Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2012,15:28)|
|"Free Thoughts Blogs" - they're not though, are they?|
I don't know if they charge for their thought but I do know that when PZ lied to me about his academic credentials and banned me when I checked, people in the thread accused me of making him do it, some said that it didn't matter because he was still doing a good job of hating on religion, some accused me of lying because they knew pz wouldn't lie, even though I posted the links and made quite specific the line items which I questioned the factual nature of and why, and which line items I thought sounded like misrepresentation and why, and simply asked what I had gotten wrong and how that worked. PZ told me to list my scientific accomplishments over the past year since he had (even though his post contained no scientific accomplishments, even though he claimed they were, and also included a false, flat out false, claim which would have been the one thing which might have given him legitimacy in his entire claim) or he would ban me. I did post them. He deleted my post and some of my others following that where I expressed surprise at his use of bullying to answer my charge of lying rather than using honesty which seemed out of step with his general teachings, and banned me with the reason being "liar" which linked, as support for the charge. to his post where he called me a liar. And the morons on pharyngula and one other freethought blog actually linked to that post as support that I was a liar.
How he managed to miss the martyr angle I have no idea. But if authority can't be honest, then I am helpless before the altar of compulsion to attempt provide the appropriate sort of stage for them to paint their own picture of themselves through the lens of their own behavior.
Some people are strangely obliging when asked to please take a little while to make a really thorough portfolio piece demonstrating their willingness to employ honesty or dishonesty and providing examples of their application of integrity. PZ knowingly lied to me to attempt to present the balance of value between the two of us as unequal so he could dismiss me publicly without having to respond to my earlier criticism (which ironically did make a potential imbalance in his own equation, even though I don't use the equation), misrepresented his scientific credentials on his blog to manipulate his disciples to dismiss me from an argument from authority and ignore the mild criticism in my original post due to my inferiority rather than my argument's inferiority.
He managed to delegitimize his congregation, his agenda, and himself all in one fell swoop. Which puts me in a weird position. I really don't like hate speech, labels which devalue people and lead to blind prejudice, and a pet peeve, using the word privilege to devalue others. That being said, I also believe in engaging people regarding those issues rather than blanket condemning them for that behavior and refusing to engage.
But ftb designed a couple of weird tools for the individual Morton's demons of their members to link arms and obscure the view. Tone trolling, and accomodationism.
Both massively powerful tools to repel logic when it is applied to their values.
PZ myers lied to me directly. Falsely accused me of lying, Misrepresented his academic credentials and used the fake credentials to support the legitimacy of his opinions and actions.
He owes me an apology for lying to me and for attempting to defame me without evidence and without legitimate warrant. Or support for his claim that I lied (ignoring his use of the eternal 'liar' to delegitimize my future criticisms rather than 'lied' which would have included the false statement and the proof that it was false) as well as an explanation for the misunderstandings which I originally asked for clarification on.
I don't mind that he banned me. I am, frankly, flattered that he felt that my statements were sufficiently whatever to justify lying, manipulation, casting aside his personal integrity and exposing himself at some risk to keep the focus on judgment by cult social status rather than merit. I thought my criticism rather clumsy and disorganized personally. Apparently I hit the bullseye by accident.
I would also be willing to settle the matter through the technique he professes some skill in. I would drop the whole matter and publicly apologize without ever bringing it up again if he would agree to a one on one debate with me on whether he could justify his denigration of people based on the label 'religion'.
He can't. It is a category error with obvious and not so obvious collateral damage potential and it doesn't even label the problem he himself identifies as his target.
Oh well. It's probably a pipe dream. But it just makes me laugh when people defend him as somehow better than those he denigrates because those inferior people are dishonest. If that is what makes people inferior then they better get some Glenn Morton sized steroids to feed the demons. Because PZ pretty much can't claim to stand for integrity, honesty, or rational ideals without being willing to to walk the walk himself. New Atheism, I am often told, is not PZ. But I am also told that that is not the same thing as saying Christianity is not the pope. Or Fred Phelps. Or whatever. Because New Atheism is not a religion. And because most of the evil in the world is done in the name of religion so New Atheists must be the good guys and that means PZ must be honest despite the fact that he lied about and misrepresented his scientific credentials, he must stand for rational thought even though he uses obvious and standard propaganda techniques of shifting value to the person rather than the idea to claim the idea is not valid, that he does not promote hate even though he refuses an apology from a guy because the guy is still christian rather than because the guy still had more responsibility, even though the percentage of deaths and inflicted cruelties of man by man for the past 400 years done in the name of religion equals a vanishing fraction of those done for explicitly secular reasons with some not small number of the most horrific and gruesome of those being done explicitly under the banner of reason, and specifically targeting 'religion' by specifically anti-religious groups.
And yet surprisingly, some people have made the idea so rigid in their minds after the very public displays of anger at the brutality of Empire in the name of justice, the systematic killing, looting, scapegoating, exploitation, torture of muslims across the muslim world which has been ongoing and still continues, some people still have the propaganda filling in the details for them. They see islam as the evil. It may well be. But infidel works reasonably well to define the fuckers who have brutalized your homeland for centuries and killed and tortured those who spoke out and blamed the violence on the shepherds who dared refuse a demand made by empire.
People do all kinds of weird shit when you starve their parents to death, shoot their brothers and fathers and piss on their dead bodies, enslave whomever they wish from your village, force your 9 year old daughters into sex slavery by opium cartels and shoot their fathers when they throw rocks to resist.
And yet, infidel is the wrong label. It accidentally makes innocents into enemies. They kill locals who question their hatred of the occupying killers. They destroy institutions which developed after the brutality began because they onbly know it used to not be like this so whatever it used to be is where they need to go back to to move forward again without the horror the west has imposed on their lives.
So too is the label religion to name the enemy. It makes enemies of innocents. It creates hatred by naming the enemy as the source of the problem of religious reactionaries and true believers. It makes those who accept the mistaken label into those religious reactionaries.
Anyway, It does matter that PZ lied about his academic credentials because that is what he uses to legitimize his propaganda. It matters that he doesn't think the act is the problem anymore if it supports the advance of hatred and anger against the label.
It is the problem.
Eta: this post brought to you by maker's mark brand whiskey, good drinking but ineffective against insomnia in a clinical trial of one person with no control group.
Edited by BWE on July 08 2012,02:59
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far
The Daily Wingnut