…and this is a 
A strange little blog has been carping at various atheists blogs for a while now. Called "You're Not Helping", it pretended to have the goal of keeping internet atheists honest and holding them to a higher standard. It wasn't very interesting — it's main claim to fame was a tone that combined self-righteousness with whining — but it has just flamed out spectacularly. The author has admitted to committing flagrant sockpuppetry, with four identities ("yourenothelping", "Polly-O", "Brandon", and "Patricia") who were active commenters there, all reinforcing the same views and sometimes congratulating each other on their cleverness.
So much for honesty and a higher standard.
You can watch sockpuppets in action here. After this revelation, it becomes hilarious. Highlights include this comment from "Brandon":
Ha! Polly-O! beat me to it. Great minds....
Next best bit is where the blog author screws up and posts under the wrong name, making the sockpuppetry evident…and then tries to make this clumsy correction, posting as "yourenothelping".
OK, it appears that Brandon is Polly-O! Both commenters have identical IPs. And now both are banned, too.
It's total chaos. It's a beautiful illustration of why sockpuppetry is a bannable offense here.
It's the best example of blatant conversational masturbation that I've seen since the days of Earl Curley on Usenet. Curley was one of those net.legends, totally insane and convinced of his psychic superpowers, who used to frequent sci.skeptic with a collection of aliases that would chatter among each other about how clever Curley was. In fact, here's the original invention of the phrase sockpuppet on usenet:
Earl "voted most popular with hosiery!" Curley lisped:
>but as I sit here with a room full of friends (yes, gays were welcome to)
Why does the image of a person infinitely uglier and more awkward than Mr. Bean come to mind, sitting in a room strewn with crumpled printouts, empty cola cans, smashed beer bottles, and greasy pizza boxes? The chairs are arranged in a circle, with Earl in one of them, wearing 3 day old boxer shorts. On each of the other chairs is a sock puppet, with those silly googly eyes and a name tag scotch-taped on them. One of the sock puppets has a gay chat line ad from a sleazy weekly paper scotch taped to the back of its' chair. Wow, Earl, you sure are "with" the 90's with your tolerance!
You had to be there. But really, people who resort to sock puppets to prop up their arguments are universally reviled as pathetic — the author of You're Not Helping has just had his credibility completely eradicated.
Believe me, if you're playing games with sock puppets the worst thing that can happen to you is not that you might get banned — it's that you'll look pitiful.
I came to this story very late, after the final shameful confession. Much of the legwork that exposed the lies was done by The Buddha Is Not Serious.
And what's really surprising me right now is the bizarre attitude some of the other commenters at YNH have — they're still supporting the guy despite the fact that he has a long history of self-congratulatory lying. People are very peculiar.
Self-immolation is complete. The You're Not Helping blog has closed its doors and is no longer accessible. I guess that means Will from Alabama will pop up somewhere else under a new pseudonym…or more likely, a few dozen pseudonyms.
It's strange: since some of the persistent and obnoxious New Atheist haters on the internet have been exposed as having inflated their numbers at least four or five fold, suddenly my perception of the number of my critics has diminished, which isn't necessarily a good thing.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 27, 2010 11:00 PM
Tone trolls may not be universally blind to how obnoxious dishonesty is, but it's nearly universal.
Somehow it escapes them that most of the supposed transgressions against manners were provoked by dishonesty, often by the religious.
Nothing egregious about lies, you know, just anyone getting testy about continuous dishonesty.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: xyzzy
|
June 27, 2010 11:01 PM
They do this, and yet they disparage peer-reviewed research.
Classic.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 27, 2010 11:03 PM
Possibly worse than the sock puppetry is that they claimed to be three or four authors.
And when some gender cred was needed, they claimed that one of them was female. That's kind of icky.
And why am I still calling him "they"?
Oh, and the key moment of their demise is certainly this post:
http://thebuddhaisnotserious.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/the-curious-case-of-the-youre-not-helping-blog/#comment-173
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 27, 2010 11:11 PM
( I wrote this on The Thread before I saw this post.)
Some other nice quotes:
oops.....
There are also posts where he's having conversations with his sock puppets. Now, I know why he was concerned with "helping"; he needs a lot of it.
Posted by: Travis
|
June 27, 2010 11:14 PM
Looking over at the blog I am amazed that they seem to try to be the victim here. The "I lied but you people are meanies and shut me down" gambit. And that there are people who are willing to look past this and ignore it happened is shocking. The comments should be uniformly appalled at the behavior.
Posted by: bubbabubba666
|
June 27, 2010 11:19 PM
PZ said: "The author has admitted to committing flagrant sockpuppetry"
Have they? I did not see any such admission. Did I miss it?
Posted by: Travis
|
June 27, 2010 11:21 PM
bubbabubba666:
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 27, 2010 11:21 PM
Seriously? How could you miss it? Top of the third paragraph:
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
June 27, 2010 11:22 PM
I noticed that. Not that there isn't a ready supply of "Non-dramatic" women, but still... gh...Posted by: James F
|
June 27, 2010 11:24 PM
The only fitting punishment is to send Mabus in.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 11:26 PM
It's so pathetic. Even in the midst of having to admit blatant dishonesty, poor ol' Will still tries to play the victim card:
*sob* "I have to stop *sob* those mean atheist assholes are forcing me *sob* *sob* they'll out me for the pathetic twit of a tone troll I am! *sob sob sob* Oh gods, they'll do to me what they did to Andrew Rosenberg!!!1! Ohhhh, gawd, the horror! See, I might be a lying twit, but I was right, those new atheists are mean, mean, mean!" *river of crocodile tears*
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist
|
June 27, 2010 11:28 PM
Had a roommate in college who masturbated using a sock. Why did that image come to mind?
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 27, 2010 11:29 PM
I suppose that the positive thing about being convicted of sockpuppet-ry on your own blog, is that you can always count on lots of support for you in your comments section.
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist
|
June 27, 2010 11:30 PM
That's just mean. Funny, but mean.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 27, 2010 11:31 PM
Sybil?
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
June 27, 2010 11:31 PM
He's seriously stuffed up with himself, and/or deluded, that guy.
One of his posts (I think its the one about the accomodationist lecture at Evolution 2010) is almost entirely a conversation between a few rational people and the all various morphs of himself. Capital CRAZY!
And such hypocrisy as well. And cheap pot-shots. What did he think, what with being freely trash-blather-y on the internet, he wouldn't get found out?
And then that pathetic, sorry, loser 'Coming Out..'.
Yes, because that pathetic whining would win people over.
Oh wait, it did.
Tsk.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 27, 2010 11:32 PM
I think it's going to be fun to taunt some of the non-sock-puppet faitheist pissants about how idiotic (well, more idiotic than normal) they were for showing up there to praise and fawn over someone who turned out to be so fundamentally dishonest.
At least we'll know where to look; they'll probably already be on The Intersection trying to find a way to twist this mess into yet another intellectually dishonest way to bash atheists.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 27, 2010 11:32 PM
Sastra - that's the most incredible thing, isn't it? He admits to flagrantly lying in the most egregious possible way by 'net standards, and he's actually getting support. His entire schtick was to accuse people of ethical and intellectual dishonesty (unfairly), yet when he admits lying about the nature of his blog and who he is. . .
unbelievable.
Posted by: Travis
|
June 27, 2010 11:35 PM
Are the blog comments over there always moderated? Mine just got hung up. Has anyone else posted recently when coming from this site?
Posted by: bubbabubba666
|
June 27, 2010 11:35 PM
PZ said: "Seriously? How could you miss it? Top of the third paragraph"
Laziness evidently :-).
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist
|
June 27, 2010 11:37 PM
Josh:
He must be a Republican. And the internet has become main stream media.
Posted by: Trey Cheotomy
|
June 27, 2010 11:37 PM
It goes without saying that there is little true in his "coming out" apart what he was forced to admit.
There is at least proven sock puppet he did not mention, notably "Milton C.", and many more were suspected. The evidence is given at the end of this post:
http://thebuddhaisnotserious.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/the-curious-case-of-the-youre-not-helping-blog/
Lies gushed from YNH like a firehose. It was chilling.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 27, 2010 11:37 PM
Josh, Official Spokesgay #18 wrote:
Are you ... sure? ;)
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 11:37 PM
Wowbagger:
No, they won't accept it. They'll see Will's dishonesty as a noble thing, one of those "you gotta do what you gotta do" deals, where Will's motivation was pure and of good intent, you see.
I did laugh when I saw Gurdur comment his support, that was right interesting, at least for anyone who remembers his little stunts at IIDB.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 27, 2010 11:38 PM
Josh OSG wrote:
It's the faithest way. Apparently, we just don't understand how lying about what atheists say or why they say it is actually going to encourage the religious to cast aside their nonsensical beliefs.
Posted by: bubbabubba666
|
June 27, 2010 11:38 PM
Just went back there...I missed it because the link here that I clicked on launched me straight to the comments section and that is what I read, I was expecting to see it there.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 27, 2010 11:39 PM
Sastra:
HA! That occurred to me, and know, I'm not sure. Oh my, this is hilarious in every possible way. :)
Posted by: Naon Tiotami
|
June 27, 2010 11:39 PM
This is all very sad. I'm just glad I never wasted my time writing about "You're not helping". I was *this* close...
The blog had some legitimate points, but they were spread thinly upon a backdrop of whiny hypocrisy and self-absorbed writing. I'm not happy that it ended this way, with possibly humiliation, but I'm glad the claims have been stopped in their tracks.
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
June 27, 2010 11:42 PM
And what was with the melodramatic 'PZ and his clan are out to get you. They'll hunt you down, expose your email addresses and home addresses and track down your families [blah lala lala] JUST LIKE what happened to Andrew Rosenburg!!'..
No this isn't any sort of witch hunt. Andrew Rosenburg was an ass who deserved the verbal onslaught he received. And the one that this guy is surely going to be subject to at the thinking end of the web. Such pathetic victim behaviour.
And what's the shame is that the gullible people who are lapping up his whining will believe the witch hunt notion and hold onto that until who knows when.
And will end up ingoring a whole bunch of atheist blogs that actually say things that make a shred of sense.
That's the shame of Them Not HElping.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 27, 2010 11:43 PM
Caine...you were on IIDB?
Yeah, Gurdur is a piece of work. His presence on a forum was a promise of future implosions into acrimony, with Gurdur doing a happy dance in the flames and insisting that if only every one followed his rules, it could have all been averted.
Somebody should have warned YNH when he showed up, and maybe this wouldn't have happened. (By the way, if Gurdur were to show up here, I'd have to ban him in self-defense.)
Posted by: sendittodevnull
|
June 27, 2010 11:43 PM
Why am I put in mind of this?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 11:44 PM
Naon Tiotami:
If you set out to start an anonymous blog which implies writing by multiple people [the Royal We] with added sockpuppetliciousness, for the sole purpose of whining about the style a/o tone of other people on the 'net, you're pretty much asking for a bad ending. A little humiliation was more than deserved, if you ask me. Especially as I doubt Will has any actual shame or regret for his experiment in whininess. I expect he's only sorry he got caught with his socks down.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 27, 2010 11:46 PM
Oh, there is something very very funny that should be reported, and this is as good a place as any to do so.
I know these two very famous skeptics. Le'ts call Doris Smith and Bertha Doyle. The other day I said something in an email to Bertha regarding YNH blog, and she replied "Oh, crap, now I'm going to have to buy Doris dinner at TAM"
"Why?" I replied, perplexed.
"Well, we had a bet. I thought that YNH was you. I lost the bet. It was for dinner at TAM.
...
It would be REALLY FUNNY if, in the end, it DID turn out to be me!
(But it isn't.)
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 27, 2010 11:46 PM
So it turns out it isn't Milton C. from the Intersuction?
Heh, the only reason I ever went to YNH was to watch the train wreck, so it is good entertainment to see it go out with one last fireball.
Posted by: Alverant
|
June 27, 2010 11:47 PM
Billy, how did you learn that tidbit of information. Nevermind, I don't want to know.
I couldn't do sockpupperty. Not only is it dishonest, but I'd be found out too quickly. My writing style would be recognized. People may not know the slang term "poe" but they know one when they see one.
Posted by: Jerry Coyne
|
June 27, 2010 11:48 PM
It's amazing that people over there are not only supporting the YNH author, but excusing his repeated lies, duplicity, and deception. And on a website that held itself up as a paragon of honesty and clear thinking! Unbelievable. . . .
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 27, 2010 11:48 PM
How would we know?
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 27, 2010 11:49 PM
Yep.
(/Heads off to register 'yourenotatallwell.blogspot.com...)
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 11:49 PM
PZ:
Yes, I was. I wasn't nearly as mouthy there, though.
Oh, you had to see him to believe him. He didn't get better at all. Even having his own place on the net didn't help.
I admit to being curious if this was the only time he's commented at YNH. I don't know if I'm curious enough to any reading...
Gurdur bans himself, he always has. The fireworks are interesting to watch if you've never seen them before, I'll give him that much.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 27, 2010 11:50 PM
Is anyone going to update us about the reaction of this news at Teh Vapours Central, aka The Intersection?
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist
|
June 27, 2010 11:51 PM
Alverant:
He was my roommate for a half a semester. When you live with someone, sometimes you find out things your really don't want to know.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
June 27, 2010 11:52 PM
How do we know? I mean, we've never seen you and YNH in the same pla...
Wait. That doesn't work.
Where were you on the night Polly was wearing Brandon's pants, Greg?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 11:53 PM
Betelguese:
No, no, the hunt you down stuff was directed at Greg Laden (and possibly Ophelia Benson), but the Andrew Rosenberg Incident™ here was being used as an example of a "hunt down".
Posted by: Naon Tiotami
|
June 27, 2010 11:53 PM
Caine, Fleur du mal, #32:
I'm not doubting that people aren't going to humiliate or that it's not partially deserved, it's just that I'm a rather timid person when it comes to conflict, and I would rather everyone just get along. You might call me a blogging idealist. ;)
Posted by: Jerry Coyne
|
June 27, 2010 11:54 PM
"How would we know?"
You know, you might be right, P. Z. It's not beyond that creep to mount a sock-puppet campaign to excuse himself!
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 27, 2010 11:54 PM
"I always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: "O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!" God granted it." - Voltaire
Posted by: Miranda Celeste Hale
|
June 27, 2010 11:55 PM
Yeah, I'm very surprised and rather appalled that the author is actually getting supportive comments. That makes no sense whatsoever.
And Gurdur recently wrote a long, rambling rant about my blog. I didn't even know who the dude was before that. Very strange.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 11:56 PM
AJ Milne:
That could be the Pearl Clutcher™ Peanut Gallery! They could dissect every single one of PZ's posts and all the comments; they could cluck until they dropped from vapour lock.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 27, 2010 11:56 PM
I've seen Gurdur flounce and posture far too many times to find him at all interesting.
Since at least some of the sockpuppet commenters at YNH were also some of the most egregious idiots at the Intersection, I anticipate silence over there. The sockpuppets won't want to blow their cover at every blog.
Posted by: ckitching
|
June 27, 2010 11:58 PM
Andrew Rosenberg? You mean, this Andrew Rosenberg?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 27, 2010 11:59 PM
Thank you, PZ. I have had no desire to read anything at that blog after that nasty exchange a few months ago. It actually made me very upset.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 12:00 AM
Naon Tiotami:
Er...you do know what kind of bar you're in, right? We're pretty rough and to the point here, but there's lots and lots of substance.
Miranda Celeste Hale:
It's because you left a comment at YNH. Do yourself a favour, kill him. It's best for your mental health.
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
June 28, 2010 12:03 AM
@Caine
AH. Sorry. Fine line.
Got a bit hypercharged at all the hypocrisy and read 'into' it rather than read it.
Thanks for pointing that out.
But he's pathetic anyway.
Posted by: Trey Cheotomy
|
June 28, 2010 12:03 AM
aratina #34, No, YNH **IS** Milton C.
Exhibits A and B.
Other evidence is in the link I gave previously,
http://thebuddhaisnotserious.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/the-curious-case-of-the-youre-not-helping-blog/
Posted by: Naon Tiotami
|
June 28, 2010 12:05 AM
Caine, Fleur du mal, #52:
Haha, I know. I'm a wimp - I'll leave the heavy lifting to all you angry people who know how to impart the smackdown blows. :p
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist
|
June 28, 2010 12:05 AM
I think I need a scorecard. Who is who where?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 28, 2010 12:07 AM
I don't know. This does simplify things, though: we can now assume that all the whiny tone trolls on the internet are a guy named Will at the University of Alabama.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 12:09 AM
You're right. Why seclude sockpuppeting to one blog? The puppet master is probably all over the place.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 28, 2010 12:10 AM
Speaking of Ophelia, she had this notion a while ago that the person in dire need of help at said blog might also be one Kees/Bernie Ranson nutter who had, apparently, apart from other cracked and grand designs, some odd plan some time ago involving staging a coup at B&W* of all things... Does any of this align for anyone else? I'm kinda curious now.
Yes, I'm just doing my part as one of the Attack Dogs of the Horde in an attempt properly to identify this person, to their greater terror. Don't mind me. It's just what I do. Snarl. Growl. Devour...
Okay, actually, it's more that I'm weirdly curious just how very few people these various nattering puppets will eventually turn out to be. And how long-lived is their fixation.
Ah yes, vapour lock--that annoying thing that means I can't start the fucking engine. How very a propos for that faction...
But anyway, I was more planning 'yourenotatallwell' exclusively as a response to the response that 'yourenothelping' represented... It's more weirdly reflective that way. Sorta an inverse trophic pyramid. He's got a blog that, apparently, consists entirely of grumbling about four bloggers he doesn't like. So I'd register one that just stuck to the one...
... then, later, I'd register one that complains about 'yourenotatallwell', in turn, but only about some one-quarter of the posts... Working title: 'youregettingonmynerves'...
(/*No, you cannot make this stuff up. Or you could, I guess, but why would you?)
Posted by: Jonathan C. Murphy
|
June 28, 2010 12:11 AM
You're Not Helping wasn't helping? Ah, that's OK. I wasn't reading.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 12:12 AM
I may not agree with the harsh language P Z often uses against religion in general, but you will never catch me using sockpuppets to misrepresent myself here or anywhere else. Just seeing others pull such childish stunts disturbs me. Lying is lying, and sockpuppetry is a form of lying, period.
Thanks for the entertainment, P Z. Another damned hypocrite busted! Wordpress should take down the Your Not Helping blog. It's fraudulant!
Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 12:18 AM
circleh:
But...Will's admission has led to us commenting here, being all mocking and nasty and horrible and using awful words and such, don't you see, we're proving his case that New Atheists Will Doesn't Like™ are evil! It was all a sting!!1!
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 12:24 AM
Yeah, I saw that and Will from UA's style is very similar to Milton C. He already came out as out Patricia, Brandon, and Polly-O!, what could it hurt to admit to being a Pharyngula-dungeon troll, too? Yet, after all the lying he has already done, I probably shouldn't believe a word of what Will from UA writes. He probably made up the entire personal biography and real-life name to throw people off his scent.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 28, 2010 12:39 AM
This blog is now protected.
FUCKING COWARD!
Posted by: AndrewTheEternal
|
June 28, 2010 12:43 AM
It only happened a minute or two ago.
Pity, I wanted to see the paranoid 'They're out to get me!!!' rantings go on by proxy in the comment section, but the last thing I want to do is register there...
Posted by: otrame
|
June 28, 2010 12:45 AM
Ah, PZ, you really did send me down memory lane. Earl Curley once said I was obviously male because "All women like me."
Of course, Randi didn't find him all that funny, but he was an endless source of entertainment for me and many others. I was actually quite sad when he died. End of an era for sure.
Posted by: Naon Tiotami
|
June 28, 2010 12:46 AM
Wow, the blog really is protected. Damn, I... I wasn't expecting that.
I'm not sure if it's cowardly or not... Oh, wait, it kind of is.
Posted by: Sath
|
June 28, 2010 12:49 AM
Having never heard of YNH before tonight I ventured on over to check out the scene, much as I would if I were in traffic traffic that has begun to slow down because a car has performed a jackknife off of the highway and exploded in a fireball.
So, amongst other amusing tidbits, I decided to check the "About" section. Hilariously enough that is where I found this golden bit:
"Remember: you do not have the right to not be offended. But if you are, you could always try sticking to reality-grounded, sensical criticism and dialogue, too. Our job is to show scientists and skeptics that this rule also applies to them."
Amazing. Pure pontification from a college student with no applicable knowledge of how the world works outside of academia or of what the front lines of this war actually look like. I say this, of course, as a college student with the same myopic outlook. However, my own inexperience does not grant me the delusion that apologeticism and moderateness are anything other than wrenches in the gears that power the engine of critical thought.
I, for one, am ashamed that these actions reflect poorly on not just this narcissistic child, but on our collective ideology as a whole. I may not be the biggest supporter of Greg Laden (admittedly, there is nothing wrong about him or what he writes, I just don't completely agree with all of his points on certain subjects), but what he has done here has surely cast a light on the scale of damage that can be done by a single person under the veil of internet anonymity.
The continuing support of a person who has been proven to be a thorough and complete detriment to the blogosphere as a whole is frankly disappointing. Further proof that claiming Atheistic ideals is no automatic standard of intelligence, critical thinking, or skepticism.
Good work Greg, I applaud you.
Posted by: islandstrust
|
June 28, 2010 12:50 AM
Aw crap. It went protected just now. But I got to read the comments before it did.
I did a round of sockpuppetry before I knew what it was. Still feel bad about that. But it sure as flying spaghetti monster wasn't on my own blog.
Posted by: cousinavi
|
June 28, 2010 12:51 AM
Cousinavi thinks this thread is not sufficiently respectful of people who demonstrate self-reliance in argument, and I agree with him.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 12:51 AM
Lying pissant coward is as lying pissant coward does. Here's what I was about to post when it well (yellow) belly-up.
The people you, Will, should feel bad for are those who've posted here and who are regulars on other acommodationist blogs; they're going to suffer no end of torment for having fawned over you and how you were so bravely and effectively playing the 'new atheists' at their own game.
I know they're going to suffer this because, every chance I get, I'm going to make a point of reminding them of how they were played for suckers and that their hero was exactly the kind of intellectually dishonest, lying scumbag that accomodationism and faitheism fosters - most likely using the expression 'jerking off into a sock-puppet'.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 12:59 AM
I made a note about this issue here:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/what-a-damned-liar-and-coward/
Posted by: Argama
|
June 28, 2010 1:00 AM
The doof protected the blog, and apparently shortly just before I got here. Anyone got a screencap or something?
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 28, 2010 1:00 AM
Wowbagger... I knew there was a reason I was willing to buy that bulldog.
Posted by: gregvalcourt
|
June 28, 2010 1:03 AM
Looks like someone protected his Wordpress Blog.
Posted by: Argama
|
June 28, 2010 1:03 AM
(cont.) I mean ones beside the Buddha Is Not Serious blog.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 28, 2010 1:07 AM
I guess even he wasn't helping.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 28, 2010 1:07 AM
Protecting his blog doesn't bode well. If some one is CTA to save face they're not so much sorry as just caught red handed.
No doubt he will manifest again with a new identity.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 1:08 AM
WowbaggerOM:
Seconded.
Posted by: Miranda Celeste Hale
|
June 28, 2010 1:10 AM
You can find a cached version via Google. The comments don't show up, though, because of the way the Wordpress theme is set up.
Posted by: gregvalcourt
|
June 28, 2010 1:10 AM
Hey gregvalcourt, that was a good comment @ #75.
O h. s h i t.
Posted by: mbrauer
|
June 28, 2010 1:10 AM
No-one has yet mentioned the sock-puppetry on Amazon.com (and exposed on Amazon.ca) of "A Reader from Riesel" aka. William Dembski, trashing one of Mark Perakh's books and commenting favorably on his own. Shameless...
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/creative.cfm
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 1:15 AM
mbrauer:
Amazing as it is, this post isn't about Amazon or Dembski! Imagine that!
Posted by: lomifeh
|
June 28, 2010 1:17 AM
Yeah protected now. These fools should realize that sock puppetry always ends badly. The Making Light blog has the best ways of dealing with them IMHO.
It is kind of fitting that thatmkind of mental masturbation is called sock puppetry though.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/XwX54Ugxg_zA.giOl0_NAACpyNmwv0SJVLRoxnK4QTct#e9300
|
June 28, 2010 1:18 AM
I'm concerned that sockpuppetry may actually be easier here than at WordPress, since there are actually several completely different ways to sign in.
I posted comments earlier under a different name. Can you figure out who I am?
Posted by: godfailblog.wordpress.com
|
June 28, 2010 1:18 AM
I wonder what his penance will be for this, and I wonder which pseudonym will take the fall for it? Good find!
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 28, 2010 1:21 AM
WowbaggerOM wins the thread.
Posted by: godfailblog.wordpress.com
|
June 28, 2010 1:22 AM
Nice one gregvalcourt @ #81. I assure you that I am not one of gregvalcourts sockpuppets.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk0JZAKRB2mhpa5oVn0G6AFFwf09aY941k
|
June 28, 2010 1:23 AM
You know, I liked it better here when I could simply comment using my REAL name, my e-mail address and (sometimes) a web location linked to my name! What happened to that?!
Posted by: mbrauer
|
June 28, 2010 1:25 AM
Oops. Sorry for the non-sequitur in my last post. That's what I get for waltzing into a conversation in progress.
Posted by: cyranothe2nd
|
June 28, 2010 1:27 AM
Meh, the whole blog is protected now. F-ing cowards.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 1:32 AM
Googlemess @ 89:
Sign in has been mandatory for quite some while due to troll and spam infestations.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
June 28, 2010 1:34 AM
Yup, like breeds like. People trying to out "hypocrisy" in minority communities by having an inept understanding of hypocrisy combined with naked tone trolling often backed by immense privilege tend to be giant scum-sucking assholes.
And by their very nature they tend to be types who sympathize with majorities and find inherent comfort there and want to be liked by a majority of people or have the impression of having such a community.
Add the dash of dishonesty boiling beneath the surface and you have all three ingredients for sock-puppetry.
As far as my opinion on sock-puppetry in general? I hate it. I'm kind of big on honesty if no one could tell. I understand the need for gray lies on occasion and how it can be hard to tell the truth sometimes and it seems easier to lie.
But sock-puppets and those people who invent whole troll identities for the purposes of pissing off people they agree with or those who create an offensive "persona" online that somehow doesn't count, because it's online performance art?
Fuckers, all of them*.
*Note: This does not apply to those who create an obvious parody troll in order to make a point or have a bit of a laugh, only the ones who continue even when they are pissing everyone off, because it's funny seeing people riled up.
Posted by: gregvalcourt
|
June 28, 2010 1:36 AM
Punctuation mistake: I forgot the apostrophe to make the user name in #88 possessive.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 1:40 AM
Cerberus:
Oh good, wouldn't want to see you all upsetty with Smoggy or anything.
gregvalcourt, already tired. Give it a rest.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 1:42 AM
Comments #61, #72, #85, and #89 were all by the same person. Can you even tell by looking at them? How can we be sure who is a sockpuppet and is being totally honest here?
Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 1:43 AM
If sock puppets are running blogs now, I'm really looking forward to hearing what Lambchop has to say. Would be cool to find out what Casey and Finnegan are thinking about world events as well.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 28, 2010 1:45 AM
Note: PZ has access to IP addresses and can easily detect sock puppets.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 1:48 AM
I must note that determined troll that also sockpuppet often use internet cafes to get around being banned too. David Mabus was reported to do that a lot.
Dale Husband
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 1:55 AM
circleh wrote:
Yeah, but he's kind of easy to spot...
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 28, 2010 2:07 AM
Cerberus:
QFT, and exactly. The majority of the tone trolls function to suppress and marginalize unpopular, minority views. They misrepresent the positions of their adversaries (almost always a minority voice, whatever the issue) and cloak their disdain for "rebels" by characterizing them as extremists, crackpots, or emotionally unstable malcontents. They do this deliberately to shore up their social cred with a more powerful majority bloc, at the expense of a minority contingent. It's ugly, and it's vicious.
Ophelia Benson has written on this phenomenon extensively, and she's right to label it the "othering" of explicit atheists.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 2:10 AM
circleh:
See #98. Also, the regulars here? We spend an extraordinary amount of time talking with one another.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 2:16 AM
Caine, Fleur du mal wrote:
Indeed we do. And writing is very idiosynchratic - why, even today a banned troll was trying to post under another nym but his style is so familiar that it only took one or two posts for us to recognise him.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 28, 2010 2:23 AM
Psst! I'm wearing Princess Di's new dress. . .don't tell Mabus.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 28, 2010 2:25 AM
Well, I guess you will hate me too, because I had an encounter with an atheist whose attacks on religious beliefs and people came across to me as bigoted, hateful, and extremist, just like those of religious fanatics, so I called him out on it and we fought over it for many hours. I wasn't trying to suppress atheism as much as I was trying to stop what I saw as inaccurate stereotyping of the religious. And for that, I was pelted with insults from other atheists!
So there is more than one way to view that sort of situation, Josh.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 28, 2010 2:29 AM
Psst! I'm wearing Princess Di's new dress. . .don't tell Mabus.
Fake Hubby! Get the hell out of my closet!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 2:35 AM
circleh wrote:
What did this atheist so that qualified as 'bigoted, hateful and extremist', exactly? We've had posts on topics like this before, and it turned out people quite often misuse those terms - particularly 'bigoted'.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 28, 2010 2:36 AM
@circleh:
Who said I "hated" anybody? Cool down.
OK. So you met a dick atheist online. He/she was nasty and a bad conversationalist, and was unnecessarily rude. I don't like that either (are you surprised?).
What I really don't like, though, is whining about being "hated," and unnecessarily melodramatic retellings. Cut the crap. No one here is advocating rudeness for the sake of rudeness, and if you lump me in with that camp again implicitly (which you did, because you were being sloppy), then I'll actually dislike you.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 28, 2010 2:38 AM
Fake Wife, get out of my dreams, and get into my car.
Posted by: chaseacross
|
June 28, 2010 2:39 AM
Is Plato the original sock-puppeteer?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 28, 2010 2:39 AM
Too be honest, I'm not always totally honest here.
Take, for instance, the supermodel girlfriend I'm always mentioning who you wouldn't know because she goes to another school—I haven't been completely forthcoming with regards to her. (Truth is, she doesn't really go to another school. She dropped out to pursue a modelling career. But she lives in another city so you still wouldn't know her.)
Nonetheless, I can't be a sockpuppet because I've got a backstory.
[Checks for a hand up his rectum just to be sure.]
Yep. Not a sockpuppet.
Posted by: Pink Unicorn
|
June 28, 2010 2:39 AM
My sock puppets always tell me I'm stupid.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 28, 2010 2:43 AM
Those aren't sockpuppets. Those are voices.
When they suggest you should cleanse the Earth of the unworthy by fire, it's time to talk to someone about them.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 28, 2010 2:46 AM
Well, I guess you will hate me too, because I had an encounter with an atheist whose attacks on religious beliefs and people came across to me as bigoted, hateful, and extremist, just like those of religious fanatics, so I called him out on it and we fought over it for many hours. I wasn't trying to suppress atheism as much as I was trying to stop what I saw as inaccurate stereotyping of the religious. And for that, I was pelted with insults from other atheists!
Sorry, you have not provided enough details so that any outsider can figure out if what you are saying is accurate or not. As it stands, it just sounds like an other whine that "atheists are as bad as fundamentalists".
Can't say that I hate but I sure as hell cannot take you seriously.
And Fake Hubby, you cannot reclaim my affections by quoting Billy Ocean.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 28, 2010 2:49 AM
Darling Fake Wife. . .I didn't know I needed to "reclaim" what is mine (runs away, scared as all hell).
Gimme a break, babe? I'm stuck at my sister's house with no ashtrary after a very long wedding day involving 90 degree weather, humidity, baked beans, and children.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 28, 2010 2:50 AM
Flashing back to the Smile Time episode of Anget. Thankfully, the puppets did not stick a hand up his ass. Instead, they burrowed a hole to his spine. Alright, that might be worse.
Posted by: AndrewTheEternal
|
June 28, 2010 2:50 AM
It's confusing enough dealing with my own voices, thank you very much. I don't need another.Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 28, 2010 2:51 AM
Oh, my. After my #115, I don't seem like much of a catch, do I?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 28, 2010 2:52 AM
Next up on The Intersection: Will from You're Not Helping chats with Chris and Sheril about the abuse he has suffered at the hands of the New Atheists for simply continuing the noble philosophical tradition of the rhetorical interlocutor.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 2:52 AM
Josh OSG wrote:
Hmm, if you added truly awful music - and apart from the lack of ashtray - it sounds very close to what I would expect hell to be like, if it existed.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 28, 2010 2:54 AM
Oh, my. After my #115, I don't seem like much of a catch, do I?
Um, no. Also, you are sleeping on the couch tonight. Or any of the other wives who is willing to put up with the (re)baked beans.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 28, 2010 2:58 AM
@Janine and Wowbagger:
Oh, it's just IGNUNT. The only thing I can say in its favor is that I do have a private bedroom to lay down, read a book, and sleep in. But I will be awakened (hung over) by the dissonant tones of my nephew shrieking for some goddammned grain cereal or another, and then I'll have to get up and pretend to be human (hide the tentacles).
Oh, I long for my own house.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 28, 2010 3:02 AM
Pretending to be human. That is just low.
Do this to often and you will lose your edge in the ongoing battle against sockputteting faithiests.
Funny, a decade ago, I would not been able to figure out what sockputteting faithiests meant.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 28, 2010 3:04 AM
Hard to say. I developed hemorrhoids whilst binging on cornnuts in Africa, so I'd be leery of either.
(The TMI is your guarantee that every comment is a Brownian original™.)
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 28, 2010 3:05 AM
Gurgle. Whhhooooorppple gleep speulellelel.
Oh, goodness, was my hydraulically controlled interior showing? Gracious!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 28, 2010 3:09 AM
I've been to The Intersection, and to this day I can't figure out what those sockpuppeting faitheists mean either.
[Sound of pin dropping.]
Okay, that's it for me tonight folks. See y'all later.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2010 3:10 AM
circleh:
Lions and Tigers and Atheists, oh my! Key words here are came across to me. When you decide to take issue with someone's tone or style, rather than the substance of what they are saying, it's likely to engender an argument, complete with rudeness.
It wasn't that long ago, there was a Tone Troll™ eruption; it was the Andrew Rosenberg Incident™. We were being scolded over our tone, our rudeness, our cussing, etc., rather than being good little atheists and helping young Andrew out. What the Tone Trolls™ refused to understand is that no one was stopping them from taking a gentle and conciliatory approach, or from posting about the basics of science and so on. Rather than do that, however, they spent all their time scolding and clutching their pearls at our awfulness.
No one has to agree with the way many people here respond, but it is a waste of time to attempt to school us on the proper way to respond to ___insert person/situation here___.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 3:13 AM
Josh OSG wrote:
Some people cite the best day of their lives to be the day they got married, or the day they held their first child in their arms, or they day they won the Rory Award for The Most Gratuitous Use of the Word 'Fuck' in a Serious Screenplay.
Not me. Mine is the day I moved into my own place.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 28, 2010 3:17 AM
Posted by: infi.myopenid.com
|
June 28, 2010 3:32 AM
Posting this here, because 1) his blog is now down, and 2) he would probably simply edit the comment anyway.
Dear YNH/Will:
Your not-pology of projection and self-image of noble martyrdom is insufficient for months of intellectual dishonesty and outright misrepresentation of others.
You apparently, like I, grew up as an atheist, and thus probably have a well-practiced hand at dealing with others of all faith levels, from the passive deist to the most fervent bible thumper. Some time later in life, a few people write a few books with well-structured arguments and clear reasoning sheds the wool from a lot of previously faithful eyes, that gain a fair amount of popularity, and they come to realize they've been duped for years by people they cared about. These people get together to commiserate, often rambunctiously, with others who have gone through similar metamorphoses as well as others who have long since realized the harm that blind faith does. The TONE on some of the watering holes appears more vitriolic that you, the Practiced Atheist Hand, would actually engage in, and so you make a blog that seeks to point out discrepancies and what you see as more egregious examples of vitriol and rhetoric.
This is fine, and even probably the correct response: fight rhetoric with rhetoric.
However, you made serious mistakes:
1. Because you are actively visiting these places, you see the people involved talking amongst themselves. But you extrapolated from there that the people involved actually go out and yell in people's faces at the first slightest hint that someone expresses faith. It's very possible that the recently-deconverted may slip and do this on occasion in residual anger, but it is far more common in my experience that speaking out is done as a response to others, rather than directly initiated. This is the thing that is misconstrued on specifically-atheist blogs, and shows like the Atheist Experience, as well: for 90 minutes one day a week, that team puts themselves up on television for people to willingly call in and confront them. The other 166.5 hours a week, they go on with their normal lives just like anyone else. The same goes for Pharyngula, and really anywhere else; aside from reading and chattering amongst themselves, most everyone just goes about their normal lives, even while gathering occasionally and engaging in passionate discussion about topics that interest them. The only reason these people are perceived as strident is because you only see them when they're discussing these topics, and it is your own inference that they do it all the time and in the same manner in which they talk amongst themselves about it that is making you angry. That is your own problem, not theirs.
2. You outright misrepresented the people involved in that context. Then you proceeded to prop up your position by manufacturing agreement. This is contemptible. Disagreement is fine, and even encouraged, but you're an out-and-out liar, which is far more reprehensible than anything actually spoken about at the places you seemingly loathe but refuse to stop visiting.
If you don't like them, don't visit them. Hell, your blog was probably the best response if you seriously felt this way. But it was the way you went about it, the intellectual dishonesty that turned people from disagreement to outright anger, so your feigned surprise that you received a strong response after you went around in an outright smear campaign lying about people is naïve and disingenuous. Yes, Virginia, people don't like being lied to or about. Go figure. Slander and libel are legally actionable for a reason.
The scorn is with the tactics and intellectual dishonesty, not with the fact that you have spoken out, so you can cram your "being silenced" martyrdom complex. You are not a martyr: you are simply a lying jerk, and you deserve every bit of antipathy that your dishonest behavior has earned for yourself.
Posted by: mistereveready
|
June 28, 2010 3:39 AM
Holy wall of text batman!
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 3:40 AM
I don't get too upset about the noise coming out of Tone Trolls™. The interwebz is a very discourteous place. You are nicely sequestered behind a zillion miles of fiber optics and don't have to worry about much serious repercussion, such as a fist coming through your face. I certainly don't get into arguments in a face to face situation where I tell the person to fuck off for having marched so far past the stupid line.
What the Tone Trolls™ need to realize is that a forum such as Pharyngulaaaa...Pharynguliiiiii (shit...I can't say that word without wanting to break into a rousing rendition of Funiculi, Funicula). Where was I? Oh yeah, a forum like Pha...this one is a very fine vehicle for letting off a little steam from having been polite earlier to that person in the street to avoid a dust-up. There is no one available to immediately punch you in the face for expressing, with whatever vehemence you wish to use, your heartfelt feelings on issues related to the sciences and whatever else comes up in discussion. So Tone Trolls™, fuck off! (Waiting for fist in three...two...one...)
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 28, 2010 4:05 AM
I went to YNH when it was new, to check it out, commented a few times, but it became clear very quickly from the responses I got(although I didnt spot the sockpuppetry going on)that the "We" running the place was a dishonest intellectual lightweight who had nothing original to say at all.
So good riddance, and what a way to go out !
Posted by: Peter Beattie
|
June 28, 2010 4:05 AM
» PZ Myers:
Since at least some of the sockpuppet commenters at YNH were also some of the most egregious idiots at the Intersection
Do we know that for a fact? And who do we know it about?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 28, 2010 4:07 AM
Wait a minute, did hyperon actually accuse all those people of sockpuppetry?
Well hey, that's one hella puppeteer: I mean, to make that many profiles with that many differing consistent back stories and that many individualized blogs/websites, and individualized self-conversations with great consistency , you've got to have almost no life of your own.
Posted by: Miranda Celeste Hale
|
June 28, 2010 4:08 AM
Peter- see comment #22
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 28, 2010 4:29 AM
The more I learn about human behaviour, the less bizare this is. People still support Andrew Wakefield FFS!Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 28, 2010 4:31 AM
Or see here for a taste.
Posted by: LoreleiHI
|
June 28, 2010 4:32 AM
Sockpuppeting your OWN blog? There's low, there's pathetic, and then there's this. Amazing, in a sad, sick little way.
Posted by: Dave_SE20
|
June 28, 2010 4:38 AM
PZ wrote:
According to Wikipedia the earliest usage was in 1993 with this post:
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 28, 2010 4:42 AM
What does perplex me, however, is that those who are putting off the "holier than thou" attitude are being praised while those who come of as being crude are not. Surely the faitheists are tapping into that self-righteous niche that people just loathe...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2010 4:52 AM
The faitheist/accomodationist creed: lying, sock-puppetry and altering people's post is okay; talking about S-E-X, using naughty words and/or hyperbole (i.e. suggesting certain recalcitrant idiots should perform uncomfortable indecent acts on themselves with unlikely implements) isn't.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 28, 2010 5:00 AM
Yep, Wowbagger, and add intellectual honesty to the list of things they don't think are important.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 28, 2010 5:13 AM
Read the "Curious Case" post and comments, what is it with these people and their vitriol against Pharyngula commenters ffs ?
I mean, you know, not coming from faitheists but actually from the good guys.
Is it too hard to understand that you have 40.000 hits per day here, and there will naturally be the odd comment out ? How some folks manage to generalize from that to the rest of the commenters and their style and quality of writing is frankly beyond me.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 28, 2010 5:36 AM
Rorschack, that sort of behaviour is more than vaguely reminiscent of the rampant cherry-picking displayed on some of the ridiculous Intersucktion threads (though I don’t know whether it's true that some of those oafs are responsible for sock-puppetry at the YNHers’ blog: I just remember the name of Milton C. being a regular over at the Mooneybum clusterf*ck).
What’s the technical name for the fallacy of denying the merit of an argument because you dislike the tone in which it’s expressed, or because it’s littered with swearing? Because it’s regularly invoked by these folks as an intellectual guillotine – let’s ignore what the real point is, because we’d rather clutch our pearls at the vulgarity of it all.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 6:04 AM
The topic of the last couple of posts reminded me of that Monty Python 'Abuse' sketch. When you pop in to Pharyngula and sometimes see people calling each-other fuckheads because one thinks an e-book reader is useful and the other one doesn't, it is rather confusing.
Pharyngula can sometimes be like walking in to the midst of the Abuse routine. Most of the time it's simply because one person misread another's comments or misunderstood the main intent the person making the comment was trying to convey.
And arguing about someone being too bold with the lingua Franca seems like someone admitting they were too lazy to mentally transcribe the main thrust of a comment into its main message. It's like people who think that George Carlin or Frank Zappa have no deep meaning or message because they drop the F-bomb in their routine or song.
Funniest thing to me is that most of the people here seem to be on the same page, but there's a few that still get into rather vitriolic arguments about matters that seem pretty trivial. I guess people are still closer to their tree-dwelling, poo-throwing ancestry than the space shuttles and genome projects would indicate. Computer monitors should come with a little sticker reading: PEOPLE IN MONITOR MAY BE CLOSER TO APE-LIKE ANCESTOR THAN THEY APPEAR!
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 28, 2010 6:42 AM
So Tone Trolls™, fuck off! (Waiting for fist in three...two...one...)
Why yi youtaa ...
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
June 28, 2010 6:50 AM
Fuck you, you fucking fuck.
But seriously:
I keep on hearing that the Pharyngula comments are a vicious hate-fest, but these claims seem very short of examples. I concede that some commenters have a very sensitive troll trigger, but can you provide a single example of someone who wasn't being a complete and utter fucktard being widely attacked?
The e-book reader example isn't valid. "Dreadnought" started off with a patronising and completely irrelevant post, to which people posted perfectly reasonable replies. He then ramped up the obnoxiousness, and was told by a single poster to "get off his high horse". He then ramped up the obnoxiousness even further, at which point the fireworks began.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 28, 2010 6:51 AM
They really won't like Tim Minchin then, but Pat Condell should be ok.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 28, 2010 7:03 AM
The tone complaint might be legitimate if there were just rudeness in place of substance. But that's not this place. Most people here are willing to argue their point and do so with passion. And so they should, we are people too. Somehow we're expected to show humanity at the same time as being unwavering in logic. It's a no-win situation!
And that's just it, it's a no-win situation. If I thought framing, bridge-building or similar would actually work, then I would be all for it. But there's no evidence that it does. No matter what you're getting people who are looking for any reason whatsoever to dismiss what you're saying. If it's not going to be over tone then it will be something else.
Posted by: stuartvo
|
June 28, 2010 7:27 AM
hyperdeath:
True, but in contrast there are others that bend over backwards to give obvious trolls (such as Becky Transsexual) the benefit of the doubt, displaying exemplary patience in the hope that something good can result.
But I'll bet that those paragons of virtue don't get mentioned at The Intersection. Why let the truth get in the way of a good diatribe/pearl-clutching session?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 7:33 AM
infi #130,
That really used to get my goat when we'd have people show up here acting like we were getting in theists' (or spiritualists') faces by posting comments on Pharyngula. True, it is a public forum but, really, no one is being forced to open up Pharyngula and read (although it is rather addicting). So, yeah, good point.
If you've ever been to a Pharyngufest (a real life meetup of Pharyngulites), you know that we are pretty fun people to talk to, open to discussing many topics, and not at all intimidating. I doubt the YNH puppet master has ever been to one.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
June 28, 2010 7:51 AM
Well, I run a small quirky blog, but it's obvious that sockpuppets are a baaaad idea and not necessary. There will be enough people around to tell you good and bad things.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/06/christianity-is-worst-religion-ever.html
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 7:51 AM
I almost bought the 'Fuck you, you fucking fuck!' T-shirt (block capital white letters on black) while I was in Manhattan (you know, the 400 million little open front shops that line every single street on the island). Unfortunately, there was also a wife with me, and that usually negates anything puerile that I might want to do.
I guess I didn't have the full back catalog of Dreadnutz greatest hits. I was basically the man just out of the rain who bobbed in to have a coffee and see what was up. From the front of the shop it just looked like a bunch of people incensed over the usage or non-usage of e-readers. What next? Outrage over rubber bathroom drain stoppers?!? I had a laugh out of it, so it was worth it, even if I took it all in out of context.
What is it with Britain and their invasions? They seem to have the big export of atheist stand up right now with the likes of Tim Minchin and Jimmy Carr. If you have one of those DVD players that can handle PAL, get Carr's 'In Concert' and 'Telling Jokes' from Amazon UK. My dad and I were laughing so hard we both had sore ribs the next day. But we're also both irreverent, iconoclastic bastards, so your results may vary.
I want to laugh with Pat Condell's scathing banter, but the topic is usually too serious and I end up feeling cranky afterwards. It's like you're thinking, 'HAHA! I want to laugh at those silly muslims and their jihad, but then you start to think how they actually do want to overwhelm your nice newly pressed and dry-cleaned secular Western civilization with nut-hatchery sharia law...HA-ooooohhhhh.'
Everytime I hear the term 'thought framing' I get this mental image of Bob Vila and Bob Ryley standing inside a person's head deciding which neural connections they're going to knock down in order to put in that lighted atrium. DON'T DO IT, BOBS, DON'T DO IT!!!
And for the record, I have a black-belt in WhyIOtta!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 28, 2010 7:53 AM
Tim Minchin is Australian...Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 28, 2010 7:56 AM
The blog whoring on here has gotten increasingly annoying.
Posted by: percyprune
|
June 28, 2010 8:02 AM
WARNING: The tone in Pharyngula may not match the tone in face-to-face conversation. Discontinue use of Pharyngula immediately if irritation, or discomfort develops. Only to be used under the supervision of adults.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 28, 2010 8:05 AM
I hope there was alcohol because if there was not, that scenario is my perfect nightmare.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
June 28, 2010 8:12 AM
I hope there was alcohol because if there was not, that scenario is my perfect nightmare.
You didn't complete...the "very long wedding day" also needs to be highlighted. *shudder*
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 28, 2010 8:13 AM
Good catch, yes that should have been highlighted
Posted by: Imbecile Heureux
|
June 28, 2010 8:23 AM
This guy is a twenty three year old student with a computer. I'd suspect at least 90% of them are idiots (I certainly was).
I love this blog, but I can't help but wonder whether reading it is good for me. Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Andrew Rosenberg and now this chap, all somehow elevated to the status of "worthy of my attention" by default.
If I had never read this blog, I would be blissfully unaware of the existence of any of them. Much as I love the writing, I can't help but view that as a net loss...
Posted by: The Great And Powerful Oz
|
June 28, 2010 8:31 AM
Hahaha...This whole thing has had me in stitches
yourenothelping 27 June 2010 at 1am:
...followed by that hilarious "oops, I'm closing the blog now" post captured at TheBhuddaIsNotSerious
ROFL!
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 28, 2010 8:32 AM
Sath, I appreciate the comment but I really did very very little. Check the links above for the key post at Buddah. That is the tip of an ice berg that involved several people.
The main thing I did was to get blamed by YNH for ruining it for him/them. I didn't figure out the Alabama connection, I didn't figure out the sock puppets (though I could tell they were operating, of course).
If I did anything, I drove YNH a to distraction by retorting but not taking the blog serioussly, and that caused him to drop his guard.
Then Oedipusmaximus went in with the left hook.
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
June 28, 2010 8:57 AM
What a freaking amateur. Any moron can create sockpuppets to be friends. A really clever puppetmaster creates his/her own enemies.
Posted by: KingUber
|
June 28, 2010 9:09 AM
That's really where the term was invented?
Posted by: PeteJohn
|
June 28, 2010 9:26 AM
So how far does one have to be buried in their mother's basement to run a blog and have four different identities that all frequent the blog? Has this guy never done anything exciting, like go to a college football game or eaten at a great restaurant or, hell, gone to the zoo to look at the penguins?
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 9:29 AM
@Kel, OM #155: Aha!...my bad, I was confusing him with Bill Bailey. Unless he's like the Geico critter who may be both English and Australian.
AND
@Percyprune #157: That's exactly the kind of disclaimer I was looking for. Well done, you!
AND
Blogwhores? I think I saw some the other day down by the harbor. Were they the ones with the micro-skirts and fuck-me boots swinging their laptops and asking the sailors if they've ever read two blogs at once before?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 28, 2010 9:34 AM
Something like that
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
June 28, 2010 9:45 AM
Wotta maroon!
The proper way to gin up support with sock puppets is to have them argue against you.
Posted by: Snikkers
|
June 28, 2010 9:53 AM
Stockholm Syndrome
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 28, 2010 9:55 AM
PeteJohn @ #166,
much as Pharyngula has sometimes been accused of being an “echo chamber”, or its denizens likewise denounced for indulging in “groupthink”, the YNH blog rather more clearly embodies the idea of an echo chamber: a small, over-resonant room with room for only a few voices, and the air ringing in close quarters. I was guessing the blog was being run from the spare downstairs bathroom, where you shout much louder thanks to all those tiles.
On the other hand, surely the point of the blog owner having so many sock puppets was an attempt at generating “simulated groupthink”, thus giving the blog the false appearance of agreement on the subject matter, when the reality is a community of individuals with disparate views (except for non-belief, and not always complete alignment of views then) shouldn’t naturally arrive at such a facile consensus?
The guy’s fairly young, which is no excuse, but he needs to learn a big lesson from this (which might involve going to a zoo to look at the penguins, surely a more fruitful endeavour than lying through one’s pointy teeth on the Internet) – unfortunately the post in which he came clean suggests it will probably be some time before he does.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
June 28, 2010 9:55 AM
This... This is the exact reason the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when in the presence of pearl-clutchers, tone-trolls and apologists... it's also the reason I rail so hard against and have so little patience for them. I don't trust anyone who seems to value tone and style over substance... and I trust even less those that go out of there way to criticize those who don't.
As is clearly demonstrated in this case, to people like this, the substance of a discussion (or argument) is not as important as the tone and the goal of being accommodating to all viewpoints. They are convinced of the superiority of this line of thinking, and therefor honesty and integrity is secondary to tone of delivery, and so using dishonest tactics to further this argument hardly seems questionable.
When intellectual honesty and integrity are not the primary concern, what's a little hypocrisy and dishonesty if it's done in the spirit of furthering the really important goal of carrying the proper tone?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I have zero tolerance for tone trolls.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/LSPcbEMVkPQ1f0N9eNRoafo6X0HSLVZdVndm6w0-#85093
|
June 28, 2010 9:58 AM
Sort of ironic...
'You're Not Helping' isn't 'Helping His Cause'
Posted by: Imbecile Heureux
|
June 28, 2010 10:03 AM
But why do you care? Why do any of you care? Why is this worthy of comment? Or even thought?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 28, 2010 10:06 AM
You're thinking about it and commenting on it. Why?
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 10:10 AM
Stop it. You made me LOL.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 28, 2010 10:14 AM
I think it's funny how we can be criticized both for being an "echo chamber" and also for arguing too much amongst ourselves and creating a "hostile" environment.
Like, haha funny.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 28, 2010 10:15 AM
Quibbling (and probably predictably) here, but I'm not sure their goal really is to be accommodating to all viewpoints.
They say this as a/an (I think shallow) claim, but as has been noted: the thrust there tends to have a rather predictable direction: the deliberate marginalizing of voices that are too substantively and directly critical of traditional superstitions having real social power. They're accommodating only to viewpoints they feel fit a certain set of criteria, and that's a key one. And you're 'shrill', regardless of your tone, if you take a solid shot at mainstream superstitions deemed to have a proper social hegemony going.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 28, 2010 10:18 AM
I know you directed that question to Imbecile Heureux, PZ, but my answer would be:
* Scandal or gossip does set tongues wagging, and elaborate literary hoaxes are unusual enough to merit comment: why did the hoaxer bother in the first place?
* Some of us recognise the names of commenters mentioned in dispatches, and so there might be a rather human element of schadenfreude at work in identifying and pillorying the wrongdoers
Not very dignified I know. (Oh look, Netherlands 1-0!)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
June 28, 2010 10:19 AM
That's probably a fair point... I would rephrase it by omitting the last portion, thusly:
"As is clearly demonstrated in this case, to people like this, the substance of a discussion (or argument) is not as important as the tone."
Posted by: Shala
|
June 28, 2010 10:22 AM
All this talk of sockpuppetry vaguely reminds me of the Spy from Team Fortress 2.
Posted by: Imbecile Heureux
|
June 28, 2010 10:23 AM
Because your writing is, as ever, engaging; and yet, is this person in particular worth engaging with? If you saw him pontificate on the street, or had to mark an inevitably mediocre essay of his, would it be worth sharing with the world? If not, what is it that makes the fact he owns a computer different?
Because it's troubling. Because this blog brings to my attention some wonderfully important stuff, and some fantastically trivial stuff, and never seems to differentiate between the two in either the reach of its rhetoric or the grasp of its critique. And neither, perhaps, should it; and yet at times, all I am left with is a fantastically witty response to utter garbage that should never have seen the light of day in the first place.
Really, though, because I want to. But sometimes I'd rather I didn't.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 28, 2010 10:24 AM
Re #179, I'd add that the mindset at work in those still defending this wank, especially, may be somewhat illuminating.
There's a real means justifies the ends attitude about the accomodationist crowd--and this adds one more underscore to the growing six-deep deck of them for me. Tell any lie or half-truth if you think it helps strategically or tactically. And if you thought it ended with just nodding your head mildly when someone sez something apparently mostly stupidly phatic and largely meaningless about some legendary and possibly metaphorical--but possibly not and do let us not nail that down too hard since that could get ugly, see--some possibly metaphorical supernatural personage... Well, no. It doesn't end with that.
There's a real lesson here, I think, about keeping shit simple. And just calling BS BS properly, when that's what it so obviously is. What tangled webs we weave, and all.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
June 28, 2010 10:28 AM
Historical trivia semi-related to this posting:
sockpuppetry seems to pre-date the internet. Walt Whitman, I have read, wrote anonymous reviews praising Leaves of Grass to the skies.
(I don't offer this by way of excuse btw, just for its interest.)
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 28, 2010 10:30 AM
I think it's one of the fundamental truths of the internet that there will always be someone dense enough to post the "why are people bothering to comment on this?" comment.
Posted by: Steve, token Canadian
|
June 28, 2010 10:35 AM
There is actually a long history of using 'sockpuppetry'. Benjamin Franklin used various pseudonyms including 'Busy-Body', 'Martha Careful' and 'Caelia Shortface' to promote himself and his views around 1730 (source: The First Scientific American, Joyce Chaplin, 2006). Locally in British Columbia many politicians use staffers to phone in to radio talk shows and ask 'soft ball' questions to help 'get the message out'. Personally, I think the practice sucks.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 28, 2010 10:36 AM
Tim Minchin does have joint British and Australian nationality. He mentioned it on Twitter regarding voting in UK elections.Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 28, 2010 10:41 AM
Re #180, we'll call it a friendly amendment.
(And I'd put that winking smiley here if I weren't so rabidly agin' 'em...)
Larger discussion, also had here, on and off: it really does strike me that lot often doesn't even even know what they're really doing, or why, and that's a large part of the problem. There's this vague set of drivers behind their complaints, and some of it seems at first blush reasonable enough. Their mommas probably told 'em at some point if you can't say anything nice, say nothing, and often, that's not a bad principle...
Cutting some corners in the argument, however: it is a really bad principle in this case. A lethally stupid one, actually. There remain excellent reasons for saying a great deal that's not the least bit nice. Not to mention: almost regardless of what you're saying and how, they'll call it Not Nice on a whim, if doing so happens to align with the needs of social forces pushing 'em along this rather unconscious stream of theirs...
They do not think about this much at all, however, it seems to me, despite occasional vague claims to the contrary, and somewhat muddled editorials claiming no, really, this can work, trust us... They've just got that vague principle in their head; that drives them. And then they also (as hinted at above), like a lot of people, thrust hardest in the directions that seem easiest. And when the criticisms from clearer voices seem to threaten folk that have real power in their communities--among them religious groups of the old and mainstream guards--naturally enough, they get a bit selective--unconsciously or no--about how they apply that principle, and to whom.
The end result is predictable: support for the status quo, just where it's strongest.
(/Which, also unsurprisingly enough, really Is Not Helping™.)
Posted by: Imbecile Heureux
|
June 28, 2010 10:47 AM
@mikerattlesnake:
Ach, fair dos. Was never really my intention to be dense, and I take the point. Consider it a perhaps inadvisable outpouring of a private struggle. And, of course, ignore at will.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
June 28, 2010 11:06 AM
@121
Count this wife out. I love Josh, but a Josh recently exposed to baked beans and to (oh, the horror), children! is more than I can handle. Just to be safe, I'm leaving for a few days to spend some time in one of Idaho's many no-cell-phone-coverage-and-no-internet-service mountain ranges.Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 28, 2010 11:17 AM
Here's the Google cache of YNH's confessional post.
When will these liars realize that the internet is not memory hole friendly?
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 28, 2010 11:18 AM
I don't know why people are so surprised by this. Hasn't the phenomenon been observed in absolutely every minority struggle?
In an imbalanced society a lot is to be gained by appealing to the dominant group. Some who do this will be doing it out of naive faith that the group will be seen as less threatening and therefore reap wider acceptance. There is some truth to this in a world of moderates, but not in a world of people who truly oppose your very existence.
Invisibility is an important tool of oppression. One very powerful thing you need to do to marginalize a group is to insist they don't exist at all. Individuals are easier to control and hold down when they think there is no hope or help for them, that they are the sole hated individual in a society of betters.
The second branch of the accommodationist faction of any group is much uglier. They've spotted a good career move in the double agent vein. There's always a job to be found in selling your own people down river. Historically, quite literally.
Posted by: Miranda Celeste Hale
|
June 28, 2010 11:37 AM
Oh, how delightful! GURDUR OF DOOM has weighed in at his blog. And apparently my comments on this situation are "melodramatic bullshit" and "histrionic". OH NOES, I haz offended the King of the Tone Trolls!
Posted by: Ophelia Benson
|
June 28, 2010 12:01 PM
Caine, @ #39 -
"I admit to being curious if this was the only time he's commented at YNH. I don't know if I'm curious enough to any reading..."
"he" being Gurdur -
He has, several times, always (that I've seen) to agree warmly with YNH's ferocious hatred of me, and then to report that he's done a post of his own about his ferocious hatred of me, linking to it, wagging his tail about it...
Posted by: Ophelia Benson
|
June 28, 2010 12:11 PM
And that (what I said) brings up the sexism aspect. Greg said (comment 3)
Indeed. It (I still think of it as 'it') did that to retort when I accused it of knee-jerk sexism, and then ever afterwards when it wanted to shout some more about my aversion to knee-jerk sexism. It also, via one of the socks, called me a useless putrid twat. Gee, now why would anybody think there was anything at all sexist about that "blog."
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 28, 2010 12:16 PM
@145,
"What’s the technical name for the fallacy of denying the merit of an argument because you dislike the tone in which it’s expressed..."
The fallacy of style over substance.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/616394/posts
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 28, 2010 12:18 PM
Thanks Peter H.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 28, 2010 12:20 PM
I always find it funny how the concern trolls act more vile than the people they hate.
They'd do a great deal more for their 'cause' if they just practised what they preached and set an example. There are plenty of bloggers and even people here who don't curse or insult a lot, and they're still interesting to read, but being the loudest person in the room tends to get you attention the fastest.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 28, 2010 12:27 PM
@Gyeong Hwa Pak #135
No. As deplorable as I found Hyperon, he only complained about being ganged up on (or something like that). Strange Gods Before Me started the sockpuppet joke on that thread.
Wow. Just wow, Ophelia.
Funny thing is, if someone used that language* on Pharyngula, they would be excoriated for their sexism. And yet we're the group that gets lambasted on The Intersection for violent rape fetishism†, or whatever.
* Brits sometimes get a pass for using "cunt", since the word doesn't seem to carry the same sexist connotations there.
† Not that I mind too much. That incident spawned the "fuck [person] sideways with a Leica Rangefinder" meme, which I do enjoy.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 28, 2010 12:28 PM
I see Josh Rosenau is citing "You're Not Helping" with approval in a post he has attacking PZ for criticising people who think prayer is going to do anything to help the situation in the Gulf of Mexico.
I swear Rosenau and Mooney are becoming more deranged as the months go by.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 28, 2010 12:33 PM
Cunt is still pretty taboo in the UK. It is Australia that is has lost much of its sexist connotations. Twat though has lost its sexist connotations here in the UK. Hence whilst I sometimes use the word when talking to British friends, I do not use it here or in other Internet forums that not effectively totally UK orientated.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 28, 2010 12:44 PM
Well so much for tone!
Easy. They are majority protectors which means they will also protect misogyny in an effort to look out for the doodz.
The violent rape fetishism argument is a part of this. "Bitches ain't shit! Rape victims ought to feel what it means to get told to fuck off on Pharyngula."
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
June 28, 2010 1:14 PM
All this speak of sockpuppetry makes me miss Suck Poppet, one of the greatest 'nyms ever.
Re cunt: Finnish language also has a swearword like that, 'vittu', meaning the same as 'cunt'. Nowadays it's often used like 'fuck' in English, as a punctuation mark, so many just don't give a flying fuck anymore when they hear it. It's just sad to see such obvious misogyny and lack of imagination so widespread no-one even raises an eyebrow.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 28, 2010 1:18 PM
Taboo certainly (in a way it isn't in Aus) but not sexist in the way US usage of the word seems to be. If a fellow Brit called me a "stupid cunt" I'd take it as a stronger version of "stupid bastard". "Cunt" glosses as something like "despicable person" whereas to Americans it seems to mean "despicable womanly person".Admittedly that "cunt" is considered taboo enough to work as as an obscene term of abuse even when isolated from it's literal meaning points to some sexism in itself.
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
June 28, 2010 1:19 PM
Oh, I forgot to link Wire. My favourite scene in the series, obviously.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 28, 2010 1:21 PM
I beg to differ Matt, although cunt can be used as an equal opportunity swearword here in Australia, I'd say it's more often than not employed both in sexist and denigratory terms, and still retains the taboo you ascribe to the UK.
Twat would probably get a pass because it's fairly infrequently used here - we can't even agree whether it rhymes with swot or tat.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson
|
June 28, 2010 1:24 PM
It is not universally agreed, even in the UK, that "cunt" no longer means female genitalia and thus that it is no longer a sexist epithet.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 28, 2010 1:28 PM
HH Pope Maledict: Fair enough. I think I fell in the trap of believing travellers' tales about Australia. It seems to be a bit back-packer folklore that all Australians call all their friends "Ya cunt" in an affectionate way all the time. It's normally told with the implication that everyone should Chill Out about bad language, OK?
Posted by: Ophelia Benson
|
June 28, 2010 1:32 PM
I crossed with #206. Ditto. It's a delusion that "cunt" is no longer sexist.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 28, 2010 1:38 PM
@Ophelia: Actually, I think there would be consensus that it does still mean female genitalia; the literal usage is common enough.
The use as a insult seems to be weirdly unrelated to the literal meaning though, like the use of "fuck" as a term of abuse. I don't have the skills to dredge up any data on this, but IME it's used more often than not towards men and even towards stereotypically manly men.
Posted by: CJO
|
June 28, 2010 1:53 PM
The use as a insult seems to be weirdly unrelated to the literal meaning though, like the use of "fuck" as a term of abuse. I don't have the skills to dredge up any data on this, but IME it's used more often than not towards men and even towards stereotypically manly men.
It's not "weirdly unrelated," it derives any of the force it might have to insult a "manly man" precisely because of its gendered connotation. I am baffled by this seemingly widespread belief that when gendered terms ("whore", "bitch", "cunt" being the most commonly so used) come to be used frequently toward men they become less sexist. If anything, they become moreso, and to the extent that they are shrugged off as just good-natured banter between the lads they become even more perniciously so.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 28, 2010 1:56 PM
Has a similar pattern to gay as in "that's gay" but it's still there.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 28, 2010 1:58 PM
It's alright now that we're engaged, silly.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 28, 2010 2:14 PM
@CJO I see your point that that doesn't prove much in itself, but I really don't think "cunt" as term of abuse (as used in the UK) is about calling men womanly. Also, I have heard objections to the term from British feminists on the grounds that it's not OK that a word meaning "vagina" should be the most obscene word (which convinced me - I'm really not defending "cunt" as an insult); I don't think this would be the argument used if people were meaning to say womanly-ness was insulting.
I'm prepared to be convinced. If you can show me British-English examples of "cunt" where the meaning is clearly "you are contemptible like women are" (which I understand is how the American usage works) I'd be very interested.
Posted by: Erin Baker
|
June 28, 2010 2:32 PM
With regard to posting #184:
I just want to say (and I want you all to understand: it's not just on my behalf I say this, but on behalf of every other bi-racial lesbian alpine enthusiast out there) that I am in awe (simply in awe) at the breadth of Aaron Baker's historical knowledge. Once again he has enlivened an otherwise arid discussion with a perfectly on-point anecdote.
For too long, the Order of the Molly has been the reward of third-rate, dyspeptic sycophants. When will Aaron Baker receive his just reward, I ask you, when?
Posted by: CJO
|
June 28, 2010 2:36 PM
Matt,
You mean, "where the [intended] meaning is clearly..." and my point is that this is not a necessary demonstration for making the case that it is still a gendered insult, that it would not occupy the semantic space that it does if it did not derive its force from its literal meaning, which is still current.
Really, the American usage is not so very different as you seem to believe. It's probably used more often toward female persons, as a synonym for "bitch," but it is used plenty in "boys will be boys" obscene banter. The connotation "you are contemptible like women are" is just that, a connotation. That this explicit formulation may not be in the forefront of a speaker's mind when he blithely calls one of his lads a "feckin' cunt" doesn't mean that that's not why he is using that term rather than some other one, like "bastard."
Posted by: puf-almighty
|
June 28, 2010 2:36 PM
Sir I disagree with your etymology.
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" "Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons." -Bill Hicks
Posted by: Harun Baker
|
June 28, 2010 2:45 PM
I would like to concur with the very discerning (though no doubt God accursed) Erin Baker regarding the erudite, charming, and probably very handsome Aaron Baker.
Although he will doubtless end up howling in eternal flames with all the other infidels, drinking scalding water and getting a new skin each time the old one burns off--his sensitive analysis of the Blessed Qur'an should entitle him to some (albeit fleeting) happiness in the present world.
And consider this, unbelievers: it may lighten your thoroughly deserved punishments just a bit--it may, so to speak, turn down the temperature a degree or two--if you reward this most deserving of your Godforsaken company. Blessings be upon Aaron Baker--for now.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 28, 2010 2:46 PM
Now I'm picturing PZ furiously typing in all the comments on Pharyngula in a desperate attempt to demonstrate how popular his blog is, only taking a break to update "Skatje's" social media sites.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 28, 2010 2:52 PM
Well, simply, people are at least semi-aware of how the meanings of words change over time. While I don't think it's the case that "cunt" or "twat" have lost their connotation to female genitalia, words like "orchid", "seminar", "avocado", and "manati" have.
Perhaps it's a bit of wishful thinking, like whites trying to claim "nigger" is acceptable because it's used by a certain segment of black culture.
I'm not going to argue that either "cunt" or "twat" are, and I'm grateful to the Pharygula community (sorta, mostly) for assisting me in identifying and reducing (if not eliminating) my use of marginalising terms.
Except for "moron", which Becky Transsexual correctly pointed out derogatorily references people with intellectual disabilities. I still use "moron".
Oh, yeah. Is this where we have an argument about whether our wedding song should be Pachelbel's Canon or Clarence Carter's "Strokin'"?
@#215:
Well said, Erin Baker. But why do I detect the faint odour of gym shoes?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 28, 2010 2:57 PM
Why pick one, really?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 28, 2010 2:59 PM
While Erin and Harun might be sockpuppets (*grin*), I would like to point out to each of them that neither has voted for Aaron on the currently open Molly Award thread (the only way I know how to find the most current Molly thread is to search for it).
Posted by: Irwin Baker
|
June 28, 2010 2:59 PM
Feh!
Enough already with this substandard poseur, Aaron Baker. I hope I speak for all nonobservant Jews on the Northeastern seaboard when I say: his work is derivative, unimaginative, barely coherent, and regularly off-topic.
He will only deserve the Molly when the Molly has become a badge of mental illness. Well, come to think of it, you have given the prize to . . . but I digress--don't cheapen the Molly any further! Send this poseur packing!
Posted by: CJO
|
June 28, 2010 3:01 PM
Well, simply, people are at least semi-aware of how the meanings of words change over time.
People are, I would say, acutely aware of the fact. However, it seems to me that they usually take a binary view of the phenomenon: X used to mean Y, but now it means Z, and I can freely use it without noting the semantic overlap between Y and Z.
Posted by: Erin Baker
|
June 28, 2010 3:13 PM
This is just the sort of homophobic verbal violence with which I have to contend on a daily basis. When will it end, I ask you, when?
Posted by: wylann
|
June 28, 2010 3:32 PM
Yeah, come talk to me, I'll give you a list. >;-)Posted by: mattheath
|
June 28, 2010 3:41 PM
CJO: The fact that there it's used as a synonym for "bitch" does seem a relevant difference to me. If someone called me "bitch" (aggressively or "playfully") I would be aware that it carried connotations of properties that are (according to misogynistic stereotypes) "feminine". I would assume that those connotations were there in the mind of the person insulting me.
If i was called "cunt" I wouldn't pick it up in the same way. The connection with "vagina" would exist but about on the level that "motherfucker" is connected to incest, or between "you dumb fuck" and sex.
I don't rule out the possibility that it is different to those things and I'm missing sexism because of male privilege. It's just take me some evidence to be convinced. (It occurs to me that there presumably is a lot written about the nuances of swearing-usage, although probably behind paywalls and in jargon I couldn't cope with).
Posted by: Erin Baker
|
June 28, 2010 3:44 PM
That's enough from you, bad, unworthy, envious Irwin Baker! You're not fit to clean the humus off Aaron Baker's flip-flops.
I've seen you pursue this pathetic vendetta on every freethought site in the internets--not to metion the checkout line at the Hoboken Borders. When will you give it up, I ask you, when?
I'm here to controvert your lies and slanders--and to praise the sheer intellectual awesomeness that is Aaron Baker. What's more--and I'm not ashamed to say this--if I were a straight woman, I'd want to have Aaron Baker's baby! And if you don't like it, you can suck my gym shoes!
Posted by: blf
|
June 28, 2010 3:55 PM
Fucks fucking echo fucking far, FFS. ;-)
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 28, 2010 4:08 PM
It's almost as if atheists can't win.
Posted by: CJO
|
June 28, 2010 5:12 PM
I would assume that those connotations were there in the mind of the person insulting me.
We keep hitting the same point, one on which you keep saying you want evidence, but one on which I advocate a conceptual shift, not necessarily consideration of a new set of instances that you were previously unaware of, in order to see what I'm saying. I'm trying to get at that "in the mind of" the speaker. It doesn't matter. That's not where the connotations are, or need to be, in order for a term to have them. The connotations are the result of a shared set of prevailing attitudes and entrenched cultural values that say: a woman has less worth than a man, and to call a man by a gendered term is to demean him as having the worth of a woman. Those attitudes are why "cunt" has any force as a term of abuse, regardless of whether a given speaker explicitly endorses those attitudes or has them in mind when he or she uses a term that is loaded in this way.
And, anyway, how would I go about providing evidence that in a given instance certain connotations were in the mind of the speaker? I generally do not trust the self-reports of potential bigots regarding their attitudes toward the groups at whose expense they appear to be engaging in abusive language. "I didn't mean anything by it" may well be true in a lot of cases, but it's indicative of a lack of care for how one's speech is received, which in the case of gendered terms of abuse is generally indicative of a position of unconsidered privilege on the part of the speaker.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkt6Nfb5ZW2CGtg6XZkjdIvayuJiC-CFIE
|
June 28, 2010 5:56 PM
I came across that awful blog a couple of weeks ago. It reminded me in many ways of nineteenth century pamphleteering.
It was so full of crap I thought it had to be a joke. Turns out it was. Glad it has gone - it wasn't helping anyone.
Posted by: Paul
|
June 28, 2010 6:49 PM
I mentioned this at Laden's blog, and it's somewhat been noted earlier, but Milton C. was a particularly irritating troll at The Intersection for a decent time period before YNH was started (at least to the best of my recollection, it popped up in March/April 2010, whereas he was posting at The Interdungeon in December 2009/Jan2010). Never could have guessed, huh?
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 28, 2010 10:44 PM
Josh, Official SpokesGay | June 28, 2010 2:07 AM:
Please do not use euphemisms such as "explicit" or "adult". They are pornographic atheists.
Posted by: szwagier.myopenid.com
|
June 29, 2010 5:24 AM
I'm kinda sorry YNH has gone, because I think the general point of view it was *supposed* to express (that 'we' are 'too strident') is one held by many who don't show up on blogs like this, Greg's, or Jerry's. I personally (yeah, I know, anecdotal) know several atheists who are uncomfortable with the mockery and rough-and-tumbleness of it all.
I don't agree with them, but I think it's a valid point of view.
This Will chap clearly disappeared up his own arse very rapidly, and the non-Will commenters on the site (assuming there actually are any) were no *help* at all, but still...
Posted by: DLC
|
June 29, 2010 6:52 AM
Wow.
A bunch of comments.
Oddly, I never found this bunch to be worthy of mounting a movement against.
I reserve the right to clutch at my pearls, or even to have an acute attack of The Vapors.
That said, I have found little in "new atheism"
to differentiate it from "old atheism".
So maybe I'm missing it.
I'm sure I could gin up a few sockpuppets to support myself with, but let's take it as read, okay ?
Right. I'm off.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 29, 2010 7:17 AM
CJO: I think I do see what your saying: the connotations live in the wider culture, not just in the mind of the speaker. But from everything you've said I think the connotations in the two cultures are different. I'll widen what I said a bit: If one Brit called another a cunt I think the connotation of "vagina" would be at about the level of connection between "Motherfucker" and actual incest, not just in the assailant's mind but in that of assailed and as viewed by onlookers. I think "cunt" behaves like "motherfucker" not just in minds of foul-mouthed Britons but in British culture.
As for what I mean evidence, I wasn't thinking of self-reports so much as context. I think it would be easy to find convincing evidence that a man calling another "bitch" is about implications of "contemptibly femininity" - weakness, submissiveness etc. The uses are always something like "Stop crying! What are you, a bitch?" or "You're the boss's little bitch". My impression (based only on second-hand sources) is that American usage of "cunt" is similar, and I assert (based on complete submersion in British culture from birth until a couple of years ago) that British usage doesn't carry those suggestions (either in intent or cultural understanding).
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 29, 2010 8:13 AM
You guys are funny. Whether cunt is offensive has very little to do with guys and everything to do with the minority who may still resonate with that usage. It can only be non-sexist in a world without sexism just as "that's gay" can only be free of homophobia in a world without homophobia.
It's about the *other* people. You know. The one's your totally forgetting in your arguments.
Posted by: J Myers
|
June 29, 2010 8:27 AM
Well, Pachalbel's Canon opens up a world of possibilities....
Posted by: snurp
|
June 29, 2010 7:12 PM
Imbecile Heureux @ 161
o-ow
Uh, on the topic of that blow to my self-importance, I noticed one of the other comments also brought up the (entirely appropriate) lambasting of whiny email guy. I don't know how the pro-kid gloves crowd thinks the younger gen is supposed to mature into exemplars of brilliance like IH without being called idiots when we act like idiots.
While there's a difference in appropriate behavior for a ten-year old and a twenty-year old, that twenty-year old is entrusted with the same civic duties and freedoms as a thirty-year old (and in another year, he or she will even be able to imbibe the demon water), so why should the twenty-year old be spared the consequences of stupid behavior in a way that the thirty-year old isn't?
In the fall I'll be molding the brains of some slightly-younger folks via intro bio labs, and quite a few people from my undergrad are currently middle school teachers. Do you really want us to have been immune to criticism before we gained access to positions of power over your kids? (OK, yes, TAs have no power.)
No is reading this thread anymore, are they.
Posted by: Paul W., OM
|
July 5, 2010 10:28 AM
Recent development: the sock puppeter of YNH has admitted that he socked up the Intersection as well.
http://thebuddhaisnotserious.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/the-curious-case-of-the-youre-not-helping-blog/#comment-449
I find it difficult to believe that Mooney and Kirshenbaum did not know that many of their "supporters" were sock puppets. (And if they truly did not know, it demonstrates serious incompetence. Mooney closed some long threads because they were "too vituperative," etc. without mentioning that most of the "vituperation" was from sock puppets loyal to him.)
I have to wonder how many of the remaining supporters at the Intersection are sock puppets of someone else.
Posted by: Tree Lobsters
|
July 7, 2010 12:25 PM
Ha! I didn't realize poor old Earl was involved in the origin of the "sockpuppetry" term. Also didn't realize you were the same P Meyers from the sci.skeptic days. Small world.