Standards in triplicate
A small and trivial sub-point, that is nevertheless interesting because of what it seems to reveal about agendas and motivations and…scruples, or the lack of them. Chris Mooney yesterday told his readers he had deleted a comment and asked commenters to keep it substantive – ‘no personal attacks.’ Since then the notorious John Kwok has continued a stream of posts directed at me, which are as personal as anyone could wish for, including calling me a bitch. There they sit, unremoved, while Kwok adds more and more. Ho hum.
My hands are jittery with anger right now. Here’s what I posted on Chris’ site, in case it gets deleted later:
Thanks Josh!
Did you see the latest wrinkle? Yes, you must have, because you must have posted after I did. I’m staggered. Ech.
My first distaste of Kwok occurred when I realized he was posting book “reviews” on amazon.com without reading books. My subsequent encounters have not improved the flavor.
I’ve been holding back from saying this, largely because I’m not a particularly cynical person, but also because I didn’t want to throw around accusations without sufficient evidence. I’m now convinced that this whole debate about accommodationism has been a set-up, designed to help promote the new book.
I believe that it fits all of the facts, but I’d welcome others to correct me if I get something wrong. This whole debate started when Mooney criticized Jerry Coyne for his perfectly reasonable review of Ken Miller and Karl Giberson’s new books. Even if this is not quite accurate, it doesn’t change anything as Mooney soon involved himself, anyway. That was his gateway in to a protracted debate that would involve much of the blogosphere — as the framing debates had previously done — and rather effectively drum up interest, on the back of everybody’s favorite bogeymen, the so called new atheists. The timing of it just seems too convenient.
If this is anywhere near true, the book might also explain Mooney’s apparent reluctance/outright refusal to actually engage with any substantive arguments.
Ophelia said this the other day:
He couldn’t acknowledge anything, because that would have meant possibly conceding things that are central to the thesis of his book, so he had to play dumb and continue to plod along as if nobody had answered his objections, or provided any of their own.
The problem that I have — remembering that it is all contingent on just how close to the truth that I am — is the clear implication that this was never an honest argument in the first place. None of us (non-accommodationists) had anything to lose by admitting that we were wrong, or by conceding a particular point. To us, that’s just normal practice.
But Mooney had everything to lose, and then some. I guess that I just don’t like dishonesty, and if that’s what this is, then it’s disappointing.
Like I said before in a comment on another of your posts, it has become useless to post on Mooney’s blog. The threads are just completely taken over by McCarthy and especially Kowk. I have now said so as well on Mooney’s blog.
I don’t understand why Mooney would let his comment section degrade this much. Or do you think Mooney doesn’t want to ban the last commenters that actually agree with him? If your most ardent and articulate support is from John Kwok, you are in deep, deep trouble.
I’ve simply assumed all along that the post about Barbara Forrest and the ones that came after were related to the book, but not particularly in a cynical or calculating way, or no more so than usual with a book. One, the subject is in the mind anyway, and two, discussing the subject matter seems like a legitimate way of creating interest in the book. So I don’t really blame them for that…unless of course letting Kwok call me a bitch is part of it! That’s another story.
I stopped reading Mooney & Kirshenbaum’s blog at around the same time Mooney (it was mostly his posts) started spouting repetitive, vague, empty nonsense about framing over and over – alternating with (or at the same time as) beating the anti-atheist, “these shrill militants are so awful” drum over and over. I’ve had a few occasions lately to go over and read what Mooney actually has to say rather than reading the second-hand tidbits here and elsewhere, and one of the differences I noted immediately between the old Intersection and the new is the incredibly poor quality and character of his commenters. The enthusiastic, endless comments from Kwok & McCarthy are not only painfully self-aggrandizing, abusive, repetitive, specious, and embarrassingly fallacy-laden, they also generate an atmosphere that absolutely smothers any possibility of meaningful conversation. If Mooney had any intellectual integrity left, he’d be embarrassed by the character of his most vocal supporters.
I get the strong impression that Mooney sees commenters as a necessary evil that he must put up with if he wants to run a blog. From his patronizing “Folks, listen…” tone to his complete aversion in responding to their queries.