The violent rhetoric of Pope Francis and PZ Myers

by Michael Nugent on January 17, 2015

Pope Francis yesterday used violent rhetoric about punching a friend if they insulted his mother. While I support the Pope’s right to use such rhetoric, in the context of a discussion about free speech, I disagree with its content. I think that it is unhelpful and irresponsible. I think that such language by a public figure about a mass murder, even when intended rhetorically and humorously, can contribute to civil dialogue being replaced by increased hostility.

PZ Myers has also criticised the Pope’s violent rhetoric. But the Pope’s rhetoric is less violent and less prolific than the rhetoric that PZ himself has used about stabbing Christians, pitching people off a pier, shanking somebody in the kidneys, shooting priests from the sky, sticking a knife in a bastard and twisting it for a good long while, and rhetorically handing people a rotting porcupine and telling them to stuff it up their nether orifice.

The violent rhetoric of Pope Francis

Here’s what triggered PZ’s criticism. Pope Francis said yesterday that he would punch a friend if they insulted his mother, when answering a question about the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris. See the video, not the text, in this Guardian article for the Pope’s full statement.

“I believe that you cannot react violently, but if my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. This is normal. It is normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.

Many people who speak badly about other religions, or religion, who make fun of them, make other people’s religion a joke, well, that is a provocation. And then things can happen, like if Mr Gasparri had insulted my mother. There is a limit, every religion has dignity, every religion that respects people…

What happened in Paris we find incredible, but let’s look at our own history. How many wars of religion have we had?.. This person gives their life, but they give it in a bad way. Many people who work, and I think of missionaries for example, they give their life but to construct. These people give their lives, killing and destroying. There is something here that is not right.”

PZ Myers responded with a post titled ‘A Papal Conundrum’, writing:

“Uh-oh. The Pope has just grossly insulted my beliefs. I believe you have a right to criticize anything — I go further and think you have an obligation to criticize. I also believe that violence is never the answer, and that the proper response to words is more words, not flinging punches. But look at what this pope is saying, violating what I hold dear.

By his own principles, I guess if ever, in some catastrophic, ugly, unpleasant stroke of bad fortune, I were to meet the pope, I’d have to punch him for provoking me. Wait. No. Fuck the pope. I’m going to reject his principles and refuse to punch him. I might have to say something about his mother, though — like that she seems to have raised him with a kind of stupidly pugilistic morality. Or was it his church that screwed him up?”

The violent rhetoric of PZ Myers

But what values that PZ holds dear has Pope Francis violated? It cannot be rhetorically saying that he would react violently to an insult, because PZ has a history of rhetorically writing that he would react violently in certain circumstances, and of using other violent rhetoric.

For example, in May 2014 PZ saw the movie ‘God’s Not Dead’, and he then wrote (source and context):

“I left the theater filled with contempt and loathing for Christians… I’ve got to start carrying a knife now. Just so all you Christians know, if I’m in a fatal accident, and I’m lying in the street dying, and you’re not running over to stop the bleeding or otherwise physically help me, and you try to pull that prayer-and-conversion shit on me, I’m going to stab you. I’ll have nothing to lose, and you sure as hell don’t deserve to continue living. I don’t like violence, but I will make an exception for this one possible circumstance.”

There are similarities between the two uses of violent rhetoric. Both Pope Francis and PZ Myers combine a statement that they do not support violence, with an exception where they say they would be willing to do so. So I assume that neither the Pope nor PZ are proposing that they would actually use such violence, but are merely using it as a humorous metaphor for how annoyed they would be if they experienced the insults they describe.

There are also differences between the two. Pope Francis says that he will punch somebody, while PZ says he will stab somebody. And, as far as I am aware, this is the first time that Pope Francis has used violent rhetoric, while PZ uses it more often. Here are some examples:

(About his blog, 2011) “This is a rude blog. We like to argue — heck, we like a loud angry brawl. Don’t waste time whining at anyone that they’re not nice, because this gang will take pride in that and rhetorically hand you a rotting porcupine and tell you to stuff it up your nether orifice…” Source

(About drawing knives and flensing) “I hate that faux-Vulcan shit so many skeptics and atheists love to pull, but I’m not forbidding it — I encourage the commentariat here to instead draw their knives and flense it so thoroughly the dispassionate ass is feeling the pain in every nerve ending.” Source

(About shanking Thunderf00t) “Now Rebecca Watson shanks him in the kidneys and mocks him cruelly. Trigger warning for sad ex-paragon of anti-creationism being publicly exposed as a moral cretin.” Source

(About going for a meal in Seattle) “The watchword for the evening is “casual”. Pleasant conversation. Friendly discussion. No pressure, no worries. Don’t show up to pick a fight or we’ll pitch you off a pier.” Source

(After a priest died when carried away by balloons in a charity fundraiser) “I think this is my favorite newspaper headline yet… I am imagining a day when every priest in the world stands smiling beneath a great happy bobbing collection of many-colored balloons, and they all joyously loft themselves up, up into the sky… This will be my new dream. It will bring a smile to my face as I fall asleep. And as long as I’m dreaming, I’ll imagine myself with an ultralight aircraft and a BB gun, buzzing above a great Sargasso of wind-gathered balloons.” Source

(About William Lane Craig) “I’d rather get his words down in writing, where I can pin him down, stick a knife in the bastard, and twist it for a good long while. Longer and with more detail and rigor than is possible in a verbal tussle.” Source

Two other interesting observations

Two other interesting issues arise from PZ’s response to Pope Francis’ statement.

Firstly, if PZ did choose to insult Pope Francis’ mother, why would he choose to insult her by saying that “she seems to have raised him with a kind of stupidly pugilistic morality”? Surely both of his parents would be equally responsible for raising him in whatever way he was raised? Why would PZ single out his mother as if a child’s mother is responsible for raising the child?

Secondly, in another post on the same topic, PZ links favourably to a video by somebody else criticising the Pope, and PZ says ‘Somebody is a little pissed off by the Pope… Hey, that’s how I feel about him all the time!’. In the comments of that post, PZ adds (about the maker of the video, not about the Pope):

“Yeah, I know. It’s a guy who made excuses for a serial sexual abuser, and I do hold that against him. But the video did reflect my feelings about the pope, so I went with it for that reason only.”

It is becoming increasingly difficult to figure out the ethics that PZ applies to his writing.

Be Sociable, Share!

{ 86 comments… read them below or add one }

1 kraut January 17, 2015 at 2:27 am

http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk/2015/01/16/pope-defends-free-speech-agrees/

That is freedom of speech – non threatening but truth telling.

BTW – why the fuck are you still concerned with the has been PZ?
You give him a free podium harping on his very fuzzy ethical concepts.

2 Damion Reinhardt January 17, 2015 at 2:33 am

I doubt that violent rhetoric will lead to violence in the case of PZ’s relatively narrow and undoubtedly narrow-minded commentariat, mostly because they have internalized a narrative of victimhood. As to over one billion Catholics, well, I’m not so sure.

3 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 2:46 am

I posted this link in a previous thread but it’s possibly more relevant here.

While the pope is defending violent responses to perceived offence Muslims in Niger are responding to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons by burning Christian churches:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30853305

Religious leaders like to pretend that they represent a common front to legions of secularists but the truth is that Muslims in particular are killing Christians, Jews and other Muslims.

Meanwhile US atheism has so surrendered it’s principles that they denounce any criticism of Islam as racist, excuse the murder of cartoonists, and spend all their time slandering those who think atheism should be about rejecting religion instead of pushing US campus politics onto the rest of the world.

If your first response to the murders in France is to scour Richard Dawkins’ Twitter feed to find something to be offended at on behalf of those who support murder you are doing atheism wrong

4 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 3:20 am

“Uh-oh. The Pope has just grossly insulted my beliefs. I believe you have a right to criticize anything — I go further and think you have an obligation to criticize.

Putting aside the violent rhetoric for the moment, this is quite definitely not what Myers believes. He believes he has the right to criticise others but if they criticise his beliefs they are harassers, trolls, rape apologists and demented fuckwits.

Pharyngula is one of the most strictly moderated sites I know.

5 Aneris ✻ January 17, 2015 at 3:22 am

The headline made me laugh, but its right to put both popes, that of Catholicism and that of Atheism in one headline (both are infallible as we know). I observe that violent rhetoric is perfectly normal for the social justice side who fancy themselves as tough heroines and heroes of some sorts. As we know, some even get carried away a little with their fantasy lives as we’ve seen with Avicenna.

Noel Plum recently made a good video on “punching” rhetorics as well {1} where he discusses an article by Rebecca Watson {2}. Unsurprisingly, she is close with PZ Myers:

Ms Watson wrote: “Doxing is one of those acts that can be used for good or for ill. Like punching. […] Remember Bart Sibrel? He’s the conspiracy theorist who doesn’t think humans ever reached the moon. […] Aldrin punched him in the face. [VIDEO] Glorious. […] I’m a nonviolent person. I think violence rarely solves any problems and more often only makes them worse. I’m anti-war. I’m anti-gun. And in many cases, I’m anti-punching. But god damn, did Sibrel ever deserve that punch.

Had it been the other way around – had Sibrel followed Aldrin around, harassing him for a minute, before Sibrel punched Aldrin in the face – I would vehemently condemn the act. Does this make me a punching hypocrite? […]“

Not to get carried away here, but in the victim of the doxxing (Skep Tickle) did not follow PZ Myers around, at all. She posted a joke into a forum under her nym and the nature of the forum is, as we know, as such that comments get buried by the hour by an avalanche of new comments. If that is a reason to doxx someone (or to punch) then practically everything is.

On that matter, and within the same larger context of being offended so much that retribution is allegedly acceptable, Christopher Hitchens wrote {3} (on the similar Danish Cartoons incident at the time):

[…] Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it “pixilated” the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be “offended” will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.

The paralells are hopefully clear: There is no right to not get offended. Atheits should champion free speech not champion retribution-rhetorics. If someone has a problem with a Scandinavian newspaper printing cartoons (or a French one), or with a forum that is irreverent then don’t read it. But we see here that the atheist community (the US centered conference / blogosphere) is unfortunately not living up to any ideal.

It’s certainly not the kind of movement that someone like Christopher Hitchens would champion, if he knew what was going on now. He was of course just an individual, but illustrates perhaps well that the atheist-skeptics movement is not worth any support at this point. Of course people won’t magically believe in Gods or stop mocking Creationists, but the organisations who hope to attract supporters should be afraid, because the message is loud and clear.

Kathleen Johnson, the Vice President from the American Atheists recently urged {4} the community to not call doxxers, doxxers and she is apparently pro-doxxing and pro-punching in the face, and smearing and all these things, since she has no objections to that, but showed concern that people might have negative opinions about the doxxing, smearing and rhetocially punching (and knive-stabbing) business of the social justice warriors — you know their reputation seems to have gotten a dent recently and Kathleen Johnson was concerned with that. And who can’t sympathize with her. Fewer people seem to love her thuggish friends, I really wonder why that is?

You want sources, as usual. . . . . . . . . . . .
#1_ youtube.com/watch?v=ySI9e_Lq3rM
#2_ skepchick.org/2014/12/why-im-okay-with-doxing/
#3_slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html
#4_ patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2015/01/state-of-the-community/

6 Shermertron January 17, 2015 at 3:56 am

Damion 2:

You said:
“I doubt that violent rhetoric will lead to violence in the case of PZ’s relatively narrow and undoubtedly narrow-minded commentariat, mostly because they have internalized a narrative of victimhood. As to over one billion Catholics, well, I’m not so sure.”

I certainly hope that you are correct. I will point out that it would be hard to compare the likelihood of violence of FTB with that of the Catholic Church. As you point out, there are over a billion Catholics…and maybe several hundred active FTB commenters. Maybe.

On the other hand, the current pope has not, to my knowledge, expressed that he wouldn’t be so upset if a dissenter killed himself by repeatedly hitting himself in the head.

I do think it would be problematic if we assume that the FTB Horde is completely, 100% incapable of violence. More than one member has confessed to very serious crimes and their increasing disconnection with reality seems like a problem to me. Not to mention the doxing they do.

7 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 4:13 am

Had it been the other way around – had Sibrel followed Aldrin around, harassing him for a minute, before Sibrel punched Aldrin in the face – I would vehemently condemn the act. Does this make me a punching hypocrite? […]“

That’s not the ‘other way around’. The ‘other way around’ would be Aldrin harassing Sibrel and Sibrel punching Aldrin in the face . If Watson condemned Sibrel in that case, that would be hypocritical.

The story she has invented makes Sibel worse: he’s now the harasser and the assaulter. It wouldn’t be ‘hypocritical’ in this case, it would be mental.

8 JetLagg January 17, 2015 at 5:28 am

Ugh.. let’s not get me started on Skep’s doxxing. That was my breaking point. Naively I thought things could be settled diplomatically. After that event I realized it was war

9 Michael Kingsford Gray January 17, 2015 at 6:40 am

Yeah, I know. It’s a guy who made excuses for a serial sexual abuser, and I do hold that against him.

— (P. Z. Myers, as quoted by M. Nugent.)

Fact:
1) Myers allows a self-confessed multiple child-rapist to post his outpourings on Myers’ ‘blog, with neither alteration, nor comment.
2) But when Myers does not condone commenters’ submissions, he randomly bans reasonable & sane commenters, redacts & alters their posts (‘disemvowaling’ and such), places their comments in ‘Gumby Quoates’ as to present them as a target of ridicule to his acolytes or, more recently – simply deletes their submissions entirely in a kind of scorched-earth policy.

Now, I have no real problem with point 2).
BUT! It shows that he closely marshals comments for content.

That in itself is sufficient, in a court of law, as prima facie evidence that he therefore actively approves of the content of those post that he leaves “unmolested”, as it were.

Let us inspect that quote again:

Yeah, I know. It’s a guy who made excuses for a serial sexual abuser, and I do hold that against him.

In my opinion, the gap between making excuses for a serial sexual abuser, and actively publishing and then condoning (by lack of marshalling) the remarks of a self-admitted child-rapist is a minuscule one.

In my opinion, the Pope committed a lesser crime than has Myers.

I never thought in my entire life that I’d rise to the Pope’s defense, but PZ’s screaming hypocrisy drove me to it. (Your Grace)

10 John Morales January 17, 2015 at 6:42 am

There are similarities between the two uses of violent rhetoric. Both Pope Francis and PZ Myers combine a statement that they do not support violence, with an exception where they say they would be willing to do so.

There are similarities, but not in the case of combining a statement that they do not support violence with an exception; what you quoted from the Pope did, what you quoted from PZ did not.

There are also differences between the two. Pope Francis says that he will punch somebody, while PZ says he will stab somebody.

True. Also, the pope will purportedly punch on the basis of a curse word, whilst PZ will (literally!) stab on the basis of being denied medical succor in favour of being proselytised to when in extremis.

Weaksauce from the scrapings of the barrel, this post.

11 Steven Carr January 17, 2015 at 8:00 am

@JohnMorales

Agreed. In fact Myers resolved to always carry a knife, so that he could put his plan of stabbing Christians into action.

I don’t know if Myers was telling porkies when he said that from now on, he was always going to carry a knife.

All I know is that Myers is honest. If he says he is going to carry a knife from now on, then the chances are he carries a knife.

12 Phil Giordana FCD January 17, 2015 at 8:47 am

Steven:

“All I know is that Myers is honest. If he says he is going to carry a knife from now on, then the chances are he carries a knife.”

I sure hope not. Don’t they have metal detectors in American schools and universities? Or is it a ceramic knife? If so, was it designed by a certain person specialized in ceramics? And if so, what are the chances it’s as effective as a chocolate kettle?

13 Larry Metcalfe January 17, 2015 at 9:32 am

@Michael Kingsford Gray, 9

“But when Myers does not condone commenters’ submissions, he randomly bans reasonable & sane commenters, redacts & alters their posts… “

He edits the comments of other people? Are there known examples of this? Being relatively new to all this I’m initially finding this too outrageous to be true, even for Myers. Maybe I’m too naive.

14 Hunt January 17, 2015 at 9:48 am


Why would PZ single out his mother as if a child’s mother is responsible for raising the child?

Not to mention, according to the kind of pop, Marcottian feminism that Myers subscribes to, it would make a lot more sense to lay this one at the feet of a hypothetically hyper-masculine Pope father. He doesn’t even seem to be able to stay with the script with that much fidelity. I think the answer to the whole matter is that PZ is about as sexist as any other American male of his age, despite the vigorous feminist cleansing rituals I’m sure he’s undertaken.

15 Aneris ✻ January 17, 2015 at 9:50 am

PZ Myers simply expressed a great fear he apparently has — the fear that he could be known as one of those who converted on their deathbed. Then he has a thing for slimy things and both comes together, knives and cutting, and slimy things in his day job which is apparently slicing open the little bodies of zebra fish (from Pet Smart). Maybe it’s a darker side, the zebra fish as the objects at his mercy, to study, and kill in the process. Or maybe his job of taking zebra fish apart just gave him the ideas for the metaphors he uses and we would discuss his bizarre use of forklifting metaphors had he picked up a different career. Who knows.

16 Hunt January 17, 2015 at 9:53 am

I agree strongly with Damion Reinhardt. PZ’s post demonstrates his usual lack of self-awareness. It’s contained to the level of background annoyance he usually emits. The Pope’s statement is downright hateful and irresponsible and without question will exacerbate global terrorism.

17 Steven Carr January 17, 2015 at 10:20 am

Myers said he was going to carry a knife from now on. He then described a hypothetical situation where he was going to use the knife. But there was nothing hypothetical about his claim that he was going to carry a knife, so that he would be prepared if the occasion ever arose where he needed to stab a Christian.

Certainly if a Muslim wrote that he was going to carry a knife from now on, so that he could behead any cartoonist he saw drawing an image of Muhammad, Myers would not start saying that this is just hypothetical.

18 John Morales January 17, 2015 at 10:37 am

Steven Carr @11:

I don’t know if Myers was telling porkies when he said that from now on, he was always going to carry a knife.

All I know is that Myers is honest.

Leaving aside he’s not quoted as saying that, since you assert you know he’s honest, it follows that either you think telling porkies is honest or that you do know he wasn’t telling porkies.

Aneris @15:

PZ Myers simply expressed a great fear he apparently has — the fear that he could be known as one of those who converted on their deathbed.

<snicker>

19 Brive1987 January 17, 2015 at 10:39 am

@13 Larry Metcalfe

I don’t know about altering meaning. Certainly he used to disem-vowel posts with glee

20 Gerhard January 17, 2015 at 10:42 am

When I see the name John Morales I just know there is going to be a nitpick or regurgitation of a dictionary followed by a disdainful wave of the hand. Standard Pharyngulite, ignore the bulk of the criticism of PZ Myers, wait for a minor slip and then haughtily dismiss the critic.

Given the weakness of your defense, the disdain is a little misplaced. The priest is doing what he considers necessary to save Myers. That may make him deluded and maybe selfish, but to PZ Myers apparently that makes him worthy of death. We have no context anyway. Was there anyone else around to administer aid. What message about the nature of ones moral code does it send to justify stabbing someone because one is beyond punishment? I don’t have any reason to suppose that this is anything more than rhetoric from Myers, but then he has done more than anyone to turn his little corner of the web into a
condemnation factory parsing for anything that can be twisted into a threat or misogyny or anything bad at all. I have yet to see any other “leader” in the atheist world consistently use such graphic violent imagery and protestation of hatred and loathing and yet he is up there with some of the worst diviners of threat and harassment.

21 Steven Carr January 17, 2015 at 10:42 am

‘“I left the theater filled with contempt and loathing for Christians… I’ve got to start carrying a knife now. ‘

According to John Morales, the words ‘I’ve got to start carrying a knife now’ do not mean that somebody is going to start carrying a knife.

22 Phil Giordana FCD January 17, 2015 at 10:54 am

Here in my fair country of France, we’ve had a lot of experience with people (mostly from the far-left) using “racist”, “misogynist” and other accusations to demonize and ostracize people who disagree with them. It holds some kind of weird political weight, because frankly, our laws are a bit fucked up.

What Myers and his clique do is no different.

You should note that although condemning Islamists for terrorism is a big no-no in SJW circles, threatening to stab a Christian for a death-bed conversion is just fine. Why is that? Maybe because SJWs think all muslims are “brown people”? They couldn’t be more wrong if they tried.

23 Phil Giordana FCD January 17, 2015 at 10:55 am

Brive @19:

I’m not sure about Myers, but some other FTBer did edit and deform meanings from dissenting comments, IIRC.

24 John Morales January 17, 2015 at 11:15 am

[meta]

Gerhard @20:

When I see the name John Morales I just know there is going to be a nitpick or regurgitation of a dictionary followed by a disdainful wave of the hand. Standard Pharyngulite, ignore the bulk of the criticism of PZ Myers, wait for a minor slip and then haughtily dismiss the critic.

That form of knowing is called ‘gnosis’.

Well, I addressed the comparisons in the OP, I suppose I can at least note the violent rhetoric has been there all along — he even had a Dungeon!

(That was the bulk of the criticism, no?)

Given the weakness of your defense, the disdain is a little misplaced. The priest is doing what he considers necessary to save Myers. That may make him deluded and maybe selfish, but to PZ Myers apparently that makes him worthy of death. We have no context anyway.

Um, you don’t think that enumeration of instances of “violent rhetoric” constitutes at least some context?

I have yet to see any other “leader” in the atheist world consistently use such graphic violent imagery and protestation of hatred and loathing and yet he is up there with some of the worst diviners of threat and harassment.

Well, you’ve quite literally stated that he leads at consistently using graphic violent imagery, so in that respect at least he is a leader without the scare quotes.

25 Phil Giordana FCD January 17, 2015 at 11:22 am

So, Morales, care to be honest someday? Or is it just all hand-waving?

26 John Morales January 17, 2015 at 11:28 am

Phil Giordana:

So, Morales, care to be honest someday? Or is it just all hand-waving?

To what dishonesty and to what hand-waving do you refer?

I do note that my #10 is hitherto the last word on the subject of those comparisons.

27 Phil Giordana FCD January 17, 2015 at 12:11 pm

Myers supports gruesome violence towards christians who may try and convert him while he’s dying.

Agreed, or disagreed?

28 MosesZD January 17, 2015 at 12:26 pm

I’ve got to laugh. PZ Myers may be an atheist, but sure acts like every other hypocritical fire-and-brimstone, hate-mongering, moral-crusading preacher in America.

29 MosesZD January 17, 2015 at 12:41 pm

Larry Metcalfe January 17, 2015 at 9:32 am

He edits the comments of other people? Are there known examples of this? Being relatively new to all this I’m initially finding this too outrageous to be true, even for Myers. Maybe I’m too naive.

Yes, you’re naive. Everything MKG wrote is true and he’s been doing it for years. He also quote mines and distorts what people actually said, often presenting cases that are simply not true when you read what the original source has said.

Sam Harris has been a favorite target of quote mining. But Dawkins and other ‘big name’ skeptics have all been through that wringer as well.

And he’s not the only one at FTB that does that. In fact, I’d say most of the ‘big’ bloggers there engage in similar, if not identical, behaviors listed by MKG.

Fortunately, naive is not stupid and is correctable. I’m sure there are plenty of people who’ve got links to the edited/blocked/quote-mined posts. Some of them may be posting here and will show you what has happened.

30 Nathan (formerly GerardO) January 17, 2015 at 12:57 pm

PZ Myers will just adore being compared to the Pope.

If there is something wrong with constantly focusing on Myers, it allows some other members of the A/S community get away with similar behaviour; FtB types aren’t the only ones who engage in doxing.

Case in point: Jerry Coyne. After I sent Coyne an email making fun of his nose, he wrote a downright hysterical blog post, asking his fan club to track me down, publishing ‘my’ (or more accurately, particle accelerator pioneer and space colony enthusiast Gerard O’Neill’s) email address. The next day I was “exposed” as a Coors Lite-drinking teenager with a pudding basin haircut and a fondness for Hitler. This was interesting to me, as a bald 36-year-old man who has never drank lite beer.

I was also on the receiving end of some abusive (and hilarious) email from Coyne’s followers, one of whom claimed they could ‘find’ me (or pudding basin dude, but probably not the scientist who died in 1992), while some others signed me up to a Christian-Jewish fellowship group (???), and the Anti-Defamation League (a Masonic organization devoted to harassing American Arabs).

The point of all this? Let’s apply blame where blame lies, and hold everyone in this vast human conglomerate of non-believers to the same standard.

31 John Morales January 17, 2015 at 1:01 pm

Phil Giordana @27:

Myers supports gruesome violence towards christians who may try and convert him while he’s dying.

Agreed, or disagreed?

I presume you’re asking me; I respond that though you forgot the “instead of actually helping him” bit, that is the literal meaning* of what he wrote.

(He also wrote that Rebecca Watson shanked Phil Mason in the kidneys — do you also imagine he meant that literally? ;) )

* Except for the gruesomeness; personally, I think that the stabbing efforts of a dying academic who needs urgent medical attention are not likely to result in especially gruesome violence.

32 Kirbmarc January 17, 2015 at 1:23 pm

//and the Anti-Defamation League (a Masonic organization devoted to harassing American Arabs).//

You may not have a fondness for Hitler but you seem to be a conspiracy nut.

33 Gerhard January 17, 2015 at 1:24 pm

@Morales.

That form of knowing is called ‘gnosis’.

.

Its called experience.

I presume you’re asking me; I respond that though you forgot the “instead of actually helping him” bit, that is the literal meaning* of what he wrote.

But the priest in that scenario would probably think he was helping. Not stabbing him would cost Myers nothing. It is just pure spleen from a man who can’t tolerate people with different outlooks on life.

34 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 1:34 pm

True. Also, the pope will purportedly punch on the basis of a curse word, whilst PZ will (literally!) stab on the basis of being denied medical succor in favour of being proselytised to when in extremis.

If a priest is trying to suffocate you with a pillow stabbing him would be self defence. That’s in extremis

Stabbing someone who is doing no harm but not actually helping is murder.

Dying yourself doesn’t absolve you.

35 Patrick January 17, 2015 at 1:37 pm

Steven Carr @11,

All I know is that Myers is honest.

That view is not supported by Myers’ behavior with regard to Michael Nugent nor with regard to Myers’ treatment of Justin Little, just to name two off the top of my head.

Myers is dishonest, hypocritical, and utterly lacking in integrity.

36 Gerhard January 17, 2015 at 1:39 pm

Nathan. Is this is what you wrote to Coyne.

I saw your blog the other day so I decided to look your name up on the net and…WHOA! You must be the ugliest Jew in America!! How did you even come out with a nose that big? Are you related to Barbra Streisand?

Anyway I sort of feel sorry for you now, small children would run away from a face like that. Good luck with the rest of your life Jewboy.

I can’t really decide where I stand on the attempted doxxing, but you really are an idiot if you wrote that and I can understand Coyne’s anger.

37 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 1:41 pm

Myers version of the Good Samaritan goes like this:

A traveller is lying half dead along the road. A priest walks by but doesn’t help – so the traveller stabs him. Then a Levite comes by and doesn’t help so the traveller stabs him too.

Finally, a Samaritan comes by, confesses to raping three children, and the traveller slaughters a fatted calf for him because he was lost and now he is found.

38 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 1:56 pm

I saw your blog the other day so I decided to look your name up on the net and…WHOA! You must be the ugliest Jew in America!! How did you even come out with a nose that big? Are you related to Barbra Streisand?

Wow, who’d have thought being an anti-Semitic arsehole would piss someone off?

39 Nathan (formerly GerardO) January 17, 2015 at 2:55 pm

Kirbmarc #32: The full name of the ADL is ‘Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith’. B’nai B’rith is a Jews-only branch of the Freemasons. You can search the name “Leo Frank” if you want to know the kind of people that run the ADL. Wake up and smell the sheep.

Gerhard #36: Coyne is a hypersensitive authoritarian. My beef with him has been his softer handling of Jewish issues, atheist and non-atheist, going back a couple of years now. I seems that nearly every atheist of Jewish background is prone to go soft on the Jewish religion and Israel*, and to be honest I’m fed up with it. I make no apologies for that email.

Shorter Shatterface #38: “I’m actually OK with doxing, as long as it’s done by someone other than PZ Myers.”

*Coyne has recently started hammering the ultra-Orthodox. I hope that my needling has gone some little way to provoke that

40 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 3:58 pm

Shorter Shatterface #38: “I’m actually OK with doxing, as long as it’s done by someone other than PZ Myers.”

Shorter Nathan #39: ”I’ll just pluck an implication out of my arse”

I didn’t endorse doxxing you; I called you an anti-Semitic arsehole.

You are an anti-Semitic arsehole because (a) you think attacking Jews for being ‘ugly bignoses’ is acceptable; (b) you make sweeping generalisations about ethnic Jews and their complicity with Israel; and you indulge in conspiracy theories about Jews and the Masons.

You couldn’t be more anti-Semitic if you used a swastika as your avatar and accused Coyne of baking bread with the blood of gentile children.

41 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 4:00 pm

Coyne has recently started hammering the ultra-Orthodox. I hope that my needling has gone some little way to provoke that

Sure, Coyne thought ‘Maybe this Nazi has a point.’

Coz that’s the way people’s brains work.

42 MacGruberKnows January 17, 2015 at 4:01 pm

If he goes for your crackers just stand back and let him have them. This crazy person will fillet you like a zebrafish. Or a priest.

43 Lancelot Gobbo January 17, 2015 at 4:12 pm

For all the Nathans, Gerards and Gerhards in this thread. Noses are off limits. Irrelevant. Noses have nothing to do with the (surprisingly) nasty and unconsidered comment of the current pope about religious intolerance. Quite why God’s Vicar On Earth should start defending Islam is beyond me, unless he actually appreciates that any criticism of religion (even a criticism of a religion that he would consider ‘wrong’) is something that will damage the long-term value of his ‘brand’, alienate ‘stakeholders’, and provide less-than-optimal ‘optics’ (I loved doing the physics of optics, and as an owner of a couple of dozen Leica M lenses that one is particularly offensive), even if his ‘management team’ should ‘pivot’ in a ‘timely’ and ‘appropriate’ direction, so as to provide ‘solutions’ for ‘issues’. All religions are equally wrong. Even the pope’s. Screw the lot of them as incompetent thinkers who prefer fantasy over reality. Let’s leave noses out of it.

44 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 4:21 pm

I have a Leica camera that has been passed down from my grandfather. Must be 60 years old at least. Nice bit of kit. Pretty sure James Zbond had one.

45 Aneris ✻ January 17, 2015 at 4:25 pm

@Nathan (formerly GerardO)
You’re an insufferable anti-semite. Jerry Coyne has “Da Roolz” and he sticks to them. He writes there {1}:

Jerry Coyne wrote: Due to the high volume of hate email I get, I reserve the right to not only publish threatening or extremely nasty and unsolicited emails,but also to publicize the email address and name associated with them. I do this to try to stem the tide of such emails.

The FreethoughtBlogs usual suspects (in particular Greta Christina, Ophelia Benson, Jason Thibeault and Stephanie Zvan) moderate arbitarily and capriciously and for ideological reasons. They more likely keep a snark-free and sourced comment out of sight than obvious trolling. They’re really not in the mood to argue and defend their claims. Obvious trolling however simulates debate, gives the impression they don’t moderate and provides entertainment for their regulars (and comments and hits from the back and forth). As a plus, the regulars can farm Social Justice Points by posturing against the troll.

PZ Myers allows everything first, removes comments that are too challenging for him, and banhammers newbies who struggle to defend themselves against dogpiling regulars and whose tone trick the newbie into reaching into the same drawer of invectives. But without the intriciate shibboleth’s they’ve created over time the newbie would slip up (aka “He wrote ‘stupid’!!! That’s ableist, you moron!”). That was the sports over there, extreme-insult newbies with whitelisted words and hope they use a blacklisted one associated with some heinous views, typically racism, misogyny, sexism or ableism. When they have someone in a designated corner, they just keep distorting and building on each other’s distortions and when boredom settles in (or the “troll” / newbie is smarter than they are), the commenters pray to their host to swing the banhammer, which he often enough did.

Criticism of this, of course, get’s construed as “Freeze Peach” and Freedom of Speech absolutism which is the view that you can express everything everywhere all the time (which is nonsense). Then, in triumph, the common FreethoughtBlogs regular on occasion points out that Jerry Coyne isn’t criticized but their own Dear Leaders are, and that such is obviously hypocrisy.

#1_whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/da-roolz/

46 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 4:27 pm

On the subject of Leica, and Jews:

The Leica Freedom Train was a rescue effort in which hundreds of Jews were smuggled out of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust by Ernst Leitz II of the Leica Camera company, and his daughter Elsie Kuehn-Leitz.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train

47 Shatterface January 17, 2015 at 4:31 pm

Ernst Leitz II was awarded posthumously the Courage To Care Award by the Anti-Defamation League

48 JetLagg January 17, 2015 at 5:56 pm

Shatterface@34
Stabbing someone who is doing no harm but not actually helping is murder.

There you go again, using the dictionary definition of words.

49 Harrison January 17, 2015 at 6:57 pm

I was never formally banned from Pharyngula but I was threatened with a ban if I didn’t leave a particular discussion immediately. I decided not to bother returning.

My crime was that although I agreed 100% with a particular policy, I had very very slightly different justification for doing so.

I could not at the time believe any community could respond so viciously to what was not even disagreement. I attempted to clarify my position, stressing our substantial common ground and even placing the blame on myself for what I thought was a failure to make myself understood.

Today I’m much more familiar with not only the general playbook of PZ’s horde but with the specific commenters who felt it was necessary to dogpile and abuse someone for insufficient purity of thought. And with PZ, whose response to someone being dogpiled for dissent in his comments is to pile on further, cranking up his font size to show he means business, and banning as a gleeful public spectacle. To him, banning seems to be an expression of power. I have even seen him end an argument with a ban followed by an “I win.” He’s a middle-aged child.

50 Old_ones January 17, 2015 at 7:02 pm

In my opinion these two examples of violent rhetoric are a bit different. I think the Pope was clearly the worse of the two. This is partly for the reason that Damion said; the Pope has a much larger set of devoted followers than PZ. Beyond that, the Pope didn’t come right out and say he supported the Charlie Hebdo killers, but he was condoning the use of violence in the context of that incident. That’s extremely bad form.

To me the example of violent rhetoric from PZ reads like standard internet tough guy bluster. We all know the difference between the PZ that writes Pharyngula, and the one who shows up to skeptic conferences in the real world. Dr. Jekyl isn’t going to shank any Christian apologists, even if Mr. Hyde rants about doing it on his blog. Moreover, I’ve spent enough time on Pharyngula to know that most of the commenters over there are opposed to violent means, even if they are willing to wish violent death on their internet adversaries. I know this because a prolific commenter known as Strange Gods Before Me stated at one point that he was not opposed to violent means, and he attracted a fair amount of criticism for saying so.

I wouldn’t say I like the violent rhetoric at Pharyngula, but I think its mostly frustrated people blowing off steam, and not anything particularly dangerous. The Pope on the other hand is dangerous.

51 Patrick January 17, 2015 at 7:52 pm

Old_ones @49,

Your argument is perilously close to the typical FtB “It’s okay when we do it” justification.

52 Old_ones January 17, 2015 at 8:28 pm

Your argument is perilously close to the typical FtB “It’s okay when we do it” justification.

I’m not condoning the violent rhetoric that takes place on FTB. I find it unhelpful and stupid. This is pretty consistent with how I view most of the violent rhetoric on the internet. I don’t feel that anything but a small minority of violent statements on the internet are anything to worry about, but that doesn’t mean I think the people writing porcupine fatwas, or emailing death threats to Anita Sarkeesian are doing anyone any favors. I’ve received death threats as well on occasion, and I laughed them off as adolescent BS. And they were.

On the other hand I think the violent rhetoric from the Pope is more dangerous because of context, and the size of his following. I think it is especially bad when the Pope (or any other widely respected leader of a large community) condones violence, and especially bad when the violence condoned is in response to unpopular speech. So it isn’t that I think the FTB rhetoric is OK, just that I think there are particular reasons why the Pope’s is worse.

53 Richard "The King" Sanderson January 17, 2015 at 9:26 pm

kraut: BTW – why the fuck are you still concerned with the has been PZ?

He hasn’t apologised yet. He hasn’t paid for his numerous crimes. He hasn’t began to grovel…which is what he needs to start doing as a minimum, as far as I am concerned.

54 Jan Steen January 17, 2015 at 9:30 pm

One of these men considers himself infallible and a moral paragon, the other is the Pope.

55 Richard "The King" Sanderson January 17, 2015 at 9:36 pm

BTW, it has been a horrible week or so for PZ Myers and his Horde. He got trolled brilliantly by kibmarc, who copied PZ’s old(er) criticisms of Islam into a new thread where the Horde was howling anything negative about Islam was “Islamophobic” and “waycist”. It was hilarious.

Secondly, he has had to explain to the organiser of Gateway to Reason why there is a certain amount of PUSHBACK over him getting a speaking gig. Something to do with the fact that PZ has abandoned reason a long time ago, is now a rape apologist by his own definition, and has being exposed numerous times by Michael as a fibber of the first kind. Aww, poor Thom of Gateway to Reason has doubled down. Not my fault if the mud sticks to Thom as well. [PS - It will - and I will make sure of it]

56 John Greg January 17, 2015 at 9:44 pm

Larry Metcalfe said:

He edits the comments of other people? Are there known examples of this?

There are hundreds examples of PZ disemvowelling posts, but the problem is finding them. PZ posts upwards of half a dozen or more posts per day, and sifting through thousands of posts to find one that has been disemvowelled is a heavy task.

Some of the more well known FTB bloggers of the the FC(n), have indeed rewritten entire comments posted by critics. The rewriting is intended to change the meaning of the comment so as to say something other than what was intended by the original commentor or, in some cases, just to make the commentor look/sound particularily stupid. It has been a long time since I’ve witnessed this rather foul behaviour, and so I do not remember who did it, but it has indeed happened on a few occasions.

The most common act though is to simply delete a commenters post altogether. PZ’s favoured method of doing this is to leave the posters comment header, so as to show the commentor’s nym and time of posting, but to remove all content from the comment, so it’s just a blank space, which I guess gives the commentariat something to glee about.

Other FTB bloggers, Like Benson, simply remove the entire post and the header so that there is no record of the comment at all.

57 Patrick January 17, 2015 at 10:12 pm

Old_ones @51,

Thanks for the clarification. Myers could take a lesson from you.

58 Jan Steen January 17, 2015 at 10:36 pm

@Richard Sanderson,

BTW, it has been a horrible week or so for PZ Myers and his Horde. He got trolled brilliantly by kibmarc, who copied PZ’s old(er) criticisms of Islam into a new thread where the Horde was howling anything negative about Islam was “Islamophobic” and “waycist”. It was hilarious.

Myers’s response to being trolled (by Kolnnauzer/Kirbmarc) with his own words? You guessed it, more violent rhetoric.

I also believe that Kolnnauzer would never entertain himself by whacking himself in the skull with a ball-peen hammer. I sure hope he doesn’t prove me wrong with that one, or I’d be devastated.

And why specifically a ball-peen hammer? That’s a rather bizarre level of detail, isn’t it? He almost sounds as someone who has experience whacking skulls and found that a ball-peen hammer works best. :)

Besides, real men know that a screwdriver works just as well (with apologies for this obscure in-joke).

59 Larry Metcalfe January 17, 2015 at 10:41 pm

@ John Greg, 56

Thanks for the additional information. That this sort of thing happens, and has been happening for so long, on a blog network with the name it has is astonishing really. Let’s hope that Michael, the Slymepit, and anyone else, can continue to document and expose this sort of behaviour and that conference organisers start getting the message about the toxic nature of the behaviour of these people.

60 Kirbmarc January 17, 2015 at 10:42 pm

//Wake up and smell the sheep.//

Could anti-semitic conspiracy nuts at least try to be original?

//On the other hand I think the violent rhetoric from the Pope is more dangerous because of context, and the size of his following. I think it is especially bad when the Pope (or any other widely respected leader of a large community) condones violence, and especially bad when the violence condoned is in response to unpopular speech. So it isn’t that I think the FTB rhetoric is OK, just that I think there are particular reasons why the Pope’s is worse.//

I completely agree with you. Myers isn’t dangerous in the slightest. When he posted about stabbing priests, or stuffing rusty porcupines up someone’s rear end he was just using some “righteous anger” rhetorical tricks in a misguided attempt to be edgy and cool.

I think that the only thing that he’s harming is the already poor reputation of atheists as prone to anger and hate.

The Pope on the other hand is held in great respect by millions of people in every continent and has more or less implied that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was justified since in his opinion you can’t mock religion and not expect people to react violently.

Some deranged Catholic extremists (yes they exist, although luckily there aren’t too many of them) may take the Pope’s words as a justification for acts of violence against cartoonist who lampoon the Catholic Church or Christianity in general.

The risks of a deranged FTB poster taking PZ’ rhetoric as an authorization to go out there and stab priests or rape people with rusty porcupines are so low they’re virtually non-existent.

61 John Morales January 17, 2015 at 10:44 pm

[meta + OT]

Richard Sanderson @54:

BTW, it has been a horrible week or so for PZ Myers and his Horde. He got trolled brilliantly by kibmarc, who copied PZ’s old(er) criticisms of Islam into a new thread where the Horde was howling anything negative about Islam was “Islamophobic” and “waycist”. It was hilarious.

Secondly, he has had to explain to the organiser of Gateway to Reason why there is a certain amount of PUSHBACK over him getting a speaking gig. Something to do with the fact that PZ has abandoned reason a long time ago, is now a rape apologist by his own definition, and has being exposed numerous times by Michael as a fibber of the first kind. Aww, poor Thom of Gateway to Reason has doubled down.

You found it hilarious that brilliant trolling and PUSHBACK have made for a horrible week for PZ Myers and his Howling Horde, but since the PUSHBACK became doubling-down, you will make sure the mud sticks to the PUSHBACKER and it will not be your fault.

(It’s an informative post)

62 Kirbmarc January 17, 2015 at 10:48 pm

//Besides, real men know that a screwdriver works just as well//

Is this a reference to American Psycho?

Let me add that I’m not worried about PZ’ passive-aggressive violent rhetoric against me. Although I’d love to meet him, greet him politely and tell him that his hope was rewarded, since I’m still alive and that my skull suffered no ball-peen hammer incidents.

63 piero January 17, 2015 at 11:14 pm

@John Morales #10:

There are similarities, but not in the case of combining a statement that they do not support violence with an exception; what you quoted from the Pope did, what you quoted from PZ did not.

Pope francis said:

I believe that you cannot react violently, but if my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. This is normal. It is normal. You cannot provoke.

Pope Myers said:

I don’t like violence, but I will make an exception for this one possible circumstance.

It is therefore unavoidable to conclude that John Morales does not understand what he reads.

John Morales furher states:

I do note that my #10 is hitherto the last word on the subject of those comparisons.

It is therefore unavoidable to conclude that John Morales is a pompous ass.

64 Jan Steen January 17, 2015 at 11:30 pm

@Kirbmarc,

Is this a reference to American Psycho?

No. It refers to the legendary hammer/screwdriver debate that for a while held the Slymepit in thrall. (Don’t ask.)

65 John Morales January 18, 2015 at 12:11 am

piero @62:

Pope Myers said:

I don’t like violence, but I will make an exception for this one possible circumstance.

It is therefore unavoidable to conclude that John Morales does not understand what he reads.

He said that in May 2014, and it was not part of the two actual quotations about which the comparisons were being made.

I think your contention that Michael is comparing the Pope’s contiguous quoted piece with a combination of two quotations from PZ (one of which ostensibly supports violence without an exception and one of which conversely supports non-violence without an exception to therefore claiming both therefore simultaneously decry violence whilst advocating it is less a misreading than a tortured one.

(It’s certainly possible, I grant you that)

66 john welch January 18, 2015 at 12:42 am

Morales is going to defend PZ no matter what PZ does. Even if PZ committed actual crimes against people, as long as they were against the right people, Morales would justify it. It’s what he does.

PZ and his lot using violent rhetoric with the “oh, that’s just hyperbole” as their get out of jail free card is hardly new. It’s not even slightly new.

Of course, anyone who isn’t part of the Clear doing the exact same thing, and OOOHHHH MYYYY GAWWWWRSH, that will just not do, and all of them, including Morales will collectively lose their shit about threats and violence and SEE WHAT WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH.

It’s all bullshit, and when any of them say “well, I don’t approve of that” ask them for links where they’ve actually consistently said “hey, that shit is wrong when we do it too.”

You’ll never see those links. It never fucking happens. The only time Morales et al disagree with their fellow clear is late at night, in their own heads, and even then very quietly.

67 Shermertron January 18, 2015 at 12:47 am

John Greg and Larry Metcalfe 55

Don’t forget the best part of PZ’s comment trickery. Remember a few weeks ago when he doxed a commenter? He employed the fun technique of deleting the guy’s comments and adding a gross mischaracterization of what the guy said.

Made-up example:
Sincere dissenter: “I’m not sure that we should be mired in the feminist wars.”
PZ’s post-dox comment: “That’s right, everyone. XXX at XX@XXX.com with the IP address XXX says he wants to put all women into quicksand, presumably so they’ll drown.

Disgusting.”

68 Jan Steen January 18, 2015 at 12:57 am

[meta + OT]

@John Morales,

You forgot to close a bracket in your otherwise unremarkable* comment #64. Also, there should be a full stop after your final “that”.

*Containing as it does bog standard Peezus apologetics.

69 Michael Nager January 18, 2015 at 1:05 am

The theme of this thread seems to be cognitive dissonance and the US is full of this (or it) one case in point is coming up.

In the US they have something called “African-American History Month” every year. I have no problem with that.

The thing however is that they have this month in February and I do have a couple of niggles with this.

1) Nothing says “African-American” to me like being buried up to my ass in snow.

2) It’s in February – the shortest month of the year – so it seems that one is expected to appreciate African-American history, for the briefest time possible.

70 john welch January 18, 2015 at 1:24 am

2) It’s in February – the shortest month of the year – so it seems that one is expected to appreciate African-American history, for the briefest time possible.

I always thought that was a bit ironic.

71 MosesZD January 18, 2015 at 1:26 am

@Jan Steen:

To answer the ball-peen hammer question, it’s an obscure reference and a macabre joke:

Theodore Streleski, a Stanford mathematician. In 1978 he bludgeoned his adviser, Karel deLeeuw, to death with a ball-peen hammer after being told that, after 19 years of graduate school, he wasn’t going to get his doctorate.

72 Michael Nager January 18, 2015 at 1:33 am

@john welch #68

My thinking is that if they had an “African-American Day” in the US it would be on the 29th of February.

73 Matt Cavanaugh January 18, 2015 at 1:37 am

Why punch someone for upsetting you, when you can doxx him/her, and incite your followers to contact his/her employer in an attempt to damage his/her career?

74 Michael Nager January 18, 2015 at 1:50 am

@Matt Cavanaugh #71

The main problem I have had with PZ etc., et al., ad nauseam, of accusing Michael of harbouring rapists is that one of their disciples might want to convert this propaganda into physical injury if not death for Michael.

When you pump people up on emotive rhetoric – as Bill O’Reilly did with regard to George Tiller by calling him “Tiller the Baby Killer” on his show for weeks prior to someone going into George Tiller’s church whilst he was there one Sunday and shooting him in the head – is that you should not be able to get away with it if one of those influenced by this rhetoric commits a heinous crime.

By definition, if I post here then I am a rapist. If someone of the PZ etc. faction were to find out who I was and where I lived then I would be fair game to be harassed, assaulted or murdered with regard to the totally unjustified accusations lobbied against me.

75 John Morales January 18, 2015 at 2:22 am

[meta]

Jan Steen @66, actually, I made a far more egregious error than that: the second selection was indeed one where violence was decried and simultaneously condoned by PZ.

Also, the syntax is somewhat garbled as I submitted prematurely.

(Apparently, I have to correct myself to see it done properly!)

76 John Morales January 18, 2015 at 2:35 am

Michael Nager @72:

By definition, if I post here then I am a rapist.

By that reasoning, if I have a drink at a gay bar then I am gay.

If someone of the PZ etc. faction were to find out who I was and where I lived then I would be fair game to be harassed, assaulted or murdered with regard to the totally unjustified accusations lobbied against me.

oO

77 John Morales January 18, 2015 at 2:39 am

[meta]

Shatterface @74:

Also, in light of the fact #10 was NOT Morales’ last words on the matter, a complete bullshitter.

What I wrote was “my #10 is hitherto the last word”, thus restricting the proposition’s domain of applicability.

I do not accuse you of bullshitting, I suspect you were serious in your claim.

78 Michael Nager January 18, 2015 at 2:43 am

@John Morales #75

“By that reasoning, if I have a drink at a gay bar then I am gay.”

I think you got that one wrong, I think it should be that because one out of six guys are gay then of the eleven guys I slept with at least one of them are gay, even though I don’t normally sleep with guys.

:)

79 JetLagg January 18, 2015 at 3:03 am

I want to state support for Old Ones idea that Myers is almost certainly not likely to enact any of his violent fantasies. It’s all posturing. On the other hand, it’s interesting that the comparison with the actions of the pope is one of quantity, rather than quality. In other words, if Myers were a more successful tyrant (i.e. had more followers) we’d be right to condemn Myers at the same level we do the pope, according to Old Ones.

80 Shatterface January 18, 2015 at 5:20 am

I doubt that Myers would act out his violent fantasies – mainly because of the fact they are so fantastic.

He’s hit by a car and instead of helping a passing priest decides to pray for him? Is this a thing they do? Hell, maybe the priest will go through his pockets too. If you are going to invent some assholery why not go the whole hog?

And the second scenario? He’s dying at home and a priest bursts in demanding he repent? In 21st Century America? This happens a lot does it? It’s straight out of the first series of Blackadder.

It’s one thing to argue that religion is bad; it’s another to invent badness just so that you have another reason to hate someone. Religion does enough real harm without inventing new incidents.

81 Nathan (formerly GerardO) January 18, 2015 at 5:39 am

I appreciate Michael Nugent’s free range comments policy, but I feel that further discussions of Jerry Coyne’s huge and hideous honker would be a derail of a post about PZM and the Pontiff.

This is especially true since some mentally-challenged commenters are more interested in calling me silly names than addressing the points I have made. I am, however, available for internet chit-chat on Twitter (@unhiddenness), and for lengthier discussions you can comment on my blog:
thenodster.wordpress.com

Goodnight, and good luck

82 john welch January 18, 2015 at 6:51 am

Michael @ 74:

By definition, if I post here then I am a rapist. If someone of the PZ etc. faction were to find out who I was and where I lived then I would be fair game to be harassed, assaulted or murdered with regard to the totally unjustified accusations lobbied against me.

No, no, no, by PZ/Morales logic, if you post on the slymepit you’re a rapist. If you only post here, you support rapists, and by definition, rape.

The difference is subtle, but important.

As far as the rest goes, while I doubt they’d actually get physical with you, because they’re all raging wussies no matter how badass they talk, (and note Morales is just fine with that kind of shit as long as the source is Clear), do I think they’d condone someone else getting physical with you in their name or cause?

Oh absolutely. They’re totally fine with that, hell, watson straight up said assault is okay as long as she approves of the target.

And since Morales chooses to walk by that standard, he, by FTB/Skepchicks logic supports that standard.

Ah, the fun you can have.

83 Jan Steen January 18, 2015 at 8:41 am

@John Morales,

Jan Steen @66, actually, I made a far more egregious error than that: the second selection was indeed one where violence was decried and simultaneously condoned by PZ.

That’s why I called your post a piece of apologetics. But at least you are able to admit that you were wrong, which would make you a shining example to PZ Myers.

@MosesZD,

To answer the ball-peen hammer question, it’s an obscure reference and a macabre joke

If that is indeed the thing Myers referred to, then that is pretty sick.

As for his violent rhetoric and the possibility that he himself would become violent. No, I do not think that he will. But his language is part of a strategy to demonize his opponents. Call them misogynists, harassers, rape supporters and rapists often enough, fantasize about using knives and ball-peen hammers on them, and it may well incite one of his more unhinged followers to do something nasty. Who can tell?

84 Michael Kingsford Gray January 18, 2015 at 9:22 am

… fantasize about using knives and ball-peen hammers on them, and it may well incite one of his more unhinged followers to do something nasty. Who can tell?

The sole difference, in terms of “potential”, is the absolute number of followers of Myers’ cult versus the Islamic cult.

That is the sole distinction.

The goals are equivalent.
The motivations are squarely equal.
The goals are seamlessly equivalent.

85 John Morales January 18, 2015 at 10:05 am

Jan Steen @83:

@John Morales,

Jan Steen @66, actually, I made a far more egregious error than that: the second selection was indeed one where violence was decried and simultaneously condoned by PZ.

That’s why I called your post a piece of apologetics. But at least you are able to admit that you were wrong, which would make you a shining example to PZ Myers.

Leaving aside that criticising an allegation does not entail a defending its subject, I was specifically wrong about which two specific quotations were being compared (it was not the topical quotations of January 2015 but rather the Pope’s 2015 and PZ’s 2014 ones).

So, that accounts for my first paragraph @10; the second remains yet outstanding.

86 Aheydis Vaakenjab January 18, 2015 at 2:45 pm

So we see again, an FtB regular who has, yet, to commit a crime against the hive and remains in good stead with the leadership there. John Morales sees it absolutely fit to come to MN’s blog and admonish him for his wording on posts and call in to question MN’s data.

I wonder why? I wonder how many documented cases there are of John Morales doing the same to PZ? I can only speculate that the number is quite low and perhaps under the bar for how many comments he’s managed on this comment thread alone. As with the last MN and PZ thread here, I figure it’s because John may feel MN is a softer target than PZ.

While I agree with Old_ones’ post that I think PZ is nothing more than an Internet Tough Guy, PZ’s posts about murdering people just because they’re religious is just more of an indication that this is not someone who should be in a leadership position – especially if there are pointy things or scissors around.

Anyhow John, it’s now your turn for me to leave you with this: I certainly hope nobody does to you what PZ has done to Michael Nugent – that is, smearing his real life name with the allegation that Michael provides a haven for rapists and harassers. I’m still at a loss as to why you and your ilk cannot see how this is damaging not only to the person, but to the greater Atheist community.

Have a good day.

Leave a Comment

Previous post: