Louis wrote:a) Poor presentation of pitter posters:
... and exactly what I would have expected if PZ's characterisation was correct. You might not like that, but hey, it's MY lived experience!
PZ's representation of us are that we're terrible misogynists, helpless sexists, and callous murderers with no hesitation to throw acid in people's faces. Your "welcome" is
exactly what you would have expected from that? In the words of Ricky Gervais, don't talk shit.
I'm here for my own benefit, to sate my curiosity. I saw some post about acid throwing on the side bar at FtB, clicked out of curiosity, read, posted something sarcastic, read PZ's post, thought to myself "I wonder if the pit people are really gloating away?" so I came for a look.
And were we? Gloating?
I then went back to Pharyngula and posted some rambling comment, which I think I'll stand by for now, and deliberated about creating an account here under my real ID (can't be bothered with sock puppets) and see if my initial impressions were correct. So far....hmmm....they seem to be somewhat correct in some cases, not so much in others. Pretty much what any sensible person would have guessed, right?
Er, yeah. Sensible.
As for which 'pitters I have a low opinion of, which a higher opinion of, and the same question as applied to Pharynguloids, I won't say. Not because I'm afraid to, or above that, but because I think it is irrelevant and childish. I can do irrelevant and childish if I want to, but I don't want to. Is that really such a crime?
:violin:
Oh and I have fuck all clue about Renee or probably most of the gripes. Not because I'm some hideous blinkered fool, but simply because I don't have unlimited time/effort to expend on following every tiny thing in what I see (perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly) as tiresome interblog drama. So I skip 90% of it.
Then I guess the remaining 10% were eager to make that post you did on Ophelia's blog about the Slymepit.
I am, however, exceedingly keen and willing to look at evidence. As opposed to being exceedingly NOT keen and willing to be vilified for not immediately sharing your party line upon entry...wait, isn't that another criticism you chaps and chappesses have of FtB? Oooops! Physicians heal thyselves it seems!
Vilified for sharing the party line. Once again, don't talk shit. Besides, maybe you should take that moral compass and turn it around on the commentariat you allegedly support. Like the response Noelplum got. Or did you conveniently skip that one too?
I'd rather find out if this claim that 'pitters are horrendously caricatured by PZ et al is true for myself, best way to do that? Jump in and see. It might amaze you to know that, yes, whilst I am an Evil Horde Member Pharynguloid Wicked Person and All Round Bad Egg, and yes, whilst I like plenty of the posters that most upset many of you, I'm okay with deciding things for myself thanks.
Great. But you might not want to assume what members of the Slymepit thinks of you right off the bat, yeah? It only makes you sound condescending.
I haven't posted on Pharyngula about my Sooper Sekrit Mission To Convert Teh Heathens ...
Jesus, and you said
we were boring?
[youtube]dEtm_Q2LK9g[/youtube]
... because that's not what this is, I'm satisfying my curiosity whether anyone wants to believe that or not. When that's done, we'll see. I might post again, I might not. It's not that big a deal to me. Sorry if that offends you for some reason. It's not that big a deal to me that some benighted fools like soccer not rugby or that they go to church. I really don't care. I do care if they tell me I should like soccer or die, or I should obey the strictures of their church in my private life. They're free to criticise me for being ignorant of the beautiful game (I am) or that I am, by their standards, a terrible wicked heathen (I am), that's the joy of free speech, they get to disagree with me and I with them.
Because PZ's representation of us is clearly about who likes soccer (football) or rugby or who goes to church and who doesn't. That's a perfect analogy, Louis.
Should I bold that last bit? I'm pretty sure, based on a number of posts from a variety of people that that point escapes a lot of folk here. Hell it escapes a lot of folk everywhere! It used to escape me until I had it beaten into me with a clue by four.
Well, it's a good thing we can all be adults and agree to disagree.
Oh, wait, we can't. Because we're automatically banned and labelled misogynists, sexists, rapists and murderers. You're a genius, Louis.
c) PZ banning folks quickly/pre-emptively:
I don't have a blog and probably never will have one. I've helped moderate the odd message board in the dim and distant past, but work etc. Yadda yadda yadda. So my views on how to manage a million+ hits a whenever blog are probably not very insightful. Would I manage Pharyngula the same as PZ? Well *I* am not PZ, so trivially and obviously probably not. Do I like his particular policies? I think he's reasonably lenient in places, strict in others, to be frank it doesn't bother me. It doesn't affect me much because I'm unlikely to go on a racist/sexist/homophobic/trolling/creationist/whatever rant, i.e. I am unlikely to do the things he typically bans people for. But that's hardly the controversial bit now is it?
What an utter and absolute non-response. And what he typically bans people for? So since he's taken to blanket ban everyone from the Slymepit and moreover label anyone who disagrees with him a 'pitter, then that means typically Slymepitters are making racist/sexist/homophobic/trolling/whatever comments and rants, are they?
Don't - talk - shit.
Do I support his blanket 'pitter ban? Yes, in the sense that it is his blog and he can do what the fuck he likes.
Wait wait wait. Because it's his blog? Yeah, ok. But wasn't it because he banned them because they were exactly according to his representations of us, and which you agreed with? Which is it, Louis?
No, in the sense that it probably wouldn't be how I would handle it, but then I don't know how I'd handle it, I've never been there.
Another evasive answer. You'd be a great politician.
I don't look at a blog like someone's living room, or a wide open field where anyone can do whatever, I look at a blog rather like a pub. PZ is the landlord of the Pharyngula Tentacles (can't be Arms can it?). He gets to run his pub his way. If the majority of his punters were Manchester United fans (and remember I know nothing about soccer, so I am picking two teams with a local derby at random) and the majority of the Manchester City fans who came in were bothersome, or excited the more....intemperate....Manchester United fans who were regulars in the pub, I might ban openly obvious Man City fans. Just for some peace and fucking quiet and not having my pub bust up every two minutes.
Brilliant. It's true, just like your analogy portends, we are
just like the loud Man City fans who come in to the pub to be bothersome and we're just there to bust it up every two minutes.
I sympathise with PZ a bit because he doesn't have a team of helpers to clean the shite of the ceiling in his blog, he's got a job, a family, a side-effort as a prominent public speaker etc, managing the blog is an added (voluntary) burden. I'm not worried about him managing it his way, posting what interests him (some of which intersects with what interests me) and going about his day.
Now PZ is not stopping anyone drinking in other pubs, he's not banning people from alcohol, he's not saying that other landlords and landladies cannot have Manchester City only pubs, or pubs where the fans mix or pubs dedicated to advanced lesbian basket weaving. He makes the rules for his pub.
Yes, that PZ Myers sure have it tough. He makes more money than probably a lot of us here at the 'pit together and he continually makes blog posts to stir shit up, which of course makes it a burden to clean "the shite of the ceiling" when others who don't agree to his shit-stirring tactics disagree. He should get a fucking medal.
Oh, and what's that about not "stopping anyone from drinking in other pubs"? (Still going off your inebriated analogy to great effect.) What about when he supported the petition to remove Justin Vacula from a volunteer position in the SCA? What about when he decided to fuck with Gelato Guy "into the ground"? He's not a very calm and collected man, is he?
"But aaaaaaahhhhhh!" I hear you cry, "The Pharyngula Tentacles is a BIG pub, and PZ an influential landlord in the town, and I don't like Manchester United or their brand of football. I want to have my brand of football represented, and when PZ throws his weight around other pubs start putting in No Man City policies.", fair enough. What's stopping you set up your own pub? Or one of the deliberate fan clash pubs? PZ didn't parachute into the Pope of Atheism chair or something. He's not the fucking pope of atheism for starters, there isn't one. He can't stop you doing anything. He has precisely zero power outside of Pharyngula to stop you saying exactly what you want.
Look, this isn't working. Pharyngula isn't
like a pub. PZ Myers isn't
like a landlord. We are not a rivalry and we do not venture into his blog to "bust it up" or to "be bothersome." Your analogy doesn't work. If PZ Myers' representation of the Slymepit and its members would be true in any way, then he would be the one against misogyny, sexism and racism, and we wouldn't be. Therefore it becomes idiotic to compare us to two rival "teams" - we're not "teams." Would we be empathetic to the situation of Natalie Reed if we were "rivals" in that respect, and more importantly would we "allow" women to post here? No. No, no and no. It all falls apart. That's because he is wrong. He and his pack of cirle-jerkers are
wrong. Just because the words "cunt" and "twat" gets thrown around doesn't mean we're misogynists, does not mean we're sexists, and if you're using that as an example where PZ's representation is "somewhat correct", then you're about as sleazy and slimy as oolon.
Anyone in any prominent position is going to get critics.
That so? Maybe you should tell Benson, Zvan, Watson, et al. about that, since they seem to think their criticisms are all because they're women, and not because they're prominent figures. I'm glad you said that, Louis.
Are you really saying that every critic is worth engaging with the same degree of intellectual effort? REALLY? I think we all know that's just not true. I don't need homoeopaths at chemistry conferences with me. It might make them feel all warm and cuddly and included and isn't that special, but what they do is effectively raise the noise to signal ratio in the bad way. So applications from homoeopaths to speak at chemistry conferences will get (politely) refused. Homoeopathy is well refuted dreck. Utter bullshit. Why treat it any differently? So if I was to set up a blog (unlikely) about chemistry and homoeopath commenters came along and started berating me for not dealing with their criticisms, I'd say "Damn right. Homoeopathy is well refuted dreck, if you don't know that by now it's not my problem.". If I was feeling kind I might engage a few and provide them with the basic tenets of a chemistry lesson or explain a dose response curve to them. Not ALL critics are worthy of attention.
Have we been saying that every critic is worth engaging? No. We've been saying the exact opposite. When Benson, Zvan, Christina, Watson, etc, gets critics, they've been quick to take the opinions of obvious trolls or otherwise adolescent teenagers as proof of rape culture, the patriarchy, misogyny and sexism, and so on. But what about the legitimate critics? The ones that do not engage in childish antics and actually are keen to have an actual conversation? Not a word. But we know they're there because we've seen them and some of them can be seen on YouTube and here on the 'pit. But it's easier to make blanket statements like they and PZ Myers have done, because I suppose drama gets more blog hits and more blog hits equals money.
Now SOME critics ARE worthy of attention, and you all obviously feel you fall into this latter category. Fine and dandy, I'm genuinely pleased you do feel that way, I genuinely hope it's the case. That way I get to deal with a GENUINE controversy and not the endless playground politicking that I think I've made clear bores me fucking stiff. So, to pick an antique chemistry controversy, if we were talking, 60 or 70 years ago, about
non-classical carbocations and someone came up with some data, and somebody else had some other data, that would be an interesting and genuine controversy, until the data fell one way or 'tother and the matter was settled.
In other words, you agree that what PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson have been doing for the past year and a half is endless playground politicking?
Of course, with the "genuine controversy", it sounds as if you're making a "Dear Muslima" argument.
Be aware that creationists think their criticisms are valuable and worth listening to. I'm not saying yours aren't, but that even as sceptics we have to be aware of our own biases. I'm here challenging mine to some small degree, even though in days gone by I might have had much more sympathy with you than with the Pharynguloids. I changed my mind though. Why? It might be because I am {insert some wickedness here} or because they introduced me to writers etc that made a compelling case or because of something else. But change my mind I did.
You know, you're awfully boring when you seem to infer that we think all FTB commenters are "wicked." We don't. We don't think all FTB is "wicked", either. We don't think it's a cult. Stop with the condescending bullshit and just answer the questions. If you don't want to answer, then say so. Be honest. Don't give us that "it's not what I would've done, but who knows?" crap.
