What we know so far
What’s it all about? What have Mooney and Kirshenbaum been up to all this time? What are they doing, what is their plan, what do they want? What are they after that is worth all this dishonesty and unethical behavior and blatant concealment and refusal ever to admit getting things wrong and slandering people they dislike while relying on obvious fakes and frauds?
The story – the “frame” – is that they want to persuade atheists to be more aware of “communication,” so that we can all unite to do something about the terrible problems we are facing. The idea behind that – one which they spell out at frequent intervals – is that the people they call “the New Atheists” are rude and mean and thus make it impossible for us all to unite. The story, or “frame,” is that we (overt atheists) are mean and bad and they (M&K and other accommodationists) are nice and good. We create division, they create unity. We are dividers, they are uniters.
Oh really. Was Mooney being a uniter when he jumped up at the AAAS conference to ask the panel, “What about the New Atheists?” Is he ever being a uniter when he shouts – for the hundredth time – “what about the new atheists?” Is he not, in fact, being the opposite of a uniter? Is he not making a great point of cutting out the “new” atheists for purposes of othering and hatemongering? Is he not “uniting” only in the sense of uniting all the Nice people in hating on the Bad new atheists? Is he not “uniting” only in the sort of sense in which the Republicans united “the silent majority” against the hated minority? I would say yes, he is.
I would say Kirshenbaum is doing the same thing, and not very subtly.
Shortly after moving, I met a new neighbor on my street. He loves astrophysics and we have similar tastes in books and music. His name isn’t Phil, but for the purpose of this post, that’s what I’ll call him.
I like Phil a lot. He’s smart and witty with a healthy dose of skepticism…Phil nearly always wears one of those black t-shirts with a large red A across the front to express “where his allegiances lie” (his words)…
Early on, Phil wanted to know whether I was an atheist too since I’m in science. I explained that I don’t like labels because they mainly serve to divide people one way or another. And then we get war, bigotry, genocide, and so on.
Really. She doesn’t like labels. And yet…The Intersection is simply packed to the rafters with labeling of “the New Atheists.” Most of it, we now know, is sock puppetry by one foul-mouthed person. Yet Sheril Kirshenbaum, who doesn’t like labels, shares the moderation at this blog where “new” atheists are scapegoated with demented levels of venom and (as we now know) plain old lying.
So, to sum up, it’s all bullshit. All of it. They’re not uniters, and they never have been. They’re otherers and demonizers, and when they are found to have embraced a flagrant fake while heavily moderating people they dislike and just plain banning me – their solution is to close comments to everyone but flatterers.
They should have copped to it. They should have apologized to all the people they’ve helped to demonize all this time. They haven’t. They have the ethics of the people at Fox News.
That’s what it’s all about.
Wait a minute here, I have to disagree… …but I can’t.
That is indeed ‘what it is all about’.
“What have Mooney and Kirshenbaum been up to all this time? What are they doing, what is their plan, what do they want? What are they after that is worth all this dishonesty and unethical behavior and blatant concealment and refusal ever to admit getting things wrong and slandering people they dislike while relying on obvious fakes and frauds?”
Easy: The Templeton Prize; that’s what they’re after.
A T-shirt with a scarlet A on it; therefore, genocide.
The mind, it boggles.
Well said. M&K are a good benchmark for calibrating one’s bullshit detector.
SK:
“I explained that I don’t like labels because they mainly serve to divide people one way or another.”
Sounds more like she doesn’t like stating her actual views and wants to keep them private. I don’t know if that is really about “labels” per se but rather about the fact that she knows she’ll be vilified by theists if she admits to not believing in a deity, whereas she wouldn’t be criticized for being a believer by atheist scientists, so long as she kept here science writing science-based and didn’t give her religion veto power over her science and reason.
One thing is clear. Kwok is a serious troll who revels in dividing people, so much so that PZ, who is pretty light in moderation policies, ended up banning him. I only just read the Rational Wiki article, which showed the situation to be worse than I knew. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Kwok For Intersection to allow him free rein in the comments forum for so long and to serve as a defensive moat troll for Chris, in spite of Intersection’s otherwise heavy moderator policies, is a clear sign of the selective bias M&K have implemented. Meanwhile, even mentioning uosuǝq ɐıןǝɥdo automatically sent all posts to the mod dungeon even before the new prison Intersection comment lockdown (“lalalalalalalalalalal….”)
God M&K are annoying. I wouldn’t care but they have wide media presence and they are smart enough to know better than to let their biases control them. Sigh, the hubris of arrogance.
Bullshit? That’s what feeds the apologetic and accommodating position on everything from explaining the incompatibility between religious truth claims to the war on undermining science, all with the ‘New’ atheists conveniently maligned in order to be blamed. M&K are simply louder than most and it is lovely to see how his own bias so easily allowed him to be duped. But even up to his neck in bullshit, M will still pretend it <i>could of</i> been a beauty bath if not for being intentionally and maliciously spoiled by the New Atheists.
I think it would be more accurate to say they want to persuade scientists to be more aware, and think that talking about atheism impedes that communication.
When I read that sweet boring little anecdote from Sheril, my first thought was that she made up that story just so she could make a post about not liking labels. Obviously it doesn’t matter to the same degree as with the “Tom Johnson” story. The anecdote is not implausible in the same way. Still, it just seems a little too convenient. Oh well… maybe I’m just ranting, sorry.
No, I was just thinking the same thing. How convenient that SK runs into these people.
And what is it with labels, anyway? People were wearing crucifixes a long time before anybody put on a t-shirt with a red “A” on it. Where’s SK’s beef about not liking that kind of labelling? Does the horrible labelling that causes war, bigotry and genocide come in a more convincing flavour than “religious?”
One never knows anymore who is real and who is fake at the Intersection, but a commenter purporting to be Jean Kazez (I say that because the name Jean is hotlinked to Kazez’s actual blog) posted this:
Stewart, Stewart, Steward, you clearly don’t get it. Wearing something that indicates your an atheist is so strident and divisive. By contrast, wearing a crucifix, or yarmulke, or burqa, or kirpan, or saffron robe, or a “Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it” T-shirt is merely an expression of deeply held beliefs that should be respected.
Thanks for setting me straight, Tulse.
If you guys haven’t done it already, this six-month-old thread is worth a second look now that we know who Milton C. is: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/the-templeton-bribe/
@Josh Slocum
I saw that post by “Kazez”–yet another person who is engaging in revisionist history to excuse Chris Mooney. I responded over at Intersection, where, oh curiously, my post hasn’t manage to make it through the protective dissonance dampeners yet. I responded thusly:
@Josh
Not sure why you’d question that’s actually Jean Kazez. It’s in line with her previous valiant attempts to fight in Chris’s corner when he manages to willfully misrepresent large swaths of atheists. Just search Mooney at her blog (or indeed, search for some of her comments in the B&W archives, pretty sure I’ve seen some of it here).
Incidentally, it’s telling which comments have been let through since they went into full moderation. They let in one that’s minorly critical, but the focus is simply on how Tom Johnson’s story is unverifiable even if you verify his identity. Nothing’s really been let through that is not either a “go get ’em tiger!” or something that would be easily considered addressed by a simple notpology.
Oh good god, Jean………
The biggest problem to me is how they respond to criticism — deflection, projection, and if all else fails, heavy comment moderation.
They’ve been asked to answer round after round of trenchant criticisms of their positions, and as far as I know, haven’t effectively answered any. In fact, they haven’t even acknowledged a lot of those criticisms (and seem to moderate comments mentioning them), most devastatingly the one you spell out here.
I think a few rounds of prominent New Atheists refusing to take them at all seriously unless they can answer a few outstanding criticisms might help. It’s too bad Sean Carroll and a few others are taking blog breaks since Dawkins and PZ Myers and a few others already refuse to take them seriously.
Scote – quite – not to mention the post I did at the time.
Tom Johnson was not a convincing trickster except to people who are determined to demonize and other the “new” atheists. Apparently that includes Jean, which is sad.
And I am one of “these folks” who would have Mooney apologize for not having the most rudimentary kind of journalistic skepticism and for slandering a despised minority with that very credulity to help him along.
Gee, how outrageous of me.
Ugh.
Oh, forgive the off topicness, but <a href=”http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2010/07/pressing_beyond_niceness.html”>I found a treat</a>.
Hmm,
I wonder why my post is still in moderation?
163. Dean Buchanan Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. July 7th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Oh please help everyone live in accommodation!
Sorry I’m late to the party but it was hard to resist.
Dean,
Basically everything is in moderation at this point. Most of it will probably not see the light of day.
<a href=”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/07/08/more-on-sock-puppets-and-tom-johnson-part-i/”>It begins</a>.
Hoo boy – the product of the “figuring it out” has appeared – part 1 at any rate.
He apologizes – to all legitimate commenters – so that presumably excludes me. I’m not a sock puppet, but I am still banned, so obviously I must be not legitimate. I’m a bastard commenter.
Well, Chris, that’s a bit ironic, since you’re something of a specialist in baseless attacks.
Thank you Zachary,
There are 129 posts after mine…
Maybe since I was a first timer?
Damn you Zach Voch! You beat me by one minute.
:- )
Gotta hand it to him, Ophelia. The kid’s sharp :)
So Mooney waited a day and bought time to write what nobody yet knew – they’d had a sock puppet infestation. And he’s not in favour of it. How many more days does that buy him to think what to write about the question to which we don’t yet know all the answers?
Ha – there’s a thread on this at Point of Inquiry.
Mooney makes sure to point out that the people disagreeing with him or defending the targets of his and Kirshenbaum’s smears could very well have been sockpuppets, too. I assume this is to save face and not make it seem like it was a one-sided thing (which he could easily go to any of the contentious threads and verify). As always, stay classy Mooney. If he seriously thought the opposition was sockpuppeting, he’d be trumpeting the rudeness from the rooftops. Before Zach comes by to say I’m being unfair (and I applaud his push for fairness on both sides), I’m really not. He’s trashed PZ for people saying mean things about him in the Pharyngula comment section, so it’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t gladly point out despicable behavior like sockpuppeting on the side of the mean, rude, strident opposition.
Mooney, framing:
Yes, yes, Chris, you can justify your untended moat of trolls and sock puppets based on social Darwinism, they would just evolved into more sophisticated frauds and you still would have been duped by their improved cleverness–thank goodness you did nothing then or we’d be beset upon by a new breed of Super Trolls. ;-p And never mind that “Tom Johnson’s” post wasn’t credible on its face.
It’s really hard to be unfair to Mooney.
By the way, that comment by Jean that links to Jean Kazez’s blog – I would bet good money that is Jean Kazez. That use of “folks” is echt Kazez.
I’m really unfamiliar with this whole Mooney thing, but this particular line strikes me as similar to the argument we often hear, which goes something like “You talk about religion a lot for someone who says they don’t like religion.” Well, yes, I talk about religion a lot because I don’t like it, just as Kirshenbaum and Mooney talk about the New Atheists a lot because they don’t like them (or so it seems). Just as we can’t be faulted in that situation, we can’t really fault them, can we?
Which, of course, does not take them off of any hooks …
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Thetis, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: What we know so far http://dlvr.it/2RMDw […]
Hah. As if Tempelton is gonna waste the prize on those two. Not nearly important or interesting enough. They want ‘real’ scientists that can become household names if they’re not already so. A coupla washed up journos would be a waste of PR budget.
After reading their latest More On Sock Puppets post, my first thought was that it seems to have been lifted from 1994:
@30
If you wanted an analogous comparison, you would need to amend yours to “You talk about religion a lot for someone who says they don’t like to talk about religion”. Kirshenbaum says she doesn’t like labels, while happily labeling and othering people with the “New Atheist” label. If Ophelia had somehow asserted that Kirshenbaum talked about labels a lot for someone who doesn’t like labels, your analogy would fit perfectly (although then Ophelia would not be making any sense, as one generally needs to discuss beliefs or actions if one wishes to diminish them).
Here’s what I just posted on the “Part I” thread:
We’ll see if that gets through.
Given the number of strongly critical comments (including a handful of mine) that have successfully gotten through the Intersection filter in the past day-plus, I actually think Mooney deserves a small amount more credit on the avoiding-censorship front than he’s generally getting from our side.
…Present company massively, overwhelmingly excepted, of course.
Michael De Dora. I really am beginning to wonder if you have a very selective mind filter that you can turn on and off. First of all, Kirshenbaum says, to a conveniently labelled atheist, that she doesn’t like labels, so she’s not prepared to say where she stands on the issue of god/no god. That in itself is labelling, telling her nice neigbour down the street that she doesn’t like his label. Not only is the story a bit too convenient; it also shows off Kirshenbaum’s tendency to label people, and to dismiss them when she does.
Mooney doesn’t like the so-called ‘New Atheists’, and he has cooked up a mythology about them, that they are brash, strident, shrill, incapable of carrying on a discussion, sometimes outright boorish and rude, etc. etc. You get the picture. But then he says, as the expert, of course, that it’s very important to frame things in a way that is unifying, so that we all get along. That’s his position. A lot of people think we should be up front with things, so that people know where we stand, and then we can go on from there to carry on a discussion. But, hey!, you can’t do that with ‘New Atheists’, because not only are they brash and rude, they’re fundamentalists to boot! Now, all that framing, in case you didn’t notice, is done by Mooney, and clearly, where Mooney is, can Kirshenbaum be far behind.
And then we can add the whole carnage of the internet freeway smashup having to do with the Tom Johnson, William, sock-puppet affair, which shows so plainly that he’s been labelling like mad all along, and using rather duplicitous means in order to do it. So, I just don’t understand what you’re reading. Do these things not seem obvious to you?
That doesn’t mean that I’m not labelling, or the Ophelia’s not, etc. Of course we are, but we didn’t think not applying labels was the wrong rhetorical strategy. Sometimes that’s where we begin, with labels. But then, to make matters even worse, you end by saying,
But of course it does, and you meant it to. The whole point here is about honesty in the way we represent ourselves, and I have the feeling that you’re trying to wiggle around so that you don’t offend anyone, but in the process you’re not making it at all clear who you are and where you stand.
Who the hell is John Mark Reynolds? It has to be read to be believed!
Now that’s got to be profundity squared! I mean, really! And then he goes on to compare Dawkins to a jihadist. Why? Because they’re both animated by certainty! It beggars belief that someone like this is writing an opinion piece in the Washinton Post! Dawkins carefully calibrates the question of probability. He might be wrong in his calculations, but he acknowledges that he is not certain. He thinks it is highly probable that there is no god. Nor, by the way, has he threatened anyone with death because of something they have said, drawn or written. Last time I heard Dawkins speak he was very mild mannered, polite, forceful but calm, measured in his speech and thoughtful. Who is this jerk John Mark Reynolds? With the names of two of the evangelists, he clearly thinks he has special authority. Faith allows you to wonder, indeed! Bizarre!!
Michael De Dora,
Labeling is a big, big side issue here. Of course we deal with labels and we have to be careful which ones we use. For example, I’ve decided not to self-label as a New Atheist, which I explain here.
However, that does not mean that labels are useless, so long as we note distinctions and use them for appropriate reasons, such as convenience and delivering honest impressions of our or others’ positions.
So, to me, <i>using labels</i> is not a culpable action, but <i>using labels for caricature</i> or for misrepresentation is. I disagree with using “faithiest,” for example, as it’s a framing tactic and pejorative. I don’t really like “accommodationist” either, but it seems to retain enough meaning to be useful, so I use it.
However, the usual treatment of “New Atheist” is a caricature, more often inaccurate and unrepresentative than not. It’s not just labeling in this case, it’s dishonest or careless usage of labels.
I don’t think that both sides are equally culpable in that regard. There are commenters who I think take it to far that identify as NAs, but as far as widely known New Atheists go, they say what they mean by religion and make distinctions.
Mooney treats NAs as a homogenous group, characterized by the worst examples he can find.
Wasn’t that article fun, Eric?
Too many negatives. I should have said (in #36 above) that I (and I assume, Ophelia, though I really shouldn’t try to speak for her) do not think that applying labels is the wrong rhetorical strategy.
Fun, Zach, is not the word I would normaly use in that context, but, yes, indeed, that article was, as you say, fun! It simply blows the mind to think that someone wrote it, and then someone else published it! Thanks for the link.
Presumably, then, Ms Kirshenbaum would never use such terms as – say – “climate change deniers“, “Republicans” or, yes, “new atheists“. What’s descriptive clarity when she could be provoking genocide!
No problem. My Google “Related News” in the religion category is full of this sort of thing. It’s absolutely depressing to read a thousand examples of that and then read a different article telling me that I need to listen to the religious.
I have! That’s the problem!
This comment of mine is “awaiting moderation.” I don’t know if it will go up, since I suspect I may be perma-banned.
To Paul and others – I left open the possibility that it wasn’t actually Jean Kazez because I think recent events demand a certain. . .circumspection. Plus, some commenters on the Intersection were deliberately playing around with identities to poke fun a Chris’ gullibility.
I did, of course, suspect it really was Jean (and it seems it is), because she’s been incredibly ethically blinkered about the entire accommodationist affair. For a philosopher, she’s remarkably not even-handed or inquiring when she’s made up her mind that one party is Nicer than another.
Josh,
If you’re referring to Brownian, he did it twice and stopped doing it afterward.
Were there others?
Man, an Ophelia acrostic made it through (don’t recall who posted it) even with full moderation, but it has since been removed. Wonder which of them is paying closer attention to the first letters of sequences of words. It really baffles me how hard they’ve worked to cover up the fact that they banned you without even pretending to have a rational reason for doing so.
If that is what he thinks perhaps he should have a talk with SK and urge her to woman up and admit her beliefs to “Phil.”
Zach, #46-
I’m not sure if there others besides Brownian. I may have conflated that with some joking going on at Pharyngula – it’s so awfully impossible to keep up with this madness these past few days! :-)
Brownian, btw, is a good egg.
I know he is, Josh. He apologized for doing it and stopped. He wasn’t posting under other names, either, he just pretended to be that unsavory Jon fellow’s sockpuppet in a very obviously satirical way.
He wasn’t being dishonest, but I wanted to prevent the memory of it from warping into atheist conspiracies, etc.
Which is so typical of the Nicer party (cf Rosenau, Pigliucci, Mooneybaum, Kwok, McCarthy, William x 50, etc), which is just what makes them not Nicer, despite being of that party. The irony is……..big. It’s big irony.
Me too. Which is why it’s a little annoying that Jean Kazez sees fit to kiss their asses and dismiss me. (She didn’t dismiss me by name. But she’s well aware of how this has played out – she has a post up about it. She knows damn well I’m one of the “folks” who think Mooney owes a lot of people an apology.)
John Mark Reynolds is associate professor of philosophy at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles now known as Biola U. Why am I not surprised.
Ah, Biola. That explains everything.
In particular, “the empty tomb must be explained, therefore MIRACLES!!!!” is a William Lang Craig meme, recycled from the uncritical dustbin of history.
Of course he could easily verify it. In fact he may already have done so. Nevertheless, I’m sure he’ll never ever reveal the results. It’ll be hard enough to admit to himself that, while his detractors are indeed legion, the ranks of his supporters have dwindled to a handful of sycophants, professional PZ haters and a pathological liar with multiple sock puppet personalities. No, best just to leave the latest nasty insinuation that ‘both sides’ are equally culpable hanging there, adding a top note to the foul, feculent stench of the place. Faugh!
PZ had a post that made it through moderation on the latest notpology post asking Chris to address the accusations of sockpuppetry on yesterday’s “Shocked and Dismayed” thread (that “Paul” = “PZ Myers”). Even so, I will be very surprised if this is ever addressed.
Sweet bejeebus! I didn’t realize until last night that they had banned not only Ophelia herself but also any mention of her name (at least that seems to be the case?) What in the world?
Over the past year, I’ve tried to comment there on four occasions, and none of my comments made it out of moderation. I have no idea why. Yes, they were critical and/or questioning, but weren’t rude or nasty in the least. One did mention Ophelia’s banning (I can’t remember exactly why, but I think that I brought it up in an attempt to point out that Mooney was being hypocritical about something or other) and was thus probably binned for mentioning She Who Shall Not Be Named. But as for the others, I have no clue. They were held in moderation for a while, and then just suddenly disappeared.
That’s a funny thing, isn’t it. Why haven’t more of the people who had the good fortune to meet him at Princeton or MIT or the Templeton bit of “Cambridge” turned up to say how right and swell he is? Maybe they all just have better things to do than comment on blogs; that’s certainly possible; but still…you’d think there would be a few…
Miranda –
Yes, that’s what I consider banning! That’s what happened and still happens to mine, too – they sit in moderation for awhile then poof, they’re gone. You and me both, pal.
That’s so weird! And I know of a couple other people who have had that same experience there. I still have no idea why they would ban me. Ah, well. Badge of honor, I suppose :)
Amazingly, he hasn’t banned me yet, at least not up to earlier today. He has wiped out several more of my comments, but I don’t feel that additional documentation of the fact is required.
One wonders if people who label themselves, say, “Christian” or “Muslim” get the same sort of smug anti-label lecture that Sheril gave to poor Phil the Atheist. Do people who never leave the house without a crucifix dangling from the neck earn queries about why that’s necessary? Or, for that matter, people in t-shirts that mark them as fans of Star Trek, or the Grateful Dead, or sports teams? She must be hoarse at the end of every day if she’s going around haranguing everyone who labels himself one way or another. When does she find the time to get anything else done?
I also like how she describes Phil’s shirt as ” one of those black t-shirts with a large red A across the front,” like they’re really common and we’ve all seen one. I’d never even heard of one before today.
And I’d bet not one person in 10,000 of the general public could tell you what that shirt actually means.
Tulse,
I’m sure that a large minority will have a meaning for it. I’m fairly sure that a large majority of the previous minority will be incorrect.
Yep, I’m perma-banned. The comment I pasted in above at #44? Poof. Gone. No longer awaiting moderation. Just gone.
Neither have I, Jack. In fact, I just had a fairly thorough search on the web and could not turn up a single “black t-shirt with a large red A across the front” (a scarlet letter, hmm?). The closest thing I can think of is the “circle-A” of anarchists. Her “Phil” seems made up out of whole, um, cotton.
Alain, in all fairness, the black shirt with the large scarlet A does exist – I own one. I got it – and a similar T-shirt when I volunteered to staff the Richard Dawkins Foundation’s table at the Atheist Alliance International convention in 2007. The shirts are part of Dawkins’ “Out Campaign.”
In case anyone missed it, I changed the eleventh update earlier today (with links to stuff here),
Was that the motive for YNH’s smear campaign against Ophelia? That she was outspoken against Tom Johnson / YNH before any of us knew they were connected?
Given the number of page hits I’m getting, I expect Mooney will be forced to lift the ban in order to save face.
It looks like all the comments I made – save one where I specifically insulted John ‘stealth idiot’ Kw*k – are intact, though several are still ‘in moderation’.
Then again, I don’t tend to bother criticising Chris or Sheril directly; I’m far more interested in pointing out the intellectual dishonesty and general lying scumbaggery of their low-rent horde of pitiful followers – and revelling in occasions (like this one) where they are revealed for what they are.
Delicious irony is delicious.
Oedipus,
Would you consider editing the 11th update to include the fact that even mention of Ophelia at The Intersection is censored? I have examples of censored comments posted, and there are many others I’ve not even bothered to grab. Plenty of other commenters have had similar experiences. Stewart couldn’t even get a comment through.
If you do not feel that it’s sufficiently relevant, don’t add it, but I think it’s worth drawing attention too as well.
I already appreciate the edits, thanks :D
Oedipus, I was banned before that post – around July 29th, it was. No I don’t think it was the Tom Johnson post alone, but I do think it was the series of posts I did on Mooney and Kirshenbaum and their book last summer – that put me in YNH’s headlights, that is.
I don’t think Mooney will ever lift the ban, to save face or for any other reason. I think he wouldn’t lift the ban if someone offered him a million bucks and an honorary doctorate!
Oh, yes, he would – if you were a staffer at the Templeton Foundation.
Does the update suggest that Ophelia’s Tom Johnson post caused the ban? I said “during which time”. Gah, I have some much trouble with wording things right.
OK I’ve changed the wording.
Right, I didn’t mean to suggest it was your Tom Johnson post alone; only that it occurred to me that the post was a direct attack at William, something which maybe stuck in his mind a little more.
Zach, I am considering it. I need to weigh the possibility that it might sound petulant in comparison with the ban itself. The post loses some oomph if I appear to be attacking Mooney or favoring Ophelia.
Wow. Just… wow. M&K have allowed slavering trolls like John Kw*k and John Pieret and dozens of others – quite aside from the additional ranks of Williams’ sock-puppet trolls – to flame freely in their comment section for the entire lifetime of the blog. All the dishonest, distorting, straw-manning, baseless slagging of others in the world was okay, just so long as the flames were aimed at the people M&K don’t like. And now, after being very publicly embarrassed by the sock puppetry fiasco, M&K are purportedly going to begin a new policy “to rein in some kinds of comments that don’t contribute anything or engage in baseless attacks.” Riiiight.
This raises two questions:
[1] Even through their rather obvious blinders, can’t M&K see that this is far too little, far too late?
[2] If they ban the trolls, will the Intersection have any supportive commenters left?
I realize that, Oedipus, and that’s an important position for you to maintain, so that’s alright by me.
Zach, I was able to have it both ways by linking to “Mooney says…” without mentioning it directly.
That’s fair enough. If you had to list every quasi-relevant detail as an update, you’d be at triple digits at this point.
I haven’t bothered to look up the relevant posts yet, but I recall yet another extremely irritating facet of Mooney’s reprehensible treatment of Ophelia last Summer was something to do with him modifying his position using very similar wording to what Ophelia had written (in ignored and subsequently banned comments? or on B&W?) in trying to engage him on some of the wild-assed claims he was making vis-a-vis UA and the NAs. Nicked some of her more nuanced verbage, presented it as his own idea, gave no acknowledgement, that sort of thing. Am I misremembering this? I will research and report–or retract, as time allows.
Well crap, I can’t find it. So, I retract the accusation, unless Halo Pie has a corroborative recollection.
Carry on…
Jen,
I saw it. The “absorbed point” without credit was Mooney dumping on his former straw man, the “no scientist can be religious” one, if I recall.
It should be between pages 25 and 27 in the records of the notes and comment blog.
Yes! That’s it–http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2009/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/
which you kindly posted in the newer CM thread.
It’s a small point, but it contributes to the overall picture, I think.
Blegh. Posted it in the wrong tab…
Time for another coffee.
DeDora: “Well, yes, I talk about religion a lot because I don’t like it, just as Kirshenbaum and Mooney talk about the New Atheists a lot because they don’t like them (or so it seems). Just as we can’t be faulted in that situation, we can’t really fault them, can we?”
Who is faulting them for their dislike? Dislike and expression of it is anything to be ashamed of, as long it is well and ethically argued. The flak M&K get is due to the pathetic standard of their arguments, not because of their dislike of “New Atheists”.
Got my badge of honour sometime during the night. All three of my posts have vanished and are no longer awaiting moderation. Zach, you’re welcome to post the grab of the first one now that the denouement has come.
John Pieret ? Ughh.
I have taken a great dislike to the man ever since he he made out he was smarter than Bertrand Russell since he (Pieret) had demolished Russell’s teapot argument.
Oddly this great bit of philosophy was not published in any journal but on Pieret’s blog. I found incomprehensible, in stark contrast to the original which is a model of clarity.
I still find it hard to believe that this is the same Mooney who wrote The Republican War on Science, which I remember as a book with very little tolerance of bullshit, and plenty of justified pointing of fingers and naming of names.
What does it take to transform a man from a whistleblower to a credulous shill? Is the Templeton Prize really worth all of this boot-licking and questionable conduct?
Jen –
In ignored comments at The Intersection. I think those weren’t deleted, at least not at the time. Just ignored.
I’m sure I wrote the same thing here, but I wouldn’t particularly expect him to have read that.
First of all, the distinction between criticizing Kirshenbaum for othering new atheists (not what’s being done here) and criticizing Kirshenbaum for hypocritically othering new atheists while maintaining she doesn’t like labels (what is being done here) should be clear to a credentialed philosopher if it’s clear to an amateur like me.
Second of all, the “you talk about religion a lot for someone who doesn’t like it” criticism isn’t stupid just because people spend a lot of time talking about stuff they don’t like. It’s also stupidbecause it’s pretty absurdly reductive; I don’t like the specific harms caused by religious belief, but religion as a historical and cultural phenomenon is fascinating, and I would want to talk about that even if I didn’t want to complain or criticize the (perceived) harms done by contemporary religion. The study of metaphysics has historically taken place in religious contexts, so discussing the history of philosophy (and science) is pretty much impossible without talking about religion.
In fact, in some sense, the criticism even has some teeth; if you’re so convinced it’s untrue that God exists, why spend all your time fighting people who believe it? The lady doth protest too much, and all that. The beliefs that a) religious belief does harm today that can be mitigated if it is opposed and b) that religion as a historical and cultural phenomenon is worth studying in its own right are both valid answers to this valid criticism. “But I really like to whine,” not so much.
Actually, Michael, I’m really curious how you read Ophelia’s post and came up with “The lady doth protest too much.” I can’t follow the chain of reasoning at all.
We’ve all seen the strategy you’re talking about:
“You talk about religion an awful lot for someone who hates it.” Notice it’s not actually an argument, it’s actually a rhetorical strategy relying on insinuation. If you talk so much about it, you must either feel threatened by it or actually believe it but have an agenda against it for personal gain. The other possible interpretation is something like, “Whoah, take a chill pill. Why do you spend so much time thinking about stuff that makes you mad?”
How is this anything like what Ophelia is doing in this post? She’s not saying, “Kirshenbaum must secretly feel threatened by NA arguments because she spends so much time arguing against them.” She’s not even saying “Kirshenbaum has an agenda against NAs for personal gain,” which I actually think is probably a true fact. She’s not saying Kirshenbaum shouldn’t talk about NAs for the sake of her blood pressure. She’s just saying Kirshenbaum is a hypocrite for simultaneously decrying and applying labels.