Well, it hasn’t even made it a week.
Of course people are going to goad, well, just because they can. If you’re a person that can’t take some heat, even if it’s objectionable to you, maybe you should get off the Internet. Hey, I get some comments, even tweets that I end up just laughing off. I don’t know these people and therefore don’t care what they say about me.
Now, the so-called “Joint Statement” as I wrote earlier, is in general a good idea. There are many of us that have tried to dialogue (there’s that very objectionable word) in the past. Rebuffed. Succumb to what we demand.
Now there’s this. It doesn’t matter what someone says and I really doubt that Phil gives a damn about being able to comment on her blog. Phil happens to disagree, as I do, and is instantly attacked. Yes, that’s “ethical disagreement” for you. It’s just that they don’t want dialogue. It’s like the kid that says, “My rules or I take my ball and go home”. That’s all this really comes down to in the end.
Placing Richard Dawkins on some “statement” doesn’t exonerate you from anything you’ve written or spoken in the past. I actually respect Professor Dawkins: I’m certain he receives more hate and death threats in a single day than you’ve received in a year(or longer!). You’re not innocent in attacking Professor Dawkins as well.
So please, stop playing the innocent victim when you and your ilk have done more harm to what you refer to as “the movement” than any other group or single person.
14 thoughts on “I Knew It Couldn’t Last”
Phil Giordana is a genuine good guy — friendly, humorous, self-deprecating, polite, caring, sensitive, always supportive of others, an animal lover. He’s also an accomplished musician, someone who’s actually applied his talent and made a contribution to society. Unlike the Queen of Copypasta.
In contrast, Ophelia Benson is a nasty, vile, mendacious, sad excuse for a human being. She’s also a fucking liar — see how she puts words into Phil’s mouth:
Fuck you, Ophelia, fuck you to hell. I’d say that on your blog, but you’ve banned me too, you cowardly piece of shit.
And fuck the joint statement, and fuck the “bridge” — stay on your side of the chasm that you all created, you atheism plus fuckers.
” Phil happens to disagree, as I do, and is instantly attacked.”
I don’t think this is an accurate description of what Phil said. His “Don’t accommodate the online SJW’s” was not a statement of disagreement. It was more of a call for people to resist ending the fight. It was a call, I think, to reject the joint statement. It was a call to keep the status quo. And part of that status quo is the rape and death threats that some bloggers and commenters have aimed at atheists in the community, including some bloggers at FtB, Skeptchicks and elsewhere. In addition to your criticisms of the so-called SJS’s, why are not also criticizing the likes of The Amazing Atheist.
Furthermore, what you describe as an attack is mostly a justified criticism of what appears to be Phil’s advocation of rejecting the joint statement. And if this is not what Phil was doing, then why has he not clarified his remark on Dan Fincke’s Facebook?
And don’t you think that Matt’s angry hostile screed here deserves at least some mild admonishment from you. Olivia’s post about Phil’s remark doesn’t come close to the vitriol Matt has displayed. (I suspect I am about to become a target of a similar angry and irrational outburst.)
The fact that Phil is a wonderful human being, Matt, is irrelevant to the comment he made on Dan Fincke’s Facebook page in response to the joint statement. Phil advocated rejection of the joint statement. Now tell me what part of the substance of the joint statement you find so objectionable. Do you and Phil think that the rape and death threats should continue unabated? Do you and Phil think gender-based insults and slurs are acceptable responses to postings with which you disagree? Now I am not accusing you of having employed any of these tactics yourself in the past. I haven’t read enough of your writings to know one way or the other. But saying “fuck the joint statement” does appear to be a clear signal that you do not reject the use of such verbal tactics.
Your description of Ophelia as a “nasty, vile, mendacious, sad excuse for a human being” appears to indicate that the use of such verbal assaults is okay with you. These are very dehumanizing words you have used. I didn’t see any such language used by Ophelia in her post about Phil’s remarks. And your description of Ophelia is based on what? Her writings over the these past two years or so since this rift began? This is pretty thin material as the basis for such a dehumanizing judgement about another human being.
You know who actually was a nasty, vile, mendacious, sad excuse for a human being? Fred Phelps, now deceased pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church. You sincerely think Ophelia is on par with a horrible person such as he was? I can’t help but think your remark says more about your character than it does about Ophelia’s.
1) Ophelia Benson said Phil thinks it’s OK for him to threaten her with rape & death, when he clearly said nothing of the sort. In my book, that’s vile and mendacious;
2) I can’t speak for Phil, but I don’t object to the joint statement’s call for us to ‘agree-to-disagree.’ (Though Plussers do vehemently object to accommodating those who disagree with them.) Like Phil, I feared Benson and the Plussers would use the joint statement to silence, bash & slander opponents. Benson quickly confirmed our fears.
No, I think it’s despicable when someone disparages their interlocutor as a “cis het old white male scum” or a “virgin neckbeard” or an “MRA misogynist.”
“I can’t speak for Phil, but I don’t object to the joint statement’s call for us to ‘agree-to-disagree.’ ”
Seriously, this is the only part of the statement you do not object to? Are you telling me that you think it is acceptable for people to make rape and death threats? Are you saying that gender-based insults are acceptable? Are you saying that you approve of “attacks on people’s appearance, age, race, sex, size, haircut.” Are you saying that you condone the “photoshopping (of) people into demeaning images” and the use of “vulgar epithets”?
I hope this is not what you are actually saying, though your comment leads me to believe this of you.
What Ophelia said about Phil may be described as harsh and mendacious, but vile? The term vile is one, I think, that is typically applied to the worst of the worst and its intent is to dehumanize them, to demonize them. If these are the kinds of verbal tactics you choose to employ and or condone then my opinion is that little good can be said about your own character.
1) Stop being fatuous, Randy; I’ve already stated my objections to physical threats and childish slurs;
2) vile: morally base, depraved, or despicable. Ophelia Benson has a long track record of mendacity and willful misrepresentation of the statements of others. She plays chicken-shit games at her blog of moderation/editing of comments. She repeatedly makes the false claim that Slymepit members have threatened her with rape & death. She falsely accused Richard Dawkins of being a racist, a sexist, and a pedophilia apologist. Benson is also a serial plagiarist, copypasting large sections or entire pieces by other authors without their permission. In my book, such a pattern of behavior is vile.
“Does that clear things up for ya?”
Yes, Matt that clears things up for me. While I agree that the comments you mentioned are worthy of harsh criticism, you seem to apply that criticism only to those with whom you disagree and ignore the hate-filled remarks of a similar caliber made by those who hurl them at Ophelia and others of the so-called SJW’s. More than enough horrid things have been said by both sides. Where is your outrage, for example, over the vile shit often said by The Amazing Atheist, as well as some of those who frequent the slymepit.
I don’t even know who the Amazing Atheist is. Give a couple examples of what he’s said that outrages you.
Also, please provide examples, of things said by actual members of the Slymepit, that you find objectionable.
“Ophelia Benson said Phil thinks it’s OK for him to threaten her with rape & death, when he clearly said nothing of the sort.”
I acknowledge that Benson may have misread what was in Phil’s mind when he wrote “Don’t accommodate the online SJW’s” in reply to the joint statement. But why has he not yet refuted Benson’s interpretation of that remark? You are his friend, I assume. So please encourage him to clarify. His statement appears to be a rejection of the joint statement. Why reject the statement itself. There is nothing in that statement that is or should be objectionable by any person who holds to a decent, humane set of values and ethics. Why not state agreement with the statement? Doing so does not mean you are choosing to become Ophelia’s friend. You are free to still dislike her.
Bullshit — Benson willfully misrepresented Phil’s comments.
Why hasn’t Phil responded to Benson putting words into his mouth? I dunno — maybe because she pulls this sort of shit all the time, and why bother?
I don’t care if the joint statement read: “bunny rabbits are cute”; I feel no need to shout ‘amen!’ when the entire exercise is a mistake, as Benson acted in bad faith, and all the FtB/Skepchick/A+ gang act in bad faith. Go read my latest post, where I lay out in some detail why it is futile to attempt to ‘ally’ with them.
“Finally, I reserve the right to hurl vulgar epithets at people whose behavior I consider vulgar.”
I won’t quarrel with your right to do so. But don’t be surprised when vulgar epithets are thrown at you for your own vulgar behavior. Slinging vulgar epithets at others whose behavior you think vulgar is itself a form of vulgar behavior. At that point you are no better than the person to whom you are addressing your vulgarity. But if you feel comfortable wrestling in the muck with the pigs as a pig yourself, then by all means have at it. Soil yourself if it brings you some satisfaction.
“I dunno — maybe because she pulls this sort of shit all the time, and why bother?”
Because leaving the record uncorrected leaves reason for readers to conclude that the alleged error in the record is not an error. If Benson misrepresented Phil’s remarks then Phil should challenge that misrepresentation. Leaving it unrefuted lets the misrepresentation, if that is what it is, stand as the uncontested truth.
Can’t enact the labor. Benson’s crude attempt to twist Phil’s words won’t fool any rational person; that is, any non-Plusser. Besides, any casual followers of the “Schism” will have realized long before now that Benson’s non-stop claims of rape & death threats are not just patently false, but also symptoms of an increasingly delusional mind. Whatever tiny shred of credibility she may have retained to this point, she’s just completely pissed away in this latest malicious display of hers.