an equivalent number of posts about them.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 16, 2009 11:32 AM
Jacob, maybe you're slow.
This sound familiar?
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
"leftists" aren't a problem in this country...they're not gunning down doctors and security guards in museums.
Posted by: Jacob-Paul | June 16, 2009 11:39 AM
To Kate:
"I can't even play-act at being as self-absorbed and vapidly stupid as you seem to be."
Well, Kate, I appreciate your sincere attempt to lift me from me apparent misery although you haven't even addressed why I appear so mind-boggingly stupid to you.
To Bruce:
"Altering politics to preserve blog traffic. Sounds intellectually dishonest."
Altering politics? What about plain neutrality in stead of personal bias? Dude, are you really saying all right-wingers need to fuck off from this site because people like you are too close-minded?
"Now if more right-wing sites would criticise creationism and promote science..."
Those are the religious right, not the secular variant and you overlook the fact that there are plenty leftist creationists.
To all the others:
Don't get worked up, it's just my impression. Seriously, relax. Why is this causing so much anger?
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 11:42 AM
Jacob, if you can't understand why what you wrote is silly, you'll just have to read the responses again.
...and again....
...and again...
...and then have someone with a clue explain them to you.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 16, 2009 11:42 AM
Is it really a form of fatwa envy? I wonder if the underlying idea is "maybe if we 'out' this person, they'll be afraid some christard with a rifle will come lurking around their window"?
Of course, now that they know who he is, it's not like they'll be walking up and talking shit to his face. Hate e-mails (probably anonymous) is more like it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 11:45 AM
Jacob-Paul. If you don't like the way this blog is run, go somewhere else. Your opinion will not change how this blog is run. PZ and the regulars like the way it is. And frankly, we enjoy tweeking the noses of the right wingers, who don't seem to have a sense of humor.
Posted by: Jacob-Paul | June 16, 2009 11:48 AM
"Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal"
Well in Holland "Liberal" is kinda right-wing, so... Maybe it's different in the States.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 16, 2009 11:51 AM
Pseudonyms give a sense of mystery. It plumbs up the deep hidden man archetype. It gives one the alter ego exposure. Its part of the old telephone booth superman syndrome. Its an opportunity for all of these psychic expressions.
To have some disgruntled toad try to destroy that is just kind of distasteful; but probably no real harm done.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 16, 2009 11:56 AM
Pseudonyms give a sense of mystery. It plumbs up the deep hidden man archetype. It gives one the alter ego exposure.
You have failed miserably in your attempt, silly old goat. No one sees you as wise, clever and fast. You are not a mystery to behold. You are a schmuck to be avoided.
Posted by: Paul | June 16, 2009 11:59 AM
Hey, a European right-winger complaining that right-wing means something different in the States. That's new.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 16, 2009 12:04 PM
Maybe you should get more balanced politically. I am a staunch rightist and I adore your blog so don't alienate people like me. - Jacob-Paul
Maybe you should ask yourself what right you think you have to tell the blog owner what to write. Or maybe you should just fuck off.
you overlook the fact that there are plenty leftist creationists. - Jacob-Paul
Name some.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 16, 2009 12:06 PM
Altering politics? What about plain neutrality in stead of personal bias?
Please follow your own advise and never mention your own political biases again.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 16, 2009 12:09 PM
Janine: 66
"You are a schmuck to be avoided."
I recall this line from "A few good men" when Tom Cruse says to Demi Moore: "Have I done something to annoy you?".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 12:14 PM
Silver Fox (AKA Max Verkat), your inane posts lacking intelligence and substance offends us. You are our poster boy for the total fool. The one we use as an example of what not to do or believe.
Posted by: Jacob-Paul | June 16, 2009 12:18 PM
Alright guys, last comment, as my input doesn't seem to be appreciated
Nerd of Redhead (and Knockgoats): Jacob-Paul. "If you don't like the way this blog is run, go somewhere else."
I DO like the way it's run, thank you very much. I just had a suggestion that's all. Is that okay with you?
Janine: "Please follow your own advise and never mention your own political biases again."
You misunderstood me. Im fine with PZ being left-wing, I just don't like his disproportionate focus on right-wing knuckleheads. That's intellectual dishonesty, frankly.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 16, 2009 12:26 PM
You misunderstood me.
I understood. You misspoke. Do not push your mistakes onto me.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 16, 2009 12:32 PM
Staunch Rightist complains about 'unbalanced political criticism'.
Fundamentalist Creationist complains about 'unbalanced science education'.
Even a conservative should be able to see the parallel there.
Here's a solution for all the conservatives who are tired of being unfairly picked on: try being less stupid and reprehensible. All political positions are not equal. Yours are mostly wrong.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 16, 2009 12:33 PM
Tall Poppy Syndrome - presumably this means CC is doing something right.
I don't know how easy I am to track down, after my unipages have been scrubbed. But lately I've given up being kosher online, so my milchish and fleischig handles have been mixed up.
So I guess that if people really want to they can easily find my excursions into poorly written anime pr0n.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 12:38 PM
So, if I've got this right, you're perfectly fine with the author of what is effectively an opinion column having opinions himself, so long as he doesn't focus on arguing against opposing opinions?
So what would we be left with here? Left-wing weather reports?
I know I should just avert my eyes from teh stooopid, but I have a morbid desire to understand precisely why you think arguing against ideas one believes are socially destructive consititutes intellectual dishonesty. It would be, according to you, more honest to let dangerous foolishness stand unrebutted?
At the end of the day, what you're doing here is criticizing a blogger for doing precisely what he always intended his blog to do... while simultaneously claiming to like the blog and support the blogger's ideas. <scratches_head>
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 16, 2009 12:51 PM
"And we'll have more weather for you after the break but first some highlights: the region saw more flooding after heavy rains this week, disproportionately affecting those living in low-lying areas. Equalisation attempts involving diverting water upstream and carrying it to the tops of mountains and hills have met with limited success. Meanwhile, conservatives and church leaders across the nation have condemned today's forecast of "a mix of sun and clouds", calling it an affront to the traditional definition of weather."
Posted by: xebecs | June 16, 2009 12:59 PM
Jacob-Paul:
The thing that you are missing is that everyone believes that his or her own place in the political spectrum is the "real" center.
So to PZ's eye, the "extreme leftists" you refer to may not deserve criticism simply because he does not feel they are extreme.
His blog, his neutrality.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 1:09 PM
Oh big fat yawn Silver Fox. Do you have to hand out coffee and amphetamines to people you speak to in real life to try and mitigate the narcoleptic effect of your attempted witticisms?
Good grief you are a bore.
You're akin to the embodiment of the nerological phase of African trypanosomiasis.
And you still have not finished your homework assignment.
Posted by: Blair | June 16, 2009 1:10 PM
PZ,
I’m a bit surprised and disappointed by your support of Mr. Day. While he has clearly been a strong anticreationist and fellow traveler in that part of his life, under his pseudonym of CC he has also demonstrated intolerance and spread hate. His venom under the name CC is well-known and completely unnecessary. People have different facets to their lives and it is not necessary to support them in all their facets Sometimes the best thing you can do is acknowledge the friend but also recognize the bad that he/she may undertake. Having followed both the “right wing” and “left wing” blogs of the Canadian blogosphere I can tell you that your friend is not always the saint you seem to make him out to be. To quote one of CC’s enemies this is a man who constantly refers to women as "the dumb cuntitude"... who speaks of the Prime Minister being "bought off by the Jooos"... and most egregiously, tells the mother of a slain Canadian soldier, "Fuck you and you grief."(cited from http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2009/06/don’t-let-screen-door.html)
Clearly this is not a man who is always in the right and maybe you should consider that as you provide him your full-throated support.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 1:12 PM
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 16, 2009 1:16 PM
Blair, while being a pissy, whiny little bitch, may have a point, albeit a trite and idiotic one ("People are multi-faceted? Do tell us more, O Guru.")
Was that balanced enough for you Blair? Shall I grab you your security blanket to keep the meanies away at night?
Grab a fucking nutsack and fill it, you milquetoast.
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Blair:
You have failed so miserably at reading comprehension. I recommend a remedial reading course and also that you lay off the crack.
Seriously, that shit will rot your brain.
Posted by: Jacob-Paul | June 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Bill Dauphin: You're totally wrong.
Of course PZ must attack dangerous foolishness, but not one-sidedly. That's what I'm saying all along.
"while simultaneously claiming to like the blog and support the blogger's ideas. "
I support the vast majority of his ideas, especially on science and religion. Is that so hard to grasp? I'm just not a sheep.
Congrats to xebecs, at least he can say something that's not abusive or close-minded.
Posted by: Paul | June 16, 2009 1:19 PM
You sound concerned, Blair.
You might want to include more context in your complaints about CC -- we're not Creationists to go foaming at the mouth because you can chain 5 words between quotation marks. The warming about him not always being in the right is pretty pointless, as normally rationalist types recognize that nobody is and do not expect it.
Oh, and your link doesn't work.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 16, 2009 1:19 PM
Yes, he refers to some women as "dumb cunts", and I don't approve of that...but if the only people I could like were my personal clones, there'd only be 16,384 — oops, make that 32,768 now — people in the whole world I could approve of.
I am also not impressed with the hypocrisy of people who act all horrified at CC's language, while favoring the guy who outed him, who basically posts soft-core porn at regular intervals. Who's the bigger misogynist?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 1:24 PM
Ok. Who would you like him to attack?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 16, 2009 1:31 PM
Exhorting your interlocutors to 'keep an open mind' is the surest way to admit your argument has no merits and is otherwise not compelling on its own. And complaining about 'abuse' on the internet? Maybe if you use soft language and make cooing noises, Blair will let you cut in front of him in the line for testicular implants.
The implication being that those of us that generally agree with PZ's politics are? I see you're not above a little abuse yourself.
And anyway, being wrong doesn't automatically confer freethinker cred, idiot.
Posted by: Criswell
|
June 16, 2009 1:33 PM
Those of us like me in Canada (and hell in the same city even) are pretty disgusted with the outing - along with publius and another Canadian, Dr. Dawg.
Both CC and Dawg (ditto for people like Orac here at SB) never really buried their real identities if one really wished to figure it out - in CC's case, the older talk.origins channels were replete with the milder versions of great stuff of he-who-became-CC.
A fair number of CC's friends know who most, if not all, of the pseudonymous bloggers on the right are but CC has asked all not to play that dirty game on principle of free speech and free choice. PZ is also occasionally profane, and popular (sorry for the alliteration) but its his choice and, as with CC, a lot of us would like to be as blunt and, frankly, as clever. Profanity can still support an erudite argument; when people like CC use it, it always in context of some outrage that deserves a "douchebag" label.
For those complaining about CC's language, see PZ's comment above (#86 when I write this) and I add that CC openly advertised the tone as snark (deserved given the targets) - some of his opponents are equally snarky. And its his blog - don't like it, don't link to it or don't go there. There are those who disagree with the language used - and avoid visiting rather than concern trolling.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 16, 2009 1:35 PM
How about the Huffington Post? Deepak Chopra? Even, if I'm brave enough, Oprah?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 1:37 PM
And PeTA.
But you'd never attack those people. No sir.
Posted by: xebecs | June 16, 2009 1:38 PM
She, not he. But thank you.
Note though, that I did not say I disagreed with those who responded more tartly than did I.
Posted by: Susan | June 16, 2009 1:39 PM
@ 53 Jacob-Paul
Yes. You've been wrong about everything, bankrupted the world, caused unbelievable amounts of misery, think torture is peachy, destroyed education and our infrastructure, glorified greed, disparaged science and education, and just can't stop lying:
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 16, 2009 1:47 PM
I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but the dude who outed Publius has apparently apologized sincerely and regretfully for having done so, and Publius has accepted his apology.
Posted by: rob | June 16, 2009 1:52 PM
hah! i am gonna out another blogger right now...
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
yeah, here is is: that outspoken blogger on Pharyngula is ACTUALLY...
clickety clickety clickety ...
PZ Meyers!!!!!
WAIT THERES MOREE!!!
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
he is a biologist and associate professor at...
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
the University of Minnesota, Morris. !!!
clickety clickety clickety ...
WAIT!!! THERES MORE!!!!
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
the last DVD he downloaded to his instant queue on Netflix is...
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
clickety clickety clickety ...
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed!!!!!!
aaaaaahhhhhhh. nnnnnnooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jacob-Paul | June 16, 2009 1:55 PM
PZ MYERS: "How about the Huffington Post? Deepak Chopra? Even, if I'm brave enough, Oprah?"
Fair enough.
BROWNIAN: " I'm just not a sheep.
The implication being that those of us that generally agree with PZ's politics are? I see you're not above a little abuse yourself."
I didn't say you're a sheep, nor any else of you.
SUSAN:
"just can't stop lying:
Alright guys, last comment"
Haha, yeah sorry about that.
Posted by: fcaccin | June 16, 2009 1:55 PM
Janine, OMnivore:
May I use it? I know I am going to need it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 1:58 PM
Ok so do you retract your complaint and admit it was founded on less than stellar research on your part?
Posted by: Jacob-Paul | June 16, 2009 2:01 PM
Susan, you're talking about laissez-faire capitalists, creationists and Dick Cheney. Neither of those are my branch of right-wing. I never said ALL right-wingers we're right.
Posted by: FlameDuck | June 16, 2009 2:04 PM
I think you left out the important part of this:
Define Irony Bitch! I mean seriously. Do they not get Fox News in Canada, or are they just too stupid to figure out what the old guy with the monosyllabic vocabulary is saying?
Posted by: Jacob-Paul | June 16, 2009 2:05 PM
"Ok so do you retract your complaint and admit it was founded on less than stellar research on your part?"
Well... yes, I do. I was wrong.
Posted by: Susan | June 16, 2009 2:08 PM
So, since this is the thread in which you've chosen to complain, we can assume your "branch" of right-wing is the one that includes cowardly douchebags who think they're brilliant for "outing" someone pretty much known to all, because they think it will make him stop saying mean things about them? Great company you keep.
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 2:20 PM
Well, Jacob-Paul, that was very good of you. (I'm not being sarcastic.)
...and just so you're aware, there are many here who do not share all of PZ's opinions. They contribute regularly to the discussion, but are mindful that they are in PZ's space and don't try to tell him to change his blog for their pleasure, any more than PZ would walk into your living room and tell you to move the furniture and change the drapes.
I hope you are one of those who will continue to contribute here, and maybe along the way learn that regular commenters are not "sheep", but an interesting mix of people who have widely differing opinions on matters, and like to debate and discuss.
Yes that discussion is, at times, irreverent, snarky, sarcastic and more often than not passionate.... but that's what makes it interesting, informative and educational.
I think it was said best here:
"A walk down the path of history is crunchy with the crispy corpses of those who pooh-poohed or ignored the clown car of ridicule when it pulled-up to the curb. Who would have thought such a tiny car could contain so many infectious and revolutionary guffaws? Satires, parodies, blue humor, pants to the ground ass-wavings, tea-dumping, Modest Proposal submitting, 7 dirty word spewing, flag burning, frankly impolite, just plain rude and improper expressions of ridicule have either ignited reform, fanned the flames or kicked the corpse to make sure it was dead."
Think of PZ's blog and the comments here as a version of that clown car. Except that it's more like a clown *bus*... And the clowns aren't so much funny-looking as they are provocative. (A Cirque Du Soleil of snarky social commentary, perhaps?)
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 16, 2009 2:27 PM
Hey Jacob-Paul,
I'm still waiting for your list of leftist creationists.
I DO like the way it's run, thank you very much. I just had a suggestion that's all. Is that okay with you?
Sure, and I have a reaction to your suggestion: it's arrogant and stupid. (Well, you are an admitted "staunch rightist", so what else would one expect?) Is that OK with you?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 2:45 PM
"Totally"? Really? I feel so... comprehensive! (It's kind of a warm, tingly feeling.)
Because dangerous foolishness is evenly distributed across the political spectrum, and between both scientists and the enemies of science, and between the godly and the godless???
Your notion of avoiding "one-sidedness" is precisely the sort of thinking that has given us our current school of Swiftboat-era false-equivalency journalism, in which "both sides of the story" must be given equal time even when the facts overwhelmingly support one side and condemn the other.
Just as there is no principle in reporting that requires equal treatment of "sides" not supported by the facts, there is no principle of opinion writing that requires the writer to attack "sides" s/he agrees with, nor to support sides s/he does not agree with. PZ's "one-sidedness" is precisely what the blog's header declares it to be: pro-science, anti-god, and liberal. From his point of view (and mine), dangerous foolishness resides disproportionately with the opponents of those positions1; hence, the "one-sidedness" (according to you) of his attacks. You may think that's unfair (I myself do not); it is quite clearly not "intellectually dishonest," as you claimed.
1 As we all know, the facts have a well-known liberal bias. I would argue the corollary that disregard of the facts (aka "dangerous foolishness") has a corresponding right-wing bias.
Posted by: Blair | June 16, 2009 2:52 PM
PZ,
My issue is not that you should look only for clones of yourself, rather I suggest that you not put folks on a pedestal just because they agree with you on one issue. Mr. Day may be a delightful person, who loves puppies, helps old ladies across the street and provides useful commentary. In his persona as The Canadian Cynic, on the other hand, he has posted misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and simply hateful messages. Having followed the debate from the outside I have been offended by both sides. I would recommend that those of you who insist on insulting me do a quick Google search and catch up (as an exercise search “Canadian Cynic” and “cunt” and see what pops up). You will find a distasteful portion of the Canadian Blogosphere that the comprises BOTH the Cynic and his detractors. Put simply, sir, in supporting the Cynic persona you lessen yourself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 3:02 PM
Blair, quite your whinging. Your pretend polite responses are anything other than polite. And frankly, from that, anything you have say will be ignored. Take your concern elsewhere.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 3:22 PM
Well, fuck. Nice. I'm really glad I have plans for the rest of the day, so I don't have to be treated to any more of the screeds of the users of bitch, twat, cunt, or the latest, twunt, or to their fucking apologists. Bunch of fucking assholes and I don't care what your politics are.
(Again, outing pseudonymous bloggers is absolutely, completely, and totally appalling and unacceptable.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 3:24 PM
twunt?
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 3:36 PM
Yup. Here's one from the other day:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/the_discovery_institute_doesnt_1.php#comment-1700954
Do a search on it here. There are a few more, all by different people (including Piltdown). It's in the Urban Dictionary. Lovely. But I'm sure people using it don't mean anything by it and their wives and girlfriends have assured them that it's not sexist or misogynistic at all and...blah blah blahbity fucking blah blah fucking bullshit rationalizations.
Posted by: Jacob-Paul | June 16, 2009 3:56 PM
Bill Dauphin: I have already said I was wrong about PZ's on-sidedness. A as I said, it was an impression, and a false one after closer inspectation.
Now, It's a mystery to me why you compare my standpoint with "teach both sides" BS. That's was not my point at all.
Knockgoats: I know plenty of those people from my personal life and encounters (mother and sisters). Sorry, I don't know about celebrity creationists. I'm not going to research that.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 3:59 PM
And for something about blogging that's perhaps a bit more intellectually stimulating (tastes vary), I just got a notice about this - "Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere":
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2009/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere
Posted by: Blair | June 16, 2009 4:06 PM
Nerd,
It is mildly amusing, and somewhat troubling, that you appear unable to understand that individuals can disagree and yet communicate politely. There is nothing “pretend” about my “polite” enquiry. I respect Dr. Myers’ opinion having followed his blog for some time now and most of the time I even agree with him. It is because I have built up respect for the man that I was so disappointed on this topic. Since he provides a venue for feedback and encourages users to speak, I thought I would take the opportunity to do so. The vitriol from third parties over my relatively innocuous initial comment was somewhat surprising.
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 4:10 PM
Awwwww... poor widdle SC. Do the big scary words hurt your poor widdle feelings?
Does it bother you when I, a woman, have no fear of using the word "CUNT"? That I REVEL in it's use? That I find it a hilarious and funny word? Is it that horrifying to you? Does the word jump off your screen and beat you? Did it slap you? Touch you in your bathing suit areas? Does it shock you that I don't find it demeaning and that I find your SHOCKHORROR over it to be juvenile, misogynistic and utterly ridiculous?
(You know, if you clutch those pearls any tighter you're going to choke yourself, so you might want to keep an eye on that.)
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 4:15 PM
Even if I took you at all seriously, which I don't, I would just find it moronic and sad.
Take your idiotic condescension and shove it up your ass, Kate.
And with that, I'm out.
Posted by: CC | June 16, 2009 4:21 PM
Dear Blair:
If you're going to mewl and whine like a little girl over something I wrote once upon a time, at least have the decency to supply a link to it so everyone can see the context.
I have admitted more than once since then that I was unnecessarily intemperate when I wrote that, but my position still stands. I found it totally unacceptable that a woman grieving over the loss of her son followed that up with a blatantly political statement that she'd feel better as long as other peoples' children would continue to be killed in a stupid, ill-defined military mission.
If you don't like my stand on that, Blair, that's fine. But if you're going to criticize me in public, at least have the decency to let everyone else see what I wrote. That's only fair.
Posted by: David | June 16, 2009 4:25 PM
Blair,
CC is anti-semitic in the same way that David Letterman was referring to Willow Palin with his knocked-up joke. In other words, you have it wrong.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 4:30 PM
If he referred to some people as "dumb fags" or "dumb niggers" or "dumb spics," would you be posting pictures of yourself with him?
OK, now I'm out.
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 4:32 PM
Let the pearls go, SC. Seriously. You're starting to turn blue.
Posted by: CC | June 16, 2009 4:34 PM
By the way, Blair, I love your accusation that I am a misogynist. That's pretty funny since my co-blogger "PSA" was voted runner-up as "Best Support Bro" in the 2008 Canadian Feminist Blog Awards, while my other co-blogger "LuLu" won for best snark, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be hanging out with me if I hated women.
Here's a thought, Blair -- you should really stop listening to what the Canadian Idiotsphere is saying about us, and actually read what we've written. You did read what we actually wrote before whining about us, didn't you? Or are you happy getting all your news secondhand?
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 4:34 PM
Bite me, clown.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 16, 2009 4:46 PM
Perhaps we're dealing with comment lag here: In the response to me that I was replying to, you were still blatting on about "on[e]-sidedness."
Well, first, the concept of "teach both sides" (aka "teach the controversy") usually relates to creationism in the science classroom, and is subtly different from (though not entirely unrelated to) the spurious "balance" in journalism that I was referring to. Second, I made the analogy very explicit, so I don't really understand why it's so mysterious to you. If you don't actually feel that way, that's great... but your original kvetching about PZ's "one-sidedness" created the distinct impression that you expected a liberal blogger to grant the right-wing opposition's positions undeserved (from the liberal POV) credence in the name of evenhandedness. If that's not actually how you feel, that's terrific.
But hey, what do I know? I'm totally wrong, right?
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 4:47 PM
Weren't you leaving, SC?
Heh.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 16, 2009 4:54 PM
If you're going to mewl and whine like a little girl,/I> - CC
Of course, little boys never mewl and whine, do they CC? Or is it just that you think it's insulting to refer to someone male as female?
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 4:58 PM
Still not out the door. So glad I was able to pop back in to catch another of your substantive and insightful comments, Kate. Keep up the brilliant work while I'm gone.
Posted by: LostMarbles | June 16, 2009 5:00 PM
I hate to even imply agreement with the concern trolls, but I think using the word cunt as a pejorative is a form of misogyny even when it comes from people with whom I agree politically. Personally, CC's liberal use of the word put me off of his writing, but I also understand that some people draw different lines and I get that. It's also not very relevant to the subject of the post.
P.S. I feel robbed of photo credit and the site hits that come with that.
P.P.S. The software/person who cut and compressed the photo needs to die in a fire.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 16, 2009 5:02 PM
Don't go, SC!
LostMarbles, send me a link to your original photo, and I'll add a link.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 16, 2009 5:09 PM
By the way, Blair, I love your accusation that I am a misogynist. That's pretty funny since my co-blogger "PSA" was voted runner-up as "Best Support Bro" in the 2008 Canadian Feminist Blog Awards, while my other co-blogger "LuLu" won for best snark, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be hanging out with me if I hated women. - CC
Oh, right. And some of my best friends are...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 5:11 PM
Blair, our blog master PZ likes us to be a bit rude and crude to concern trolls like yourself. Total politeness is for prudes and wusses. They find more hospitable blogs elsewhere. And I believe CC over you any day.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 16, 2009 5:13 PM
?
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 5:25 PM
Knockgoats:
As a regular commenter at CC's, (under a different name), I can attest that he's no misogynist.
He doesn't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut whether you're black, white, green, male, female, left-leaning or right-leaning, human or cephalopod.
The only thing he cares about is that you're honest, forthright and not crippled by what should be classed as criminal stupidity.
...But it's not like you've got the balls to go to HIS site and take him to task, eh? Nope. You'll do it from here, all chickenshit-like, where you feel you have "friends" to back you up.
Oh, wait, was calling you ball-less sexist? ...and do I care?
Posted by: LostMarbles | June 16, 2009 5:34 PM
CC@120: I really hate to see intelligent people use a version of "I have X friends, and they don't mind it" to defend yourself. Just because your political opinions make you less of a misogynist than the scum that you're arguing with, doesn't absolve you from using language that many people find degrading to women. If you want to argue that your use for "cunt" and comparing someones whiny atittude to a "little girl" is not misogynistic language go ahead, but using the justification you gave is beneath you.
Posted by: Carlie | June 16, 2009 5:34 PM
You don't have to be a rip-roaring misogynist to use misogynistic language. You can, in fact, be a perfectly nice person who is a feminist ally in all sorts of ways. Here, have a cookie for being such a great ally. Have two. Yet, your use of the word cunt as an insult is indeed a misogynistic act, and all you have to do is type cunt in the little search box to see every single argument made for and against it at this blog.
It's very much analogous to PZ's attitude towards moderate Christians. They provide the cover and legitimacy for extremist wackos, whether they want to or not, by using the same framework and the same language. Same with people who claim to like women but also like to use sexist slurs. Sure, you don't really mean all women when you call one a cunt. But you could, and no one would be able to tell the difference. And you using it makes it easier for other people to.
Posted by: Susan | June 16, 2009 5:38 PM
LostMarbles
Ditto, and I'm with you in spirit SC. I checked out his site, and donated a bit, because some of it is good. When I feel as if I'm reading a true ally, though, I donate 10x as much.
Posted by: Blair | June 16, 2009 5:40 PM
CC,
My apologies for not providing the link, the reason I didn’t post a link is that when I tried to post one above it got mangled, which is why I suggested a Google search and even provided useful keywords.
As for your “intemperate” words had they been a one-time occurrence then you likely would have been excused (although you fail to do so when challenging your critics), however, you have a history of “intemperate” language and so it must be assumed that what you write is what you mean and not a series of accidental keystrokes.
As for your being friends and colleagues with strong feminists, that is unspectacular and means nothing in this context. As I’ve noted above, based on the person presented in other forums and under your real name you appear to be an upright and genuinely solid fellow. Under your pseudonym (the cloak of anonymity), however, you take on a different persona. Under your pseudonym you de-personify and demean women and define them by their genitalia. In doing so you portray them as less than human which is essentially the definition of misogyny. Even in your reply above, you attempt to belittle me by using the word “girl” in its most negative context. Is there something wrong with being a girl? The issue is that under your pseudonym you make comments that any reasonable person would find abhorrent. This takes away from the apparently otherwise good man who goes by the name Day.
Posted by: africangenesis | June 16, 2009 5:54 PM
David,
"CC is anti-semitic in the same way that David Letterman was referring to Willow Palin with his knocked-up joke. In other words, you have it wrong."
Clueless, tacky and attacking a child out of spite for the mother? That is not a helpful analogy. So it was Bristol, she's 18 now, officially old enough to be mocked on a nationwide network, but not old enough to drink. They didn't have it very wrong in the Letterman case, surely there is an analogy that would be more helpful to CC.
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 6:08 PM
Carlie:
That's great, and very well put. An excellent and very strong argumet for why yourself and others do not like that word.
...but the fact remains that is is only your opinion.
You do not now, and hopefully never will, have the right or reason to censor the speech of anyone else, no matter how offensive you may find it to be. Now, if you feel you *do* have that right, then I also have the right to tell you you can't say words that *I* don't like.
Free speech is not about what you like and you do not have the right to not be offended.
Now, if CC were calling for the death or harm of someone, that would be a different matter. That would then be a criminal offense.
...but the fact remains that CC is well within his rights to use whatever words he so chooses in his own forum, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
Posted by: Jansson | June 16, 2009 6:16 PM
Can I ask, as a female who is quite happy to direct the word at both men and women, why is 'cunt' misogynistic? I've never thought of it that way.
Posted by: Susan | June 16, 2009 6:21 PM
No one is disputing his "right" to do anything. Are you 12?Posted by: Carlie | June 16, 2009 6:23 PM
You do not now, and hopefully never will, have the right or reason to censor the speech of anyone else, no matter how offensive you may find it to be.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where did I say CC or anyone else can't use any words? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism, and not censoring doesn't mean not saying how other people interpret those words. Try here for more discussion on it.
I never said CC or anyone else couldn't insult people by calling them cunts. I simply said that if they choose to do so, it contributes to sexism in general in society by promoting the idea that female = insulting and that an awful lot of people might interpret them as being sexist for doing so. Go ahead and use it to your heart's delight; just own it and don't pretend that it's all rainbows and unicorns or clutch your own pearls in offense that Well, you NEVER meant it that way.
And once AGAIN, here we are derailing on the use of language rather than staying to the topic at hand. Pity, because the topic of pseudonymity is really interesting.
Posted by: Carlie | June 16, 2009 6:33 PM
Jansson - the basic idea is that insults based on non-negotiable body features are a bad idea. They distract from whatever's really being insulted about that person to pick on something a person can't do anything about, and in the process take as collateral damage any other person who has the same feature. If having that body feature is bad and worthy of mocking, anyone who has it is by extension bad and worthy of mocking.
In the arena of cunt in particular, it's one of a long line of slurs that depict the fact of being a woman as being bad, or having features that are associated with women as bad.
(Before you ask, yes, that applies to dick too, but not to asshole, because everyone has one of those.)
Posted by: Jansson | June 16, 2009 6:48 PM
#141 - OK, that makes sense. True enough that words for female anatomy seem to be stronger swearing.
Ha I'm so proud that that was my first post.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 16, 2009 7:01 PM
Ahhh, outing someone, and I only thought it was a problem for the gay community. Of course some, like Larry Craig or Ted Haggard, probably deserve to be outed.
The only person I ever outed was myself. And it was kind of dumb as I was in the military at the time.
But outing someone only because they've pissed you off by knocking down your poor argument, that's just douchbaggery!
And Cuttlefish, someone has informed me that you are male. So, at least, that eliminates half the population.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 7:16 PM
After reading this piece, why do I keep wanting to shout out:
"I am Spartacus!"
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 7:35 PM
I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but the dude who outed Publius has apparently apologized sincerely and regretfully for having done so, and Publius has accepted his apology.
Hey, that sounds like some good news.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 16, 2009 7:44 PM
Is that so, Qwerty?
You can always trust "someone"
On the internet
;-)
Posted by: Demosthenes | June 16, 2009 7:50 PM
The sad thing about this sort of attitude, and this sort of tactic, is that it's hardly limited to the right. It seems that whenever somebody in a position of privilege and safety is criticized, the first thing they try do is try to leverage that to intimidate the critic...and if they're thwarted by pseudonymity in doing that, they go (apologies) batshit insane.
Yet it's always the same story: they end up looking foolish for the effort. If they could engage the argument, they would have. So, instead, we get intimidation.
And considering what's going on in Iran, I'd say that the value of pseudonyms and cloaked communication has been proven more relevant today than it ever was.
Posted by: Demosthenes | June 16, 2009 7:58 PM
The sad thing about this sort of attitude, and this sort of tactic, is that it's hardly limited to the right. It seems that whenever somebody in a position of privilege and safety is criticized, the first thing they try do is try to leverage that to intimidate the critic...and if they're thwarted by pseudonymity in doing that, they go (apologies) batshit insane.
Yet it's always the same story: they end up looking foolish for the effort. If they could engage the argument, they would have. So, instead, we get intimidation.
And considering what's going on in Iran, I'd say that the value of pseudonyms and cloaked communication has been proven more relevant today than it ever was.
Posted by: Carlie | June 16, 2009 8:19 PM
It's also a catch-22 situation because of those very same kinds of people. The cadre that would out a pseudonymous blogger are the same ones that whip up a frenzy in their followers and encourage them to send attack emails that quickly devolve into death threats, which is a big reason people stay pseudonymous in the first place. If they all acted like civilized humans to start with, there would be less reason for people to want to stay pseudonymous. (Not that it's the only reason for pseudonymity, but it can be a big factor.)
Posted by: Witsendnj | June 16, 2009 9:16 PM
Anyone interested in the issue of outing anonymous bloggers might check out themudflats.net, who started blogging to warn the world about Sarah Palin when she was nominated as McCain's running mate. There is some very intelligent commentary on the topic on that blog.
Posted by: Witsendnj | June 16, 2009 9:22 PM
Anyone interested in the issue of outing anonymous bloggers might check out themudflats.net, who started blogging to warn the world about Sarah Palin when she was nominated as McCain's running mate. There is some very intelligent commentary on the topic on that blog.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 16, 2009 11:44 PM
Carlie:
*clenched-tentacle salute*!
Posted by: chgo_liz
|
June 17, 2009 1:14 AM
I realize I've come to this conversation late and it's now on a very different tack, but...
Since no one else seems to have mentioned it yet, "Publius" was the pseudonym used by Hamilton, Madison & Jay when they wrote the Federalist Papers (articles) to convince citizens to ratify the Constitution.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 17, 2009 1:38 AM
Er,...
um, was that sarcasm?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2009 2:27 AM
um, was that sarcasm?
no, I think PZ really did want you to stay on and fight the troll, no sarcasm intended.
What on earth could have possibly been more important??!!
(that last bit was sarcasm)
:P
Posted by: SC, OM | June 17, 2009 3:31 AM
Oh, indeed! But I had said I had plans! A dear friend just moved nearby, and I'm visiting her at her new place (and trying not to wake her in the next room with my internet drama - she has a "real" job).
I really didn't think my question warranted a hostile/sarcastic response, but it was hard to tell...
Either way, tbh, I'm massively flattered :), and if it wasn't sarcasm I'm truly touched.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | June 17, 2009 4:25 AM
I do have a problem with anonymous aliases in general.
Often the mantle is assumed at the outset for no better reason than because that is what other respected posters do...
Another category is the outright coward, for whom I harbour nothing but derision for their infantile lily-livered chicken-hearted craven stance.
That is not to say that I have not encountered genuine reasons for hiding one's identity:- valid cases have mostly been where identification might lead to external harassment, or worse.
But for most anonymous posters, this is not the case.
(You may note that I am not hypocritical. I post with my full name, my physical address is available given a few seconds' googling.)
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 4:44 AM
...but the fact remains that CC is well within his rights to use whatever words he so chooses in his own forum, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. - Kate
And of course, no-one has said or implied otherwise. But others have the right to call him out as a misogynist shit for routinely using "cunt" as an insult.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 4:56 AM
.But it's not like you've got the balls to go to HIS site and take him to task, eh? Nope. You'll do it from here, all chickenshit-like, where you feel you have "friends" to back you up. - Kate
At the time you wrote this piece of idiocy, I had criticised him only for what he said here. Is that all right with you, your majesty? Does it conform to the rules you've laid down? And in case you hadn't noticed, Blair and SC appeared to be in a distinct minority when I posted. It wouldn't, in any case, take any courage - sorry "balls" - to post on CC's blog - what would I be risking? You really do appear to be too stupid to realise you need to open your mouth when you want to eat.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 17, 2009 5:24 AM
CC has lost it on this one; he is quickly surrendering the moral high ground by acting like an impetuous fool.
I'm fairly sure that a more measured response would have been appropriate; address the complaint, rather than simply decrying people for having a grievance in the first place.
Posted by: Donovan | June 17, 2009 6:12 AM
I think I'm going to out the Bad Astronomer! I know who he is! Then I'll out Pharyngula, next. I know his real name, too. I'm so evil!
Posted by: Donovan | June 17, 2009 6:15 AM
I think I'm going to out the Bad Astronomer! I know who he is! Then I'll out Pharyngula, next. I know his real name, too. I'm so evil!
Posted by: anonymous_coward | June 17, 2009 7:14 AM
Michael Kingsford Gray@157,
You may not see the value of anonymity, but I know people who only survived persecutions by keeping their heads down, and not drawing attention to themselves.
And when I say survived, I mean avoided death camps.
The dominant culture tends to do ok without anonymity, but otherwise anonymity has its value. A recent assassination of a doctor ought to remind you of that.
Posted by: Carlie | June 17, 2009 7:39 AM
Posted by: Carlie | June 17, 2009 7:43 AM
Oops - apparently spelling the closing tag "blogquote" doesn't actually close the tag. Who knew?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 7:48 AM
Me. As I used to do that 2 out of every 3 times I would blockquote something.
The Text Formatting Toolbar for firefox has saved me from that thankfully. Because without it, I'd still be doing it. All the time.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 17, 2009 11:30 AM
you forgot "yellow-bellied"
Posted by: Michael Paul Goldenberg | June 17, 2009 12:21 PM
I don't get the argument that it's fine for people to post under pseudonyms as long as there's a "consistent voice" behind he pseudo, and that somehow all this leads to the conclusion that people who decide to out someone are "unable to lay a glove on" the person they out. There's no logic there I can follow.
Not that I am interested in outing people, but I do prefer that when people are doing something other than expressing views, and are prone to make rather heated personal attacks, indulge in name-calling, etc., that such people have the guts to do so under their real names. It seems to me that ripping people on the personal level behind a mask is cowardice.
Since I don't know any of the players mentioned in this blog entry, I'm in no position to judge who is playing dirty or dirtier pool. I know some pretty vicious right wingers who pollute some math education lists I'm on and do so behind pseudonyms. It's hardly only the good guys who use pseudos and I think making it okay to use them to hide behind when being vicious is a crappy idea.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | June 17, 2009 12:29 PM
Michael Kingsford Gray@157
Although I do not risk anything as bad as those mentioned by anonymous coward, I am a business man who would rather not risk upsetting potential customers because they know I am an atheist.
Your assertion regarding "most anonymous posters" appears to be unsupported, unless you have figures to say otherwise.
And if it is unsupported, then your contempt is based on nothing than your opinion, in short, contemptible.
Posted by: Carlie | June 17, 2009 1:11 PM
I am a business man who would rather not risk upsetting potential customers because they know I am an atheist.
Also insert "your students","your boss", "neighbors", "the church people your spouse interacts with regularly because spouse is still devout", "your children's teachers", "your mom"... you get the picture.
And besides that, in general, can anyone honestly say that you don't talk differently when in different groups? I don't think I say much that my grandmother would entirely oppose on principle, but I certainly don't want her eavesdropping in on all my conversations. That's just creepy. I'd rather Google not be able to collate everything I've said on any blog all together, thanks.
(disclaimer: I use more than one pseudonym, depending on which social circle I'm in, but never cross streams and switch handles within a group, and have used each consistently within that group for several years. I figure anyone who's really interested and invested in multiples of those groups can easily figure out my writing style and notice I'm the same person if they really want to.)
Posted by: Ian Adams | July 4, 2009 4:29 PM
Completely (well, 99.9%) off-topic, but I saw an ad for Ann Coulter's column on this page when I loaded up the article. That made me LOL.