There are times when no matter what the situation happens to be or whom is being addressed, after a while it’s only reasonable to recognize the futility of pursuing an argument in which the other person won’t honestly participate.
I’m referring to Mick Nugents latest post about the smear campaign against him by none other than The Usual Suspects.
I’m not going to go through every post Mick has written, nor am I going to dissect the responses from those that have nothing to offer but continuing misrepresentations, strawmen, and out right defamations of Mick and others that happen to comment on his blog posts (If I counted correctly, 15 posts.). I would like to say however, that Mick has learned that facts mean nothing to some.
For many of us, none of these tactics are new. Attempting to start a dialogue has been met with derision, threats, misrepresentation, and of course, defamation. Asking for retractions of blatantly false statements is met with more of the same. It’s the same as beating your head against a brick wall. Nothing is accomplished except a bruise on the forehead.
I’m not advocating that Mick should discontinue his posts as his audience seems to be fairly large and I’m certain there are a lot of people that have been either unaware or unconcerned with the controversy of the past few years.
For me, it’s been especially entertaining to read these posts then watch the verbal gymnastics that have to be accomplished in response. Of course, none of the responses have ever directly addressed any of the points presented by Mick, just more misrepresentation and smears.
None of these people are truly skeptics because they are people that can never be wrong and their ideology cannot be challenged.
All of this is reminiscent of debating with theists, isn’t it?
10 thoughts on “Occasionally, You Have to Recognize the Futility”
What some of his posts and the responses to them are beginning to reveal to a wider audience than was previously aware of this is that the problem goes well beyond certain people not being skeptics in any meaningful sense of the word. Some of those responding do not seem interested or capable of reasoned discourse, recognizing their own biases and shortcomings, or even honest “good faith” communication. It is becoming clear that this is more than a matter of them not being sufficiently skeptical. I am increasingly reminded of Scientology or other religious cults.
PZ Myers has never apologized to anyone, including the Horde of baboons. He took down the sexually degrading post about Michelle Bachmann, but there was no apology.
He is the most toxic atheist on the internet. What did the Catholic church ever do to PZ? Oh, right! That’s when he was a great guy and you were gleefully cheering him on.
I never cheered him on. His entire “claim to fame” was when he put a nail thru a cracker and his initial association (friendship?) with Dawkins, which he’s subsequently polluted.
Sorry, Consskep, that wasn’t worded clearly. I was using the general “you” as in you, atheists. Until Elevatorgate, everyone seemed to have nothing be glowing things to say about PZ Myers.
Mick Nugent can’t seem to reconcile PZ’s behavior towards him and the pedestal he’s put him upon all these years. He still has the illusion that PZ has integrity and will get around to apologizing eventually if keeps reminding him. This man has done truly egregious things to countless other people. Things that are beyond the pale, but never an apology.
Did any online atheist oppose PZ’s gratuitously offensive and unprovoked emotional abuse and humiliation of Catholics? What about PZ’s axiom “that you do not have a right to not be offended.” Typical troll behavior. Do or say something deplorable to provoke a response, then complain about that response. Yet people seemed to eat it up.
There have always been atheists that cared little for Myers and his Horde’s behavior and were vocal about it. It wasn’t until “Elevatorgate” that the volume was turned up because the vileness from Myers, et al, became more intense. After the formation of “A+” and how atheists were dismissed overall? Well, you’ve seen it in the last couple of years. That’s where Dawkins, IMO did the absolutely correct thing and wrote his “Dear Muslima” note.
Myers likes to bask in the glow of his commentariat which demographically is 18-24 yr olds with the remainder being those under 18. When anyone dares to question his or the other Usual Suspects is when they become an outcast. Ask eEllenBeth Wachs; Until she questioned the treatment of a commenter on a blog, she was one of their “darlings”. She learned within about 10 minutes you do not question. Ever.
“What about PZ’s axiom “that you do not have a right to not be offended.”
What about it? Have you an objection to this statement in principal? Do you think this statement is false? Does a person have a right not to be offended?
“That’s where Dawkins, IMO did the absolutely correct thing and wrote his “Dear Muslima” note.”
My opinion is that Dawkins was wrong to have written the Dear Muslima note. It would appear that after nearly two years of time to reflect on it, Dawkins has himself come to the realization that the Dear Muslima note was a mistake, given that he recently apologized for having written it.
@Dogma: Dawkins was justified in telling Becca to STFU about being mildly hit on and describing it as sexual harassment. He chose a poor format with that letter. He wasted his time giving the time of day to that talentless attention-whore.
@consskep: you have a source for that demographic info on Peez’ readership? My impression of his Horde is, they’re mostly middle-aged shut-ins with psychiatric disorders.
IMO, Nugent is being so tediously thorough so as to fully document Myers & gang’s refusal to retract. I sure hope that’s in preparation for a lawsuit. But in any case, none of the baboons will ever be invited to Ireland again.
Actually the demo I was referring to was something someone at the ‘Pit posted a couple of yrs ago. I don’t know how the data were gathered but, if true, it’s telling.
Also, I think it’s telling by the way they comment. It’s not very mature and never has been therefore when I saw that graphic a couple of yrs ago, it solidified what I always thought.
I don’t agree Matt that Dawkins was justified in telling Rebecca to STFU. While what the guy in the elevator did may have seemed harmless to him, it was a creepy thing to do and Rebecca had every right to point that out. She simply advised guys not to do that. The reaction to her post from Dawkins and others was idiotic and an overreaction to what she said, not to mention unjustifiably dismissive of her concerns about being placed in such an uncomfortable and potentially vulnerable position.
Why do you keep claiming that Rebecca described the incident in the elevator as a form of sexual harassment? I can’t be sure I’ve read every post she wrote about it, but of all the ones I have read she never described it as an example of sexual harassment. If I am wrong about this then provide a link to the post in which she clearly did so. I suspect you are misrepresenting what she said.
From where did you get your Ph.d (Piled higher and Deeper) in armchair psychiatry? Now you are engaging in the same kind of invective and vitriol with which you charge PZ and the others at FtB.