Archive for the ‘Rationalism and Sanity’ Category

Ban Feminist?

November 17, 2014

So Time Magazine didn’t like the result of their own poll of ‘which word should we ban in 2015‘.

When they pulled the plug on their poll, the word ‘feminist’ had almost 50 % of the entire vote.  Indeed more that 10x as many people thought the word we should ban in 2015 should be ‘feminist’ as those who thought ‘bossy’

feminist poll


Naturally I don’t approve of banning words, however in this case I’m willing to make an exception just to see the incensed outrage of the feminists who think only THEY should have the right to ban words!

Why are there so few high quality science communicators?

May 22, 2014


If civilization was a person, the scientific method, and the knowledge gained from it would not only constitute the brain and heart, but also all the major organs necessary to support life.  Or to put it another way, without the scientific method and the knowledge gained by it, civilization as we know it would cease to be, and we would be back to living in a very VERY bleak world.

Sadly societies in general seem to be happily, maybe even wilfully ignorant of just how much our civilization and quality of life depends on this method, and the knowledge gain by it. So why is this? Who, if anyone is to blame?

Well scientists have to take their share of the blame for this, in that if anyone can promote science, it’s them.  However speaking as a research scientist I KNOW why communicating science/ debunking pseudoscience (in science circles) is generally seen as a gamma rate objective, typically only pursued by betas.

The metrics by which scientists typically measure their success is by how much research money they bring in, and how much stuff they publish.  Nowhere in this equation is communicating science valued or rewarded.

-Communicating science takes time, which practically means the more time you spend communicating science, the less time there is to ‘succeed’ in the metrics used to determine success.


In many ways science has been corrupted by the access to data.  20 years ago, there were no easily accessible ‘metrics of success’ like the h-index and citations.  People didn’t/ couldn’t waste as much time worrying about it.  Now things like the h-index can be easily obtained with a few mouse clicks and are widely accepted and used for determining the success of an academic.  The game has slowly changed from ‘who can do the best research’ to ‘who can get the better h-factor’.  Now this is not to say the h-index has no value, in that it is correlated to the achievements of an academic but the correlations is not great and more importantly the index is relatively easy to game for personal advantage.


That’s really it in a nutshell.  Once you have defined a metric for success, it is expected that people will try to optimize how they score on that metric….. they will start to game the system.  This is the research equivalent of that often heard student question ‘will this be on the test’.  That’s the tipping point between where the student has gone from being there to actually learn, to being there to simply get the highest mark they can on the test.


Simply put, if ‘success as defined by h-index’ is what you are after, gaming the system is now the name of the game. Or put another way, if you are honestly doing the best science you can, you will not be able to compete in ‘success metrics’ with an equally talented scientist who’s playing the game of ‘winning in success metrics’.


If the system is set up such that scientists have no incentives for communicating science, then it is small wonder that there are so few high quality science communicators out there?

The Comments PZ Myers DOESN’T want you to see!

October 17, 2012

So C0nc0rance had an exchange with PZ Myers about free speech.  Needless to say C0ncordance hits basically every relevant point, and PZ sadly reaches for every justification for removing peoples ability to comment on a PUBLIC forum that’s been used by creationists, science denialists and pretty much anyone else on youtube whose ideas dont hold water.  The video really says it all.

PZ has now disabled comments and ratings on videos that were unpopular, notably why I was thrown off ‘freethoughtblogs’ and ‘atheism+‘ (not surprising given the rating were comparable the VFX talking about the holocaust).  This is taken straight from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, Dawahfilms, Nephilimfree and a horde of others.   Even Venomfangx has backbone to allow ratings on his videos, but not PZ.  In fact the real hoot is PZ’s ideas on free speech pretty much mirror those of dawahfilms, whose great ideas on free speech can be found here  (oh yes, savor the irony of a private playlist on freespeech).

Indeed PZ justification for limiting free speech like this when he gets the chance makes it rather difficult to work out if his ‘forum rules’ are written in plain draconian English or as a rather unfunny joke.

PZ Myers forum rules:

The Absolute Law

I AM THE BOSS, and don’t you forget it. I have sole and absolute power here; I can ban you, I can destroy your comments, I can shut down whole threads. I am a being of caprice; I don’t have to justify anything I do. So when I tell you to stop doing something, stop. Don’t argue with me. You don’t like that I banned your friend? Tough. Don’t complain to me. I will do as I will to make this place the kind of party I want to attend, and that’s all that matters.

This law supercedes all other rules.


The sad thing is I predicted that the second PZ found out that people weren’t agreeing with him on everything he said, those comments would be straight off to the memory hole, and that’s why I took the precaution of caching the last 500 of them.

So here they are in all their glory, the comments that PZ doesn’t want you to see!

28000 words that PZ was more than happy to obliterate at the click of a mouse.



  • PZ Apologize to thunderf00t, not youtube.

Not2Sane 10 hours ago

  • It is disingenuous and dishonest to represent an association based on self interest under a banner called “free thought”. It is insulting to reject any supernatural existence and use the term “spirit of enlightenment”. Poor, corrupt and undisciplined thought. It embodies evangelic dogma synonymous with dishonest sermonizing. Power corrupts even when perceived as intellectual power. Arguments aside, this video represents a small man with dogmatic corrupt thought. A disappointment.

qpkeith 12 hours ago

  • Wow. This was just wrongheaded in many ways.

The spirit of the enlightenment is completely compatible with rejecting supernatural claims. Any cursory review of enlightenment writers would confirm that. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the use of the word ‘spirit’ is wrong?

Progressive socio-political views and actions are also completely compatible with enlightenment ideals.

You have conflated so many contradictory positions that you must have trouble following the conversation.

blahbl4hblahtoo in reply to qpkeith (Show the comment) 11 hours ago

  • If wrongheaded means my head not yours ….well said. My impression of your enlightened “spirit” suggests only that your reasoned definition should prevail, all hypocrisy notwithstanding, I question it’s compatibility. I reserve the right not to follow “the conversation” but to question it. I cannot accept ethical hypocrisy and dishonesty as progressive reason. Competition for popularity does not represent disciplined thought. It is corrupt and disappointing.

qpkeith in reply to blahbl4hblahtoo (Show the comment) 9 hours ago

  • Full of yourself much? Ethical hypocrisy? They called their blog network “free thought blogs”…they didn’t copyright the words “free thought”. When saying that we reject the supernatural why don’t you substitute…”We reject supernatural claims which can’t be verified.” I can reasonably say that I reject the notion of the loch ness monster without having to follow it up with a disclaimer about undiscovered species that might be real. You’re being an asshat and pretending to be openminded.

blahbl4hblahtoo in reply to qpkeith (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

  • *…then you to me…* sorry grammar NAZIS.

Shadowfox1881 20 hours ago

  • I you cant read a sentence because there’s caps and italics maybe ou should get some glasses. CAPS add emphasis alon with italics so as to understand the way the sentence is MEANT to be read. If that annoys you than you to me would seem like a prude.

Plain and simple, thunderf00t simply said something PZ misunderstood, and didnt like.

I guess you can freely think about, and criticize anything you find on FtB, UNLESS, it contradicts what PZ agrees with. Makes NO sense!!!!!!!!!!

Shadowfox1881 20 hours ago

  • Seems completely reasonable to me

ForgotMyOrange 21 hours ago

  • Ohhh I get it now. You reject all religious dogmas and want to see everyone get a fair shot.

Except those who don’t subscribe to your political dogmas.

Lordgaraj 1 day ago

  • Pretty much, yeah.

JoeNietzsche in reply to Lordgaraj (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • Oh, we are all fucking atheists, just let it the fuck go.

scitzz 1 day ago

  • PZ, you’ve clearly misrepresented the function of his “forms in triplicate” argument. What he is doing there is called exaggeration for effect. No one, not him, his readers or anyone else actually believes this is what anyone at FTB would demand of him. He is simply making the point that obtaining consent would ruin the moment. Social interaction is messy, even the deeply conscientious sort. Now, I had no dog in this fight but this, along with your stream of ad homs, have made up my mind. 😦

JoeNietzsche 2 days ago

  • No… “forms in triplicate” is plagiarism. If actually used as an argument it’s also called “Reductio ad absurdum”. It’s stupid, unoriginal and a really bad argument.

Douglas1102 in reply to JoeNietzsche (Show the comment) 2 days ago

  • Actually, Doug, it isn’t plagiarism, it’s a common if somewhat particular expression. Further, it is not a reduction to absurdity for the simple reason that no one, other than you, is taking it literally. You do know what it’s called when one refuses to apply a charitable interpretation under these circumstances, don’t you? I think you do.

JoeNietzsche in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • “IN ORDERS SIGNED IN TRIPLICATE SENT IN, SENT BACK AND BURIED IN SOFT PEAT FOR THREE MONTHS AND RECYCLED AS FIRELIGHTERS” is not a “common if somewhat particular expression” you moron >_> it’s plagiarizing Adams, and it is clearly reductio ad absurdum.

Douglas1102 in reply to JoeNietzsche (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • Whether it’s plagiarism or paying homage is debatable and very much beside the point. Further, referencing “orders in triplicate” or some variation involving triplicate was a common sarcastic complaint regarding bureaucracy prior to the development of word processing, as partially evidenced by Adam’s use. You should know this. What’s more, it would only be a reduction to the absurd IF there was the expectation that it be taken literally. Clearly, there is no such expectation.

JoeNietzsche in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • It’s only “debatable” in the minds of morons that can’t accept when they’re wrong.

Douglas1102 in reply to JoeNietzsche (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • How about this, for the sake of your fixation and because I really don’t care due to its lack of relevance, we’ll say it is plagiarism. Now, what impact on the original point does that have? Is it more than zero?

No, it isn’t.

For the record, I’ve debated fundamentalists with more manners AND apparent critical thinking skills than you. You make declarations and offer no supporting reason at all. It is as if you believe you can win a debate by fiat. I will waste no more time with you.

JoeNietzsche in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • I don’t care what you think, why on earth would I? As for “supporting reason” I gave a direct quote… it’s plagiarism and a stupid argument. It doesn’t matter to me at all if you can’t accept that.

Douglas1102 in reply to JoeNietzsche (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • Here’s the money quote from your comment, JoeNietzsche:

“…obtaining consent would ruin the moment.”

Dwell on that for a few moments. Seriously, that’s meme-worthy. It works in so many situations: rape, burglary, trespassing, kidnapping, grand theft auto, pre-emptive military invasion, copyright infringement, ejaculating on your partner’s face without their permission… It’s like a universal catch-phrase for assholes.

honeyspiderii in reply to JoeNietzsche (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • Yes, why don’t you think about that for a moment? Why don’t you think about the difference between taking fifty cents without permission and fifty thousand dollars, for just a moment. Or do things like scale and consequences not have any meaning in your life? You’re right, it is meme worthy but not for the reasons you thought.

JoeNietzsche in reply to honeyspiderii (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • Honey is right… you’re sick.

Douglas1102 in reply to JoeNietzsche (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • How is Free Thought not synonymous with Free Speech exactly? Doesn’t one use free speech to express free thought? Since when is Free Thought dictated by a collective of a small group of people? I’m not saying I agree or disagree with TF00t, I’m just arguing as to what Free Thought should really mean. Maybe you should change the name of your blog, it is misleading.

helical4 2 days ago

  • On this I agree in principle with Meyers and FTB; that communication has to remain polite and respectful.

But I disagree with the banning of TF. They have massively abused their editorial authority simply because someone disagreed with them – someone who easily met the minimum standards of decorum.

It’s a scum act that they will rationalize away until the day they die unfortunately. The attention drawn to the poll is pathetic. If they thought it wrong they only needed to say so.and explain.

garethb1961 in reply to helical4 (Show the comment) 2 days ago

  • Maybe you should look up what “freethought” actually means or watch the video and have it explained to you.

Douglas1102 in reply to helical4 (Show the comment) 2 days ago

  • I did watch the video. I just don’t agree with PZ’s definition. If he is describing the ideals of the enlightenment… fine. However, if someone is a Free Thinker then they should be able to use logic, reason and science to discuss anything. On the other hand, should one be respectful and use polite words when engaged in a debate with some one who does not agree with them? Absolutely!

helical4 in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • It’s not “PZ’s definition” and the problem isn’t that you “disagree with it” the problem is that you don’t understand it.

Douglas1102 in reply to helical4 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • I didn’t hear anything about “Free Thinker”. Are you accidentally making up a new category and suggesting he must subscribe to it?

It seemed to me that “freethough” movement has sensible boundaries. You don’t bother spending time discussing whether you should blow up a building with someone, on the basis that you “must” discuss anything. You draw a line somewhere and you move on. The line drawn by PZ is the “freethought” movement and it sounded completely sensible to me.

ForgotMyOrange in reply to helical4 (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

  • It all comes down to the fact that you disagree with his views on the subject. Freethinking? Hardly.

ytjason1 2 days ago

  • “the right of the individual to live their own life, with autonomy” But this doesn’t extend to people not liking feminism?

When did he say/ suggest a popular vote would settle this. And if he did, why would that be disturbing?

The only problem i can see with thunderfoot on this one, is that he trusted another academic because they were and academic. instead of getting to know how you behave in advance.

IDontCare2DoYou 3 days ago

  • PZ v Thunder – Live Debate – (Someone needs to set this up!)

planetzultar 3 days ago

  • How are you suppose to have a legitimate discussion about anything without opposing viewpoints? Get your head out of your ass PZ..

Shadowfox1881 3 days ago

  • Bitching about caps and italics? Pitiful.

Shadowfox1881 3 days ago

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • This has been flagged as spam show

ForgotMyOrange in reply to Shadowfox1881 (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

  • Have to say, did really care much for Tfoots drama on this issue, but now you’ve stated your side Im now with him. All youve said is is ftb is a place your free to agree with your group or leave. Its a good thing youve cited your case to peer review by the wider community, I suggest you look at the results. Maybe think of a new name for your blog stte, our way or the highway does not suggest to me free thought, or indeed any form of freedom.

Targa7W 3 days ago

  • PZ Myers is intellectually bankrupt.

Free From Thought blog is nothing more than an echo chamber that refuses to defend its’ stances with rational, logical arguments.

I am only disappointed in Thunderfoot for taking so long to realise what a fraud PZ Myers is.

MrRavenNation 3 days ago

  • Yeah, fascinating. So, what do you think? Misogynist?

garethb1961 5 days ago

  • PZ – Thunderf00t did not attack feminism, but merely pointed out that sometimes, some feminist positions might be over-stated. That is not trolling or disrespectful; it is merely thought-provoking. I find him often too negative in tone & likely to turn away the religious by style rather than win them with logic. You’re right about his poll. Nevertheless, your ban is clearly wrong. Extremism & intolerance are hypocritical & hurt our cause. You’re both acting on emotion/ego. Please stop.

TheAtheistReader 5 days ago

  • Feminism IS religious dogma. It assumes that all men are brutes, willing to rape at any moment. It assumes that all domestic violence is initiated by men, even though it’s about 50/50. It assumes that most non-domestic violence is suffered by women, even though the vast majority of men murdered and assaulted are men, a claim that holds true even when you add in rapes. Feminism isn’t based on science (in this case statistics), it is based on the ultra-sensitive sense of women’s comfort.

ReadTheShrill 5 days ago

  • Exactly. I rate Feminism below Homeopathy as a rigorous academic field. I am kind of sick of then having to explain that I don’t condone rape, am not a misogynist, believe in equal opportunity etc.

Feminism as a social science is utterly whimsical. And now it has hijacked Atheism.

garethb1961 in reply to ReadTheShrill (Show the comment) 5 days ago

  • Make no mistake, this is the catalyst for A+. The A+ group is clearly trying to demonize Tfoot and those who support him, for his alleged misogyny and general assholery, and the presumed misogyny and assholery of his his followers. All under a false banner of social justice and diversity. I’m not the biggest fan of Thunder anymore, he is a bit of an arrogant prick, but at least he’s not dishonest..

KidMeatball 6 days ago

  • His alleged misogyny? Grow a paiur and tell us whether you think he is a misogynist.

garethb1961 in reply to KidMeatball (Show the comment) 5 days ago

  • Grow a pair? That’s a bit of a gender discriminatory statement, isn’t it?

I use alleged in this case to indicate that the behavior in question is subject to differing opinions.

KidMeatball in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 5 days ago

  • I admire a good deal of your work, Myers, and have greatly enjoyed some of your videos. Honestly I think you’re a deeper thinker than Thunderf00t, who tends to go after easy targets. I do however find Thunderf00t to be far more meticulous in his dissection of arguments, almost to the point of pedantry.

I don’t think this video does you a great service. You speak in extremely vague generalities, when we all know that what happened is Thunderf00t rattled your cage on Elevatorgate.

NeuralSimulation 6 days ago

  • I’m sorry but you need to be specific yourself.

In this video, I heard a completely reasonable view point, explained clearly. I have no idea what you’re talking about – that he spoke in generalities – probably because you are the one actually speaking in vague generalities.

ForgotMyOrange in reply to NeuralSimulation (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

  • He didn’t address the subject of the fight, Elevatorgate. I don’t know how to be more specific than that. If you have never heard of it, google it.

NeuralSimulation in reply to ForgotMyOrange (Show the comment) 10 hours ago

  • 6:59 No, it doesn’t mean either or those two things. you completely forgot that perhaps you guys were so emotionally invested in the subject that you blinded yourself to what was said and started imagining statements that were never made.

Keldrath 6 days ago

  • Fuck off, PZ. You were wrong in what you did. Freethought blogs should be re-named PZ blogs.

kw2798 1 week ago

  • Wow. I had some doubts about this argument between TF and PZ. But this video settles it. What serious person would call someone who simply disagrees with him a troll? I really hope that PZ just doesn’t entirely understand what trolling means, otherwise, he had lost all his credibility.

vivec28 1 week ago 2

  • “every person deserves equal treatment”, as an atheist, I agree.

That is why I am not a Feminist, nor a Masculinist; I am a Humanist.

John Smith 1 week ago

  • You know, its a sad, sad thing when you have admired someone for so long, only to find out that they aren’t as admirable as you thought they were.

Mr. Meyers, you’ve shown yourself to be a personally arrogant, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, sexist (against your own gender, no less) shitheel.

I know that you do not know me from Adam, but be aware that I am very, very disappointed in you.

GGUBoss 1 week ago 12

  • Did you listen to the video?

ForgotMyOrange in reply to GGUBoss (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

  • Yes and many more besides. Meyers is justifying his own sexism.

GGUBoss in reply to ForgotMyOrange (Show the comment) 9 hours ago

  • “His Brief Tenure,” isn’t that an interesting combination of words. I must have a very different understanding of the word Tenure.

How can the “[not] supporting the equality of women” be considered anything but a straw-man. You might as well call him a nazi PZM.

qonf 1 week ago

  • Drama drama drama.

Thing is, his views are compatible with the goals you’ve stated in this video. He presented a rational argument explaining why he’s skeptical that sexual harassment is as big of an issue as it’s being made out to be.

As a female who has been to multiple freethought/skeptic/atheist conventions, I’m inclined to agree. Sexual harrassment is not as big a deal as the few are making it out to be.

The fact that you won’t admit that you are attacking him dogmatically just disgusts me.

luccaskunk 1 week ago

  • Aren’t you mistaking the significance of the issue as “how many times it happens” rather than what PZ is getting at: “how important the principle of equal opportunity is” ?

Please explain the “dogma” precisely, because I’m disgusted that someone can make that claim in light of what I see as a completely reasonable and justifiable position.

ForgotMyOrange in reply to luccaskunk (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

  • Speaking of censorship – my comments are now progressively disappearing from this debate, including the top commented 29 thumbs up comment opposing PZ Meyers. I guess its all in the name of free thought.

garethb1961 1 week ago 2

  • Actually – amendment and apology. It hasn’t disappeared, it’s just suddenly and miraculously lost its 29 thumbs up.

garethb1961 in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • How would you have screened him more carefully as a candidate? Asked if he would choose to disagree with you in a moderate fashion on a reasonable topic of discussion?

You do realize you’re committing the exact same transgressions you accuse him of in this very video?

OpalZero 1 week ago

  • All you Motherfuckers that don’t agree with PZ Myers will be BANNED from this site! YOU don’t seem to get it, your job is to say what he tells you to say, when he tells you to say it, and with the correct tone! PZ defines what the Atheist movement is because that’s his right! He is smarter and more educated than you are, so just sit down shut the hell up and if he wants to you have an opinion he will give you one! If PZ wasn’t right, everyone would just ignore him!

AMilitantAgnostic 1 week ago 27

  • So far as I see it, PZ was not defining what the atheist movement is – merely defining what freethoughtblogs is.

matbroomfield in reply to AMilitantAgnostic (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Exactly. perhaps it shouldn’t be called Free Thought Blogs then.

garethb1961 in reply to matbroomfield (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Perhaps so. Or perhaps that’s quibbling over details. I mean, even a blog called freethought surely has limits on acceptable discussion. Being an apologist for the the rape of women probably falls outside their mission statement.

matbroomfield in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Granted. Nobody is saying anything goes. Nobody! TF’s blogs are well withing the bounds of reason. Was he being an apologist for rape in your opinion?

garethb1961 in reply to matbroomfield (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • I don’t really remember his comments anymore so I could be way off the mark, but it seemed that he was suggesting that women at the conference somehow deserved to be sexually assaulted. In fairness, I have argued myself that when women knowingly draw sexual attention to themselves, that they must take a big share of responsibility when they then receive that attention.

matbroomfield in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • He didn’t, and I still disagree with you. Women draw sexual attention to themselves just by existing – no fault anywhere.

Have a look around. Look at all the people everywhere – on the street, in the mall etc. Now remind yourself of how each one of those people came into existence.

Maybe the guy at the conference asked Rebecca Watson her name because he wanted to fuck her. It has happened before, so I am not counting it out.

And that is NOT being an apologist for rape.

garethb1961 in reply to matbroomfield (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • The thing with Rebecca watson in the elevator was a disgrace – she’s an embarrassment to women. But I don’t think that’s what this was about – it was about comments TF left on the freethoughtblogs.

There’s a difference between simply being female, and consciously advertising and promoting your sexuality. Especially in a high risk area.

matbroomfield in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Your job is to listen to a video before commenting. PZ is clearly making the distinction between freethought, which is a specific philosophy whose definition existed long before PZ came along, and atheism, which is merely a lack of belief in the gods. He explains this at the very beginning of the video. If tfoot does not subscribe to the freethought philosophy, he shouldn’t be participating in a freethought forum.

pirbird14 in reply to AMilitantAgnostic (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Again, more justification.

AMilitantAgnostic in reply to pirbird14 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Well, I’m glad you agree that it’s justified.

pirbird14 in reply to AMilitantAgnostic (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • I didn’t say that, I said you’re trying to justify a wrong. PZ was wrong, and like I said I’m happy to see all the people in here calling him on it. I Would like to see him resign or simply be ignored by the non-believers community.

AMilitantAgnostic in reply to pirbird14 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • No need to try to justify something that actually is justified. tfoot is not supportive of the freethought movement. He trolled the freethought blog. He therefore is no longer welcome there.

trooface in reply to AMilitantAgnostic (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • PZ labeled thunderfoot a troll because he found it the easiest way to dismiss his ideas. Classic ad hom. “Having a difference of opinion” does not equate to “trolling”.

BennyOcean in reply to trooface (Show the comment) 1 week ago 20

  • Did you not watch the 11 minute video explaining the reason behind letting tf00t go? He didn’t just yell “troll” and dismiss him.

Rigel Lashley in reply to BennyOcean (Show the comment) 4 days ago

  • Yes I did read it and I’ve followed this whole PZ vs Thunderfoot conflict, and it seems obvious that PZ went into damage control mode and concocted a story with the aim of maximum face-saving. His behavior here was reprehensible from such a “respected academic”.

BennyOcean in reply to Rigel Lashley (Show the comment) 4 days ago

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • This has been flagged as spam show

AMilitantAgnostic in reply to AMilitantAgnostic (Show the comment) 1 week ago 2

  • I assume you’re trolling. 🙂

PZ is educated and he has studied areas of biology that I have not. He’s not always right, but most of the time he has something interesting to say which makes me think. If my curiosity is peaked enough, I delve into my own further research. We need more people like PZ who add to the discussion, and less trolls like you who sarcastically roam the internet spewing nonsense.

Also, if PZ wasn’t right, everyone would discuss why, not ignore an egregious error.

SageofWisdom in reply to AMilitantAgnostic (Show the comment) 6 days ago

  • PZ has the disturbing trait of exhibiting no self doubt. If wisdom is understanding how little one knows, PZ is very unwise. His smooth rationalizations in this video are breathtaking.

garethb1961 in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 5 days ago

  • Being confident in your opinion because you have studied the evidence is not unwise. It is unwise to not accept valid criticism based on new evidence of a better interpretation of current evidence. His smooth rationalizations may seem breathtaking to you because you are not used such a calm, well thought out argument, as opposed to an emotional appeal.

Wisdom is understanding what you do know and what you don’t. I’d worry about an expert who exhibited a plethora of self doubt in his content.

SageofWisdom in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 5 days ago

  • No, obviously I wasn’t clear. It is breathtaking tosh delivered with nauseating indifference to reality, with no sincerity or rsepect for his audience. It is utterly self serving sophistry – hollow word games to satisfy his own ego. And he is no expert in this!

garethb1961 in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 5 days ago

  • You’re still not clear. I’d love to hear your analysis of PZ and Tf’s respective arguments and actions. PZ never had such a grand lapse in judgement as to hack through a backdoor into the private mailing list from which he was recently ejected.

He is not expert, but he is pretty experienced with making rational, logical arguments. Tf mostly appeals to emotions and does not make judgments rationally, but by yelling louder and angrily tearing down straw men.

SageofWisdom in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 5 days ago

  • Straw men ought to be torn down – they are the bad guys, remember?

Well I don’t know about this hacking incident, but I am talking about Meyers on this Meyers’ video. Thinking Meyers has erred does not mean I automatically endorse everything TF does. TF is a whole other matter.

Surely this is just a diversion on your part – is it not?

garethb1961 in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 5 days ago

  • Ok. I give up. You haven’t actually critiqued anything specific that pz has said.

However I give up because you don’t know what a straw man is. Straw men are built by the person who will then tear them down. Imaginary bad guys, and tearing them down diverts from the conversation. You haven’t said anything about the Meyers in this video.

I’m ready to give up on youtube comments all together…

SageofWisdom in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 4 days ago

  • OK my mistake about the straw man – I wrote that at 4:30 am!! My sincere apologies.I do know all about argumentation, but not at the moment I wrote that.

I, and many others HAVE criticized Myers’ act of banning TF from FTB. Think of the discussion positively!

* Effectively, you and Meyers have said that it is OK to ban trolls.

* I have argued tjhat TF is not a troll, but merely someone with a dissenting view, on an imnportant topic worthy our attention.

* The alleged hacking comes after this.

garethb1961 in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 4 days ago

  • When I heard about the whole debacle, I watched a bunch of TF’s youtube videos. He has a few that are pretty good, and I can understand why he has such a large following. However, I read his blog postings on freethought, and the majority of it was an emotional appeal to his side, selfishly excluding other views.

I couldn’t understand his point of view, because it was in direct opposition to my own experiences. I haven’t seen any of his comments to others, but I understand they are inflammatory.

SageofWisdom in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 4 days ago

  • *cont* I am all for banning trolls; freethought has a specific purpose of creating a discussion which finds common ground and understanding. From what I understand, TF aggresively agreed with others, using accusatory language and being insulting when he did not object to anything the original poster said.

I’m all about protecting minority opinions, so long as they don’t trample on the rights of others. In any forum designed for discussion, it is important to kick out those who are hateful.

SageofWisdom in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 4 days ago

  • By your reasoning, only idiots would be wise.

ForgotMyOrange in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

  • Dear AMillitantAgnostic

You have now been banned from Youtube.

In the comment above you wrote a word with all caps. That is bad commenting and because of this you are hereby banned from Youtube forever.

Johnnisjohnnis in reply to AMilitantAgnostic (Show the comment) 4 days ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

AgnosticismCampaign in reply to PZ Myers (Show the comment) 1 week ago 2

  • Sounds like pompous intellectual arrogance and willy waving on sides. Neither of you comes out of this looking good.

matbroomfield 1 week ago

  • Finally the Atheist community starting to stand up to the extremist in their own movement!

When one openly proclaims political goals (as you obviously have) educated people everywhere understand that censorship of apposing opinions is a big red flag. PZ you removed him for not agreeing with you, THINKING human beings know that kind of reaction is simply not the actions of a reasonable man. I will be disappointed if your celebrity survives your behavior. PZ time to resign, you failed badly.

AgnosticismCampaign 1 week ago 2

  • Disagree. In a closed group of his own creation, in which members are supposed to represent a set of common views or goals, it is PERFECTLY legitimate to censor those who vocalise contrary views.

If you create a members-only group called “Christians for peace” and a guy turns up who is a satanist that wants to fight, of course you’d silence him.

matbroomfield in reply to AgnosticismCampaign (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • PZ Myers invited Thunderf00t to the blog, understanding the scope of his work. Did Thunderf00t make a dramatic change in his philosophy? No, so your example is nonsensical. Keep in mind that the whole issue has nothing to do with Atheism, it was over feminism issues!

PZ is trying to politicalize the Atheism movement and, that’s fine, so is Dawkins, but if PZ is going to run his political organization with an iron fist, that’s been done (Stalin) it went badly. I hope that PZ is soon irrelevant.

AgnosticismCampaign in reply to matbroomfield (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • PZ addressed that in this video. He made it clear that issues such as basic respect towards all humans was one of the fundamental tenets of his blog. I agree that he was heavy-handed and ill-advised to boot thunderf00t so promptly, but having watched both of them in action, it’s clear that they are both mega-egos, who extend minimal courtesy to those whom they disagree with. I’m only surprised that thunderf00t would agree to go somewhere that he couldn’t be the primadonna. They’re both childish.

matbroomfield in reply to AgnosticismCampaign (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • I agree that both of them are full of shit, but PZ is simply dangerous. Thunderf00t can simply be an ass at times.

AgnosticismCampaign in reply to matbroomfield (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • What makes you say PZ is dangerous?

matbroomfield in reply to AgnosticismCampaign (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Anyone that claims absolute authority is (as demonstrated through their actions) absolutely certain. Censorship, political imprisonment, genocide, are all actions justified by the absolutely certain, who assert themselves as the absolute authority.

PZ is obviously willing to use censorship to enforce his brand of Atheism. By exercising absolute authority on another Atheist, PZ has elevated himself to a position of Lord. I’m glad to see Atheist calling him out on it! PZ, it’s time for you to go.

AgnosticismCampaign in reply to matbroomfield (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • I’m sorry, but I completely disagree. Is a school teacher asserting himself as a lord by restricting the speech and actions permissable within the school?

Any community has limits on what is acceptable within that group or things quickly descend towards anarchy.

The shout for free speech anywhere, anytime by anyone is simplistic and unrealistic. PZ merely functions as a moderator for his community.

matbroomfield in reply to AgnosticismCampaign (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • All you’re doing is trying to justify PZ actually being granted the absolute authority he has assumes he deserves.

There are 8 steps to a genocide, the last step is justification. Listen to the video, it’s all about trying to justify a stupid act. What you see as moderation is obviously asserting control and punishment. As I said, I’m glad to see Atheist being smart enough to call him out on this. It’s time for PZ Myers to simply go away, there is no room here for dictatorships.

AgnosticismCampaign in reply to matbroomfield (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • But he DOES deserve it – it’s HIS forum – his kingdom if you like. Anyone who doesn’t like the rules is free to leave.

I agree, his overreaction was stupid, but in perfect proportion to his ego.

Your genocide comment is utterly irrelevant. I can’t even imagine what sane point you are making.

You seem to be arguing that people should not have the right to control their own kingdoms. That would be like me entering your house and saying I have the right to tell your daughter she should be raped.

matbroomfield in reply to AgnosticismCampaign (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • More justification…

AgnosticismCampaign in reply to matbroomfield (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • If you can only repeat the same baseless mantra, why bother to comment? I was hoping for a reasoned debate, not a series of one-sided pz-hating soundbites.

For instance, you never answered my example about coming into your home. Shall I assume that you DO think I have that right and it would be wrong for you to oppose me?

matbroomfield in reply to AgnosticismCampaign (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • PZ, you are full of shit. You are a liar, a toady, and a complete hypocrite.

mikefromwa 1 week ago

  • A disappointing failure of a justification for a stupid act. Apparently your definition of ‘freethought’ implies that some things are sacred and are beyond criticism.

Just apologise already. You have shown yourself to be even smaller minded than I thought when I watched Thunderf00t’s complaint videos.

VillageIdiot453 1 week ago

  • You clearly didn’t listen to the video.

matbroomfield in reply to VillageIdiot453 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Frankly, I just don’t believe you when you try to talk about the integrity of Freethought Blogs.

AtheistExplains 1 week ago 2

  • 7:00, or option 3, PZ, what he was saying was pushing your emotional buttons and since he wasn’t in total agreement with you on the topic, you lashed out against what you presumed his position should have been, rather than what it actually was (the “you’re either with us or against us” mentality). I, for instance, understood what thunderf00t meant in his blogpost on FTB and I have to agree with him: you strawmanned him and quite badly so.

But nice try shifting blame away from yourself.

totoritko 1 week ago

  • I used to like you, but recently I am looking more to tf00t and I didn’t even like him to begin with. It was after your irrational response with all that twisting of his words that I understood you gather people around you who only agree with you. Maybe you squabble, but you squabble and then jerk each other off it seems. A hive mind is not in any way the way of the enlightenment, dissenters should be welcomed and argued with based on the scientific method, not whatever you call your way.

Halldór Davíðsson 1 week ago

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • The way freethought gets explained here excludes any newthought it seems to me.

eggius 1 week ago 2

  • Wow, sorry PZ but you have disappointed me.

GabrielGrewal 1 week ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

TheLittleBigFish1 1 week ago

  • I find it weak that you don’t like anyone to disagree with you.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Sound Familiar?

kiggityk 2 weeks ago

  • I started paying attention to this argument about a week ago. I have recently watched all videos and read all blogs regarding the matter. PZ your showing your irrationality in this. I started this as a non-partisan by standard. I’ve donated to FTB and Thunder. PZ. In regards to the feminism disagreement please drop it. Accept you were wrong in banning Thunder. Accept that Thunder expected FTB to be Free Thought. Not Hive mind.

kiggityk 2 weeks ago 26

  • “You are free… to do as we tell you!” ~Bill Hicks

Yeah, there’s nothing “free” about freethoughtblogs. You’re “free” to post things we agree with or we will get rid of you. How “inclusive” of them. Way to embrace “diversity”. They are so hopelessly hypocritical I fear they are beyond hope.

BennyOcean in reply to kiggityk (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • The essential principle of both the enlightenment and freethinking is, “I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” In other words dissent is not only OK, respect for it is essential. It’s too bad Myers doesn’t like his blog being criticized from within but if your answer to criticism is to reject and censor the critic then you’re are not a freethinker. You’re just another pretentious asshole.

braintree2 2 weeks ago

  • Anyone interested in this matter should read the offending entries at Thunderfoot’s FTB. The caps and other stylistic crimes Myers bitches about are highlights used by TF to emphasize Myer’s mischaracterization of TF’s words. TF quotes Myer’s version against TF’s quotes of what TF actually said. That should reveal to you why Myer’s is bitching about style.

Myers is a pompous bully and feminist lickspittle who can’t handle apt criticism. Paging Dr. Orwell.

braintree2 2 weeks ago 2

  • Myer’s claim that he had no opportunity to respond is bull. Everyone is allowed to post video responses on Youtube and, of course, there is nothing to stop Myers from responding on his own popular blog site. I do think that self-selected poll samples are inherently bogus, though.

braintree2 in reply to braintree2 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • PZ’s massive straw man is the line “Free thought does not give people the right to say anything”

Granted. We all understand that notions can be angry, poorly thought through, reflexive,hateful etc, like trolling is, and can and SHOULD be censored from a “free thought” blog.

However, that is not the case here. It is simply because TF holds a different view on a sensitive topic. Don’t pretend it is otherwise.

If you want to trash his writing and argumentation – look at your own some time.

garethb1961 2 weeks ago

  • Freedom of thought as long as your thoughts conforms to PZ’s approval… Typical of the hypocrisy demonstrated by PZ and others of his ilk…

sandpir8 2 weeks ago

  • feminism is dividing the atheist movement and its clear you are a major tool in this.

YawnGG 2 weeks ago

  • so you ban people that slightly disagree with you pz? that dosn’t sounds like anything you desribed after gathering all the information I can on this, I would have to say FTB is not any kind of reputable organisation

catseye10000 2 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

richo61 in reply to catseye10000 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • tf has exactly zero credibility. RE-Joining that list was a shit move, on his part.

TruckerPhilosophy 2 weeks ago

  • You cannot claim feminism as healthy fir humanity.. equality is not a sham but feminism is an inverted situation to what we had

1mG0ingT0Fart 2 weeks ago

  • Sir, I don’t agree with your decision.

MidnightKat5000 2 weeks ago

  • “So we were lazy in vetting him for admission and didn’t look all that closely at whether his views were compatible with our goals. They are not. As we discovered too late.” – PZMyers.

Wow, count me out of your so called Freethought blog. I’ll be sure to avoid any blog post from this source as any message will have been edited under a microscope to agree with what PZ agrees with. And I don’t buy that the blog is about progressive socio-political views. That is malarkey mixed with gobbledygook.

StickInMudd 2 weeks ago

  • No, I don’t have a clue about the entire context in the blogs. That’s why I’m just watching. 🙂

Letholnthia 2 weeks ago

  • Thunderf00t never said his poll reflects the views of atheists in general. And it is true that his poll was heavily biased by the fact he presented only his side of the argument, so it was expected that he wins in that poll.

However, here is the funny part: you presented your side of the argument here (also only one side of the coin), yet your video is more disliked than liked. The fact Thunderf00t won this poll, too tells much, much more than the poll on his video.

Krešimir Cindrić 2 weeks ago

  • Wow TF fanboys are such whingers. Yet no word from them on TFs less than honest actions, it would be funny. if it weren’t so pathetic.

TheKitch2 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from pzamyers

  • The most amusing thing about all this is that it’s almost as if folks think the blog is something important. It just comes across as an atheistic circle jerk. Think about it: if Thunderf00t was trolling, he at least got results.

Noben 2 weeks ago

  • Geeze, PZ should had stayed at DePauw, coz you act like a FUCKING DANNY!!!!!!!!!

robertmike57 2 weeks ago

  • oh come on..tfoot a “troll”? thunder disagrees with “equal treatment”?? he has poor writing skills and uses caps and italisized words, his data and evidence is poor etc. you apologize for “poor screening”? i think THUNDER GOT YOU on this one PZ. its ok it happens sometimes but just remember the enemy…it’s those DAMN CHRISTIANS and the MUZZIES!

mytv80 2 weeks ago 2

  • i wonder

wouldn’t it be better to say free thought is a place where ideas would be scrutinized instead of persecuted.

after viewing this fight more and more i wonder what the line is between the people supporting tf00t’s ideas and those opposing them. I have been wondering how close to the line we could find.

this may be optimistic for me (like finding the line where brain becomes “mind”) but i think something interesting could be learned

nailo1 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from pzamyers

  • PZ, I have been reading some of the feminists blogs on FTB’s. Basically, women are just whining about being victims which draws out certain people to pile on, feeding these women’s desire for attention and a cycle to whine some more. There are places where sexual harassment is an important concern, but your FTB women don’t make a case it’s a concern for them. Looks like “The movement” is simply your bowel movement.

robertmike57 in reply to PZ Myers (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago 6

  • You call Thunderf00t a troll as a means to justify your ends of kicking out someone you disagree with. Instances of sexual harassment doesn’t make it a significant issue seems to be all what Thunderf00t was saying, a point I’m inclined to agree unless shown otherwise.

If Thunderf00t endorsed sexual harassment, you may have an argument, but I don’t see that nor do you claim it. You’re arrogant and condescending toward Thunderf00t, but whatever it takes to rationalize breaking your promise.

robertmike57 2 weeks ago 3

  • You lie PZ. You say FTB pushes Enlightenment ideals – you don’t. You’re a bunch of dogmatic, group-think con-men. I can only hope people like Dawkins are getting as far from you as is humanely possible. You have zero credibility in the free-thought community – zero.

The fact you and your kin sat around discussing how to steal from TF says it all. Now shoo troll.

thezenthink 2 weeks ago

  • Understand that this is a scripted video in which a professional writer and scientist attempts to refute another person’s argument/explanation of what happened. I could likely come up with a better video than this extemporaneously.

Further, your story is utter bullshit. Thunderf00t has already released the emails stating that you granted him creative control to write whatever he wanted.

Thunderf00t doesn’t fit well in your circle because you’ve redefined freethought to mean herd-thinking.

xxFortunadoxx 2 weeks ago 2

  • Thunderf00t was “trolling” FTB?? BASED ON WHAT. Speaking of evidence, PZ has given none. And then jumped to a wild conclusion. PZ, all your efforts at saving face are transparent, and only serve to make you look uptight and close minded. You have your big cause, and no one can question it because then they “need not apply” to join your group. No diversity of opinion on FTB I guess.

deedeevanbraeden 2 weeks ago

  • I’m so ashamed of you PZ, on this one issue. I guess there was no way of explaining to TF what you expected of him by way of Conformation to your particular mindset, you just threw a hissy and banned him. Others have asked for evidence of sexist emails and have been told to F off by yourself and Greta. I am a woman and do not suffer from sexism. I am not a victim. If sexism occurs, I stand up to it, no problem, don’t need big strong PZ to do it for me. How condescending can you be??

deedeevanbraeden in reply to deedeevanbraeden (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago 3

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • I really wanted Thunderfoot to be right here, but he just isn’t. Game over. This video does not deserve to be disliked, you guys need to watch the whole video.

I’m staying subscribed to Thunderfoot because I like his anti-creationism videos, but he went too far here, and he messed up.

ProjectGamernet 2 weeks ago

  • I have watched the whole video and I am familiar with this whole sad affair that is still going on, both sides are wrong to a degree, However PZ gets the thumbs down cause he caused all this by being a close minded tool and stifling debate instead of encouraging it. And he gets a personal thumbs down cause I think he is an overbearing, holier then thou, thuggish twit.

Bedlin88 in reply to ProjectGamernet (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Sounds like you have a grudge and are a fanboy. Maybe there was no room for debate here, and he didn’t see TF as having a place on FTB. His description of what FreeThought means makes sense to me. I don’t see where you’re coming from with the personal attacks.

ProjectGamernet in reply to Bedlin88 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Wow that is the pot calling the kettle black PZ fan boy.

Bedlin88 in reply to ProjectGamernet (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

moonlightbateman 3 weeks ago

  • I wish Dennis markuze would hurry up and kill you!

Verac1ty 3 weeks ago

  • You conflate opposition to feminism with opposition to a fair deal for women. People oppose the “academic” brand of Feminism precisely because it does not further the cause of women.

This video is just plain sad – a self-serving rationalization of a unjustified and pathetic act. And the not so subtle ad-hominens were a disgrace and in direct contradiction to your expressed goals.

Spirit of enlightenment – oh yeah!

garethb1961 3 weeks ago 28

  • You seem to be assuming that only “academic feminism” is true feminism. You also seem to think that there is only one brand of “academic feminism”. Could you explain to us what is non-feminist about “a fair deal for women”? Could you give an example of any of PZ’s remarks which you consider to be “ad hominem”? Quite clearly, tf00t does not subscribe to the freethought philosophy. So, he doesn’t belong in a freethought community.

pirbird14 in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • I clearly made the distinction between academic feminist theory and all of the nuanced views that might be defined as feminism. No assumption made or intended

Feminist theory is not about a fair deal for women – it is a social theory about power.

The video is ad-hominen because it ascribes motivations – such as “…clearly, TF’s only desire was to TROLL the free thought blogs”. It spends a lot of effort explaining what TF (according to PZ) doesn’t understand. Perhaps TF does understand.

garethb1961 in reply to pirbird14 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • You clearly counterposed feminism in general to “a fair deal for women” – which is an integral part of any type of feminism. You then replaced feminism in general with “academic feminism”, clearly conflating the two in supposed opposition to “a fair deal for women”. Women’s studies course in universities discuss a wide variety of feminist theories. It is not a single entity.

How can “a fair deal for women” be implemented if women don’t attain the power to enact this deal?

pirbird14 in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Collins English Dictionary, troll

intr (computing, slang) to post deliberately inflammatory articles on an internet discussion board

From PZ’s description of tf00t’s actual behaviour, it sounds as though tf00t’s behaviour fits this definition of trolling. Some definitions at Urban Dictionary make a distinction between trolling and flaming, which sounds more like what tf00t was doing. In either case, calling some one a troll is not ad hominem if what they are doing is disruptive to the forum

pirbird14 in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Its not trolling if PZ Meyers told Thunderfoot that no topic was off-limits, even the other bloggers on NoThoughtBlogs.

GGUBoss in reply to pirbird14 (Show the comment) 1 week ago 2

  • I draw a distinction in being inflammatory just for the sake of it (trolling) and being inflammatory because what you are saying is relevant, but controversial.

In life, i don’t go out to upset people for kicks, but sometimes I upset and anger people because they don’t like my views.

Like TF, I think this is a very important issue, and hence needs to be raised. These feminists are divisive. It is nothing more or less than an attempt to marginalize dissenting views.

garethb1961 in reply to pirbird14 (Show the comment) 6 days ago

  • PZ, that was crap! Reason and science are guiding principles. Faith and dogma are the enemy.

Feminism is not reasonable. By scientific standards it is a dreadful theory, based on unjustified precepts (Patriarchy?). It is ugly, divisive, academically vacuous and humourless.

Your “spirit of enlightenment” spiel is complete tosh.

garethb1961 3 weeks ago 24

  • Yeah, Feminism’s a load of rubbish. How dare women want to be treated as equals? Don’t they understand that their rights are ours to give and take as we please? It’s almost like they think they’re human or something.

Seriously, though, your post is absurd. I assume you think race equality and gay rights are “not reasonable” as well? If not, what do you believe the difference is?

Bahamut1956 in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • I believe in those things that you mention but that is NOT what theoretical Feminism is about. It is a social theory about the causes of injusttice and inequality – and it IS garbage. If Feminism were defined in terms of equal rights for women then count me a Feminist.

garethb1961 in reply to Bahamut1956 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • That’s exactly what feminism is. The very dictionary definition of feminism is about gender equality. Now if you disagree with certain feminists’ points of view about how gender inequality occurs and what should be done about it, then that’s fine. But in this case it looks like your argument is not with the core ideals of feminism, it’s with the implementation of those ideals. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one to make.

Bahamut1956 in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Sorry, I cannot agree. Dictionary definitions don’t cut it. Feminism is what it is, not what the dictionary says. Academic Feminism is defined by the absurd notions it promulgates, and the aggressive, irrational and nonconstructive behaviour of its supporters.

garethb1961 in reply to Bahamut1956 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Oh look a strawman from an FTBer how quaint.

Verac1ty in reply to Bahamut1956 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Please can you point out the strawman? Let me reiterate the point of my comment a bit more clearly and without the sarcasm.

garethb1961 said Feminism is not reasonable. According to the Oxford dictionary Feminism is “the belief that women should hold the same rights and status as men”. Therefore, by saying that feminism is not reasonable, gareth1961 is saying either that he believes women should be treated equal to men or that he is unaware of the definition of feminism.

Bahamut1956 in reply to Verac1ty (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Oh, and I’m not an FTBer. But go ahead and pigeon hole me if it turns you on.

Bahamut1956 in reply to Verac1ty (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • It does turn me on, it makes my dick wet just thinking about it!

Verac1ty in reply to Bahamut1956 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Is “supporting the equality of women” the same as feminism? “Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.” Ooook going by that definition you are strawmanning Feminism and I can only assume unthinking Tfoot mooks are what thumbed up your comment.

dakkanTM in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Or perhaps some “dictionary definition’ of Feminism you’ve plucked from God knows where does not describe the actual thing itself.

Apparently a lot of TF mooks are pissed off with Feminism also. But I only speak for myself – Feminism is shit, a completely bogus pseudo-academic field that does not do any of things described by your definition.

garethb1961 in reply to dakkanTM (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Well thats opinion and Feminism is a concept that gets pulled around to mean whatever the person at the time wants it to mean. The problem here you are generalizing which is no different to what the ignorant and the fundies do to atheists. I’m pretty sure Tfoot said that the one of the marks of a civilized culture is gender equality and your generalizations here do nothing to provide a good argument.

dakkanTM in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Of course it’s opinion, as expressed here with a 500 character limit.. Shall we address out the tenets of Feminism (as it is taught and discussed in academia) one by one? Then I will describe in great length, with cogent arguments, why it is complete shit.

But I think you are just binding to a position here because it makes you appear to be the civilised man in support gender equality. I also support gender equality, but no rational person could support Feminism if they read it.

garethb1961 in reply to dakkanTM (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Its a pity that there seems to be a division in the meaning of feminism and gender equality. Since I do not know what is taught in academia about Feminism I’ll leave it that.

dakkanTM in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • You don’t have to look far. For starters I recommend Free Thought Blogs and PZ Meyers!

garethb1961 in reply to dakkanTM (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • …and that is why Feminism is divisive

garethb1961 in reply to dakkanTM (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

3DMaster 3 weeks ago

  • If you like. Please, elaborate…

curbhalb in reply to metaphysician undiscovered (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Reply 1: Your statement is factually true, though if extended it makes a de facto atheist nation.

Reply 2: All you have demonstrated is merely a correlation, not a causation. Coming up with a counter (i.e. USA, which you reject) was not really needed, since you have yet to actually demonstrate that your original premise, “Atheism was the causative factor in the [InsertScary CommunistState] brutality” was in fact true.

curbhalb in reply to JCrownwell (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • If this is your side of the story, I’m afraid you aren’t quite “getting” TF and others.

Reerrpad5515 3 weeks ago


ninjascroll6789 3 weeks ago

  • Horrible events one and all. However, the equivocation breaks when you take into account the fact that these acts were not perpetrated _because_ of the inherit atheism of the regime. These people were straight-up evil. Their evil came from a fanatical belief in collectivism and the desire to destroy anyone who stood up to them. Somewhat like a religion in that regard.

And while you are enumerating “atheist regimes” you forgot to include the United States of America in that list.

curbhalb in reply to JCrownwell (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I can’t understand ppl who think anything goes. IRL you can’t do whatever you want. Neither can you do whatever you want on the net. There are RULEZ. FtB is feminist friendly. FtB doesn’t want misogynist twits on there. Enter Thundermisogyny. Big kick in the ass. All peace is restored,,, um until Thundertwit drops PM’s.

SaelPalani 3 weeks ago

  • Part 3: your point bout free thought not being free speech was fair but in fact thunderf00t, like him or hate him, is all about rationality, liberty and freedom. His first video was about iraq, he was complaining about the murder of muslim civilians by soldiers. He is not a racist but certainly has issues with religion. He is very much a product of the enlightment

truevoiceofsanity 3 weeks ago

  • Part 2: i do not do one night stands. However, i dont think either part is sexualizing the other when they happen. I respect rebeccas right not to do or to wannt to do them either. I do think, the propsition in question, would be rejected by most women. I disagree with thundrfoots caracterization of her. I dont think she is “crzy”. I just think she was harsh on her elevator man. Again, she is right to complain about ppl glorifying rape or considring it sex. For the victim, rape is violence.

truevoiceofsanity 3 weeks ago

  • I dont always agree with thunderfoot but your video misrepresents what his post actually said, As for “values” he merely suggested that sexism in conferences was not the biggest problem. I sympathize with rebeccas sufffering through “rape threats”; i know thunderf00t and others have had death threats. Nobody desrves rape and violent crimees do not “losen” people up. I do disagree with her elevator gate. If somebody asks politely and backs off after a rejection, that is not harassment.

truevoiceofsanity 3 weeks ago

  • Indeed… Contrast that with when reglious sects have infighting: you get pogroms, heretics burned at the stake, laws against Quakers, Mormons, people blowing themselves up in a Sunni mosque because they are Shia, Ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting on children walking to school…

You go ahead and mock us for our arguments, but no religious person has a moral leg to stand on when it comes to schisms.

curbhalb in reply to JCrownwell (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • No, products of a movement do not carry with them the philosophical implications of the movement that spawned them.

SAsgarters 3 weeks ago

  • it takes a real fucking cunt like this to make me side with tf00t

RockCorporate 3 weeks ago

  • i didn’t even know FTB was a thing until thunderf00t. you guys are morons and thunder called you on it, you reap what you sow

hollowpoint84 3 weeks ago

  • PZ is conflating Feminism and equality. Feminism in no way pursues equality between the sexes. Also, feminism is incoherent and covers many different groups of people with contradictory positions.

christo930 3 weeks ago

  • Unlike theists. they’ve never fought.

CorndogMaker in reply to JCrownwell (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • PZ is a self-serving, bigoted, twit. PZ – please go away!

commandermudpie 3 weeks ago 13

  • If you want to see a bigot you should check out what TF’s followers have to say. You’re obviously too much of a pea brain to understand what bigot means.

shirehorse91 in reply to commandermudpie (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • PZ go away? False. MRAs go away. Please leave your irrational thoughts and go off to your own club. You’re not welcome here.

RantyChris in reply to commandermudpie (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Bigoted?

TheKitch2 in reply to commandermudpie (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago in playlistMore videos from pzamyers

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • He meant ‘bigot minded’. “ed” not being past tense.

Letholnthia in reply to TheKitch2 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • But still where did he get that from?

TheKitch2 in reply to Letholnthia (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • I got it from an Aspie in that Wrong Planet place I used to visit. No idea where other people get that meaning, but it is used that way sometimes. ‘shrug’

Letholnthia in reply to TheKitch2 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Anyone who thinks he needs to dictate what free thought means is automatically a bell-end. The clue’s in the title. It shouldn’t need to be explained. I was under the impression being part of a group mentality was something of a contradiction and detrimental to the ultimate goal…A bit like feeling the need to tell men not to harass women. If you need to be told then you’re a twat…. Telling everyone as a policy is to assume everyone around you is a twat.

rogan71 3 weeks ago 2

  • Sam Harris wrote a blog post labelling PZ the “shepherd of trolls”. I think he was right.

BeforeTheNoose 3 weeks ago 22

  • Says a TF troll. Oh the hypocrisy.

shirehorse91 in reply to BeforeTheNoose (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I didn’t say I like TF either, so assumption has made an ass out of you.

BeforeTheNoose in reply to shirehorse91 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I read the relevant blogs. You and others actually were guilty of extensive strawmanning.

“Either…such a poor writer that he was completely incapable of communicating what he meant or…such a sloppy thinker that he was getting angry with us on issues that he completely agreed with us.”

This is a false dichotomy if I’ve ever see one and a prime example of “sloppy” thinking. Ever consider that the fault might be with you? You show ever indication of willfully misinterpreting his arguments.

WayWeary 3 weeks ago

  • False dichotomy? Ok… explain to me how PZ was using that statement as an argument.

Seems to me he’s just saying these are the only two things he can take from Tf00t’s blog, if he’s not using it as an argument then it is not “false dichotomy”.

As for the straw-man, how about actually providing an example? If you look at 7:30you can see PZ doing just that, making an accusation and then backing it up. Let’s see you do the same, show an example of “willfully misinterpreting his arguments”.

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Saying a statement is a false dichotomy doesn’t mean it is in itself an argument. A false dichotomy is simply presenting two alternatives, an either/or proposition, as if they are exhaustive when they aren’t. He refused to address even the possibility that the responders to TFs arguments, himself included, simply failed in reading/critical thinking regarding the nature of the arguments being made. As to examples of strawmen, TF actually points them out clearly in his subsequent posts.

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

WayWeary in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Nope… that’s textbook straw-manning, not surprised you can’t nor bother to explain why.

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • What is text book strawmanning – not wanting to rehash the entirety of several of TF and PZ’s blog posts or my statement about what a false dichotomy is?

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • No that’s a crock of shit, if you’re not making an argument then you can’t commit logical fallacy. That’s like calling an insult an ad hom.

Typical for Tf00t’s followers to not comprehend such a simple concept. And I didn’t ask Tf00t… I asked YOU to point out PZ’s straw-man. Sheesh… and you wonder why people call you guys Thunderdrones >_>

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Yes, I don’t think you’ll get a well thought out argument from TF or any of his followers.

shirehorse91 in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I said, “A false dichotomy is simply presenting two alternatives, an either/or proposition, as if they are exhaustive when they aren’t.” True or false? You don’t need to say which option you prefer for such to be a false dichotomy. In this case, both serve PZ’s intended purpose of discrediting TF.

I’m not a “follower” of TF.

WayWeary in reply to shirehorse91 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I didn’t say anything about a dichotomy. Yesh.

shirehorse91 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • OK, but that’s the issue he was using to try to belittle me in the comment you were responding to. Did you just think, “Oh, someone agrees with TF and is under attack – I’ll throw a stone too?” He was specifically criticizing me for (supposedly) misusing the term “false dichotomy.” If that was not an issue, why call me a “follower” and dismiss me as incapable of “a well thought out argument?” How could you interpret your weighing in that way as anything but agreement with his criticism? Yesh.

WayWeary in reply to shirehorse91 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • For him to have made a “false dichotomy” in this context he would have to be lying, and it really doesn’t matter because he wasn’t making an argument and your patronizing copy and paste style definition doesn’t change that.

And, still… no example of a straw-man?!? I thought they were “extensive”?

You are a drone, and a follower. I ask you to make one example and you say to ask Tf00t and you STILL don’t even give the ex. that he supposedly has.

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • A false dichotomy doesn’t have to be intentionally dishonest. He simply showed he wasn’t willing to give serious consideration to any possibilities except those that would cast him in the right.

I didn’t do any copy and pasting. I wonder what you background in logic is. I’m sorry, but I can tell you it is something I have actually studied formally. I’m not making a mistake on what a false dichotomy is, sorry to tell you, but you are. Not sure if you noticed the illustration I made below.

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Wtf is ” you background in logic”? What kind of clown are you anyway?

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Of course I meant, “your.” Petty of you.

So, you’ve called me a “clown,” as well as “follower” and a “drone” (for taking TF’s part in this). You’ve been summarily dismissive, and much of this has been predicated on my supposed misuse of “false dichotomy” which was actually your own lack of understanding of the term. Can you dispute that? Question: do you now understand a false dichotomy to be an argument or a proposition? If you still need me to clarify this for you, I can.

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Actually I meant, “wtf is a background in logic” and I’ll answer your question when you answer the one I asked in my first comment.

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • A background in logic means having devoted a significant amount of study to logic, especially in a formal setting such as college. To me, it seems as though you only have a passing familiarity with logical fallacies and you’ve chosen to launch a sniping attack on me on that basis when I absolutely know what I’m referring to. Granted I don’t have a degree in philosophy but I have taken several classes on formal logic and philosophy. In other words, I think I know what a false dichotomy is…

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Clearly you don’t… and why on earth would I give damn about your opinion of me or your “background in logic”?

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I was the one that wondered what YOUR background was. Honestly, you still think that a proposition can’t be a false dichotomy? Whatever. I suppose we can agree that neither of us cares what the other thinks at this point. I feel satisfied that I’ve defended my original statement from your misguided, sniping attack, though, and you’ve made yourself look silly with your insults, so at this point I’ll just say, Have a nice life.

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “Honestly, you still think that a proposition can’t be a false dichotomy?”

I never said that, I would ask you to point out where I did but I know you won’t.

And he never made a “false proposition” you don’t “propose” your opinion you moron.

The point is that he’s not using it as his argument, it not a “false dichotomy, and really it’s a “petty attack” when you’re claiming that because he didn’t “get what Tf00t meant” it somehow means he’s a lazy thinker.

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I wasn’t planning to respond, but I just thought this was funny: You don’t know the meaning of “proposition” in logic. It is a statement that can be said to have a truth value. An argument consists of propositions and a conclusion. A dichotomy is a statement that there are a two alternatives that are exhaustive (meaning they are the only possibilities) and mutually exclusive. If a so-called dichotomy has more than two possibilities, it is a false dichotomy. There, you learned something.

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Have you even bothered to read the blog or watch he videos of TF’s defense of his blogs? Why should I have to rehash here (in limited comments section) what I endorse from there (a series of full videos or blog posts)? I am absolutely not a drone or follower of TF. In fact, I hadn’t watched a video of his or read his blog prior to a couple of weeks ago for years. Try again.

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “I am absolutely not a drone or follower of TF”

You’re not just a Tdrone you’re the biggest one ever.

Douglas1102 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • So not only am I a drone of TF, I’m the biggest one ever? Do you actually expect me to take you seriously? Now, if you insist on maintaining that a false dichotomy is an argument, that it is NOT and can’t be a proposition then I’d counsel you to better educate yourself on the matter. You tried to snipe me by attacking me over something you didn’t even understand and any impartial observer can see the truth of that if they care to. So, I’m just not concerned with what you think at this point.

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This is obviously difficult for you to understand, however I never mentioned dichotomy. Stop making shit up.

shirehorse91 in reply to WayWeary (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

WayWeary in reply to shirehorse91 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Stop trying to split hairs. The implication of PZ’s statement that TF must be either a sloppy thinker or a poor writer is that IF he is an effective writer, he must be a sloppy thinker or if he is a disciplined thinker, he must be a poor writer. Either suits PZ’s purpose of discrediting TF. He doesn’t complete an argument, but he is still presenting a false dichotomy in the statement on which those arguments would be built. Calling me a drone is neither mature nor conducive to reasoned dialogue.

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • An illustration: Take:

P1: Either A or B.

P2: Not A.

C: Therefore, B.

This argument is valid in its form but it can still commit a fallacy of presumption. If a third alternative exists, C, then P1 is a false dichotomy. The ARGUMENT is not a false dichotomy, only the statement P1 is. The argument commits the FALLACY OF false dichotomy. Even if you don’t go to the trouble of presenting P2 to argue for C, P1 remains a false dichotomy. Hope that helps clear up the terminology for you, Douglas!

WayWeary in reply to Douglas1102 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Very poorly made statement. At least it does recognise the errors made by ftb but meets it by discussing definitions and stating that tf shouldn’t have been let in from the start. Followed by some casual, sloppy misrepresentation of tf’s actual standpoint. Oh, and not a single word about PZ’s personal reassurance about freedom to blog whatever he wanted.

dalkordigo 3 weeks ago

  • I guess the idiot who commented to me got scared.

SaelPalani 3 weeks ago

  • who?

ninjascroll6789 in reply to SaelPalani (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Rip on his writing style because you can’t rip on his arguments. Who’s the immature one here?

SuperiorApostate 3 weeks ago

  • What’s hilarious is that Thunderfoot put BOTH feet in his mouth and acted like his pal Kevin with the misogynist babbling. I see all these men blaming Rebecca and not ONCE try to understand how fearful and uncomfortable it can be to be approached by a stranger at 4am wanting you to come back to his room and asking her while she’s in a small space. People just blame her. They are also misogynists too.

SaelPalani 3 weeks ago

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • Yeah – and repeating the lie that ANYONE is calling what EG did a “crime” is annoying. The only person I have heard say such a thing is “Desertphile” on a FtB comment – who is a satirist. Those who have discussed it seriously have NOT made that claim. RW said EG was not “socially awkward” was well, but that’s beside the point. Quit arguing against stuff nobody is saying. Of course it wasn’t a crime – nor was it harassment – nobody has said otherwise. It was uncomfortable and not ideal.

sinmantyx in reply to rogan71 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I personally think making it public was unnecessary…. If some lonely or desperate individual comes on to you, in a socially awkward manner, do you deal with it and let it go…. Or do you tell everyone about it humiliating the person involved and making an issue out something you probably should have kept to yourself?…. I have about 10 of these moments a day….Let it go. It’s part of being an adult.

rogan71 in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • In other words, “shut up, woman”.

gpwnedable in reply to rogan71 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Essentially….

rogan71 in reply to gpwnedable (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

rogan71 in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Who freaking cares if it makes her uncomfortable. Her comfort should not be the entire focus of the skeptic community. This whole affair sounds like some spoiled child whining about not having the world conform to her child like needs for constant coddling and accommodation. She and her supporters need to grow up and recognize that adults can manage a request for coffee without going on youtube to tell all men on earth how to hit on a women the way she prefers.

edtastic in reply to SaelPalani (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • Free Speech is essential for Freethought. Dissent is needed for progress, either to change the trajectory of the movement or to correct, admonish and/or educate the offending individual. Expulsion, shunning, and IN YOUR OWN WORDS…the destruction of another person is not Free thought.

MichaelnChristine 3 weeks ago 3

  • That was, perhaps, one of the most boring speeches I have ever heard.

Thulgore 3 weeks ago

  • It wasn’t his style of argumentation that got his ostracised PZ, that was why you love his Creationist debunking videos. It was simply what he said on a topic you are well versed (more so than him) and sided in. Apology accepted.

Steven Spray 3 weeks ago 2

  • Your maturity shows when you call women defending a right to be included online “a harem of women who couldn’t get a date in high school.” My anti-male prejudice? I was calling you out on your blatant sexism. Sure, sure, belittle the problem and the people involved by calling us puritans instead of actually making a point. It’s not my anti-male prejudice. Males like you are blind to the hatred and continued oppression of women. Your first comment is an excellent example of your anti-female view.

SageofWisdom in reply to TheTorJohnson (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • These unfounded claims of sexism from a obviously sexist feminist are comical. Playing victim comes at a price, you do it to long and without just cause and nobody takes you seriously.

People like you and your sickening sanctimonious shaming tactics are not going to shut these men up. They have decided their self respect matters a whole lot more than your approval. You better get used to it because it’s only going to get worse for people like you.

edtastic in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • You never offered evidence or reasoning to refute my claims. You only tear me down as a person, which does not help the discussion and is what has some females in the skeptical movement rightfully up in arms (saying I’m playing the victim is absurd).

You are speaking as one who has privilege. I am glad men finally decided their self respect matters more than ideals of the other half of the population. Oh wait, that’s how it has been for ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY, save for a few nomadic tribes.

SageofWisdom in reply to edtastic (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

edtastic in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 6 days ago

  • i like PZ’s side of the story. Thunderf00t calls himself a rationalist, yet he applies his rationality only to race and religion. however his reaction on this matter comes close to insanity. Getting his YT followers to support his views, asking his YT followers to attack PZ’s messagebox with hatemail, crying about how he can’t trust in PZ’s scientific studies anymore. All that in just a few days after the firing incident, doesn’t sound very rational to me.

FreddyClapton 3 weeks ago

  • Don’t forget re-entering their listserve, sharing private e-mails, and insinuating that FtB was trying to get someone fired with the strongest “evidence” being ZJ asking if there was any reason she shouldn’t answer the his criticism by mentioning that there are almost 40 writers on FtB and that they shouldn’t be lumped together and mentioning statements and phone calls made by who-knows-who.

sinmantyx in reply to FreddyClapton (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Exactly! Most of his appeals are to emotions. His silly poll posted on his channel (along with his defense that it has any validity at all) shows he clearly doesn’t understand the very fundamentals of science. And like you said, look at what his followers are doing at his urging.

He isn’t helping to bring both sides of the discussion to any sort of consensus, but driving them further apart. I don’t understand his motives, except they must be selfish b/c there is no logic in his arguments.

SageofWisdom in reply to FreddyClapton (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • ty

FreddyClapton in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • I think he understands the fundamentals of science! What a thing to say.

In one of TF’s video, the poll, and what it means, is explained quite accurately.

garethb1961 in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Yeah, I watched his video where he explains it, and I’m thinking you don’t understand the basics of science either (specifically collecting sample data that accurately reflects the population by minimizing bias).

His poll was no more valid than any worthless poll of Fox News. I wonder if Fox News draws specific demographics to its programming? I wonder who sees (not to mention responds to) the poll posted in Fox’s programming and website? Convenience sampling is lazy and highly, highly biased.

SageofWisdom in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Pure straw man. The poll is OK or not OK depending on what you read into it.

garethb1961 in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 6 days ago

  • The poll is not OK to say anything, because it is extremely biased. Not only was it a convenience sample (only those who stumble their way onto TF’s channel even knew the poll existed) and only those who felt compelled to answer actually were surveyed.

It’s such an invalid poll that it’s laughable that anyone would try to say anything outside of, “People who like tf like tf.” The only conclusion is trivial. The sample does not measure the population at large, but only those on TF’s channel.

SageofWisdom in reply to garethb1961 (Show the comment) 6 days ago

  • I think that TF’s statistical critique of his own survey is a little better than yours. I am not going to argue with you, because it has already been done by the man himself. What you have posted here is a disgraceful misrepresentation of it.

garethb1961 in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 5 days ago

  • When did TF ask anyone to attack PZ’s message box with hatemail? He never did anything of the sort. When did he ask his YT followers to “support his views”? He never asked anyone to support his views. He made his case and put it to a poll to gauge reaction.

Doesn’t understand the fundamentals of science? No logic in his arguments?

“Hi pot! I’m kettle! You’re black!”

OpalZero in reply to FreddyClapton (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • ”Doesn’t understand the fundamentals of science? No logic in his arguments?”

thatsfunny, i never said that

FreddyClapton in reply to OpalZero (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • My bad. The quote adventure led me to confuse some of your comments with someone else.

OpalZero in reply to OpalZero (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

HKragh 3 weeks ago

  • “If you see something you don’t like, rip into it…”

criskity 3 weeks ago

  • “freethought is about enlightenment”

Well ill tell you what my enlightenment is. Its that women arent delicate egg shells to be treated like fine china in the fear they may break. Sure theres some differences. And we should respect them. But just as i respect my male friends differences, i expect them not to get any unreasonable special treatment.

AtheistThatsATheist 3 weeks ago

  • I’m not gonna lie. This movement is basically on a crash course to fall apart. Thank goodness I’ve only half paid attention to anything going on here. Firstly, PZ? You and the movement are turning into a bowel movement, especially given some of the sexist, disgusting stuff on FTB. Men Hate Women’s Body? Are you fucking serious? Taslima gets a free pass spouting that kind of childish nonsense that offends anyone with a set of testies.

You shame humanism.

Lanparth 3 weeks ago

  • PZ you didnt even address the issue!

What you claimed he had said was not what he had written. He showed what he had written and what you had written.

Mega superuber straw man?(child wrote that for you?) It wasnt a straw man, he was just making a point about how people who run an event have no right to try and control people who are not even at the event. (so that means the Mega super-uber straw man comment is a straw man:)

Clearly you are the one who has trouble understanding

gorilla199uncensored 3 weeks ago

  • PZ, you make accusations but give no examples for evidence.

ScottJanssen 3 weeks ago

  • Excellent video and explaination.

langsense 3 weeks ago

  • Men hate woman’s body


Don’t you feel any shame whatsoever, mister Myers?

terroil 3 weeks ago 11

  • “Page not found”

Also typed that title into a search on FTB, it didn’t come up. Even if there are anti-male posts on FTB, it’s probably from established posters. You don’t wear a stained wife-beater t-shirt to your first day on the job, do you?

hugesinker in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Are you somehow suggesting that PZ is responsible for Taslima? How do you think that fucking works? If anything, her blog is a good example about how those on FtB don’t always agree on stuff. Her writing isn’t always that great, probably due to growing up in a non-English speaking country. She has quite a bit of credibility because of her work and she has an interesting perspective. She’s also not a complete ass to everyone and can usually take criticism in stride – that sort of helps.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Are you trolling me? It ain’t gonna work.

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago 5

  • Sorry – I guess it’s ridiculous to point out that Taslima is not under the control of PZ, FtB is a group of about 40 writers, or that the main reason that TF was kicked out (beyond being a bad writer) is that he was difficult to deal with – which seems likely since he is so obsessed with FtB that he re-entered their private e-mail listserve right after he was kicked out.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “TF was kicked out (beyond being a bad writer) is that he was difficult to deal with”

I checked out several bloggers over there and several of those are hardly better writers than Thunderf00t. Neither seem they have improved (stylistically or content-wise) over time.

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Yeah, a few writer’s writing isn’t that great. It’s the one-two punch of the writing sucking and the writer being difficult to deal with that caused him to be kicked out. Carrier wrote a post on how to write about the subject without looking, well “embarrassingly clueless” and Carrier and even PZ have voiced disagreement with wording in harassment policies, etc. TF just attacked, and he didn’t attack well. Being an ass and a bad writer, or just a really big ass is going to get you off FtB.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I have been following Carrier for quite some time. I would even claim that I am quite “intimately” acquainted with his philosophy and theories in history studies.

The treatment of this “issue” was one of the weakest I have ever seen from him. For example some key sources he was referencing were “90%” about harassment at the workplace and not at conferences. Those two are by far not analogous. Making “purely logical/deductive steps” won’t be that easily applicable there.

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • By far not analogous? – cause there is such a large body of well-designed studies concerning sexual harassment at conferences. So, what are you basing your opinions on? Arguments from ignorance? Not that it matters, my point in mentioning him is that TF’s IDEAS were engaged on FtB when he was there, as well as his writing. HE (the guy) was dismissed from the network, but that doesn’t equate to his ideas being dismissed out of hand or silenced.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “By far not analogous”

That’s what Ive said, yes? Indeed.

“what are you basing your opinions on”

For example on your (or PZ’s) demonstrated ignorance.

“TF’s ides were engaged on FtB”

Sure. Nothing stellar though.

“dismissed from the network”

Obviously. What’s your point?

“doesn’t equate to … silenced”

Did I claim it would? Would you like to remind me?

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Sorry I assumed you were trying to make some of the points that others have actually made by chiming in with “Look Talisma wrote something!!! Shame on you PZ” – or whatever the hell that was. So, you are basing your opinions on our “ignorance” (not yet defined) – yeah, that’s sort of the definition of an argument from ignorance.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Yes, his ideas were engaged, including a FOUR part point-by-point from Great Christina, a post explaining polling biases by Zinnia Jones, advice on discussing the subject from Carrier, and access to a summary of the discussions on the subject up till now including a series of links – and that’s just what I noticed other than what PZ wrote. Perhaps you’re under the impression that FtB = PZ?

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “so obsessed with FtB that he re-entered their private e-mail listserve right after he was kicked out”

Well, he at least pretty much proved that they were quite obsessed with him, too. And that in a quite nasty way.

Who would have expected such a moral failure from self-proclaimed “higher ground moralists.”

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • PZ responded to TF for a while, but by and large (at least on the blogs) they have been stating that they were done responding. Until recently when they found out he had re-entered their listserve they weren’t generally writing about him. A few have mentioned that they have tried to talk to him personally. Matt Dilahunty become so frustrated with him that he blocked TF on twitter and at this point few people want anything to do with him. They’ll be talking through lawyers at this point.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “PZ responded to TF for a while”

I did sift through “all” available online material related to this matter. Obviously TF has not been playing the nice guy’s game. However, the sheer ignorance demonstrated on PZ’s part, just as it is seen in this video, is unworthy of an academic and maybe even more so of a person who claims to be advancing freethought. But then again, we learned directly from PZ what he and perhaps FtB understand under “freethought.”

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Ignorance of what exactly? He’s a humanist. Even if this was about a difference of opinion, how does: “We can’t work with this guy and we don’t like his writing so we are kicking him off our blog network” equate to being against Freethought or censorship or whatever else? TF is not being silenced, if anything this issue is giving him a larger stage. The listserve thing is the end of it though, nobody wants to talk to him and that is squarely because of his behavior – that’s on him.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “Ignorance of what exactly”

You really don’t get it, right?

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • No, cause I can’t read your damn mind. “He is showing ignorance and that ignorance is very large…blah blah blah” is not telling me anything what-so-ever. I know, “It’s self evident and you’re stupid if you don’t get it” is a much easier thing to do than actually trying to articulate a point.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • So basically you are ignorant of the underlying material and you expect me to do your homework. Is that it?

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • So, you refuse to back up your assessment of something that we’ve both watched? Nice.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “Dilahunty”

I watched his “long vid” yesterday. I not convinced by his performance. Maybe even disappointed. However, I am far more disappointed by PZ.

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • So?

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “So?”

So what?

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • You’re not impressed – that’s nice. What point are you trying to make, if any?

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • You have to be a troll… Well… Keep trolling, dear troll…

terroil in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago 2

  • Great argument.

sinmantyx in reply to terroil (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • You’ve just proved Thunderf00t’s sexism argument moot!

langsense in reply to TheTorJohnson (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • You may have a point, but your childish name-calling cancels it out. Your commentary is most unintelligent and far less enjoyable than PZ Myers’, other men’s, and the women for whom they are advocating’s dialogue on the very real issue of sexism. How typical of (what I’m assuming is your male perspective) to bash another human’s natural social desire to feel welcomed and respected by a community.

OMG, I get it. Your comment is satirically sexist. You’re a troll! …are you thunderfoot??

SageofWisdom in reply to TheTorJohnson (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “You may have a point, but your childish name-calling cancels it out.”

I’m hoping this is not too subtle for you, but points are not “canceled” by “childish name-calling”. Rational discussion is not tally counting, and either he has a point or he hasn’t.

uvauva2 in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I meant he might have a point inside his brain, but he fails to make it here. He resorts to name calling instead of providing reasoning and rational for his opinion, which I understand is the misunderstanding in this whole ftb and tf debate. People like PZ Myers are promoting a healthy community of like minded people, like-minded in that the rely on reasoning and evidence to inform opinions and beliefs. Name calling is hurtful and unproductive.

SageofWisdom in reply to uvauva2 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

uvauva2 in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • You don’t have a real issue of sexism unless you count how men are being mistreated by the feminist in the skeptic movement.

“How typical of (what I’m assuming is your male perspective) to bash another human’s natural social desire to feel welcomed and respected by a community.”

Referring to a person by gender then calling their behavior typical of that gender is clearly sexist. This is the kind of sexism skeptics should be concerned instead of the hypocrites making false claims.

edtastic in reply to SageofWisdom (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago

  • I cannot believe you actually made this video. You just affirmed every fvcking accusation that has been made against you… it’s really unbelievable just how goddamn clueless you are.

theDracoIX 3 weeks ago

  • I think both pz and Tf00t made mistakes and this shit is ridiculus…

Loo0Lzz 4 weeks ago 3

  • pz i’m gunna rape you just to loosen you up…. no w8, your too ugly to rape… ok so im not a sexist now because you a dude.

isrealjason 4 weeks ago

  • Criticicism of Thunderf00t’s writing style? I guess PZ has never seen Physioprof’s blog then-and half of the FtBloggers should be dismissed because the writing is so poor!

Keansimmons 4 weeks ago

  • Yeah – that’s true. Not all the bloggers are very good writers. That’s not the only reason, but it was definitely one of them.

sinmantyx in reply to Keansimmons (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • Actually, I didnt know that FTB had some core ideals that had to be shared across blogs. This is news to me. I do not think free thinking means being chained to ANY ideals, so I think the title of the site is a tad misleading.

latuman 4 weeks ago

  • Honestly from all I’ve seen, PZamyers is a hypocrite. And as far as FTB is concerned, its a BLOG privately owned(subject to only the owners ego) and should be treated as such…

BlitzNeko 4 weeks ago

  • No, it’s 30 blogs – but yes, it isn’t public property which means that perhaps people should stop complaining that they don’t do what they want them to do. If you don’t like FtB, there is very littler stopping you or anyone else from starting your own blog network.

sinmantyx in reply to BlitzNeko (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • That first sentence is a brilliant example of bad arguments, and I think I’ll (anonymously, unless you want credit) use it as an example in the future. 🙂

dnebdal in reply to TheTorJohnson (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • myers shoulda’ never have left science blogs. :C

tooyjfwn 4 weeks ago

  • So basically freethoughtblogs is a place where you can think what ever you want, you just cant say it.

muzebreak 4 weeks ago 4

  • Everyone is equal but some are apparently more equal than others…

Now go and get pregnant, you don’t want to miss opportunity that every woman has…

upisoft2 4 weeks ago

  • Oh look the Thundercats are on the loose.

I wonder how many of them will tell me Thunderf00t is rational and deny his overinflated ego he gained from being a guy with a video camera on the internet.

gotsda 4 weeks ago in playlist watch later

  • Yes, free thought until it interferes with the political power agenda of the feminists, then its the ban-hammer for you.

ObserveReality 4 weeks ago 4

  • thanks for re defining free taught

wetim99 4 weeks ago 4

  • Sound’s like you’re just annoyed because Tf00t is more rational and explained that Feminism =/= Equality.

Think it about it, the ideal is the name, TY, equaliTY, not Equalism.

Feminism under minds all the other inequality issues we still have in the world by saying, Oh its only because the difference between men and women.

Racism still exists and its not because of an overbearing masculine society.

Its due to Ignorance, such as Feminism.

I strive for equality not another ism.

RizVicious 1 month ago

  • I support Thunderf00t.

qwer4o 1 month ago 4

  • i find this too bad. this whole community lost its shit after elevator-gate.

notangryjustdismayed 1 month ago

  • FTB stated that you had no real interest in controling the content. Your word is worth nothing.

AmyThompsonUser 1 month ago

  • Caps? Shaking my head.

KarlJohanson42 1 month ago

  • They should simply rename it: “PoliticallyCorrectThoughtBlog­s” Or is that too honest?

MikieDaC 1 month ago 3

  • “There was only one reasonable conclusion” Are you saying that if the any other conclusions are not how you see them “then the should be discredited?

I think that we all may have some traits of Obsessive Compulsive personality Disorder, Do you think that you to may fall in to this group of us all?

I am not saying that you have OCPD.

Do a search for “The Right stuff” If you have this problem you may not admit it.

rlloyd5627 1 month ago

  • Your side of the story as of now has 825 in favor, 988 opposed, you lose on your own site. The motion to declare PZ Myers a feminist troll is passed! Please leave the atheist community. You belong in a feminist community as an atheist auxiliary more than you belong in an atheist community as a feminist auxiliary.

ObserveReality 1 month ago

  • Oh hi! This is so cool, I didn’t know that the concept of the ad populum fallacy had actually personified and developed the ability to type on a computer.

sinmantyx in reply to ObserveReality (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Try actually being honest. It was PZ Myers who criticized thunderf00t for using his own channel for a poll, despite believing his self moderated website is a perfectly good example of the wider atheist community, and now on his own channel, he sees that without censorship, he is the one who clearly acted like a fool. Trying to backpedal isn’t going to save him. Sorry, but FTB is a total group-think circle jerk. It is a loony fringe of the atheist community, devoid of intellectual merit.

ObserveReality in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago 4

  • Who said anyone thought FtB was a typical of the “greater atheist community” in some sort of randomized sample sense? Nobody. Which is another reason TF’s “argument” didn’t make any damned sense. His argument: you aren’t “representative” therefore you are wrong = ad populum fallacy.

sinmantyx in reply to ObserveReality (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • I remember when I thought highly of Thunderf00t(Sad I know), it always rubbed me the wrong way when you saw him write in his video’s, and later when I saw his twitter messages, he would write like a 15 yo teenager with tons of smileyes and just a wierd style overall. It was obvious when he had “conquered” VenomfangX that he wasn’t that great a guy, he didn’t do his research on the people he was trying to debate, he made himself look like a complete ass when he went after Coughlan.

medallish 1 month ago in playlist watch later

  • No one said to PZ Meyers that he must support thunderfoot. if PZ has determined supporting a view point mean something as simply having a blogger on FtB, then he has asserted he agrees with everyone on FtB. IMPOSSIBLE!

MrNowaiting 1 month ago

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • I’m unable to post my original comment for some reason. SUMMARY: You used to be cool; now – not so much. Damn shame.

-Cor (formerly evil)

Richard Stockton 1 month ago 2

  • Progressive socio-political views? who defines that? If you have a specific political agenda on FTB that can’t be challenged by it’s members change the name of the site, it’s not free thought.

The enlightenment ideals expand from the adoption of reason, nothing more. I don’t see why anyone who is in support of universality should have to advocate a RW brand of feminism with all it’s baggage. If you used those flyers at any con you’d be showing an insultingly low regard for the attendees.

Chinomareno 1 month ago

  • It still boils down to one thing: You axed him for disagreeing with the party line on sexual harassment, and labeled him and anyone else who disagreed with Twatson as trolls.

Dang PZ, I thought you were better than this. Seriously.

vinesster 1 month ago 10

  • No, I don’t think that people are labeling everyone who disagrees with Rebecca Watson a “troll”. I do think however, they are labeling everyone who uses the term “Twatson” a troll. That would be you.

sinmantyx in reply to vinesster (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • If you wanted to cast your side of the argument as respectful disagreement, then you shouldn’t have used the childish and offensive nickname “Twatson”. That kind of thing is exactly why Thunderf00t and his supporters are not a good fit for FreeThought blogs.

Cambo13 in reply to vinesster (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • No – everyone who uses the term “twatson” is a troll – not everyone who has a different view about sexual harassment policies.

sinmantyx in reply to vinesster (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • I sure as hell would never waste my time with these so-called “rationalists” “enlightenments” and registering with freethoughtsblogs, because as much as I am an atheist and progressive and radical, I am also a nihilist and do NOT equate “reason” with this bullshit “maintain the status quo” or “use only nonviolence” garbage. These so-called self-proclaimed “rationalists” have NO, NO idea what real hardcore formal mathematical and logistical modeling means, which IS what “being logical” means.

mphello 1 month ago 3

  • This has been flagged as spam show

SketchSepahi 1 month ago

  • Exactly. (What a shame. 😦 )

mphello in reply to SidecarOtto (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Thunderf00t got POWNED!!

elias18years 1 month ago

  • Obviously you can ban who you want from FTB but you can hardly claim to support free thinking if you cannot accept other views. How is conducting a poll somehow disturbing? As to why did he accept the offer to join you, maybe a better question is why did you offer him a place at FTB?

‘Free thinking’ on harassment has been reduced to agreeing with you or being banned.

Nyctasia 1 month ago 45

  • Guess you didn’t see the video did you? Should they have creationists on as well? Afterall they are just expressing their opinion. Thunderf00t was acting like a child, writing like a child, and being extremely hyper sensitive to criticism, and projecting what he did onto everybody else(Strawman’s etc.)

medallish in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 1 month ago in playlist watch later

  • I did see this video, several blogs and other video’s too, and the evidence does not support that Thunderf00t was the only one at fault. He was a known quantity before being asked to write at FTB, he did not suddenly change overnight, so if he is so unacceptable it can only raise a question over the judgement of the person who recruited him in the first place. His writing style was not perfect, but that does not mean the content should be dismissed, and he was not the worst example at FTB.

Nyctasia in reply to medallish (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • It’s pretty well established that FtB regrets asking him to blog there in the first place. Ironically, it was because of his friendship with PZ that he was asked in the first place.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • We can only wait and see, but if the complaints about Thunderf00t’s writing style have any validity there should be at least a couple of others exiting FTB soon. I certainly do not think Thunderf00t is without faults, but this decision has proved a costly own goal at best for PZ.

Atheism should not be dominated by feminist discussion or be one where everyone is expected to conform to a single view on all issues. Some people are using a secondary issue to promote their own agendas.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • From this vid – they are saying it was both writing and not being able to get along. I know some of the writing at FtB isn’t so good. “Dominated by feminist discussion” – you mean like TFs?! Because he wrote about NOTHING else.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • As I said, I am not defending Thunderf00t, or for that matter even saying he was behaving well in this incident or in the fallout over it. However, he is not responsible for PZ asking him to FTB in the first place, and presumably PZ somehow missed that Thunderf00t can be a pedantic and obnoxious ass at times. Serious, the guy has been online for a decade, acted much the same in that time, and PZ was somehow unaware how he acted? The key part as PZ says in his video is that the common cause –

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • that everyone has in common is atheism. It is not, and should not have to be the same view on feminism. As I said in my first post here, PZ can ban whoever he wishes on his own sight, but it diminishes the claim to ‘free thinking’ when it is done because somebody has divergent views.

Should Thunderf00t have acted differently, yes. Should PZ have acted differently, yes.

There is one figure rapidly polarizing the Atheist movement, and their issue is not even one about Atheism itself. That is sad.

Nyctasia in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • I don’t claim to know what was going through PZs head, but it is untrue that FtB is PZ’s site – he is only 1 of about 40 writers.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • PZ has the authority to ban as he sees fit with a unilateral decision. Effectively that places him as the person controlling the site, with abilities to act above and beyond the abilities other contributors are capable of. I believe you would be correct in saying he does not own the site, though I too cannot remember who might do.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • And yet, the same attacks with even more invective and even less arguments are heaped on MRA, other sites that disagree with them (ERV?), et cetera.

But it’s okay when they do it to approved shit-listed (of which they have a list of) people, amirite? Nothing like casting at all.

Schwazoom in reply to medallish (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • PZ has a new comment policy that he is implementing to deal with the civility problem on his blog. FYI.

sinmantyx in reply to Schwazoom (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Lots of FtB blogs are doing so.

It’s a good thing, but a bit too little too late for saving face.

Schwazoom in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Well, crap. One of my first posts when I got up the guts to put my face to camera was going to be calling him out on that. Ah well, guess I’ll have to find another problem to whinge about.

Max Peterson in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • This comment has received too many negative votes show

Djudge01 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • I did watch it, I also read the relevant blogs and other related vids too. The issues are not being dealt with, they are hedged around. Notably the writing style claim. If Thunderf00t was so bad there are a few others who are far worse at FTB yet they have yet to be banned. Why?

Look at the body of evidence on this subject and related matters, you will see a theme, and it is not Thunderf00t, it is how people are not allowed to disagree with certain views and more notably a certain person.

Nyctasia in reply to Djudge01 (Show the comment) 1 month ago 22

  • Okay – let’s do an experiment. I’ll go on PZ’s blog and disagree with him about something and see what happens. Which views exactly should I disagree with?

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Is there a point? You would have to pick exactly the same arguments with the same contributors to make it valid in any way, and nobody needs a repeat performance. This entire episode has been divisive enough without conducting such a test.

My own view with regards to conferences, blogs, comments, & any dealings with others is that you should treat everyone with respect & decency and have a right to expect such courtesy in return.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago 3

  • You sated that if some disagreed with “someone” on certain topics on FtB that they get banned. So – I said that I could go on FtB and disagree with someone about that “certain topic” and see if I get banned – you said, what’s the point for the test because you’d have to make the same ARGUMENTS? Arguments aren’t the same as disagreements. Such a test would not be the least bit divisive because disagreeing with people doesn’t get you banned from FtB – what’s divisive is this type of slander.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Semantics. Arguments/disagreements. Go pick the same subject as the original disagreement, arrange pre-posting objections to your presence too to match the environment TF had so people there clearly object to your presence even before you have posted a single word.

Your brand of dishonesty is what is divisive, unless you are too stupid to comprehend simple facts of a complex subject. My guess is that you would lack the balls to pick any real disagreement anyhow, but instead bleat a party line.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I’m asking you to pick the thing I disagree about. No, we know what happens when TF is invited to FtB – that didn’t work out so well for many reasons. However, you are pointing to his disagreement (his actual stance on something) not his arguments (which refers to HOW to try to make your point, not what your point is), as well as being difficult to work with. You’re making a positive claim that FtB is lying (not just PZ) and saying that disagreeing gets you banned. So, we can test that.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I fail to see why I should encourage you to troll another site, you already manage that here it seems, as well as having an apparent inability to see that further pointless disagreements at this time are serving no purpose. I sincerely doubt you are able to put up a good case for something you yourself do not agree with, you struggle here on your own chosen issue.

Troll FTB with pointless further manufactured disagreement if you wish, but I will have no part in it.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Suppose somebody was invited to join FTB because they had made videos that effectively exposed anti-vaxxers, then immediately wrote a series of blog posts advancing Catholic dogma and arguing that homosexuality is sinful. Would it be a violation of the principles of free thinking to not accept their views?

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • That was not the case though. Thundef00t’s posts did nothing to suggest anything but that he viewed everyone was equal & deserved equal respect. Because he did not subscribe to the self-promotion of Rebecca Watson and her brand of feminism – which has little to do with equality and a lot to do with attention and power – was not a reason to ban him. The excuses in the video do not address that. PZ uses the words ‘we decided…’ yet it is clear the decision was made by him in isolation. Dishonest.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • “It is clear” is was made by him in isolation? Really? It’s not like other bloggers have said that TF was impossible to deal with. Oh wait – they totally have.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • Yet none were involved in the decision to ban him by PZ and Thunderf00t’s own versions of events. This was a unilateral decision & there is little reason to pretend it was otherwise. The short timescale involved indicate that finding somebody impossible to deal with is unlikely, some bloggers do not even visit daily. Many had decided to take exception even before he posted, by PZ’s admission too. I was never aware there was a compulsory line on feminism that must be adhered to at FTB.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • The point is that freethoughtblogs is an organized group of bloggers working together to advance a particular philosophical, political, and ethical perspective. That perspective includes feminism, which Thunderf00t’s posts clashed with. He therefore had no reason to be blogging there.

How is asking for a harassment policy or asking to not be propositioned in an elevator a means of attaining attention and power?

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • As I noted PZ can do as he likes with FTB, but it lessens its credibility when a dissenting voice on a side issue has to be silenced by banishment. There has never been a group statement at FTB that feminism is a must, so presumably until now that was not the case.

I agree there should be no harassment, though making a statement will not change it happening in itself. However, we should maybe be shown proof that some harassment has actually taken place, So far all we have is verbal claims.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago 2

  • A side-issue? I’m afraid not. Feminism is an integral part of humanism, because it aims to correct one of the greatest harms that religion has caused, namely the systematic oppression of women. Whence my earlier comparison of Thunderf00t’s position with Catholic doctrine.

Do you think that people are lying about being harassed at conferences? Why would they do that? And how would a policy designed to address such claims not clarify the situation?

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • The main issue linking all is Atheism, all the other aspects are side issues not part of the main one. Not believing in God does not mean every one must embrace feminism. Certainly wrongs were done, and still are, but not all happen in the name of a God.

As to lies about harassment, it has been known hasnt it, I said nothing about a policy at all, though writing down ‘please do not do X’ will not deter those who actually intend to do X. Best policy is treat all with respect.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • Sorry, but you don’t get to dictate FTB’s priorities to them. They have chosen an approach that integrates atheism with humanism at a foundational level, and that entails a commitment to feminism. If you and Thunderf00t want to be dictionary atheists, then that is your prerogative, but you should look for other outlets for your ideas.

A harassment policy is not just about saying “please do not do X”. It also prescribes a plan of action, which includes consequences, for when X happens.

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “Sorry, but you don’t get to dictate FTB’s priorities to them.” – What part of my initial sentence here – “Obviously you can ban who you want from FTB” did you fail to understand?

As to harassment ‘rules’ how do you propose to cope with an incident such as Elevatorgate? A girl says a guy did something that offended her. No other witnesses, no evidence, just her word vs his. Then what? Ever heard of malicious accusation?

Such a policy is a nice idea that is almost impossible to enforce.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago 5

  • Nobody has ever said that RW experience with EG was harassment or has anything to do at all with harassment policies. RW just said it was uncomfortable – that’s it. Just saying that you don’t like something is not a call for legislation or even anyone doing anything about it. Nobody is saying harassment policies will solve all problems. You’re just conflating a bunch of stuff that doesn’t have anything to do with one another.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • My point is that one individual comes out of an elevator claiming the other person in there has harassed them. Then what? Who do you believe in the situation outlined?

My guess is that you do see the problem in such a scenario, that is why you are now trying to shift what I said to a specific named individual & not what I outlined which was a purely random event in similar circumstances.

It would appear your position is now one to be getting close to trolling as you lack an defensible position.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • If someone comes out of an elevator and says they have been harassed? You document the situation (to see patterns of harassment or accusations). You give emotional support (you don’t assume either lying or not lying). You tell the two people to avoid one another (when possible). If either one wants added security you provide it (within reason). You don’t kick anyone out or make the incident public through official channels, but you don’t put restrains on what anyone involved says either.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Providing one party with security effectively means you are taking sides in the claim though, thereby losing impartiality. By taking no action you risk alienating the offended party who will point to the policy and say you have undertaken to protect them. By taking action without evidence you will see some people make complaints or threaten to for a variety of reasons from personal enmity to purely malicious attention seeking. It is far from easy to deal with and why the police have trouble too.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Who said that added security was going to be provided only to one side? I think you’re just sort of assuming that we’re all sexist and that no harassment policy has ever been enforced ever at a conference and nobody knows how to actually deal with this sort of thing. It sounds like you had a bad experience at work – quit projecting it. Also, you are wrong about policies not dissuading bad behavior – just articulating social expectations can be helpful.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “Either one” means “either one” not “only one”.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • So you propose to guard the person accused, presumably they have the right to be safeguarded against further allegations if untrue, plus the original possible victim. One guard per guest will make a great conference. Why not make everyone stay home and just watch online, that way everyone must remain safe!

Maybe you need to consider why the police and professional security people think this area is a real minefield and difficult to deal with before you suggest simplistic and unworkable solutions

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • That wasn’t completely fair – how about this – of course I (and a many others) understand the realities of harassment policies and just because we might think it’s a good idea doesn’t mean we don’t. Heck you seem to share that opinion – and doesn’t it seem like a good idea to figure out WHAT, if anything, to do before it happens? Talk about these possibilities? It wasn’t that TF disagreed. He didn’t bother figuring out what people were actually saying before attacking. That was “clueless”.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I did not and will not defend Thunderf00t, I have even noted here or elsewhere he can be a complete prick.

I did not even start the comments about harassment policy. Yes it is sensible to have a policy. It is bloody difficult to get it right. It does make sense to talk about it. It does not make sense to simply believe all claims, nor to always give the benefit of the doubt to a female. You need experienced security people to deal with this, and that might be more than a conference can afford.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Nope – you didn’t defend him you just got over 40 likes for assuming that he could not have possibly been so difficult to deal with that he was kicked off for being a bad writer and a jerk; and therefore all the people who made the decision to stop working directly with him “can hardly claim to support free thinking” because they don’t accept his views (wtf really?) and that they ban people that disagree with them about harassment (false).

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • So your whine is that more people agree with me than with you. Oh dear, how sad. Grow up.

Maybe more people see my comment because you keep spamming more and more here, and thereby draw attention to it. I seldom leave comments anywhere because of protracted nonsense like this.

Do I believe PZ’s version of events? No. Do I believe Thunderf00t’s? No. Both have come out of this badly and done nobody any favours.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • PS: I actually ‘liked’ this video as I felt it helpful to see both sides of the argument even if I did not agree with the stated FTB/PZ position.

Nyctasia in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Yeah – sort of frustrating when people “like” stuff that’s not true. At least it’s a might better than the last much liked comment that used the term “Twatson”.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • In your opinion it is not true. Presumably you have only really looked at one side of events and accepted that without question. Maybe you like the latest FTB leak about keeping money derived from TF’s hits and dividing up the money between other FTB bloggers, or how PZ ‘hacked’ into a conversation himself yet now complains about others hacking?

As I noted, neither side has come out of it well, but it is far from one sided on who is/was to blame.

Twatson? That is polite compared to some terms.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “It does not make sense to simply believe all claims, nor to always give the benefit of the doubt to a female.” – who said this? Nobody. We agree on this. Pointing this out implies that you are assuming the worst of other people’s positions and attitudes for no reason at all.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I have said repeatedly that accusations need to be investigated properly, that it is not a case of simply acting on the basis of a complaint. I did not say anything about assuming the worst, I pointed out you cannot take this at face value or just take the first to complain as correct. There would appear to be a problem with your comprehension of English.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • What positions do you think I have – because it’s not that FtB is perfect. It’s that the positive claim that FtB bans people who disagree with them (or has any number of opinions as en entity of 39 writers) however much repeated, is not a fair accusation. TF shouldn’t have been invited, he wasn’t treated very well, he was hard to work with, his writing wasn’t that good, he went on the attack, he was asked to leave – that sucks, it’s not an important ideological indictment.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • You may find it hard to believe, but I really do not care what positions you have.

FTB are far from perfect, and have not done themselves any good service over this entire episode. That Thunderf00t has behaved at least just as bad, if not far far worse – I expect far more shit to fly from both sides sadly – does not change problems from the FTB side. This entire sorry episode should have been handled very differently by both sides.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • So, my positions are indefensible but you don’t care what they actually are. Brilliant. Of course more “shit is going to fly” – and it didn’t need to. We could all put this behind us “mistakes were made” – the end. However, then you have everyone high-fiving statements like: At FtB you get banned for disagreeing.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I never said your positions were indefensible – Strawman 1

I never said you got banned at FTB for disagreeing, I noted a qualification you have left out because as others have noted, some issue are key to FTB and if you do not agree you have no place there. – Strawman 2

All put this behind us – Strawman 3 or stupidity 1? You are the one determined to take issue endlessly here. Is this the ‘attack any dissenting view’ that is often reported too?

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Okay – you saying that disagreeing on harassment gets you banned. Which we already know isn’t true since bloggers on the network (who remain on the network) have disagreed on it. People commenting have disagreed STRONGLY and don’t get banned from FtB (if there is even a WAY to do that – since the blogs have separate moderation) TF didn’t have the ability to have an honest conversation about this and was difficult to work with – that’s why he was kicked out.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This not you? “It would appear your position is now one to be getting close to trolling as you lack an defensible position.”

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Oh yeah – and PZ has disagreed with the wording in the AA policy – I wonder if anyone reading this just had their brain explode. I suppose that means that PZ is going to ban himself.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

gpwnedable in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Then what’s your point? That FTB’s philosophical outlook is different than Thunderfoot’s? I think that was already established, and nothing about what you have said suggests that thunderfoot had any absolute right to write anti-feminist posts.

A good harassment policy wouldn’t have anything to say about elevator-gate unless it recurred, which it did not. In that case, Watson’s “no” and later rebuke was enough to deal with the problem.

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • If you’re concerned about malicious accusations (which don’t really exist anyway), then it’s possible to write a policy that accounts for them! You can have standards of proof, requirements of witnesses, and the like as part of a harassment policy. Your argument is comparable to saying we shouldn’t have fire evacuation procedures because sometimes fire alarms go off when there is no fire.

Cambo13 in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Equality does not mean ‘anti-feminist’ unless you seek to grant more rights to females than to males.

I said ‘such as elavatorgate and gave a specific situation that did not occur, namely that one party does pursue a claim of harassment. Now what do you propose to do to resolve this under a harassment policy? Please try to avoid making another strawman.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Opposition to a harassment policy is opposition to equality, because sexual harassment is one of the ways that women are, intentionally and otherwise, discouraged from participation in events such as atheist conferences. To turn a blind eye to it is to condone gender-based oppression.

If Watson had made a complaint, then an anti-harassment officer would have probably gone to the offending party and said exactly what Watson said later: “Don’t do that”. That’s all.

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I never said I objected to a policy, legally they are essential. I just said they are often impossible to enforce and gave a specific example where this is the case, and similar to how many claims arise – one persons word against another.

As to ‘if the girl makes a complain’ why is she believed and the guy told to ‘not do’ something he may not have done? That is discrimination in itself. Having seen several instances of malicious claims like this over many years gives a good insight to problems.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • If elevator-guy did not believe that the incident had happened the way Watson had recounted, then he would have an opportunity to say so when confronted by the anti-harassment officer. The conversation would go something like this:

“There was a complaint that you did X. You shouldn’t do that.”

“I didn’t do X. There was a misunderstanding.”

“Okay. Well regardless of that, remember to respect peoples’ boundaries in the future. Thanks for talking to me”.

This isn’t that complicated.

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “Okay. Well regardless of that, remember to respect peoples’ boundaries in the future. Thanks for talking to me”. – That isnt the end of it. This person now objects to you suggesting he ‘respect others boundaries’ and says he has never failed to do so, then making a counter claim that the other person has lied about it all and demands that they are dealt with for harassment. Now what?

This situation happened at a place I worked. Trust me, it was not easy to resolve.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • If the subject of the complaint objects strongly to being reminded to respect others, then he needs to relax. A brief conversation is not a huge imposition on anyone, and there’s nothing wrong with an innocent party being reminded to be careful all the same. The most well-intentioned people still need a reminder from time to time. The officer does not need to take a position on the truth of the complaint.

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • The subject objects because he says he has respected other people and now says the initial complainant has lied & is therefore harassing him – true enough if the complaint has no substance. Unless the officer now takes the same action against this initial complainant, then this is discrimination & by not doing so is taking sides. Do you think no woman has ever made up such a claim? It is really hard to tell. Police forces with far more resources than conference staff struggle to find the truth.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • You’re drawing a false equivalence. Nobody, whether guilty or innocent of harassment, has ever been seriously harmed by being asked to respect other people. Harassment itself, on the other hand, can cause serious harm. The interaction I have described does not convict anybody of anything, and can occur even if the complainant’s story is highly suspicious, because it does not cause any significant harm for the subject of the complaint. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • If the complainants story is highly suspicious, why are you even bothering to talk to the other person? The worst cases I have seen were where a man openly groped a woman and then simply denied it, and where a woman claimed a man raped her because he had earlier upset her in a row over a parking space! Both were fairly convincing for some time and it took a reasonable investigation to get to the truth in either case. I have even seen people actively avoid someone because they make so many claims

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • So then what is worse of the following two scenarios: slightly hassling the man who had the argument over a parking space, or allowing the man who committed an act of sexual assault to get off the hook?

Do you honestly believe that the rights of the innocent to not have a slightly uncomfortable conversation trump the rights of victims to have their complaints taken seriously?

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • It’s even simplier than that – with no reporting policy or well-thought-out remedies to various situations – people who falsely accuse (and however rare, they do exist) are more likely to be found out as false accusers – and the documents can be used as evidence for slander claims. The majority of harassment is generally people who think it’s funny or feel socially entitled – simply knowing that there may be consequences (official or social) goes a long long way.

sinmantyx in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Actually it was a case of a woman claiming rape against a man because she had lost out in a parking place dispute and took advantage of a situation later to extract revenge. So hassling the man in question over this was indeed wrong. Believing any female simply because they are female is absurd and discrimination.

Your last paragraph makes little sense. People need to be treated fairly and equally, with no priority to any gender. Investigations of claims are the same and need experienced people.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • You’re strawmanning me pretty hard. I never once suggested that priority would be given to any one gender, or that women would be believed simply because they are women. A harassment policy can protect men who are harassed, as well. The point is that if you have a complaint of harassment to make, you have a right to have somebody listen to that complaint and take it seriously. That does not mean that somebody will automatically be punished.

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I doubt the truth of your parking space story, but even if it is true, it was right to approach the man to hear his version of events. It was not known that the woman was lying, and to not investigate the matter would risk allowing a real rape to go unpunished.

It also merits mention that the kind of harassment that would be dealt with by these policies is much less severe than rape, which demands the involvement of the police. These issues can be solved with a simple conversation.

Cambo13 in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Police officers, which are a good deal more intimidating than anti-harassment officers at a conference, do not hesitate to interview suspects, witnesses and persons of interest (most of whom will be innocent), regardless of the inconvenience or offence it might cause them. Nobody objects to this, because it makes us all safer in the long run. Same goes for harassment complaints.

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • But the police interview both sides and look for evidence, they do not just listen to one person and then go and tell the other to do anything. When you end up in a situation where two people are accusing each other of harassment via one method or another – improper suggestion or false accusation – you cannot just ‘talk to one and remind them of how people should behave’ and not the other. Either way you have now likely offended an innocent party and been unable to help the real victim.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • I’ve already said that a quick reminder to respect other people does not cause anywhere near the same amount of harm as sexual harassment. The utilitarian calculus here is pretty clear: it’s better to mildly offend a few overly-sensitive people than to allow real instances of harassment to go unanswered.

Also, false accusations really don’t happen that much. Why would a person waste their time at a conference by falsely accusing other people of harassing them?

Cambo13 in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • How much harassment actually happens? So far I have yet to see how many incidents have ever been reported at conferences. I would have no idea if any were false, but it is always possible.

Why do people make such claims, sometimes to discredit a person, sometimes because they themselves made a sexual advance that was refused so they reported the other person for ‘revenge’.

I have never said I am against a harassment policy, all I have said is that it is far from easy to enforce properly.

Nyctasia in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • However, if someone denies that it happened at all – it is useless to act as though they need reminding. If they say they didn’t do it, you privately consul them as if they didn’t do it – and most likely suggest they avoid the accuser and offer security support if they want it. If they did something and then said they don’t think they did anything wrong – then you take out the policy and explain that they need to follow the policy and if they are unwilling, they should leave.

sinmantyx in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • If the person claims it never happened, then it’s best to remind them of the policy and of the need to treat other conference-goers with respect, then leave them alone. If they continue to behave in that manner, then there will be further complaints about them which will serve as further evidence for the truth of the original complaint. If this goes far enough, it will warrant some form of discipline.

Cambo13 in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • No. “Continue” to behave in that manner? What if they didn’t in the first place? I’m not saying the issue shouldn’t be documented, only that if you speak to the person as if they are lying that’s going to cause a problem – regardless of whether or not that person is actually lying or not.

sinmantyx in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • If the original complainant was lying, then there are unlikely to be any other people who complain about the behaviour. If there are further complaints, then they serve as corroborating evidence that something is going on.

Cambo13 in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • No PZ can’t do what he likes at FtB because he isn’t actually dictator for life of it – he is one writer of many and he CANNOT make unilateral decisions for the entire network.

FtB is humanist – so yeah – feminism as in women don’t have less value than men is a must, just like not thinking black people are inferior is. What type of feminism or what specific stances you have on feminist issue or issues of harassment are not.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

EdwardHowton in reply to Cambo13 (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • I note you ignored this reasonable question:

“How is asking for a harassment policy or asking to not be propositioned in an elevator a means of attaining attention and power?”

gpwnedable in reply to EdwardHowton (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • There was no harassment, just a feminazi getting offended at being addressed by a male without Her giving him permission first, so I don’t see how it’s relevant.

EdwardHowton in reply to gpwnedable (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Go fuck yourself you piece of shit.

gpwnedable in reply to EdwardHowton (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • You make a very interesting counter-argument. Allow me to retort.

“Please don’t take this the wrong way” is harassment -how-? “I find you interesting” is a code for “I’MA RAPE YOU BITCH” in what twisted pseudo-reality, exactly?

Go fuck yourself first (Look, I’m even communicating at your level to put you at ease!). And while you’re at it, get Skepchick to take a good, long, hard look at how hypocritical she is, the sexist bitch.

EdwardHowton in reply to gpwnedable (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • “Accepting” views isn’t freethinking, in fact I’m pretty sure it’s the opposite of that. The poll was disturbing because it was a really bad way to make his point and his point wasn’t even relevant. PZ just said that it was a mistake to invite him in the first place. The reason he was invited is because PZ and he were friends. He wasn’t banned, he just doesn’t have a blog at FtB anymore.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • If you are unable to accept others with views different to yourself, that is a dictatorship of thought where you determine what is and what is not acceptable for others to think and believe. Little different from the religious dogmas of the past. Does Atheism now have to come with radical feminism attached? I didnt see where Thunderf00t ever suggested people should be treated differently, indeed his message was equality, apparently equality is not what feminism is all about now though.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago

  • That fact that you immediately confused “people” with “views” says something. I said accepting views is not freethinking – it is criticizing views that would otherwise be held by the majority without question. However, this issue isn’t about that – however much TF thinks it is. He was difficult to work with AND his writing was bad. Other FtB bloggers have disagreed with specifics of sexual harassment policies, and not everyone at FtB has the same views on feminism.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Other FTB’s bloggers are not always easy to get on with, and some have bad writing styles too. That would therefore appear not to be the reason he was got rid of. Almost anyone with any workplace experience will have seen some people fail to fit in well in the first few weeks at times & subsequently fit in well enough.

His subsequent behaviour has been appalling if what is now being said is true, & it was childish enough anyhow. That was not the reason he was axed though.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago 3

  • How do you know? Seriously. Are you an FtB blogger? Were you involved in conversations behind the scenes? So, some bloggers are not always easy to get along with so there is NO way you can imagine he might have been worse? Are you so sure that they were ALL being so terrible that they deserve your insults for making a decision that you know isn’t your call? PZ is a disappointment. Carrier is apparently a liar. Do you understand how that isn’t being respectful.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • FTB bloggers not getting on? Wow, see Greg Laden’s threats to other FTB bloggers, notably Justin Griffin, ironically published on FTB from the supposedly secret back channel. How can you not know this stuff?

PZ made two bad decisions maybe three, nowhere did I say he was a disappointment. Carrier I have not even mentioned yet alone called a liar. You clearly are a rather desperate individual now making things up. People earn respect, it is not deserved. FTB is no different & far from perfect.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • Yeah Greg was kicked out for that. Really “secret” back channel? Yes, Justin published a private e-mail that was directed at him. He didn’t hack into the private listserve after getting kicked off. Of course you called Carrier a liar – and other bloggers too – with the insistence that FtB kicked off TF because of a disagreement on issues. You just said people should be treated with respect, right? PZ isn’t even the one who made the decision. I’m just sick of the misinfo.

sinmantyx in reply to Nyctasia (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • So you shift from my not being able to know if FTB bloggers are difficult to get on with to agreeing one made actual threats to another! Presumably you do now concede not all FTB bloggers are easy to get on with, exactly my statement to start with.

If TF was only removed over writing style and being hard to get on with, why had problems arisen before he wrote a word? PZ admitted fault here.

PZ said he was the one who made the decision, so maybe you are source of your own ‘misinfo’ sickness.

Nyctasia in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago

  • PZ – you are an excellent biologist but when it comes to bar room behavior where people are drinking, getting drunk and having a good time, I would most humbly say that you don’t know what you are talking about. I agree with thunderf00t’s assessment in a bar 100%. It’s not a “safe place” and the bar ISN’T the conference. It’s an after conference hangout spot. Enter at your own risk of getting punched, have a beer tossed in your face or having your leg bitten. If you don’t like the bar, don’t go

Rahn127 1 month ago

  • I like both PZ and TF but this is like 2 threeyearolds fighting over some sandbox bullshit, get over it

mickehb 1 month ago

  • I am satisfied with only one argument, so please just come with one example.

You claim that TF’s argumentation is bad. That is your accusation. It’s not for me to search the internet to prove that you’re not lying.

You don’t understand the burden of proof. And for some reason you believe mentioning what some authority have written has any meaning.

You demonstrate lack of understanding of what freethought, (in one word,) means.

Johnnisjohnnis in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • I directly you to a point-by-point of one of his posts, which I wrote. If you are satisfied with only one example of his bad argumentation, he said that people who use the word “misogynist” to characterize their opponents are more likely to be wrong and posted up a fake graph showing a supposed linear correlation. Cute – but not good argumentation. I’ll send you the link through IM.

sinmantyx in reply to Johnnisjohnnis (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • You are likely confusing his demonstration of bad arguers as a bad argument. It is a statement of fact not about what he thinks, but about what others think.

MrNowaiting in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • No – HE is confusing that. I mean, for F-sake he has a GRAPH explaining how the more you used labels the shittier your argument was. When his first post was torn apart, he did a bias poll of his own audience. He didn’t even bother presenting the alternatives neutrally – which is SUCH bad argument it’s borderline unethical. He also did this to attempt to show that FtB wasn’t representative of the “greater community” which they never claimed they were.

sinmantyx in reply to MrNowaiting (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • I have to correct you.

Yes, FtB constantly claims to speak for the skeptics community. In particular for all women in the skeptics community, but in general too.

Schwazoom in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Really – cause I’ve never seen it – not once. Perhaps you could give one example of this, so I know what your talking about.

sinmantyx in reply to Schwazoom (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Look at this videos rating, look at thunderf00ts video’s rating, It’s clear that PZmyers is dwarfed by thunderf00t.

ObserveReality in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • I don’t bother reading the link when your one example is a joke.

People who use names to characterize their opponents are more likely to be wrong because that kind of characterization in a debate is a fallacy.

That’s the one thing you got?

Are you just trolling me? ( <- example of ad hominem fallacy if used in a debate.)

Johnnisjohnnis in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • A small correction to what I just wrote.

The argument you are referring to is not an argument but a statement. And it might be that my understanding of this statement is different from TF.

My arguments for this statement is mine, I do not know his.

Johnnisjohnnis in reply to Johnnisjohnnis (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • I just saw your correction. If you take it as a statement – it is that statement that a logically fallacy is true. Ironically it is actually an argument ad hominem. 1) If people use this language 2) they are wrong. So, he is implying that you can make a conclusion about a stance based on who said it – which is classic argument ad hominem.

sinmantyx in reply to Johnnisjohnnis (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • “…he said that people who use the word “misogynist” to characterize their opponents are more likely to be wrong…”

This is a statement, not an argument.

Johnnisjohnnis in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • You are right that this statement is a general statement that should not be used if “that people” are someone specific. General statements, even if they are true, should not be used against any specific person.

If “that people” is just anyone who use the word “misogynist” to characterize their opponents and not someone specific he is right to say so.

If used against someone specific in a specific debate then that would be wrong.

Johnnisjohnnis in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • No, 1) labeling someone is not an argument ad hominem, unless you are attempting to use the label AS an argument 2) beyond that, using logical fallacies doesn’t mean you are more likely to be wrong, it just means your argument sucks. “Are you just trolling me?” is not an example of an argument ad hominem since it’s not even an argument.

sinmantyx in reply to Johnnisjohnnis (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Wrong. I am not a computer and neither are you. I can put a ? behind a sentence, but that doesn’t necessary make it a question. I can formulate a sentence so that it is not an argument, but yet the effect is the same. The effect of me saying George Bush are stupid when discussing he said, is the same as me saying he is wrong because he is stupid. Whether it is technically formulated as an argument or not is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

I picked my example with care.

Johnnisjohnnis in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • People who do not understand the function of fallacies are more likely to fool them self, thus more likely to falsely believe the foundation for their opinions.

Johnnisjohnnis in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Alternately when people feel strongly about whatever they have certain ideas they consider to be a given. Sometimes they are good ideas, other times they are crap. I’d be interested to hear about one of PZ’s strawmen though. Do you have a specific example?

ApostateltsopA in reply to 666or999 (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Well for instance when Tf00t asked why Rebecca didn’t report the rape threats if they weren’t trolls and PZ then claimed that Tf00t said that all sexual harassment that isn’t reported to the FBI should be ignored.

Another straw-man is when PZ claimed that Tf00t tried to settle it by popular vote when in fact he was trying to show that the membership of FTB was not very representative of atheists and skeptics at large.

666or999 in reply to ApostateltsopA (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • The 1st one isn’t a strawman, it’s gross misrepresentation. AKA lying. I haven’t seen it but it wouldn’t be the first thing I’ve facepalmed after hearing PZ say.

As to the second, a internet poll on TF’s page is a popular vote, and a hugely slanted audience. As for the later bit, the poor representation of women’s concerns in the larger activist atheist community is the speech RW gave, that made RD uncomfortable, which got the whole mess rolling.

ApostateltsopA in reply to 666or999 (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Thank you for this PZ. I like both you and Tf00t. Both of you were instrumental in my journey from YEC to, you know, being right. Sounds like there is no chance you guys will kiss and make up.

rootfivehigh 1 month ago

  • Thank you.. now I have to go get a bottle of Brain Bleach and an SOS pad just so that I can get the mental Image of TF00t and PZ kissing out of my head.

FreedFenrir in reply to rootfivehigh (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • It might help the scrubbing process along if you imagine them doing it in a Chick-fil-A.

rootfivehigh in reply to FreedFenrir (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Nothing will help… the image is burned into my mind…

FreedFenrir in reply to rootfivehigh (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Thank you for your POV, PZ. Great video, you should make more of them.

TheFifthGreatApe 1 month ago

  • There are a lot of smart people in the skeptic movement that are amazing at presenting facts and supporting arguments to back up their position, making it accessible to the most ignorant people. Points are repeated even when obvious.

But when it comes to the position of why men should not ask women for coffee-dates, I have yet to see/hear/read a single supporting idea other than Rebecca’s emotional comfort.

I want to believe it is possible to support equality while not siding with BW on this.

FatLingon 1 month ago

  • As I understood it, Tf00t was booted for critisising Skepchick’s radical feminism.

DarkAngel182 1 month ago

  • Bla bla bla… what an annoying voice, pointless ramblings, arrogant attitude. Who the heck is PZ Nonsense?

MegaSoma99 1 month ago

  • Ehmm,

Why the hell is it called “freethought” if you are only able to think freely within the confines of naturalism and certain political veiws. That sounds more like dogma to me!

MegaExelo 1 month ago 3

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • As for the definition of “free thought,” it would seem Myers is once again going on about matters he doesn’t understand. Free thought is defined by dictionary[dot]com as the following, “thought unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, especially in matters of religion.” I’ll leave it up to you the reader to decide whether or not PZ Myers is for free thought.

Sleepwalk1128 1 month ago 4

  • “… sometimes you just have to be intolerant to wrongness.”

PZ is referring to the result and not the method. According to what PZ says in this video he believe that freethought is a result. Personally I’m leaning towards it being a method, and not a result.

Freethought is not a guarantee for rightness, dogma is not a guarantee for wrongness.

Johnnisjohnnis in reply to Sleepwalk1128 (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • I’m no fan of Thunderf00t in the sense that I disagree with his stance on religion and theism.

However, PZ Myers is a little shit with a Napoleon complex. He appears to be a perverted old man who enjoys siding with naive malleable college girls no matter how irrational they’re being. Why? Who knows. Perhaps one day we’ll find out. Perhaps one day we’ll find out that PZ Myers has a dungeon filled with little girls.

Sleepwalk1128 1 month ago

  • I’m not a huge fan of thunderf00t, but PZ, you screwed up royally and you’re far too proud to admit it. I agree that there are limits to the kind of commentary that should be allowed on FTB, but did t’f00t’s stated opinion tread anywhere near this limit? I don’t think so. You’re normally a very rational guy, PZ, and I love your other work, but when it comes to gender issues you regress into a raving, irrational lunatic, like the creationists you so despise. I sincerely hope you right this wrong.

Lachlan Hillman 1 month ago 18

  • Agreed, except for: “You’re normally a very rational guy, PZ, and I love your other work.”

AmyThompsonUser in reply to Lachlan Hillman (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • I have no problem with agreeing that Tf00t is a duchbag who is incapable of reasoned debate and I also agree that supporting the equality of woman and other minor groups is important. But does that mean aspects of feminism are exempt from criticism PZ? This isn’t an MRA making the point PZ, there are aspects of feminist discourse that appear to work against equality and I think it is worthy of raising in civilised debate.

Fedaykin24 1 month ago

  • I agree, but please stop using MRA as a slur.

There are good and bad MRAs and slurring the title makes it seem like you cannot argue for men’s rights without being sexist.

Schwazoom in reply to Fedaykin24 (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Comment removed

Author withheld

  • This has been flagged as spam show

Fedaykin24 in reply to Schwazoom (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Oh, don’t be silly. MRA is just a convenient label he can apply to people who disagree with him so he doesn’t have to deal with their real criticism.

Just like “chill girl” for women, just like they use “mansplaining” or “privilege”. I keep comparing it to the word “infidel”, because that’s really how they use it- Marking the “outsider” so that they don’t have to listen to them.

Schwazoom in reply to Fedaykin24 (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Why am I being silly? He does use the label MRA to dismiss people and their opinions. I wasn’t using it as a slur just trying to appeal to his reason.

I feel that aspects of Feminism should be open to criticism and it disturbs me as a rationalist and Atheist how dismissive PZ is of anybody who brings it up. Tfoot is often a Duchebag but PZ utterly not engaging with the matter is silly, that he might use the “MRA” excuse should be called out.

Fedaykin24 in reply to Schwazoom (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • As I said there are good people within the mens rights movement and bad people, I feel it is unfair that mens opinions on their sexuality or control over their body (something Feminists have battled for) can be utterly dismissed and twisted into accusations of misogyny or being part of some supposedly radical camp with a particular label. For me it should be about equality but also recognising and celebrating the biological differences.

Fedaykin24 in reply to Schwazoom (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • For the mens rights movement to work people who are activists within it shouldn’t leap into battle (as you have) against people who actually support many aspects of what they are campaigning for. I wasn’t attacking the mens rights movement, I was purely using the term that PZ himself does to dismiss their viewpoints and pointing out I was not an activist within that movement.

Fedaykin24 in reply to Schwazoom (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Oh, I thought I made my sarcasm clear enough. I was just poking fun at PZ’s behaviour.

I wasn’t in any way criticising you. If anything, I was saying what you were- That whatever they say is twisted and destroyed.

Honestly, Feminism by now is becoming just plain cruel. Look at what happened with the education system. They got what they want, men are underrepresented now, and they’re cheering.

Oh, except for the three fields (math, engineering, hard science) that they aren’t dominating yet.

Schwazoom in reply to Fedaykin24 (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Misogyny being called out?? How about your misandry being called out.

Do you always project this much??

Scrapheap71 in reply to DohsOfReality (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Yes, unfortunately so, some people just make shitty atheists.

Scrapheap71 in reply to ColonelPandabear (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Near the end of the video, you say that TF didn’t believe women deserved equal treatment, but, that’s not correct.

Just because you don’t march in lockstep with a certain subset of feminists, doesn’t mean that you’re a misogynist, or something like that.

Most of his disagreements were about implementation and strategy.

He raises some valid points of discussion regarding recent incidents in the larger atheist community.

Instead of discussing it in those terms, you ban him.

AnonymousElektron 1 month ago

  • OK, so, apparently “free thought” doesn’t actually mean “thinking freely”, but, I only found that out after looking on wikipedia.

“Free thought” has a very unintuitive meaning, and I don’t think anyone who didn’t already know what it means can be expected to understand it.

Although, even by the definition of free thought, Skepchick continues to steam ahead, utterly and embarrassingly oblivious to the nature of the internet, obsessing over anonymous youtube comments.

Is that really free thought?

AnonymousElektron 1 month ago

  • Well, before anyone accuses me of being a Tf00t fan… let me just say that whilst I greatly admired his science stuff & his early anti creationist work – I think it all went to his head. He enjoys public squabbling far too much for me to take him seriously these days.

But after re-reading the original posts & listening carefully to this vid one thing is absolutely clear:

PZ definitely DID straw-man him – then they both fought like 14 yr old youtube kids.

This vid is also full of strawmen.

SAHBfan 1 month ago

  • So you lost a poll and got pissed off? 😛 Weak man! 😉

Ted Nielsen 1 month ago

  • This has been flagged as spam show

heathenwizard 1 month ago

  • I wasn’t calling for him to be thrown off or shut up, just pointing out blatant hypocrisy.

tarstarkusz in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Check out zomgitscris channel, it’s her next to the most recent posting, I think it’s called convergence or something like that. It’s an hour long video, but I stopped watching it when the guy on the panel said that a man’s brain was a female brain damaged by testosterone and everyone laughed and clapped and he went on to say it wasn’t a joke.

tarstarkusz in reply to voiceofreason4677 (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Oh wow… that’s pretty fucking retarded. I mean I know a lot about neurology and how neurons work and if any of that panel had any degrees in neuroscience they would have called him out on that bullshit. Plus testosterone doesn’t fucking effect the chemical makeup of the brain other than the area that encodes for survival which also acts for aggression. I mean there are differences between the female and male brains… but what he said is pure bullshit.

voiceofreason4677 in reply to tarstarkusz (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • He claims to have been making some rhetorical point, but I think that is only because he was called out on it and had to make something up. Feminism is a very polarizing issue and it doesn’t belong at atheistic conventions. We don’t go to their conventions and tell them their is no god.

tarstarkusz in reply to voiceofreason4677 (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago 2

  • I never thought I would hear PZ Myers making the typical internet mistake of confusing disagreeing with trolling. “He disagreed with us from the start. Clearly he was trolling.” Or, maybe he liked everything but one thing and was hoping he could bring about some change for the better. And the “not-an-apology” early on for “not having prevented him from joining” instead of kicking him afterward? Amazing. Stay classy, PZ. :\

philosofrenzy 1 month ago

  • What an interesting and unnecessary experience this has been for those at FTB and for numerous others. At the very least, it is not unreasonable to share that the trait of being unreasonable is a universal trait that can be possessed by even those who are self-professed as being rational. I so very much concur with the warranted vetting of potential applicants for when one’s organization possesses a meaningful mission and goal.

thedeeliciousplum 1 month ago

  • What flavor of cool-aide did they give you??

Scrapheap71 in reply to thedeeliciousplum (Show the comment) 1 month ago 2

  • =) Too funny!

thedeeliciousplum in reply to Scrapheap71 (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • Was there sarcasm that I missed??

Scrapheap71 in reply to thedeeliciousplum (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • It’s an invite-only blog network with about 30 bloggers. If they asked me to blog on the network, I would be thrilled. The term “banning” is generally used for people who can no longer comment. He was not “banned”. His blog is no longer hosted at FtB. His blog is hosted elsewhere.

sinmantyx in reply to dattebenforcer (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • oh fuck you, you’re playing with words. a ban is a ban. go fuck PZ’s dick while you’re at it.

dattebenforcer in reply to sinmantyx (Show the comment) 1 month ago

  • So, wait harassment policies are reasonable when only you say they’re reasonable? That seems a bit arbitrary.

cevajorge 1 month ago

  • free thought and humanism aretwo different things. I could only watch the vid until you explained your “enlightenment” views. If anyone is against humanism (which is exactly what you are) They are banned. You are just as bad if not worse than the religious. Change your name to humanistsblog and you won’t be a liar.

Why God stopping the Sun in the sky is so stupid, no matter which way you look at it!

October 6, 2012

Joshua call on God and God stops the sun in the sky right?

Well considering God was only doing this such that Joshua could have light to continue his butchery of a fleeing people (man woman and child), this has to be the most inefficient use of military force ever.  The Earth rotates once a day (ish, it actually depends on how you define days, when the Sun is in the same place again (solar time) , or the stars (siderial time)).  Just to give that some perspective, the people at the Earth surface on the equator are travelling about 1000 miles per hour (1.4x the speed of sound in the frame of reference of the Earths center of mass), those at temperate latitudes are doing about half of that, and those at the poles are doing zero!  This means if God merely stops the Earth, the people on the surface will be doing about half the speed of sound relative to the surface.  Given that it generally hurt to fall over, hitting objects at the best part of the speed of sound is probably going to sting!

Just so you know, this is what it looks like for something to hit a wall at about the speed of sound!


However to truely ‘Stop the Sun in the sky’ you need to stop the Earth in it’s orbit.  Here the calculations are actually very easy.  The Earths orbit around the Sun in about 30 km/ second.  Given the speed of sound is about 1/3rd km per second, this means the Earths orbital velocity is some 90 times the speed of sound.  So in order to stop the Sun in the sky you need to reduce the Earth velocity by 90 times the speed of sound, which in a frictionless environment is the same energy it would take to accelerate the Earth from rest to 90x the speed of sound.

So how much energy would this take?

Well kinetic energy is given by 1/2 x mass x velocity^2 (thats velocity squared)

So lets take a unit mass (1kg), and accelerate from rest to 30 000 meters per second (30 km/s the orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun)

KE = 0.5 x 1 x 30 000^2 joules (1/2 mv^2)

KE = 225 000 000 joules = 225 000 kJ

So how much explosive would be needed to accelerate a unit mass to his velocity.

Well wiki tells us that a killogram of TNT exploding releases 3 000 000 J of energy per kg,  = 3 000 kJ

That means it will take about (225 000/3 000) kg of TNT to accelerate a kg to the orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun.  Give or take, it requires about a 100 times an objects mass in TNT to accelerate it to this orbital velocity.  So to stop the Earth in its orbit would require about 100 times its mass in high explosives.

Lets just take a look at this in terms of total war.  Historically it turns out bombing is not a very efficient way of killing people, such that in WW2 it would typically take about 1 ton of bombs to kill one person.  Some ball park numbers,

In the bombing of Berlin, some 60 000 tons of explosive were dropped, which killed some 20-50 000 people.  These are actually fairly typical numbers for WW2.

So modern(ish) warfare takes about a TON of explosive to kill one person.  That might sound inefficiency till you compare to to God!.

God expends 100x the mass of the Earth in high explosive (~100 x 6 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 tons)

So lets say God killed 10 000 people by doing this, this means that God expended about the same energy as 6 000 000 000 000 000 000 tons of high explosive per person killed. The biggest atom bomb ever was the Czar bomb at some 50 megatons (50 000 000 tons of TNT).  This means that Gods expenditure of energy here was about the same as 100 000 000 000  (ONE HUNDRED BILLION Czar bombs per person he killed).

So, lets see, God, determined to wipe out a fleeing people, first tries throwing rocks at them, and manages to kill some of them, and then when Joshua wants some extra daylight to continue with this religious genocide, God obliges by stopping the Earth in its orbit at an energetic cost of 100x the Earth mass in high explosive, when the same effect could have been had with a truck load of flares.  Given that people can be killed simply by simply stopping the electrical current that regulates the heart, stopping the Earth such that Joshua can continue to kill man, woman and child by stabbing them with sharp pieces of metal seems to be both EXCEPTIONALLY inefficient and psychologically VERY messed up.



The Price of saying ‘Good-bye’

September 16, 2012

So I was listening to my ipod the other day, and bugger me a track comes on that I’ve not heard for a long time .  It was the track that I was playing on ‘the long drive’ across Wyoming.  I didn’t know it at the time, but I was probably on a day or so away from dying.

I’d arrived near Laramie in the summer of 2007 after driving some 2000 miles from upstate NY and I had an ‘upset stomach’.  I figured it was food poisoning or something and drove up into the Snowies, west of Laramie.  The evening and night was all alone in a car park, with a fever, and what I would call ‘low level hallucinations’, in that when I closed my eyes I would see vivid colors that would take the shape of familiar objects and do really surreal things.

The next day I really wasn’t feeling any better, and certainly not well enough to do anything, and so I limped Westwards.  By this time I was getting worried.  If it was food poisoning, it should be getting better by now, and if anything it was getting worse.  I picked up the interstate I80 and headed West.  It was late afternoon by the time I got to Rawlins, and I was weighing in the balance if I should head to a hospital.  In the end I decided I would head onto Rock Springs and if I was not getting better by then I would go looking for medical help.  That drive turned out to be particularly tormentful, with the pain getting progressively worse and in the failing light.  To make things worse, it turned out the GPS was out of date, and inside my head there was a wail of despair that went off as the GPS announced ‘now arriving at destination (hospital) on right’, when it was clear there was no hospital here.  Thankfully Rock Springs was a fairly small place and a little further up the road I found a Hospital sign.  It was only on getting out of the car I realized something was really really wrong.  All the time I had been in the car, all I had to do was essentially set the cruise control and keep the car on the road.  On getting out of the car, I found the movement so painful that I could barely walk.

The tormentful drive across wyoming. Incidentally, a couple of years later I returned along exactly these roads to fly my plane in the snowies. It was really a very traumatic experience as i had so many painful memories of this road. Had a similar experience when I broke my wrist coming off a pedal bike. About a year later I cycled up to the same junction and was again stunned at the power of the involuntary physiological response.

The fever made my stay in the waiting room a really quite surreal experience.  While they were checking my insurance details I sat very still, and very quietly in an almost transidental calm, like I was only watching my life.  The thing that really sticks with me from that waiting room were the parents opposite me, getting progressively more frantic as they went from credit card to credit card trying to get something that would pay for their childrens treatment. It was an unpleasantly disturbing sight seen through the eyes of one whose my mind wasnt quite right and who, by now was dealing with the unconformable realization that there was something very wrong with him.

When a doctor finally took a look at me, it took him minutes to come to the conclusions ‘appendicitis’.  They took blood, and at some did some form of imaging that required a tube to be shoved up my ass and significant amounts of dye to be injected.  I was assured this would be quite painful, although to be honest at this point I was in so much pain, and in such a dazed state that I just didn’t care. Not even a little!

All this confirmed what they had suspected all along, and that they would operate in the morning (less than 12 hrs after arriving).

Now I knew the risk of death in the operation was small, and the chances of death if they did not operate were all but certain, but nonetheless, when they came to put me out for the operation, that this might be the final curtain call.  Complications as unpredictable as they are, it turned out, my appendix was actually fairly far gone and gangrenous and as a consequence my appendix scar is longer than most!

So these were the memories that came flooding back when I heard this track, and then I remembered something else.

-I had chose not to contact my parents, and the uncomfortable things I had weighted in coming to that decision.

I knew that the chances of death were small but real, and in that case, all my parents would ever know of this is that their son had died of complications in Wyoming.

-So how could I not tell them I hear you ask?

Well, I also knew the operation was something I had no control over, and nor would they.  That is that if I told them I knew they would worry terribly, my mother especially as they could do nothing other than powerless wait on the other side of the world to hear if their son was going to live or die.

… and there, as I stood waiting for a bus, listening to my ipod, it suddenly dawned on me that this was the price of saying good-bye to your loved ones.

It also prompted me down the rather uncomfortable line of thought of what sort of risk of death would you need before the balance was tipped from ‘the probability is small, and the matter is out of everyones hands, so I will spare my parents the emotional grief’ to ‘the probability is high, and even though it’s out of everyones hands, I want to talk to my loved ones for maybe the last time.  What would be the tipping point? 10 %? 30 %? 90%?

I’m curious as to your thoughts on this.  What would you have done?

-You are on the other side of the world and with a risk of death, maybe big, maybe small.  Would you spare your loved ones the anguish? Or does the necessity for the closure of talking to your loved ones, maybe for the last time win out?

On the Failure of Atheist Organizations and Choosing Life!

September 1, 2012

Y’know I kinda knew it all along that feminism was the third rails here.  You can even see it in the very first video I put up on this subject, that I knew this was going to end ugly (“tactically dumb” I think were the words I used).  I really didn’t have a ‘dog in this fight’ beyond the fact that having all these professional victims trying to pass off the most mild transgressions as systematic and pervasive misogyny in the secular community, really did make the group that took this seriously looks like a bunch of jokers, and then to have ‘leaders’ of the community take an accommodationist stance to such professional victim-hood really doesn’t inspire one with much faith that these are dynamic organization capable of prioritizing and focusing on important goals to achieve results.

Having said that, I don’t really feel too badly about how this all came out.  I certainly learned a lot on the journey about the nature of this community, and why so much (although notably not all) of it is operationally ineffective.

In the current case the problem seems to be quite simple, that a group, notable centered around Freethoughtblogs and Skepchick have mistaken (initially arguably accidentally, but later apparently willfully) the odd troll as ‘evidence’ that the community is ridden with misogynists etc.  Indeed now it seems that folks from these forums almost relish the trolling, as they can then use it to ‘score some online pity’.  This path of ‘embracing victim-hood’ is not healthy for them or the community and ends in this hypersentivity to criticism that really doesn’t do anyone any good (‘use the block and ban functions’ urges Rebecca Watson in 100% VFX terms, and we all know how well that worked out for him!).  For instance they see the word “bitch is a gendered insult that demeans ALL women” (a point which Rebecca Watson of Skepchick assures us is so uncontroversial that almost everyone ‘gets’ it), but will have no problem in using the words “don’t be a dick” in their guidelines for their new ‘Atheism Plus’ forum (whose rules prohibit degrading people using sexual slurs).

Yes, ‘Bitch is a gendered insult to all women’ but in the utterly consistent Utopian world of AtheismPlus, ‘dick’ (mentioned only one line earlier in the forum rules!) does not count as the hate speech of a gender slur.

When such casual and common use of language becomes a matter of heated debate, arguably you have already been rendered operationally impotent by your political correctness.  Take another example.  The founder of atheism plus is quite candid about being ‘banned’ from the internet by her boyfriend, while doubtless if I had similarly imposed such restrictions on my girlfriend I would have been labeled a misogynist intent on subjugating women (“WHY NOT JUST TELL HER TO GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN!” etc) and she a propagator of destructive submissive female stereotypes, a gender traitor and therefore a rape culture enabler etc etc.  This is the disproportionate destination you arrive at when you are so sensitive to criticism: seeing the most banal activities that you engage in everyday as fine and healthy but as evidence of horrible sexism endemic in society when anyone else does it.  It also seems to have enabled a formidable cognitive dissonance in these folks.  For example many of these people consider “you’re only a feminist because you are old fat and ugly” as some great evil that should get you pilloried, but have no problem in thinking that saying “you’re only a misogynist because your privilege as a member of the patriarchy means you don’t ‘get it’ ” is some great argument winner.  In both cases the statement may well be perfectly accurate, but even if they were, the arguments constitute little more than personal mudslinging, while the more virtuous path would have been to actually address the argument, not the person.  Yet the latter example here is typically considered by such folks to be an argument winner, but the former beyond the pale as an ad hominem.  The cognitive dissonance is formidable.

However, going back to the original problem though, personally I wouldn’t give such trolls the time of day.  Example in question, coughlan616 in a recent exchange (over a month ago at the time of writing) ended up suggesting that he had performed needless sexual exchanges with my mother.

Inject yourself into the free speech arena? Better be ready for the slings and arrows! However that does not mean those who have not injected themselves into that arena are ‘fair game’.  For those with an interest, this was the full exchange.

Did I go ballistic at this and get a load of ‘secular leaders’ to write letters of support saying that this sort of hate should not be tolerated?

Did I campaign for a code of conduct for the atheist community etc?

Did I demand that anyone who opposed my proposed changes be driven out as C.H.U.D.s, as rejecting my proposals clearly meant that they endorsed Coughlan’s views?

Did I sit there crying at how unsafe this made me feel until someone paid attention?

No! I just ignored him.  If he wants to use his freedom of speech in the open arena to be a dick, that’s his affair. However there are of course some limits, and arguably coughlan crossed those in this case. Not by insulting me, as I’ve CHOSEN to inject myself into the public domain, and in such a free speech arena you have to suffer the slings and arrows of that arena.  This is not true however of my mother (see ‘YOUR MOTHERS A WHORE.. and other stuff‘.  She did not inject herself into the public arena, and is not therefore fair game.  Nor is impersonation, and various other elements such as slander and liable etc, but outside that, everything else, within a VERY broad remit is pretty much fair game.

This is in stark contrast to the way in which the ‘atheism plus’ people apparently think things should go, where one of them says that saying something that hurts someones feelings should be regarded in the same fashion as physical assault.

This is simply bullshit, and it is a damning indictment of everyone in that room that not one of them, not PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson or Jen McCreight actually stood up or questioned this proposition that would involve no less than the abolishment of the first amendment.

AtheismPlus, as defended by PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight and other is about as popular with their own base (freethinkers?) as venomfangxs arguments are with his audience!  A religious man would say ‘God is trying to tell you something there!’

Indeed the mere fact that even with their ‘home audience’ (secularists and rationalist?) they can only get a video rating comparable to that of venomfangx should be giving them a warning that a lot of people actually have issues with what they are saying.  I mean did they not think this through merely on personal-gain-logistical-grounds?  That if just one person finds their comments hurtful, then they will be prohibited from talking about it on freethoughtblogs and skepchick or get prosecuted for ‘assault’.

However, I’ve become increasingly of the opinion that these people are functionally incompetent, to the point where ‘being drummed out of such a community’ is not actually a punishment but a welcome and valuable gift.

My opinions of this were further backed up by checking out the google ‘web interest’ stats on this which show that I actually have a sizably bigger footprint that freethoughtblogs (both comfortably unique search terms).  Not bad seeing as I’m only one guy and pretty much only work on this half time!

So according to Google Insight, ‘Thunderf00t’ has about twice the web interest of Freethoughtblogs. I’m not a big player in the grand scheme of things.  -Freethoughtblogs CLEARLY make a disproportionate amount of noise for their size.

So yup, I figure I’m pretty much done with these hapless noise makers.

Done with those folks who think patronizing ad hominem/ ’emperors new clothes’ style arguments like “you just don’t ‘get it’ ” is some great cerebral, thoughtful and persuasive argument.

-I’m looking ahead and choosing life!! (que upbeat music)

I’m getting back to making videos that can appeal to everyone, not just some petty drama of just how incompetent certain fractions of the secular community are.

There are bigger fish to fry!

A+ (atheism plus), For A Third Glorious Age of Total Agreement

August 26, 2012

New Atheism” was built on the backs of heavyweights who had all written hard hitting best sellers. The social fabric was shaken by the approach of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennet, appropriately dubbed no less than ‘the four horsemen’.

Now a series of bloggers, with conspicuously few achievements between all of them have decided that the community needs to be cleansed of subversive thought by expelling everyone who disagrees with them, and they are the ones to do it with a new movement called ‘Atheism Plus‘. The properties they most associate with folk like the horsemen are ‘old’ ‘white’ ‘male’ and ‘privileged’ (see below). Indeed a New Statesman article frequently quoted by the Freethoughtbloggers who started this, states quite clearly that:

“Atheism+ is a reaction against the “New Atheism” of Richard Dawkins”.

However they somehow manage to completely overlook the fact that the horsemen achieved their level of notoriety and recognition through ability and hard work, culminating in a series of best selling, ground shifting books: The God Delusion, God is NOT Great, Letter to a Christian Nation and Darwins Dangerous Idea to name but a FEW. The results of this can be seen when looking through the adword statistics where it actually turns out that Richard Dawkins alone is bigger than Atheism!

The Beatles may have been more popular than Jesus, but looks like Dawkins is now more popular than Atheism!

Dawkins, just so we are clear, has the prestigious academic title of Fellow of the Royal Society. That might not mean much to many, but it’s one of the higher awards given out by the Royal Society to people who made ‘ a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science”.
Seriously is there anything in the entirety of the ‘Atheism Plus’ movement that can even approach this level of accomplishment?

So the founders of ‘Atheism plus’ have decided that, despite their lack of any real achievement, that the real thing atheism needs right now is to throw the likes of the horsemen under the bus and to form a splinter movement (click, its sooo appropriate).  That’s right the ‘Atheism plus’ will be gloriously free of older white men, irrespective of their actual contributions or achievements.

Jennifer McCreight, the founder of ‘Atheism Plus’ says what she thinks about old white men. Oddly enough ability and achievement don’t seem to factor into this equation at all!

So what are the founding principals of ‘Atheism plus’?

We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

So ‘Atheism Plus’ gets off to this incredibly bad start where of their guiding principals, 2-4 are subsets of 1. Why that is becomes obvious when you see what’s bottom of the list of the ‘Atheism Plus’ manifesto. Bottom of the heap, no. 5 of 5 is ‘the use of critical thinking’. Yup critical thinking is bottom of the pile for ‘Atheism Plus’. I find it even more amusing as I am an atheist because of critical thinking (1. methodology, then 2. conclusion, y’know the logical way of doing it), whereas they start with the assertion that they are ‘Atheists Plus’, then later decide that critical thinking is a good thing. Conclusion before the methodology? very ass backwards!

Now enter the fray another Freethoughtblogger, held to be one of the more sane and rational FTBers (apparently), one ‘Richard Carrier’. Richard sets the standards high by asserting:

” And Greta Christina and others have taken up the banner: Atheism Plus: The New Wave of Atheism. I am fully on board. I will provide any intellectual artillery they need to expand this cause and make it successful.”

..and that would be all very fine and well if the rest of Carriers blog wasn’t so ridden with wildly over the top polarizing rhetoric of eradicating and purging dark evil impurities that threaten our purity of essence (as someone has noted, it sounds more like Mccarthyism and Ayn Rands hate child). Indeed, I can say without a hint of hyperbole or exaggeration that is more Third Reich like than ‘Third Wave of atheism’ like. Whats that? Godwins law I hear you say? Well judge for yourself! You really have see it to believe it…’s some highlights!

“Don’t assume that because someone else did that, that it’s covered and you can give it a miss. No, we need to show numbers. So speak out wherever you see these two sides at loggerheads, and voice your affiliation, so it’s clear how many of us there are, against them. And this very much is an us vs. them situation. The compassionate vs. the vile. You can’t sit on the fence on this one. In a free society, apathy is an endorsement of villainy.”


“Those who don’t, those who aren’t shamed by being exposed as liars or hypocrits, those who persist in being dishonest or inconsistent even when their dishonesty or inconsistency has been soundly proven, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.”

(yeah thats the way to win hearts and minds with your intellectual artillery!)


“I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.”


Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned.

Yup, it’s real unashamedly divisive, brazenly polarizing totalitarian ‘you’re either with us or against us’ type stuff. But the really disturbing thing here is that if you do not entirely back ‘Atheism Plus’s dogmatically stated priorities, you are to be marginalized, excluded and attacked. To many of those who have escaped cults such as Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism this is the sort of viciously vindictive talk of retributional tactics that would likely give you flashbacks! It is this stated desire that people rather than ideas should be targeted that I find most disconcerting. OBEY OUR DOGMA OR BE DECRLARED A SUPRESSIVE PERSON! (you really should read this article, it is frighteningly similar to Carrier vision for ‘Atheism plus’).

But Carrier with his ‘intellectual artillery’ really doesn’t seemed to have thought this one through. So lets see, if American Atheists do not rename themselves ‘American Atheists Plus’, and identify themselves as ‘Atheists Plus’, Carrier will ‘know who to avoid’?
Well that’s an interesting proposition because it turns out that Richard Carrier and Greta Cristina are both scheduled to speak at the 2013 American Atheist convention in Houston.

Oh yes, it’s time for very red faces to take their list of world class achievements (/sarcasm) and ‘intellectual artillery’ and eat a very very VERY juicy slice of humble pie.

Given that American Atheists are NOT going to rename themselves as ‘American Atheist Plus’, or identify with this splinter group, this puts Richard Carrier and Greta Christian in a very difficult situation. Personally I think Carrier should write to David Silverman (a good guy!), the head of American Atheists in exactly the same terms he wrote to someone on his blog who said that they would remain, ‘just an atheist’

‘Atheism Plus’  should really stick with his guns here and tell these inferior ‘American Atheists’ what they think about them.

If they had any dignity or commitment to their ‘third glorious age’ of ‘Atheism Plus’, they would lead by example and write to David Silverman telling him that he, and his organization, is to be marginalized and excluded as there is no room for fence sitter in their new empire of pure ‘Atheism Plus’ and they will no longer be attending any conferences run by these mere inferior ‘atheists’. Indeed, personally I would encourage them to hold with their beliefs and splinter off with their pious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou ‘witch hunting’ sect.

But I’ll wager their commitment to ‘Atheism plus’, despite all their pompous rhetoric, is paper thin, and that we will not rid ourselves of these Mccarthyism type atheists so easily. I’ll wager the parasites will realize that without ‘New Atheism’, which let us not forget was born from the achievements of people with actual ability, y’know hard hitting heavyweights types, they cannot survive.  I expect that they will now start trying to weasel their way out of this by any and all means necessary as long as the conclusion is ‘no, it’s okay for ME to attend mere atheist conferences, its just everyone else who should shun and marginalize these mere inferior atheists’

I guess we will have our answer soon enough about Richard Carrier and Greta Christinas commitment to ‘Atheism Plus’ by whether they pull out of the American Atheist convention or not.

FTB and the conspiracy to defraud/ Drawing a line under this pointless crap

August 12, 2012

Chuckle, so my evil HAXOR skills have earned me the honor of a dozen or so blog posts telling me what an evil, evil man I am.

Pah, N00b, Neo would have just re-clicked the subscribe button!

The bizarre thing is the principal horror seems to be over something I did NOT actually do.  Namely that I DID NOT drop anyones docs!, and what’s more docs they had already ‘officially’ sent me on their mailing list.

-So how to turn something I did NOT do into an evil act of malice?

Why by speculating of course!  The argument continues like this, ‘but you are an evil haxor, therefore why should I trust you when you say u wont drop docs’.  That’s right, in the absence of any actual doc dropping, speculate that they MIGHT doc drop!  Oddly enough the one question such folk will never directly answer, because they know the answer as well as you, is ‘do you think I would drop anyones docs?’

Thankfully FTBers don’t apply this reasoning to their own, such as the good man PZ.  He was clearly dishonest to me about the deal when I came on board at FTB (freedom to blog about what I wanted my ass! ‘rip into anyone you want’ my ass!)…..  He ‘HACKED’ a phone system by ‘stealing’ a passcode and using it to ‘break in’!! ‘He’s dishonest! Unspeakable, it’s a unconscionably horrific breach of trust… he should be drummed out of the community as a pariah etc etc’ /sarcasm

Why shouldn’t he drop someones docs too?  After all, on paper he officially has access to all the personal details I do!

‘Indeed, given his hatred of me, why shouldn’t he leak docs himself, then blame me for it?  I mean if you read his posts, is there any level the bilious odious man wouldn’t go to fulfill his vindictive vendetta of hatred of….. etc etc.’

-Wow, I can engage in inventive filled paranoid rambling about crimes people MIGHT commit as much as FTB!

However all this time I had been working on the basis that FTB had a significant media footprint, which I now think is wrong.  Put simply, even though FTB have a LOT of skeletons in the closet, and engage in some pretty cheap and vindictive scheming (I wouldn’t have stayed long associated to such a group, even if they hadn’t expelled me first), the bottom line is they are a small group, they are kings of a small hill of beans (I’m still getting more hits than 10 of their bloggers having been gone for a month! see below): they simply are not worth the time when there are bigger fish to fry!  So let me take this opportunity to draw some sort of line under this (I know that sentence alone will have bought rapturous applause from many sectors!).

Bear with me on this…. this is going somewhere!

From my evil haxor skills, FTBer were saying the following on their secret mailing list about a month after I was thrown off.

“Plus, TF had more hits than ten of our bloggers today.  Please tell me he is not getting paid for them.  And that we are divvying up his spoils.”

Firstly FTBers are actually suggesting, not only an intention of stealing, but to do it as a group and to share their ill gotten gains from this fiscal theft.

Secondly, I laughed my ass off when I read that.  Even after being gone from FTB for over a month, I’m still one of their prize bloggers!  If they were the significant organization I initially thought they were, their petit conspiracies would have been a bigger burden on the community, and my whistle blowing more pertinent.  However that’s simply not the organization FTBs is.

Anyways, Ed Brayton, the guy who holds the purse strings responds thusly.

“I haven’t even given any thought to the point at which I would stop paying him. The blog was killed on July 1. I could call that the end or pay him for hits in July, which were not unsubstantial. Or at this point I could just tell him to go fuck himself.”

Lets try to draw a line under this Ed.  DPRJones has a charity event coming up for Medicine Sans Frontier. You can donate ALL my ‘not unsubstantial’ earnings to this charity event (try to keep it dignified Ed, make sure you let people know where the money came from), and then you can delete my blogs hosted on FTB.

To be honest, I wouldn’t want to be seen to profit off petit drama like this (I never monetize videos that deal with this sort of thing), and I’m sure FTB would likewise agree.  Indeed it would be nice to see FTB follow my lead on this and donate all the revenue generated from this pointless drama to the same charity.

From my chair, that pretty much draws a line under this.

This request has been personally sent to Ed Brayton.  Balls in his court now.

FTB wants Thunderf00t ‘drummed out of the community’ and ‘forever a pariah’

August 10, 2012

So Ed Brayton, thats the leader, or owner or something of freethoughtblogs is now referring to me in these terms:

“I want to do whatever it takes to make sure that he is essentially drummed out of this movement, never invited to speak anywhere again and is forever a pariah.”

Awwww, what did I do to be referred to in these terms you may ask?

Turns out freethoughtblogs has a secret mailing list which they use, among other things to conspire against people (indeed I laughed when they cooked up what they thought was the ‘least damaging story’ to FTB for my expulsion.  Boy did the truth take a backseat in that thread!). Now as with many top secret mailing lists of course FTB has some footer saying how everything on this mailing list is ultra-confidential (kinda a contradiction of terms in my books sending out ‘secret information’ to an entire mailing list) but that doesn’t stop FTB OPENLY disclosing/ leaking whatever they want on that list when it suits their purpose. For instance they were quite happy to openly talk about Greg Ladens ‘threats of violence’ on the mailing list and PZ was quite happy to discuss the happenings of this ‘ultra confidential’ list in his video (sorry too late to delete the evidence boys, I’ve got it all!). Oddly enough, freethoughtblogs did nothing to admonish this sickening and evil violation of trust, or write blog posts about how this could result in the exposing of peoples real identities, people losing jobs, getting turned into newts and burned at the stake or some shit. Nor do they seem to realize that their main beef that I ‘stole their personal details‘ is clearly stupid. I, and everyone else on that mailing list, would have had all of those details (whatever they actually are, I still have no idea) anyways from when they originally signed me up to the mailing list. So what exactly are these personal details they think I’ve ‘stolen’ here?


Even if I actually knew what this personal information was (I seriously have no idea who most these people are) I wouldn’t care, because:

I DON’T DOC DROP. Never have done. Never will.

Honestly if I were in FTBs shoes I would worry about the other guy they expelled, Greg Laden, who also has access to all their personal data. He has a history of threatening people on FTB and stalking people elsewhere. Like tracking people down in real life and trying to get them fired (Abbie Smith of the blog ERV) etc etc. Notably this was all done while Greg was at FTBs.

Now I always found the behavior of the folks on freethoughblogs on this secret list to be kinda cliquish, where chinese whispers morph from rumors to facts within one or two emails. For instance, when I first joined I was accused of being an ‘rape culture apologist’ guilty of ablism, devaluing addicts, and not being careful between challenging islam and outright racism, all based on no evidence whatsoever! ya freethought at work!

Many emails on this list were on points on which “everyone” on FTBs agreed, simply for the applause of everyone who responded. There was a LOT of self-congratulation and self-re-enforcement (herding) behavior there. Conversely even modest disagreement was greeted with snide derision. The sad thing is that freethoughtblogs refer to themselves in humor as ‘the hive mind’ and as ‘free thought bullies’, when in reality both are actually fairly accurate descriptions. So why is any of that important?

So a week or so ago a guy called Michael Payton who works for CFI Canada  (Center for Inquiry) put up a tweet about finding FTB unreadable. Now it turns out ironically Michael is on FTBs side on the issue of harassment policies at conferences (well mostly), however that didn’t matter if he was going to speak ill of freethoughtblogs and this precipitated an angry torrent of twitters from at least one FTBer and another to write an entire blog post about it (promoted by PZ Myers of course), and as with all such posts on FTB he (Payton) was repeatedly branded in the comments section with pejorative terms such as misogynist and MRA (the irony being that he posted an article on skepchick ‘speaking out against hate against women‘ FACEPALM). Indeed it turned out that merely hours after this tweet, CFI Canada had been contacted with calls for his dismissal. Yes his real life job was being threatened because of one tweet about FTBs!

That was a pretty disturbing turn of events having someones job targeted so quickly after a single tweet about FTBs, and after a brief chat with Michael, and knowing that FTB were going ballistic about this on their secret backchannel with some THIRTY messages being circulated on the backchannel about his single tweet, let him know what they were saying about him (naturally no personal details were passed on). Michael did not want to know, he did not need to know that personal info.

This is some of the chatter I passed on to Michael.

Just an early warning, I’m strongly leaning towards publicly making a minor deal of this – not focusing on Payton exclusively, but just as an example of the general attitude of dismissing all of FTB despite not being familiar with hardly any of us – *unless* there’s either an  actual apology to us or some kind of sufficient reason for why it would be a bad idea to draw attention to his remarks at this time, such as a relevant illness.

WTF is it with FTBs and skepchick always wanting people to apologize for stuff? Anyways they continue:

I’m usually not one to get involved in internal disputes in the movement, but if a national leader of the SCA or American Atheists had been so openly dismissive of FTB as a whole, I imagine we wouldn’t just let that pass unnoticed. So I’d just like to know if there’s any good reason why I shouldn’t do this, even if I can’t necessarily be privy to the details of it.

Translation: is it safe to do a knife job on this guy?


“But his statement was so broad, so casually dismissive of some of the smartest people in this movement (me among them, I’d like to think), that he can’t really be surprised that one of them took offense at it and criticized him for it, can he?”

What sort of person actually writes shit like that? (well Ed Brayton as it turns out). I’m guessing you can see at this point why they are so terrified of this stuff becoming public. Personal details my ass!

Well FTB found out that I had given Michael Payton access to this information, I then became the subject of the secret societies wrath. This is just one example of MANY. This is Ed Brayton (the head/ owner or similar of FTB) talking about what he wants done to me.

“I want to do whatever it takes to make sure that he (thunderf00t) is essentially drummed out of this movement, never invited to speak anywhere again and is forever a pariah.”

That’s right, all I did was clued someone in whose job was being threatened as to FTBs little conspiring (some THIRTY emails over his single tweet!) against him and for this heinous crime FTB now wants me ‘drummed out of the community’ as ‘a pariah’.  And now this whistle blowing action is being reported on FTBs as:

 It is clear now that he is a cruel man out to destroy anyone he thinks he can, either out of spite or out of a total disregard for collateral damage in his hatred for PZ.   -Ashley F. Miller

This was is not a surgical strike. It was a firebombing. And it seems to have been done for no reason other than to pursue a personal vendetta.

This is a gross violation of basic human decency. There is no possible spin that can make it into anything else. -Greta Christina

Yes, we want to make Thunderf00t/Phil Mason a pariah in the atheist movement, and for good reason: he’s a dishonest scumbag. The nice thing for us is that he’s making it easy: Phil Mason is destroying his own reputation with his sleazy behavior. Who in their right mind would ever trust that guy with any confidence at all? -PZ Myers

He is a vile hypocrite who has lost whatever shred of credibility he may have had left. -Jen McCreight


Skepchick go approval seeking from ‘White Male Privilege’

August 1, 2012

So having gotten roundly called for her shameful behavior at TAM (The Amazing Meeting), Amy ‘crying over a T-shirt’ Roth from Skepchick has gone approval seeking! Not from female bastions of the secular community like Harriet Hall (who clearly was distancing herself from folks like the evermore erratic and fringe Skepchicks), but ironically from what under almost any other circumstances the Skepchicks would call the ’white male privilege’ of the secular community.  However in reality she has not actual got any! NONE!

Ronald Lindsey, Dave Silverman and Nick Lee have all ‘spoken out against hate directed against women’ on Skepchick.

Y’see this is one of those ‘dissent from Darwin’ type stunts that the Discovery institute would pull.  For those who don’t know the dissent from Darwin thing was done to create the appearance of dissent when in fact essentially none existed, just like skepchick are suggesting that there is all this ‘hate against women’ when in fact essentially none exists (beyond criticism and/or trolling).  So how did the Discovery Institute and Skepchick achieve such a remarkable feat? Why by using language so broad that anyone and everyone, including myself, could agree with it.

In the case of the dissent from Darwin the statement was basically that all theories including evolution should be subject to critical scrutiny (well of course! who could disagree?), and in the case of Skepchick it’s ‘speak out against hate against women’ (well of course! who could disagree?).  Now firstly, if someone had asked me this question, my immediate response would be ‘why is Skepchick embracing sexism on this issue? Shouldn’t we be against all hate, irrespective of gender?’  Indeed at least two of the respondents actually elucidated to this. Kudos to:

Dave “American Atheists stands by all its members, supporters, and allies, and we will not tolerate hate directed at any of us. Period” Silverman, and Ronald “Hate-filled invective has been directed at many different people, male and female” Lindsey.

Then of course my second question could be, ‘why are you asking me such loaded questions?’  Really what do you expect me to say? is there ANYONE who would disagree with that position?  I mean if these people had been asked to speak out against hatred against males? or blacks? or puppies? how would they have responded? “No hatred against all of the above is obviously okay”?, of course they wouldn’t.  It’s such an obviously manipulative question.  Thankfully most of the respondent gave measured answers not far off where I would have planted my banner.

I would have started with the obvious and fair first question.

“do you think there is a real problem with ‘hate against women’ in this community? “

I’ve got to say I’ve seen essentially NONE.

I’ll tell you what I have seen, I’ve seen people get called idiots for saying and doing stupid things, y’know stuff about elevators (Rebecca Watson) and T-shirts (Amy Roth), although it is very conspicuous to those who can read what is obviously not said, that NONE of those who speak out against ‘hate against women’ actually specify that they think either Amy Roth or Rebecca Watson had a valid grievance in either case.

Indeed, while Amy Roths introduction to Nick Lee was glowing, if she had actually bothered to read what he wrote, she might have found precious little support for either her or Rebecca Watson.

“Not every flirtation is unwelcome attention, until one side announces it is, and then it should stop.”

So according to Nick there was nothing wrong with what happened to Rebecca Watson in the elevator. NOTHING.

“It is also complicated by the right of people to say what is on their minds even if it makes us feel uncomfortable.”

And there’s Amy ‘crying over the T-shirt’ Roth CLEARLY rebutted in the very next sentence.

Calling someone an idiot for acting like an idiot does not become ‘hate against women’ simply because the person in question was a woman.  This is one of the two general categories of the ‘hate against women’ that Skepchick encounters.  Look it’s obvious, how would people respond if I ‘embraced victim-hood’ like the Skepchicks.  That is any time anyone said anything ‘nasty’ against me I simply claimed that this was just sexism and misandry?  Yup, I would expect exactly the mockery that the Skepchicks get.  Far from sexism, this treatment represents equality in the secular community in that these people (the Skepchicks) are being judged on what they say and do, rather than on their gender.

The second general category of ‘hate against women’ Skepchick encounters is people trolling them.  Now it’s my reckoning that of the three ‘leaders’ Skepchick have thus far got to ‘speak out’ on this, two probably have no idea what trolling is.  Trolls do not hate anyone; they just get off on how easy it is to control people, particularly people who are hypersensitive on an issue (e.g. feminism) by pushing the right psychological buttons.  Skepchick is grade A trolling material and are seen to be some of the most easily puppeteered people on the webs.  What trolls will do is type some manipulative reactionary shit into a comment box and then laugh as those being trolled dance like puppets on strings.  With experience it’s easy to spot most trolls.  To be honest it is shameful that the Skepchick are so easily trolled as it shows their grotesque naivety to the interwebs.  So how can I be so sure that the Skepchick is just getting trolled?  Well it’s very easy, unless you actually think that there are really hundreds of atheists who are looking to rape Rebecca Watson (in which case the atheist community would have a huge fractional population of folks intending to be rapists and the ‘leaders’ response would be ENTIRELY inadequate), SHE’S BEING TROLLED!  Her ‘rape threats’ are exactly as valid as the ones I got on my first video that addressed this,

I’d just like to say thunderf00t should be raped, and I want to rape thunderf00t so he loosens up a little bit, and also thunderf00t is too ugly to rape.
Oh Noes, I’ve got multiple rape threats.  Where are all the atheist leaders speaking out against hate directed against men in the secular community?

and to be honest her parading these around like a ‘trophy proof’ of misogyny in the atheist community at conference after conference makes her, and anyone else who is taken in by it look as stupid to the new internet savvy generation of atheists as Oprah and the 9000 penises that she was worried a pedophile syndicate had ready to rape children.

Really leaders, you are showing your age in the internet generation to be taken in by this sort of thing.  There is only one way to win against a troll.  DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

Skepchick do not only openly violate this law, they put up glowing neon signs saying ‘we seek out and feed any and all trolls’.  On the internet this is almost as bad as feeding the gremlins after dark then throwing them in a lake Superior, then complaining about the gremlin infestation, it’s the equivalent of putting a big sign on your own back saying ‘kick me’ then crying about the ‘sexism’ of those who kick you.

Ana from the Young Turks pretty much calls it like it is on this segment.

Other than that, where are these people who ‘hate women’?  Does anyone actually have any evidence for this ‘hate against women’ that is NOT someone being calling out someone for saying or doing something outrageously stupid, or being trolled, or some mixture of the two?

In which case I have to ask these Leaders, who exactly are these people that they talking out against?  Where are they?  If no one actually knows, then why are they speaking out against a problem that doesn’t exist?  Inquiring minds need to know!