Fond of PZ Myers? This guy isn't -

[mr blur]

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#deedfc; color:#00000 0; margin-left:1em; border:1px dashed #7a7b7d ; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:4px 4px 4px #999999;"]
PZ Myers publicly hates and despises people, not merely their ideas or behaviour

by Michael Nugent on December 27, 2014

We can hate harmful and unjust ideas and behaviours, without hating the people who believe those ideas or carry out those behaviours. That is an ethically nuanced position, and one that PZ Myers understands, because he sometimes articulates it himself. Indeed, it is the type of ethical nuance that you would expect from a previous Humanist of the Year awardee. Also, PZ has strongly criticised other people for being ‘haters’ of different people, and other websites for being ‘hate sites’. So he sometimes, correctly, sees ‘haters’ and ‘hate sites’ as being pejorative terms.

Despite this, on his own website, PZ Myers regularly expresses public hatred of people, not merely their ideas or behaviour. Among the many people who PZ has publicly hated, despised or detested are philosophers Alain de Botton and Harriet Baber, interfaith activist Chris Stedman, comparative religion author Karen Armstrong, pastor Lee Strobel, columnist Richard Cohen, attorney Debbie Schlussel, US President Ronald Reagan, creationists Ken Ham and Fred Phelps, broadcasters Bob Beckel and Rush Limbaugh, and authors Ben Stein, Bryan Appleyard and Dinesh D’Souza.

<snip>

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/12/27/pz-myers-publicly-hates-and-despises-people/

(Found via Atheist Revolution, here)

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Nugent seems like a good guy, what the fuck is his problem with Myers?

I didn't get past his first sourced "proof".

“I left the theater filled with contempt and loathing for Christians".

Well that sounds awful doesn't it? What a hater. But just to be sure, we might ask "what theater?" and "what was going on in that theater"? So following the link we find:

I surprise myself. I actually have two positive things to say about the movie, God’s Not Dead.

First, the projection was excellent. The last time I wrote about the workings of the theater, I described the amazing elaborate old-timey gadgetry to show a movie print. That’s all gone now, replaced by a modern digital movie projector. Crisp, bright, reliable.

Also, the movie itself was an elaborate exercise in projection. The academics were all portrayed as dogmatic and authoritarian and rather stupid — even the debate which was supposedly the core of this movie consisted of the Christian protagonist and atheist professor exchanging rounds of quotes from their respective corners. Dawkins says this, but Lennox says that. Hawking asserts X, but Strobel trumps it with Y. That may be how dopey Christians argue, with dueling authorities, but sorry, that’s not how philosophers discuss much of anything.

It was also implied that all of the students at this university were atheists, or apathetic enough about religion to blithely agree with the statement that God is dead, as part of the filmmakers’ martyr complex: this straw America is populated almost entirely with godless unbelievers. Here I am at a secular state university, and even here, that’s simply not true. Most of my students are religious, although probably not to the degree that the hero of the film is.

The second bit of praise, though, is for the fact that this is the most profoundly anti-Christian movie I’ve ever seen. I left the theater filled with contempt and loathing for Christians

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/23/cause-to-celebrate/

First of all Mike, and lastly, Mr Nugent, Myers was using Irony and Humor.
I stopped there. When your first bit of evidence is bullshit, there generally is no need to go further.

[mr blur]

2. I take it you didn't read the other three linked pieces about Myers, then?

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/12/16/hurtful-harmful-smears-pz-myers-happy-atheist/
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/11/17/belly-dance-pz-myers-judge-others-sexism/
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/11/04/chronology-of-misrepresentations-and-smears-in-the-atheist-movement-by-pz-myers-and-others/

I guess I've always found Myers to be a bit overbearing and a bit of a bully so Nugent's points don't surprise or bother me.

[onager]

4. I've followed those Nugent links from the beginning.

And posted some in here.

Trying to follow this whole story has been an interesting exercise. Though at times it's like trying to absorb the entire King James Fucking Bible simultaneously, complete with Concordances, Appendices, and Learned Commentary From The Scholars.

Because I'd read something at one place. Ask myself, "Did that really happen?" Go check another link or five at another place. Etc. etc. etc.

Among many other things, this is a pretty fascinating look at atheism in the USA, versus the rest of the world.

I've tried to finish this post about 10 times now, and I keep wandering off into TL;DR territory as I try to articulate why I don't read Myers much anymore...except as a sort of grim entertainment, to see how hypocritical he and his Commentariat can get. ("Don't use the word 'crazy,' you Ableist scum! You must be deranged!&quot

The kind of nitpicky word-policing we're seeing here on DU has been practiced for a LONG time over at Pharyngula. Though it's practiced very selectively.

e.g., you must be very careful with perceived sexist terms. Unless you're attacking a woman they don't like. Then she becomes Fair Game - and I'm not using a $cientology term by accident.

TL;DR territory again. I'll just say I agree with you, Mr. Blur, and leave it at that.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Ah this appears to be all about Michael Shermer, his allies, ThunderF00t, the Slymepit, GamerGate,

sexism within the skepticism community etc.

Yes Myers is a bit overbearing but there really is a problem, and Nugent seems to be more than a bit obsessed with Myers.

Here is Myers on this nonsense:

There has been a rather one-sided ‘conversation’ going on with Michael Nugent for the past month or so. It’s a little bit disturbing, and I provide here a chronology. If it’s too long for you, I’ll understand — I’ve found it hopelessly tedious — and the bottom line is that I won’t be talking to him again, and it ends here, as far as I’m concerned.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/01/the-end-of-the-micknugent-saga/

I continue to think that if the first item in your list of crimes is as phony as Nugent's list was, the rest is going to be worse.

I don't know what to believe about Shermer. There appear to be quite a few women who have stepped up to affirm that the guy is an outright creep. Are they all lying? The GamerGate crowd are a bunch of overage adolescent frat boy shitheads.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. Nugent is just repeating the perennial refrain of the privileged.

"What do you mean I can't call women bitches? I've been calling women bitches for years, and it wasn't until now that it became such a big fucking deal! YOU'RE THOUGHT POLICING ME!"

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Where has that come from?

As far as I can tell, this is about whether there is truth to the accusations against Michael Shermer about rape. Myers thinks there is, Nugent thinks there isn't, and so Myers says Nugent supports rapists, and refuses to withdraw that. Nugent has then said that Myers is hypocritical, because he criticises people about the language they use, while he uses insulting language all the time.

Where did the 'calling women bitches' stuff come from? I've seen nothing about Nugent talking like that.

[onager]

14. Statement from Grania Spingies...

Nugent's co-founder of Atheist Ireland (and a woman):

“I am disgusted by the behavior of those who claim to be promoting feminism by feverishly poring over sentence fragments to see if they can be parsed into meaning something that fits their narrative of suspicion. How any of them think they are actually improving anything for women by trying to convert the arena of ideas and debate into a safe room for infants is beyond me."

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. That isn't my understanding of the situation.

Myers described Nugent's blog as a "haven for harassers, misogynists, and rapists" because of the audience it has attracted... chiefly, slymepitters.

Has Nugent called women bitches? I don't know, and I don't think that's relevant. His Slymepit friends have certainly said worse. And yet he's tone trolling PZ Myers... because "I hate Ronald Reagan"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Your post #11 accuses Nugent of saying that

You said he was 'repeating' "I've been calling women bitches". If you don't know that, and you don't think it's relevant, then you shouldn't claim it.

There's a difference between the commenters on a blog and what the blogger says. Some of Myers' commenters are vicious too. They're not all 'friends' of the blogger. But Nugent was talking about the things Myers has said himself, not his commenters.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. No, it doesn't.

It isn't a direct quote. I figured the caps were a dead giveaway.

Rather, I am accusing him of giving cover to people who do say that kind of thing... which is precisely what he's doing in the OP. We can talk about misogyny, but we mustn't call misogynists misogynists because it hurts their fee fees. And anyone who has ever said anything bad about anyone--ever--cannot criticize language. Golly, we have to be nice to people who disagree with us. Even if they say horrible shit.

If he were talking about religion and not sexism, our upholsterer friend would be posting his articles on that other forum, and we'd all be raking his ass over the coals instead of defending him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. You accused him of *repeating* it

There was no indication whatsoever it was about someone else saying it. The 'I' could only have been taken to mean him, whether a direct quote or a paraphrase.

I don't know who "our upholsterer friend" is meant to be.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. In the future, I shall take greater care my dispensation of snark.

To clarify, my issue with Nugent is thus:

In the last year or so, he [PZ Myers] has publicly accused Richard Dawkins of seeming to have developed a callous indifference to the sexual abuse of children, Michael Shermer of multiple unreported serious crimes, and Russell Blackford of being a lying fuckhead. He has joked about Rebecca Watson shanking Phil Mason in the kidneys, and about himself stabbing Christians and throwing people off a pier.

This isn't a call for "civility"; it is the "uppity negro" argument leveled at women and their allies. He is imploring people miles down the privilege ladder to stifle their justifiable outrage because, forbid, someone's feelings might get hurt.

Functionally, this is no different than kind of shit we hear from our "friends" over at that other forum, where every single conversation we have is derailed by some privileged asshole bellyaching about strong language. Some of these problems demand strong language; the concrete effects of the problems we discuss supersede perceived offense. We shouldn't have to tiptoe through the tulips with people who hold indefensible--and sometimes deplorable--opinions.

Their feelings just aren't that important.

[Lordquinton]

15. The gamer gate crowd are all lying

the whole scandal is based on complete fabrications of an ex-boyfriend of a female game designer, I tried to find an article, but they were all pointing to the same ugly basis of anti-women views (like, people who think that Gor is an ideal fantasy world)

As for rape accusations, statistically they are true, false accusations are few and far between.

I used to be a big fan of Thunderf00t when he was doing his "Why do people laugh at creationists" series and various atheist videos, then he went off the deep end with this anti-feminist crap he started spewing. I kept up with him for a bit, hoping it had been a one time event, but his content of atheist videos went down drastically, with anti-feminist videos taking their place, and the few atheist ones had his views about women leaking into them.

[onager]

21. Funniest #GamerGate Twitter exchange...

1. Guy accuses Asian woman of talking "exactly like a white dude."

2. The woman, Lisa Ngo, tweets immediate selfie disproving his theory.

3. Not shown here, but Ms. Ngo's follow-up was even funnier: "And how should I talk, Mr. White Guy? 'Me love you long time'?"

[trotsky]

3. I despise Ronald Reagan too. Uh oh!

I don't get it, PZ Myers writes an informal blog. I despise a lot of the same things and people he does. He talks about very specific groups and/or individuals and explains why he doesn't like them. So how is that wrong?

[Curmudgeoness]

7. How is that wrong???????

Because ATHEIST!

This appears to be one guy with internet access complaining about another guy with internet access. Opinions. We all have them. I am not sure that the use of the word "hate" or "despise" really is a valid description of the feelings anyone has on this.

[onager]

10. Well, that's far too reasonable.

Many of us obviously have some strong and differing opinions on this topic. This happens from time to time in the A/A group.

What continues to amaze me is that we're all still here, AFAIK.

Nobody got alerted on. Or excommunicated, by whoever the Atheist Pope is supposed to be this week. Nobody dramatically flounced from the group in a cloud of personal insults.

As much as it's possible on the Internet, I really like the people in here. Well, except for that one asshole over there.

When I see that we have a difference of opinion, I just register it as exactlly that. "Oh, somebody disagrees with me. Shit. When I'm Supreme Galactic Overlord, I'll fix that so everybody agrees with me. But in the meantime, sometimes people will disagree with me and I'm pretty much stuck with it."

Yep, Master of the Bleeding Obvious, that's me...

[trotsky]

12. +.95 n/t

I'm going to withhold the last .05 of my "+" because I think we've probably disagreed about something at some time.

You big wrong meanie!

[Goblinmonger]

6. This feels like a reason to be able to hate Meyers.

Those that hate Dawkins for his sexism and Harris for his Islamaphobia haven't had a reason to hate Meyers who has fought against both of those. Now we can hate Meyers, too, because he's a big meanie. Another Horseman!

[enki23]

8. So... what's the point?

Is the point that Michael Nugent is an obsessive asshole who thinks that the "real problem" is that Michael Shermer, like Bill Cosby, has been publicly accused of raping, sexually harassing, and otherwise sexually abusing people by so many credible, unconnected victims and witnesses that the alternative is to imagine some massive "out ta git the menz" conspiracy among the evil feminazi underground?

I imagine that's not the point though. From what I can tell, the point seems to be something like "I agree with this asshole about PZ Myers, because PZ's an annoying PC word policer whatever liberal social justice warrior pinko hypocrite and stuff." Great. I hear Ayn Rand was an atheist. And she definitely would have hated PZ too. So, that's pretty validating. We should get Bill Cosby's opinion. And Shermer's. Get the word directly from the real victims. The good probable rapists being attacked by the SJW conspiracy.

[trotsky]

9. What I find most frustrating is that these are just people.

People with opinions, who happen to be atheists. And this shit gets blown up and used to attack atheists/atheism in general - "Look, atheists have a sexism problem!" and presented as if that counters the many arguments against religion and the protected role of religious beliefs in society.

Unlike religious leaders, none of these guys speak for us in any formal or official capacity. None of them formulate rules that we're supposed to follow or suffer consequences. But desperate people with ineffective arguments really want to place them in that role so the discussion to truly and critically analyze religious beliefs does not occur.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

19. Why can't they separate the people and the opinions?

For an example, Christopher Hitchens was in favor of the Iraq war, among his other opinions.

If an atheist has the wrong opinion on topics A, B, C, D and E, then somebody will come along and invalidate all his opinions because they disagree with ONE or more opinions of that person.

Stating that everything the evil atheist believes is bad, because one or more of their opinions is one that someone else does not agree with.

So it's not PC to hate anyone, no matter how horrible and destructive they are?



Or am I thinking too much?