Be Skeptical

In case you don't know it there has been some talk about 'peace talks' as a remedy to the current disagreement among skeptics and some FTB bloggers/A+/skepchicks. PZ Myers has addressed this idea and dismissed it, but for different reasons than mine. PZ thinks that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't respect women. I'm not sure when PZ came to the conclusion he was the end all/be all when it came to what people should think and how they should act. I wonder, did he have some sort of vision? While he eating his alpha-bits cereal one morning did it spell genyous and he thought it was a sign? Did a strip cage fall and hit him on the head while he was 'out with the fellas'? While that mystery may never be solved we still need to deal with the results. PZ has a well known blog. In the past he was at least on our side and focused all his immature behavior at creationists. Now he has dismissed any suggestion he use the scientific method when it comes to social issues. There is only one method for him, his way.
  Now while PZ and I agree that there are not going to be any 'peace talks' that will solve anything, he doesn't echo my reasoning in that I don't think there is any infighting between atheist/skeptics. The atheist/skeptics are doing fine, the atheists are still atheists and the skeptics are still skeptical. Then we have  this other group of poser skeptics.

PZ Myers and company are to skepticism what these guys are to Slayer

We don't need peace talks, we don't need debate. We need to keep in mind what it is that defines us. I'm going to leave atheism out of the rest of this discussion because it really is specific and no matter how many +es you add to it your idea stems from a specific belief and that limits the effectiveness of it. Whoever came up with A+ as a title for a 'next wave' was clearly not well-versed in the already existing groups involved in secularism.
 That leaves us with skeptics. Steven Novella has an excellent blog post where he discusses the role of skeptics. His original post is followed by his reply to popular 'poser skeptic' PZ Myers.


PZ says the following in his reply to calls for a cease fire-
 "They have not said what I’m supposed to stop doing or change…well, other than stop being an evil feminist or whatever, which we know isn’t going to happen. It also doesn’t matter what they want, I’m not planning to change anything."

  I think it is very important to note that PZ Myers has condemned the forum which goes by the name  Slymepit. He refuses to allow anyone who has anything to do with the slymepit to comment on his blogs. If someone from there does leave a comment it is removed and the person is subject to "instant ban" or the comment is "disemvoweled" (no I'm not talking about about a third grade kid, he really does that)
 PZ can not see how this is not a reasonable position, he thinks everything is science on his blog. That's why he is a poser skeptic. (and he is also a few rides short of a carnival)

PZ also says "My silence on issues I care about will not be a bargaining chip." There may be someone  who has a problem with PZ trying to gain equal rights for women but I don't know who it is . If anyone does know who PZ has been getting this idea from then please let me know cause I would like to tell that person to pass a message to PZ.- QUIT ENGAGING IN CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, QUIT SPREADING GOSSIP/DISINFORMATION, AND QUIT LYING ABOUT THE WAY YOU DEAL WITH OPPOSING OPINIONS
This person that he seems to be drawing his conclusions from could possibly be the only person on earth PZ Myers actually listens to. He doesn't listen to any of the people who disagree with him about his behavior. In fact, if you read his post it will leave you in awe. If ignorance is bliss PZ Myers is multi-orgasmic when it comes to his behavior. The degree of retarded social development he would have to possess in order to take his position on this subject is incredible. He makes Charles Manson look like Dick Clark. when you compare skills at social interaction......poser skeptic.
  The slymepit forum is not against women's rights. A short visit to the forum will prove that. Some of the humor is a bit juvenile or raunchy for some and the language is not the type you blurt out in the library but no one is trying to censor thoughts and no one is wishing any harm on others. Now as a contrast to the slymepit  lets take a look at the interaction in the Pharyngula comment section on this post . A guy named scooterskutre posted  a link that was related to the subject of the blog. He is attacked by the band of merry morons. Even after he posts a link to a very friendly  podcast he did with PZ and Rebecca Watson and tells the morons he considers PZ a friend. Well, the guy gets overwhelmed by stupidity and is never even given a sliver of mercy by the head moron running the blog.

  Now I think that we have established that the current main mouthpiece against skepticism is PZ Myers. I have given you some reasons/examples why his position is not one that indicates much if any level of skeptical ability.
  If there is anyone reading this who disagrees then I would love to hear you explain to me how PZ can know none of the people in the slymepit forum is worthy of respect. How can a person take such a position and still be considered a skeptic? Poser skeptic
 The good news in all this is there really is no divide or rift in the skeptical community. Just as there really is no debate over evolution being true. Sure there are some who don't believe in evolution but their arguments cant stand up. They just look silly and it is quite easy to prove evolution is a sound scientific theory. There may be some holes or gaps in it still but there is no gap large enough to cause the entire idea to collapse. Even a poser skeptic could win the argument between creationism vs evolution.(example: PZ Myers)
  Same thing when it comes to skepticism. There are real skeptics(evolution), and there are poser skeptics(creationists). People who realize they can not judge a person or an entire group of people without knowledge, real knowledge, or tested results are skeptics. Those who think an internet post or the actions of one person define everyone they associate with are not skeptics, they are posers. People who call for the shunning of others simply because they won't unite in a certain mindset are posers. Skeptics do not need to lie, or ban/block large amounts of people. Skeptics take the best evidence they have and form an opinion based on only what they know is true or they hold off until they have enough evidence. Poser skeptics make assumptions based on what they want to be true or what supports the things they have claimed to be true without facts in the past. Skeptics realize there are reasons words have solid definitions and those definitions do not change at a flick of a switch.

  
    I have come out against the 'peace talks' because there really is no divide between two like -minded groups and because some of the problems I had with people pretending to be skeptics were not up for debate. There is no debate whether Adam lee is going to tell me what words I can use or the context I intended when using certain words.There is no debate on whether I am a racist like PZ Myers has said. There is no debate over whether I am able to have a respectful conversation with another person. That I can do so has been proven hundreds of times. Still the poser skeptics refuse to acknowledge any of the proof. That would take the wind from their sails. If they were to do so then they would be admitting to being posers. Rather than do that they will keep piling more and more sand on their already well buried heads. All that sand is enough to fill quite a wide divide.
  The fact that many of the poser skeptics are atheists really means nothing, they may as well all like the color blue. The fact they come to conclusions without any solid proof to support those conclusions makes them posers. The way they fill in any gaps with disinformation and don't realize the problem with that makes them posers. The expectation they have for others to blindly follow them makes them dumb, but least they are not posers in that respect I guess that is something.
  There is no divide because Skeptics are skeptical. This is all anyone expects and all they demand. Be skeptical, just that. Until this happens some people will only be posers there is no disagreement about that among real skeptics

PZ Myers-Destined to Failure

Scene 1

enter PZ Myers:
"It's hard to think of something to say when faced with so much bullshit"

  That is how PZ opens in a conversation  with TheSkepticalHeretic, C0nc0rdance & TheTruePooka which can be found here.

Hello??? HELLO!!?? Has anyone seen Stephanie Zvan?! She needs to get on this right away! It's clear all PZ can do is say the word "bullshit" when people try to have a conversation with him. Stephanie, get on that right away and please tell us all the made up reasons why it's okay for PZ to do that kind of thing but not anyone else. You know the context, or the alignment of the planets being different, or it was a joke.....right? 

People are depending on you Stephanie. You are the best qualified to make up excuses and pretend like there are legit reasons for people like PZ doing the EXACT same thing you have been criticizing others for . No one else has your kind of experience at it. In fact the way you deny reality and act like you are royalty while barking orders at the peasants (readers) is legendary (in your own mind). The way you actually think no one sees through your rhetoric is laughable (in everyone else's mind). Keep that in mind when you can't be consistent Stephanie, people are laughing at you, especially when you get angry. No one is frightened and no one is really listening. The people in your comment section would agree with anything you say. Is that the kind of writer you want to be Stephanie? No amount of denial can change the facts, you are only fooling yourself. Latest example  When Damion Reinhardt talks about the word "renounce" he never claims a different definition than you use, he just says it reminds him of another instance he considers similar.

On a more serious note-  Be honest, do you have a wheel next to your desk that gets a spin whenever this kinda shit happens? Ok , maybe that's going too far. It's a dartboard then? 

   This performance by PZ is full of hypocrisy and lies that seem almost like they are tangible. In fact I  feel the need to wipe the crap PZ is spewing off me at times. At one point in the discussion PZ talks about shutting down dissent to a volume he can manage. Just as we see so often from people like Stephanie Zvan and Ophelia Benson, he makes comments about things and people that are untrue and then complains about the continuous repetitive comments from readers. He shows no ability to consider that he may be even a little responsible for creating the very problem he is complaining about, not to mention the reaction he gets from the other member of the conversation. I half expected red lights and sirens to go off followed by Greg Laden busting in with his arms flailing and yelling "DANGER PZ! DANGER!" (Greg doesn't get out much) 

   Even though PZ starts out the conversation so (dis)respectfully, the hosts of the show remain composed and voice their opinions on his opinion. Then PZ does something even more disrespectful, (the nerve!) he treats every single one of these guys as if they are idiots. PZ sits there staring into the camera and lies to every one of them. There can be no question about his deliberate deception, not by any reasonable coherent adult human."If someone disagrees with me, that doesn't get them banned" Well yes, sometimes it does PZ. I can say this from experience. I disagreed with PZ calling me a racist. When I didn't use an approved style of reply he simply banned me started giving me different labels and claimed my reaction to his lies was proof he was correct. PZ is too damn dumb to see how he started the entire conflict by claiming knowledge when he had none whatsoever.  

      What PZ describes as "yammering" by people who "have nothing to say" is often people with real points of disagreement, valid arguments against what PZ has said. Some are people who have been banned because they disagreed with the way PZ describes their character. PZ loves to add insult to injury I guess by basically sending the message that he knows them better than they know themselves. The  assumption is that he is always correct, just like believers who think they already know all the answers. Especially when it comes to social issues. Like I've mentioned before, anyone with basic common sense should be able to understand the complexity of social interaction. Maybe you won't understand the details but you can still realize it is complex. Unless you are PZ Myers and you think the things people type in chat rooms translate into real world actions on a consistent basis.

 
C0nc0rdance makes the point that people  are trying to be heard and PZ dismisses his point too. PZ denies anyone has a right to be heard on his blog except him. He uses this point to excuse his censorship of anyone who says anything he disagrees with. The way PZ rationalizes his censorship is by equating every 'troll' to creationists who claim the earth is 6000 years old. 

   It is kinda tough to even present all the things wrong with PZ's position in this video, I just don't have the time to cover it all. I would suggest you watch it yourself. While I appreciate the people who organized this conversation I really wish they would have done a better job pointing out the way PZ misrepresented his own actions.

 There is no doubt a certain number of you are going to read this and say to yourself --Big surprise, what did you expect from PZ Myers? Don't get me wrong this is exactly the kind of thing I expect of PZ. If it had gone down any differently, then I would have been surprised. More and more people are beginning to realize Pharyngula is a joke most of the time.  Just look at the comment section and the kind of crap that goes on there. It's a hub of egotistical idiocy. It's a bunch of morons who couldn't figure out how to use a stamp if you gave them directions, under the delusion they are intelligent and intimidating. Maybe one day they will come to realize what clowns they look like but I wouldn't count on it. PZ complains about his comment section getting all screwed up if he allows just any every person in the world to post on it. Well there are plenty of blogs out there with little moderation doing just fine. I wonder why PZ has such issues? Hmmm let's guess.
  Take a look at the quality of the comment section. While you are at it count how many times that dysfunctional Caine insults or belittles someone. (and they call me angry?)
 Just because I expect PZ to act like a dickhead and lie doesn't mean he gets away without me saying anything about it.  He claims he doesn't care but that is just because he is too stupid to realize the amount of truthful accounts/opinions showing him  for the dick he is, grows everyday. I'm doing my part to help. Pretty soon he is going to be known for what harm he has done rather than for anything he has done to help. It's a good thing he doesn't value what anyone thinks of him but if he doesn't care about others or the damage he has done why does he even bother in the first place? Doesn't he know the truth always wins?  

PZ Myers-Lord of the Fly-Brained

   

     I think we have a problem. Many people expect social issues to be black/white. Some skeptics are falling  into this belief also. Skeptics are supposed to be skeptical and that means questioning claims. It also means when coming to a conclusion it should be as close to accurate as possible. When it comes to social issues there are some questions that have more than one right answer. Take feminism for example. Feminism is a necessary and worthwhile cause. There are many instances of women being treated unfairly by men simply because they are women. There are some forms of feminism that can be  unproductive and do not result in positive progress, in fact they are, in my opinion, harmful to the feminist movement as a whole. Most often the people who are doing the most harm to feminism are men who call themselves feminists.  Those men do not know what it is like to be a woman and really seem to have a problem understanding they simply will never be able to know exactly what it is like to be a woman. This is not to say men can't relate on any level or shouldn't speak out on behalf of women or women's issues but they should do it with the limitations of their understanding in mind. Many times you will see feminist men go to extremes and start seeing misogyny in every negative comment or action even slightly related to women. I've come to believe this behavior is somewhat like what we see in homophobic men and their dealings with homosexuals. They often will go to extremes to compensate for feelings they are uncomfortable with. These men have feelings about women they know are wrong and overcompensate by lashing out at other men for even the slightest behavior against any female.
 As I written before, sometimes I am ashamed of the shallow, disrespectful behavior I've seen demonstrated by men towards women. I do not think all men are defined by that behavior,but I realize it needs o be addressed. The radical feminism that is being used in an attempt to further equal rights makes it difficult for people like me to continue to speak out against what we think are inappropriate actions by men. Are some guys dicks? Yes, but so are some women.

  One example of men overcompensating for the feminist cause is my good friend and supporter, PZ Myers. PZ is clearly paranoid or possibly he is guilty of bias against women to the point where he feels some  guilt about it, maybe a bit of both. PZ attacks any negative comment having to do with a female and calls it misogyny. He has created a bubble where a disagreement between a man and a woman can not occur. At the risk of being labeled a misogynist (again) by PZ I must point out that women do make mistakes and they do engage in behaviors that should be criticized by others. PZ has even gone so deep into the pool of misogynist paranoia that he has damned a forum of 500 members called the slymepit as sexist, racist, misogynist, and evil. If a known member of this forum posts in the comment section of PZ's blog they are instantly banned by his beloved 'banhammer' which he gleefully uses to quiet any dissent among commenters. The only people who are immune are his regulars who have earned their loyalty by nodding and smiling or making accusations that support PZ and his paranoid delusions about slymepitters.
 Along with the condemnation of anyone from the slymepit, PZ has also proclaimed his distaste for the idea that men have rights too. The idea that a man can at anytime be a victim of bias is beyond the understanding of those who are so extreme in their idea of feminism as to have become blind to a certain spectrum of social injustice.
  The ways the court system has dealt with child custody issues is one example most should be aware of. The unequal treatment displayed by the courts for years demonstrates just one way men have sometimes been treated as lessors when it comes to raising children. This has changed a lot in many places but still goes on today. The mother is favored by the court as the best caregiver simply because she is a woman. There are other examples but I am not going to go into those now. If you would like to read more then you can go here A Voice For Men. I have had Paul Elam on my radio show as a guest and he has proven to be a reasonable man with sound arguments. I wouldn't say I agree with every opinion on the site but I also can't name a place where I do agree with every opinion it expresses.

  In the latest attempt to show that women are in danger at skeptical/atheist events, PZ Myers makes a claim that shows just how far he has slipped from reason. PZ takes data from a census being conducted by American Secular Census and attempts to show it proves secular women are being victimized at an alarmingly high rate. The problem is, the data isn't complete. It isn't even provided in the results PZ Myers is trying to claim is some kind of 'smoking gun'. Sure there are lots of pretty numbers but there are no important numbers, like overall numbers. Stats are given like this-

Regardless of gender, all uninvolved respondents are asked: What are your reasons for not being involved in the secular movement? Check as many as apply. Women outnumber men in these responses:

• 70%/30% - Bad experience with group, person, or event
• 100%/0% - Can't get over my conditioning that religion is good and secularism is bad
• 67%/33% - Health issues
• 65%/35% - Lack of childcare

Or this-


And women are the only respondents to select these answers:

• 100%/0% - Unwanted advances by other participants
• 100%/0% - Not sure - I can't put my finger on it

Anyone who got past the 5th grade should be able to figure out the flaw in this type of information. These numbers are meaningless except they indicate there was at least one woman who experienced unwanted advances or is unsure. The unwanted advance could be almost anything, such as being asked to coffee in an elevator. The thing is we don't know how serious the problem is without real numbers such as the numbers of women who answered the question yes. Telling us if anyone did is useless...unless your name is PZ Myers. That's right, a professor of biology, a college professor, actually uses these figures to try and prove his case against men. He claims this-

  This American Secular Census thing is actually asking some good questions — insightful, even. It’s trying to get a fine-grained perspective on various factors in our involvement and sometimes comes up with some revealing data.
This is what a lot of us have been saying for quite some time. You have a choice of a few responses to reality: one is to deny it, one is to implicitly approve it, and one is to try and change it. Put me in the last category. Also note that I am shocked at how many skeptics/atheists are in the first, and disappointed at all the ones in the second category.

Yes PZ is correct. Some people are in denial of reality. He is lord of their kingdom, Lord of the fly-brained. 
Is there no end to his downward spiral? And why must he scream the entire way down?

PZ Myers The Judge, The Jury, The Jerk

 Let's take a look at the latest blog from PZ Myers. He is a scientist, biologist, skeptic, atheist, feminist, I am sure we will find some interesting information about biology, skepticism, or science. Those are interesting subjects, let's see what good old PZ is going to teach us today...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/17/not-cool-not-cool-at-all/

    Hey! That's not about skepticism! It looks like a post that could be accusing Reap Paden of identity theft.  PZ left an important element out though......the proof, facts, some kind of evidence besides made up bullshit. 

 I have dealt with some real idiots over the years I have been on the internet but seldom do you see this kind of bullshit. I've dealt with paranormal investigators, religious believers, frauds, psychics, and just plain internet bullies. It is rare to find someone of this ilk. It isn't enough PZ has accused me of being and asshole, racist, misogynist, sexist, fucking scumbag, coward now he has to elude to me being an identity thief. The way he words it he may as well have me convicted already. 

  PZ, I have news for you. You are ignorant and oblivious to the opinions many people have of you these days I guess and I hate to be the one to break it to ya but......A lot of people think you are a moronic twit. That means there are lots of people who could have done what you are giving me credit for. 

You have the nerve to talk about cowardice? How chicken shit and low is it to suggest I may have something to do with pretending to be you and your pleasant conversation with a car dealer without ONE SINGLE BIT of proof except the fact I don't like you. The reason I don't like you is because of the exact kind of shit you see above. You don't have a clue as to what skepticism is. You think it is your place to judge a person and then trash their character in a public forum. You have done it to me, to Justin Vacula, and to many others including the 500 members of the slymepit forum.  With this post you have made it clear to me you deserve no respect from me whatsoever.  I assure you I am no coward. I will stand up for myself and take accountability for the things I do. I did not do what you suggest I am guilty of and if I ever see you then I will be confronting you about the claims you have made about me. Meanwhile you tell people to harass you too your face? PZ if anyone so much as said "boo" to your face you would probably begin weeping uncontrollably and lose control of  your bodily fuctions much like you have your mental faculties   

Who is the coward writing about me while I am in the dungeon banned from defending myself. Even if I do manage to post my comment has the vowels removed. Yea PZ very impressive how you blindfold, tie and gag your victims before you start a fight with them. Real impressive intellect you have there.

Now Let's look at some of the follow-up comments from PZ

 

    PZ is wrong again. I do not have 13 aliases although I soon might because the only way I can comment on his blog posts and lies is to create a new email addy. I also do not have 25 messages in the spam trap. PZ is obviously giving me credit for posts which are not mine or he is lying, again.

I am left wondering....Why bring my name into this at all? Why couldn't PZ just have wrote about some anonymous jerk that is ruining lives by making car dealers call him and have a pleasant conversation? Because he is pissed. Why is he pissed? Because I am right and because he feels foolish, as well he should.
PZ has slipped another rung or two with this unfair post. I have a reputation for being outspoken and honest. Something PZ doesn't know because he is convinced I am limited to screaming "motherfucker" as my only means of communication.
  I may not have the following PZ has but the people I have dealt with don't paint the kind of picture PZ is showing in his gallery.  People may not agree with the manner I use to deal with him but they can not say I am dishonest.
 I'll close with this. This time it is me being dragged through a mud-puddle PZ Myers made in his yard. I am no one special. I just think people should be treated with a certain level of respect and skeptics should be skeptical. I have been guilty of standing up for what I think is unfair or wrong. This time it was me, before me there were others, after me there will be more unless people speak up. Next time it could be you or anyone for that matter. All you need to do is speak out against the wrong atheist/skeptic or use the wrong word and it will be your turn. Is this how we build a better community and work toward positive progress? I don't think so, I would hope you agree.  

Ed Brayton-Who is the Bitch Now?

  
  In case you haven't heard...Ed Brayton is all weepy and sad cause I used the word "bitch" when describing that dick Stephanie Zvan. After catching hell from Adam Lee who believes he is entitled to dictate who says what to whom and how atheists spend their time on what. Then hearing about Ed Brayton posting his problems with my choice of words. Ed was so worked up about this important issue he was writing about it instead of concentrating on his recovery from surgery. That's right, it is that important. Let's not forget PZ who took my opinion of Stephanie and turned it into me being a misogynist, sexist, ranting asshole with a shitty radio show who is banned forever from his awesome incredible blog where he launches personal attacks on a regular basis and allows commenters to make up whatever crazy shit they want to about people while he remains silent.( I post on PZ's blog anyways when I am in the mood...shhhh He will never figure it out) Anyhoways, after all that I was thinking maybe I was wrong. It seems like I see/hear lots of people use the word "bitch" in different forms all the time. Many times it isn't gender specific, just like when I used it to describe Stephanie Zvan, leader of the world and co-dictator of proper behavior (along with Adam Lee) I turned to the internet and searched for the answer to my question- Should I be allowing people like Adam Lee to advise me how to speak? I typed in Ed Brayton bitch thinking that the search phrase would possibly lead me to a website where Ed had videos posted of him instructing people how to speak without offending anyone as a large FTB sign flashed in the background...or something like that. I know you will be as shocked as I was to find these results instead-

 http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/18/aint-karma-a-bitch/

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/14/balko-finds-a-gem/

 http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/17/gay-marriage-in-prison/#more

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/03/27/another-miller-jenkins-case/

http://isisthescientist.com/2009/11/30/discrimination_and_the_power_o/

WHAT?! Ed Brayton using the SAME WORD he was so critical of me using and the word "shrew"?  You would never catch me using that word. Imagine my surprise.The word hypocrite popped into my head...again. Not only that but the cheap shot at gays was...well a cheap shot. If you want to tell me Ed has changed his use of words since these examples then I would answer that by informing you that Ed referred to Renee Hendricks as a "git" just last week.

The guy who owns freethought blogs is just as full of shit as:

How about this blog from PZ Myers where you find the word 'bitch' used 21 times in the comment section. No where do you see PZ telling anyone that they are misogynists. In fact PZ NEVER says ANYTHING about the use of the word at all.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/25/a-heartless-faith/

Or if that isn't enough to show PZ is a little selective about who he casts judgement on then watch the last 2+ min of this video
 http://youtu.be/a2WamHXAZcA?t=1h12m42s

I wonder if a man would have been saying the same sort of thing would it have been considered funny? Ever?
    Just to make sure you all understand me I am not saying PZ is a bad person for allowing the use of the word bitch, ( I am a little worried about how readily PZ and company hand over their testicles)  that Ed Brayton should be censored, or that anyone should stop using any specific words. I am making the same argument about what has been the biggest barrier between  FTB, A+, the Skepchicks, and the rest of the world. Hypocrisy. Hold yourself to the same standards as you would others in similar circumstances.

If you search 'freethought blogs bitch' you come up with-About 94,500 results (0.19 seconds)
I don't know about you but 94,000 seem like a lot. It seems people like Ed Brayton, Adam Lee, Stephanie Zvan, and PZ Myers would do well to clean up their own house before complaining about anyone else. From the search I can see there is a show called "Godless Bitches" (free plug -you're welcome) maybe Ed should tell them how he feels about their use of the word "bitch". Maybe PZ should tell them not to bother trying to comment on his blog because they are sexist. Somehow I doubt that will happen.


    There are a few problems that need to be solved before any of this crap can end. One is the hypocrisy. It's not that hard to apply the rules for behavior evenly. It doesn't matter if you are a 'scientist' who writes what was at one time a respected blog, if you are Joe Common who is commenting on that blog, or Mary Attendee going to a conference the rules need to be applied equally. At least be consistent in your criticism if you must be critical of others. Second is learn how the internet works and accept the fact. This should be followed by acting accordingly. The internet is like a big machine, say a washing machine for example. If you go to the washing machine and you tell it "I cut my hand on a piece of glass and it hurts" How will the washing machine reply to that? It will slosh around make a bunch of bubbles spin in circles splash some more, spin some more and then just sit there. It will sit there, cold, uncaring, and quiet. It won't give you a hug, in fact sometimes it will start rocking as it spins and tip over landing on top of you. Do this- When your washing machine is spinning grab an article of clothing and toss it in. Don't try to hold on to it or you will get hurt. Just toss it in and observe what happens? That is how the internet works. Whatever you throw in it gets caught up with the spinning and turns into a blur. It doesn't care how much you cry or complain. It doesn't care about anyone or anything, it just sloshes and spins and goes quiet. It doesn't give a shit. Accept it.
  Third. You are not psychic. No one can know who or what another person is thinking or believes if they have never met and even then you can't be sure cause you aren't in their head. I'm not saying you can never know another  persons motives for sure but...yes I am saying that. I love it when someone who is a couple thousand miles away and has never had any exchange with me whatsoever can make claims as to what kind of person I am or what my motives are. I can assure you that is impossible because even I am not 100% sure at times. Everyone should be able to relate to that sentiment IMO otherwise you are too conceited for your own good.
  As long as we have popular people who are calling themselves skeptics/atheists while behaving like con-men and frauds there will be a problem. PZ Myers doesn't get it and Ed Brayton doesn't either. Many people think this is a conflict where both sides are at fault. Those people say "I just wish both sides would grow up" It isn't that easy. The entire reason the slymepit exists is because of the bullshit, lies, and hypocrisy from certain people. There is no one who is telling lies about PZ, Ed, Ophelia, Stephanie, Jason, Adam, Melody or any of the other people mentioned in the slymepit. There is a difference of opinion with those people and it is because they are not being skeptical. If anyone starts telling outright lies about another person you can be sure I will not be a part of it and I will speak out against it if it is brought to my attention. There is no reason to lie or cover for your buddies. Doing so only makes you look foolish and damages your credibility.
 No one wants to deal with a load of bullshit and hypocrisy especially in the skeptical/atheist circles, there is plenty of that in  politics/religion for us to deal with as it is.
 The best thing people can do now is try to step back and take a look at the behavior of people trying to condemn others for being misogynist, sexist, evil, MRAs. Take a look at their behavior. Don't use the word "context" to excuse it, don't apply anything to it, just take it as it is. Isn't "context" a term we often hear used by religious people to excuse the way biblical verses are applied?
   I'm getting kinda tired of people who don't know me explaining to other people who don't know me what it is I am all about. Very few people are educated enough to explain to others what I think and/or believe and that number is one, me.

Speaking of Shunning

   


    In a blog on the CFI website Ronald Lindsay presents some good news. The Center for Inquiry is not going to be shunning speakers just because a bunch of people have threatened a boycott  if a certain person is speaking. I think that makes perfect sense. I also think, as I have said before- We should not refuse associate with people just because they don't think exactly like us.
  For the CFI or any other organizer to give in to threats of a boycott based on a difference of opinion would be a bad thing and would soon result in a big damn mess every time there was a conference.

    While we should all realize there is one boat  we are all traveling in together, some don't see it like that. They want to claim the boat is theirs and they can choose who is the dead weight. That isn't the way it works, and those people should be waking up to that fact by now. These people think they are the be-all-end-all when it comes to social values, skeptics, and atheists. They think the people who rally around them nodding and smiling represent the people of the world. That is an incorrect assumption. I'm afraid the reality is --1)Most people don't care about you or 2)don't know who the hell you are, and if they did it wouldn't change fact #1. Add to this the very important fact that most people are moderates, they don't want to deal with your extreme views no matter what they are about.

 

 While I think we should include everyone who has something new, interesting and worthwhile to say, I also wonder if some of the people who are most often invited to speak really meet that criteria. PZ Myers gave his talk about atheism having a soul and A+ thinking and it was a snore-fest  I don't think even he was awake during the entire talk. In the video you can see the attendees start looking around for a piece of rope to make a noose.  Since then PZ Myers himself has given everyone fair warning that he probably won't have anything new to say until.....well I doubt he will manage to ever work that out considering the direction his feeble mind is headed. Why then is he even being invited to attend as a speaker? Is there a shortage of people who can speak to large groups about a topic atheists/skeptics find interesting? Or how about Rebecca Watson?....When is the last time she said something that hasn't been heard a thousand times before, or even something true? The only way she can manage to say anything people  haven't grown tired of is to either lie or twist the meaning in order to make it seem like important new information or unbelievable drama.
     Rebecca Watson can't shut up long enough to realize she doesn't speak for every woman on the planet. She should also realize you can't force people to agree with you just by acting like they don't matter when they disagree. The same kind of thing can be said about people like Ophelia Benson who seems to be blogging as if someone has a gun pointed at her head and is forcing her to blog something, anything no matter how petty, unimportant, or ignorant.  Here is some advice--If you don't have anything to say then shut up. Maybe spend more time reading and listening to the opinions of other humans who have put just as much thought into things as you, if not more.  Who is interested in paying money and/or wasting time to hear Ophelia tell them things like how she doesn't like the word "cunt" or how bothersome it is that people use the short version of  someone's name?

     Would it be entertaining to listen as Stephanie Zvan gave new definitions to all the words in the English language? That seems to be her major focus at this time, when she isn't accusing people of hating all women because they don't like her friends. Or maybe it would be better to spend the $250 or whatever it is Richard Carrier is asking on some old propaganda films from WW2 or the cold war. You could get the same feeling and still have money left over to serve everyone hot dogs and a shot of whiskey. Better yet you could ask someone who isn't actively calling for a war between atheist/skeptical factions that only exist as your self fulfilling prophecy.
    Yes we include people who think outside of the box or who may stir things up a little, but just as you can have a mind that is too open, you can have a policy that invites thinking that will be more harmful than helpful or interesting.
    The bottom line is some people are just looney and/or attendees are gonna get bored listening to the same old common sense delivered with the enthusiasm it deserves for being repeated for the 7,995,547th time. No one is going to need to worry about who is speaking because no one will be there to listen. I'm sure some conference organizers know this already and will manage to offer the opportunity for some new face to enlighten the masses. Wouldn't it be nice to listen to someone who has a new or even just a different delivery of the topics we  find of interest or importance?
     I may be a bit biased but the SkeptiCal conferences we have in my area are very good at providing new and interesting speakers each year. I'm sure there are other similar events, in my opinion they should all be this way. Ronald is correct about shunning others but you shouldn't keep having the same things repeated to you over and over by the same people, or make it a habit of helping spread thinking that undermines the very thing you are working to achieve, unless you are expecting a different result, but that is an entirely different issue isn't it?
 Here is Ronald's post. Make sure you check out the comments for a laugh or two...or a cry

Ronald A. Lindsay-On Shunning Fellow Atheists and Skeptics

Richard Carrier Carries On About A+

     

  Well Richard Carrier seems determined to push his A+ club down our throat. It almost seems like he feels a need to guilt people into becoming one of the A+kateers. I guess I will refrain from calling Richard by the fun nickname I gave him, Richy. Someone complained that it was disrespectful. I guess they were speaking on behalf of Richard Carrier because they knew he would find it disrespectful, it was probably his BFF. A lot of people telling other people what other people will find offensive these days huh?

    So instead of using bright red text to make my point (yea someone complained about that too...sigh) I'm going to give you a link. This will of course increase the traffic to Richards blog but yesterday I saw where a few Freethought bloggers said drama doesn't have an effect on blog hits. They even provided one slightly flawed test example along with some flawed data to support this. it was in response to Richard Dawkins posting on twitter for people to ignore sites creating drama to increase revenue.

How about sites that create new atheist groups to push sales of jewelry and books?

Here is a link to Richard Carrier's newest orders for humanity

    I replied to Richard Carrier in his comment section but being as he is so very busy and approval could be days or weeks away if it ever does get approved, I'll share it with you here.

What if we are against all the things you suggest we should be but our biggest problem is we resent people like you insulting our intelligence by acting like we all need you to point out what is obvious?
     I think it is safe to say we don't need A+ because we already don't allow the behavior you are talking about to go on. I can speak for myself and say I never have allowed discrimination or intimidation of any kind to go unchecked. That's why I am speaking out against A+. A lot of the people who are at the root of it have displayed behavior that is not fair and/or mature. You don't label people as misogynists just because the person they happen to have a problem with is a woman. If they are making statements that are inclusive of all women then yes it may be appropriate. But if someone says "I think 'female person's name' is dumb" that doesn't mean they are a misogynist. To make that claim is irresponsible at least. That is just one example of why I don't feel comfortable identifying as A+. I also have a problem with your use of "Atheism less" to describe people who don't want to join your new club. What qualifies you as someone who can make such determinations about such a diverse group? I have not been impressed with your abilities to make sound decisions about the true intentions of others up to now. You make too many assumptions about people and you seem a bit paranoid. Last but not least I think it is unhealthy to refuse to deal with people who think differently than we do in any aspect of life. We need to keep communication lines open with the hopes we can effect change for the better. If we give up on or shun people whom with we don't agree with we are enabling them to continue their behavior without any counter to it. I will keep addressing idiocy for as long as it takes no matter what it calls itself. As a side note I would also suggest you have someone read your posts before you present them to the public. You tend to ramble and contradict yourself every so often. I think maybe people could better understand your points if you made them clearly and consistently.

      I will also add here for people like Lousy Canuck who scream "troll!" every time they can't handle the argument presented. At the same time allowing his own troll gang to keep the propaganda..I mean comment section, heading in the desired direction. If you aren't really interested in an exchange of ideas besides the ones you hold true then just say so. All you need to do is post a blog that says "Opposing ideas will be banned. Anyone who upsets me will be banned. Anyone who tries to expand the conversation will be banned. Thank You. Have a nice day" Problem solved. This pretending to want to learn and consider other perspectives needs to stop. A lot of people are wasting time when they could be somewhere else not getting banned because they have a differing opinion.

     I'd also like to bring up another question. Who is it that made Rebecca Watson, Surly Amy, PZ Myers, Lousy Canuck, and the rest of the A+keteers who are acting like the be-all-end-all when it comes to correct social attitude,the mouthpieces of the offended and attacked? When people speak out against things that offend them or things that make them feel threatened they usually are speaking on their own behalf. I've heard women say "Just because you didn't feel objectified that doesn't mean you weren't. You were objectified you just didn't know it at the time. Now you do." What is that supposed to mean? I know there may be instances where that occurs but I like to think most women are smarter than that, at least the ones I know are.

   There are no absolutes when it comes to feelings. Some things are more obviously going to make a majority of people feel the same way, such as forcible rape. Most people will come down on the same side about that. But when you get to things like a guy asking a woman's name on the bus, it isn't so clear. Wouldn't it border on socially dysfunctional to get offended by being asked your name?  Maybe Rebecca Watson should seek treatment  for Nomatophobia (fear of names) or Onomatophobia (fear of certain words or names) The thing that A+ seems to ignore is it's a big world and the differences between what is acceptable/unacceptable behavior are huge. Even when there are stark differences that does not mean one way always has to be more correct than the other.

   For Richard Carrier to say he doesn't want to talk to people who don't believe in the same things as him yet claim he is fighting for equality and reason makes no sense. How can you claim to be fighting for a cause when you ignore the people who need to hear your message the most. Sorry , Richard is too busy preaching to the choir he won't be speaking at your event because you don't think like him.....you are lessors.

  If anyone who is part of A+ refuses to speak at your conference. I know several people who can keep your audience entertained and would be happy to stand in and educate your audience about atheism, gender equality, skepticism, sexual harassment and many other social issues that we should be addressing. How else are we going to change the world? It's not like we can kick people off the planet, right Richard?.....Richard? Don't even think about it.

Stop Talking Shit Canuck, At least Try

just sayin.....

    So Surley Amy has some backup...who would backup someone that wants to prevent anyone from wearing fake jewelry or has a tshirt she finds offensive? Her friends. People like the Lousy Canuck. I'm not going to personally attack Surly Amy or Jason Thibeault. I am going to address some things though.
 Surly Amy should be ashamed of herself and instead of allowing her ego to keep her from being reasonable she should be rethinking her words about banning anything at conferences. It was foolish to even suggest it in the first place and the last thing we need is more fuel on the fire that has been burning using the common sense, dignity and reason of many bloggers and activists as fuel. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the phrase "I lost a lot of respect for ______ because of this feminist/elevatorgate/skepchick/FTB thing"  It is pathetic and sad.
   Now Jason Thibeault wants us to overlook Surly Amy's...well he pretty much just wants us to pretend she never said anything because she is his buddy. If Jason hadn't been busy trashing people and saying stupid shit because he can't control his temper, then maybe it would give people a reason to pause and consider his side. Unfortunately Jason also uses the same blog post asking for Surly Amy to be excused from making unreasonable demands to continue trashing people he has banned from his blog. Just like the unapology  he wasted his time posting a few weeks back, he can't just make his point and leave it at that.   Justin Vacula  seems to be a thorn in Jason's side so much that he just can't stop writing about him. While I'm sure Justin is flattered it would be fair to at least give the person you are spending time talking shit about an opportunity to reply.
   Jason Thibeault is being a chicken-shit pussy to put it in plain terms. He whines and complains calls anyone who disagrees a troll and has a temper tantrum if anyone he thinks is his friend disagrees with him. I'm sure it's nice to write a blog and bask in the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you have banned anyone who doesn't nod their head and smile at your every blog post. Don't get me wrong I know there are times when you must block some people because all they are posting is stupid meaningless shit...that's not the case here.
 This habit of screaming out "TROLL!" every time someone disagrees with you is growing and I find it is being abused. Mostly it is being abused by people who seem too lazy or unsure to support their statements and sometimes it is being used because the blogger wants to talk shit and never have to face the person they have targeted.
 I cleared up some things on Jason Thibeault's blog that he had got wrong. I knew they were wrong because I was directly responsible for creating a graphic he said was made in response to a DMCA report against Justin Vacula.. I did not make it for that reason. I also made sure that certain things said by Surly Amy were  brought to people's attention because Jason seem intent on making any disagreement with Amy about hating women or being bitter about harassment policies. That was not the case. Jason also included several common fallacies in his post which I pointed out because it seemed like a nice thing to do. An atheist,skeptic,feminist blogger should know when they are presenting a weak argument.He should have been thanking me.
    Instead, after I left my comment the canuck cult started blab blab blabbing. For a guy who yells "troll!" so much Jason sure does have a lot of them bobbing their heads around in his comment section. No no, don't worry, no need to rush and warn Jason he has more trolls to ban. These trolls work on Jason's side of the fence. When they operate like that Jason has no problem with them. I answered the first couple and read some of the comments following my post and not one person presented a good counter argument.The best they could do is ask me to prove what should have been obvious. I don't have time to do that over and over. I made my points a bit clearer by responding a couple times then I said Jason could contact me if he had any issues with what I said. I doubt I will hear from him if his past behavior is any indication.  It seems Jason is content with standing behind a wall with a group of friends while he lobs things over it at others and his friends all pat him on the back.There is little I can do about it except post my opinion on it and wait for him to muster up the testicular fortitude to stand up for what he blogs about and what he says about other people who disagree with him.
  The sad part is I'm sure Surly Amy and Jason Thibeault are people who have allowed emotion, ego, and knee-jerk reaction to rule in this case and that almost always results in bad decisions and words that are tough to support using the good old logic and reason you had been using up until then. It's okay to be wrong sometimes, admit it, correct it, and move on. Don't allow your ego to be more important than the truth and fairness, that just isn't fair.

 As I post this it has become public knowledge that Surly Amy is responsible for at least some of the DMCA reports that have been popping up. It would not be totally unreasonable to assume she had something to do with all of  them. I can't wait to see if Jason Thibeault makes another appeal to ignore Surly Amy's actions or bothers to apologize for incorrectly posting accusatory comments or saying that some people were wrong in even suggesting Amy was behind all the DMCA complaints.
  If you want to read about what I've been talking about, here you go- http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/