Shermersplaining
Large generalization department.
Unlike liberals, leftists & progressives who claim to care about minorities, gays, blacks, women, immigrants, et al. don't. Witness the assault on @MrAndyNgo who is gay, Asian, son of immigrants & the response ("but he films Antifa so deserved it")https://t.co/escJDKJvFU
— Michael Shermer (@michaelshermer) July 1, 2019
All leftists and progressives (as opposed to “liberals” by which Shermer means libertarians) respond to the assault on Andy Ngo by saying he deserved it.
Really?
No. Of course not. Some do, but everyone to the left of Shermer? Don’t be ridiculous.
He also embarrassed himself by saying that Nazism was anti-capitalist. He deleted that one.
I thought that Great Skeptic Leaders were supposed to stick to the core mission and not get involved in social and political issues that might distract from it?
No, that’s the rule for Skeptic Followers. The Leaders should tell us what’s what on all subjects. That’s why Richard Dawkins’s Twitter presence has been such a boon to the world.
For example, PZ Myers and his post on this topic. In a post full of non sequiturs and fussy dithering, he ultimately decides against disavowing assault against political opponents.
BUT WAIT! “I’d prefer more milkshakes and eggs over blood and broken bones, though.”
Wow, such moral fortitude! Seriously, fuck that post for providing supporting evidence for Shermer’s silly tweet.
Holms, I suppose once you accept beating up women for wrongthink, there is no reason not to include others who practice wrongthink.
True, though in his case the timing was reversed: he first accepted nazi punching with many laffs and “it’s just a punch” (as if single punches have never killed or caused permanent damage before), then attacking terfs i.e. second wave feminists was added to the mix.
Oh, god. Really?
He stopped just shy of openly endorsing attacks against nazis for a while, instead spending many paragraphs criticising the arguments against attacking them. After a bit of this he eventually endorsed it in the narrow case of facing nazis.
But as with virtually all instances where a bright line is crossed, it is now a case that the arguments are being applied to a broader range of people. Currently he is all but endorsing the attack against this conservative journalist (described as “a scum-sucking bottom-dweller and champion of thuggery”), and has indicated similarly regarding the expressions of violence against terfs. His comment moderation is certainly indicative of where his sympathies lie – stating plain facts about sex being biology results in a front page post against my comment without naming me, followed eventually by a ban, while threats of violence against me don’t even raise a disapproving comment.
And so my conclusion, that he is at the all-but-openly-endorsing-violence stage against terfdom.
In short, Holms, he has become a bully.
If there are any lurkers from Pharyngula here, please pass this along to the hordemaster —
PZ, you are intellectually dishonest. You are a courtier.
I am ashamed of my former respect for you.
.
This is painful. I knew the guy personally (slightly) and really, really liked him. Defended him for ages. Believed he was an honest, caring person and feminist who simply didn’t see the big picture.
What a chump I was.
I used to love PZ too. Went to Phayrngula throughout the day. Saw him give a talk at Town Hall here in Seattle.
I no longer love him. I think he’s wrong about too many things. And gleefully wrong!