First thing in the morning, every morning, I diligently check my multiple email accounts, the social media accumulation, the general chaos of inputs into my digital world, and every morning I am mostly saying “WTF?” and working my delete key hard. But this morning even I, hardened, thick-skinned, and cynical as I am, had to stop and wonder. Why would anyone think these contributions to the discourse are at all a credit to the sender?
Here, for instance, is an image some chortling fuckwit sent to me, apparently thinking it will teach me a lesson, or make me feel bad, or harm me somehow. Allow me to describe it. It’s a picture of me sitting at Skepticon with my iPad, and someone has put a thought balloon above me. What am I thinking of? Why, according to the ‘artist’, I am daydreaming about a prominent woman skeptic, who is naked and wrapped up in tentacles. Here it is, although I’ve edited it myself to cut out the face of the real woman that was pasted in there.
I don’t get as much sexual objectification and harassment as the women I’ve talked to, so this was weird: some asshole decided to sexually objectify and demean a woman for my benefit, and thought it would be an effective insult to pretend I was the one doing it. That’s just twisted and stupid. And the guy who sent it to me thought it was a marvelous zinger.
Then there’s this.
Why couldn't #ISIS have attacked #Skepticon 8 instead? #justdesserts #madeforeachother
— C Nicholson (@cjacknicholson) November 16, 2015
Why couldn’t #ISIS have attacked #Skepticon 8 instead? #justdesserts #madeforeachother
Ladies and gentlemen, our opposition, true skeptics and atheists all.
I should just destroy my email accounts.
Oh. I see the brilliant mind behind that last tweet has also been sending abuse Greta’s way. These people are soooo charming, who wouldn’t want to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in making a better world?
“Oh, I think you should die a horrible death. Why are you blocking me, you just can’t stand an open discussion. Shows all you got is hurt feelings and no arguments at all.”
Atheists are so much better than religious people.
/sssssssssss
Looking through that acount (don’t do it!), our genius boy simulaneously bravely defends Schierbecker while wishing he’d been killed by islamic terrorists.
Yep, totally makes sense.
I thought i had ordered much, much deeper, wider rifts, these are way too shallow and narrow, i’m getting splashed with evil.
Is that avatar a distorted map of Europe? What’s that all about? Seems like they’ve edited out the UK and expanded the Low Countries into an unsightly lump out into the Channel and North Sea. With the red shading most concentrated in that lump, petering out as you go further South and East (with a curious absence in Northern Iberia).
I have no idea what the symbolism there is. My first guess would be some kind of link to neo-Nazi racism, but it’s not quite right for that. I can’t think of a good explanation.
I think it’s a map of Europe with red circles representing… something, superimposed over it. No idea what.
Considering that that account tweetet at me how I should make sure that the “3rd-World asslifters deluging [my] country aren’t raping [my] sisters”, I’m sure it’s about these red circles being “hotspots” for immigration or something.
That would be the obvious assumption from the tenor of the man’s bigotry, but the biggest “hotspots” are the UK and central France. The Mediterranean countries and the Balkans have far higher immigrant populations in reality, and they’re only lightly shaded on this map. Though, of course, it could very easily have been plotted based on bigotry, rather than evidence.
It could be, but if it is it’s wrong. It shows the UK strongly highlighted, and Germany not – but Germany has a similar proportion of immigants to the UK, and way more refugees. Not that I’d be surprised if the racist shitbag was also using bullshit statistics.
I also considered it could be locations of terrorist attacks (portrayed in a really stupid way) but I’m not sure it fits any better for that.
Yep, he’s violently racist and islamophobic as well.
Oh, and a Dawkins fanboy. Shouldn’t surprise you.
I’m not sure why any of you are completely closed to open discussion. it seems the moment someone slightly disagrees with you, you block them.
Yes, sure, because “Why couldn’t #ISIS have attacked #Skepticon 8 instead?”, “do humanity a favor and play in traffic” and “get off Twitter and make sure 3rd-World asslifters deluging your country aren’t raping your sisters” is slight disagreement.
*eyeroll*
I was curious and used that tineye reverse image search, there are some near matches from threads on forumbiodiversity.com and they appear to show “ethnic makeup”.
google image search gives similar looking results for “myorigins” (and “myftdna”)
littleelfie,
please perform the following exercise:
1/Go to that guys twitter account
2/ Read it for 2 minutes
3/ Ten decide if it is worth having a discussion with that guy
until then, shut the fuck up.
slight disagreement – is that an accurate description? Or is it a miserable misrepresentation that minimises the often combative and abusive nature of the unsolicited opinion?
Also, there a 7 billion people in the world, why waste your sixty or so adult years entertaining every person who stumbles across your path whose views you find obnoxious?
Free expression may mean that you get to say what you want, but it doesn’t guarantee you an audience. No-one signed up to a contract that says they have to enter into discussion with anyone within earshot.
Spoken like a true evidenceless paranoid.
Read through some of his Twitter feed. Apparently #ftbullies and people whining about Atheism+ are still things.
Woo. You little midwestern social justice warriors really need to get outside and away from your computers. You guys love to argue online. You tell people to shut the fuck up, but guarantee you would never say that to someone’s face because you’re a bunch of fucking pussies. You call people “sexists” because nobody wants to fuck any of you. You call people “racists” the moment they acknowledge that they may actually be working on changing their lives. You love calling people names, you fucking losers. What do you people actually fucking do for anyone? Let me see, have you had any laws changed recently? Oh, you speak at conventions like skepticon, where you have color badges for people so nobody offends them by saying hello. meanwhile, you allow creeps like Dr. Richard carrier walking around rubbing women’s asses and stroking their hair without once telling him and the likes of him that they’re molesting people. You people are a goddamn joke with your podcasts and your rules. You do absolutely nothing for the movement but segregate everyone. You actually contribute to making things worse. Nobody likes you guys. You got fat, bald, and bearded “danielle” muscato telling people she’s a trans woman while doing nothing to actually act or look like she’s a woman, but is most likely using the trans-woman hype to boost her career. You have people like PZ Myers who likes to drop insults on people while crying like a fucking loser, banning anyone who disagrees with him. And the rest of you fucking idiots do whatever he says. Do any of you actually know what it’s like to interact with a live human being? Have any of you done a fucking thing to change the laws in this country from behind your fucking dork podcasts? When you get something legitimate done, then maybe you can come play with the big kids.
Congratulations. I certainly think you’ve earned the title of “big kid”.
I’m pretty sure that the map is supposed to represent Nicholson’s ancestry. It looks like the kind of maps generated by Family Tree DNA. He wants us to know that he is very European.
And he also wants us to know that he has a very high IQ. What kind of genius is he? The kind who has the following beliefs.
Links all follow this pattern:
https://twitter.com/cjacknicholson/status/665709167626354688
He seems to really have it in for Harris (TX) County Sheriff Ron Hickman…:
/662780824442531840
/662781907193733120
…and that county’s District Attorney:
/662883717053050880
He approves of Jodie Marie Burchard-Risch’s attack on Asma Jama for speaking Swahili:
/663127861570764800
Believes that Palestinians are subhuman and should be put into death camps:
/663436325106917376
/663436692452438016
Same for Qataris:
/664646931138916353
Opposes religious liberty and wants American and Canadian citizens deported:
/665332415900979201
Favors mass extermination of people in the “Third World”:
/664296201039278080
His Twitter history only goes back to early November. But there were other posts before that. Maybe he scrubbed the really bad ones?
La La La. Bitter troll is bitter. I’d respond but I imagine PZ is planning to clean up the word vomit shortly.
littleelfie, I have an assignment for you: look up what paragraphs are and how to use them.
Bingo! #21 got me the whole line!
I got transphobia, racism, internet-bashing, personal insults and Deep Rifts! whining all in a row!
Is there a prize? Some kind of cleansing mouthwash to take the taste away would be good…
And that’s all you have. I’m a “troll”, blah blah blah.
PZ is sooooo good at debating. Let’s see him debate some of the people on twitter that have contesting points as opposed to calling them names then blocking them.
You’re wrong, cartomancer. I’m trans and black. I guess that gives me more opportunity to speak about things you know nothing about.
Fuck debates, show us the evidence behind the opinions on twitter.
So trans people can’t be transphobic and black people can’t be racist? Bzzzzt! Wrong! Try again!
I’m guessing, based on fairly wholesale invention in that incontinent outburst above, that marshalling and presenting evidence is an area in which they have little interest or skill.
I presume that outpouring qualifies as only slight disagreement.
Are you saying “opinions on twitter” are not good enough for others even though all forms of social media are exactly how people get their points across now? Are twitter and facebook not the means for opinions to be shared? Are the only people sharing twitter opinions virtual nobodies and are the opinions of the virtual nobodies really not worth anything because they aren’t one of your very own SJW elite? I don’t see anyone taking the time to set up a debate panel, so why not use the social media we have available and discuss topics instead of calling people “stupid”, then blocking them. That’s counterproductive when you’re being given the opportunity to express your opinion and hash it out.
I’m not sure “get off Twitter and make sure 3rd-World asslifters deluging your country aren’t raping your sisters” is really an opinion that calls out for either a debate panel or a social media debate tbh.
Does this position come with a cloak? Maybe a name tag? How do we know if someone is a member of this elite group? Is there swag?
“So trans people can’t be transphobic and black people can’t be racist? Bzzzzt! Wrong! Try again!”
Here we go with you trying to tell me about me. BZZZZZT. Typed sound effects. So either way, I’m racist and transphobic. You people and your names.
Again, have any of you done anything to get laws changed, or do y’all just sit here on the computer arguing with people all day about what derogatory names you want to title them?
elfie as in Elfwick?
What a great contribution to Pharyngula.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. I will only count those based on solid empirical evidence. Which over opinionated and over emotional paranoids lack. Show us your opinions are evidence based.
There’s a level system:
Level 1 – SJW Aspirant. SWAG: Name tage, the name tags are coloured. Obviously.
Level 2 – SJW Evoker. SWAG: Ability to cast ‘Check your privilege’ twice daily.
Level 3 – SJW Scout. SWAG: Cloak of mirrors, allows wearer to ignore attempts to engage by individuals wanting to debate moral implications of thinking all Muslims are evil.
Level 4 – SJW Theurgist. SWAG: Boats of leaping (to conclusions, about people who say racist things).
Level 5 – SJW Cabalist. SWAG: Annual ticket to PC-Con, where the things to be outraged about are selected.
Ok, there’s a spelling error in there, but I stand by it because boats of leaping sounds awesome.
littleelfie is modelling constructive dialogue for our benefit:
1) Ask a loaded question
2) In the face of blunt rebuff, throw an shit-fit worthy only of an impressively profane toddler, tossing around anything and everything which comes to hand
3) Wonder why nobody wants to engage with you, and make a high-minded call for more and better discussion
Personally, I’ve always been a fan of playing a SJW Wizard.
Sure, you’re squishy, but you’ll be able to to cast world-changing spells by the time the SJW Fighter is learning to forum post twice in one day (and will probably still miss with one of the posts)
You say something eye-wateringly transphobic – such as, oh, I don’t know, condemning someone for not presenting as traditionally female – then complain when we point out how transphobic that comment was. I don’t think it’s the rest of us revealing what a horrible person you are here…
I never called Richard Carrier a rapist- don’t you dare say that/ Unlike you, I won’t call someone a derogatory name without evidence. Does he grope people where ever he goes? Yes. You can see it at any conference he’s at. Don’t you ever say I called him a rapist. How dare you. You call someone a name like that and that could ruin them. Do you know nothing about the law, you moron? That’s full blown slander. I would never. I will say that he rubs people because he happened on Saturday. And if you’re going to quote me, then quote me.
“trans women are only women if they pass”
no, that’s not the case, but how can you at the very least not shave your face?
how can you at the very least not shave your face?
Explain how the amount of hair on someone’s face is:
a) Any of your business?
b) Any sort of relation to gender?
Very easily. Shaving isn’t an obligation, and not-shaving requires no effort at all.
Also
Y’all are so messed up and totally unrealistic. You live in a fantasy land.
@littleelfie 21
People such as yourself are going to make this easy in the long run. It’s pretty obvious you fit right in with C Nicholson. The more concentrated you get on whatever side you think you are on the more you are going sabotage yourselves.
Love of arguing does not imply someone needs to get away from the computer. Logic fail.
Oh you’re just mad that they have an accurate picture of you. The comments DrMcCoy pointed out at #15 are great examples of things that are not “slight dissagreement”. There is no reason to think they would not say such to your face. Reason fail.
1) Sexist and racist are descriptive terms. So far I’m fine with how they have been used. You seem pretty transphobic to add another. Self awareness fail.
2) That’s a pretty standard response from sexists actually. It’s pretty common to desperately point at a person’s sexual activity as if that has anything to do with the content of a person’s words. Reason fail.
3) A person trying to change and failing will still have evidence of racism, and the scare quotes you use suggest you don’t even agree with the application of the label which cancels out the whole “trying to change” thing. Logic fail.
1) Those are things. Perceptual awareness fail.
2) Or you are trying to hide your anger at the success of people trying to make conventions more accommodating. Obfuscation fail.
1) Even if true the content of this post is a separate matter. Misdirection fail.
2) At this point I am unwilling to trust things you say given your considerable motivated reasoning, logic and self-awareness problems. Reputation fail.
I think it’s becoming pretty obvious that you have a problem with rules because you are person with very significant behavior problems. That sort of person tends to segregate others by their behavior. I have suspicions about your definition of “worse” here. Social self-control fail.
Definitely transphobic. Rather than address a person’s content and actions they need to attack them for being trans. Why are you afraid of people who look different and act different and don’t affect you in any substantive way? Reasoning fail.
And a hypocrite to boot. This is why Characterizations that can be insulting are so important for people to use when there is good reason. Your behavior is plenty good justification for banning. Self-awareness fail. Awareness of consequences fail.
It’s pretty obvious that these people do in fact interact with real human beings. I fear for the ones that have to interact with you for any length of time. Self-awareness fail. They have had success with convention accommodation by your own admission. Logic fail. It’s good to know that you think making gatherings welcome to as many as possible is illegitimate (making room for people with your behavior would be irrational and illogical). Such behavior definitely would make people less willing to include you in groups. Social strategy fail.
Shaving isn’t an obligation, and not-shaving requires no effort at all.
Very true – hell I don’t bother with any of it any more. I made a resolution at the start of the year that I wasn’t going to do anything that hurt me purely in order to meet other people’s standards of attractiveness – I cannot tell you how much more comfortable I am as a result.
*Yawns*
Boring troll is boring.
Why can’t they ever come up with anything new? Blah blah “get off the computer”, blah blah “buncha pussies”, blah blah “SJW elite”, blah blah “how dare you make reasonable accommodations for people who aren’t like me”, blah blah “I talk a bunch of shit, why don’t you debate me” blah blah, blah blah “I wasn’t even there, so I’ll whine about it anyway”
Don’t you have some poop to go throw out of your cage or something?
Y’all are so messed up and totally unrealistic. You live in a fantasy land.
This would be the measured debate you’ve been calling for then?
Wow, much thought, very logic, so debate skillz, many reason. Bye bye littleelfie…on your way out, wait a moment until the door hits you on the arse.
This is funny. I’m thoroughly enjoying watching you folks dance in circles with the same trite bullshit you feed anyone who comes into your circle that opposes your views.
So, you aren’t actually looking for a reasonable discussion? I, for one, am shocked.
@littleelfie: what views, specifically, are you opposing?
Maybe because anyone who comes in here to stink up the place never has anything worth debating.
(and actually, as someone who attended this convention, I managed to speak to a lot of people face to face. It’s kinda what a convention is for. Sorry you had to learn this now)
@littleelfie 54
Interesting way of spinning the work of revealing the ugliness of your beliefs, thoughts and actions. Fortunately it’s work I rather enjoy.
Bye, littleelfie.
Thanks, PZ!
PSA
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
Now i’m curious to know exactly how a conference these haters describe would actually work. People walking around, scared to speak to each other or touch each other, topics that are just there to shame white cis dudes, specific and complicated rules about behavior, instant expulsion for breaking any of them – like saying “Bless you” if someone happens to sneeze, shit like that.
Man, that sounds fucking boring as hell. I’m sure glad the conventions I’ve attended that they talk so much shit about have never been like that at all.
[quote]littleelfie vomits words[/quote]
Jibbers Crabst, that dial went from 0 to crazy in no time flat.
Littleelfie is so confusing.
OK. Did they read the post? Which of those guys am I supposed to debate, the one who photoshops naked women into my head, or the one that wants Islamist murderers to kill me?
Oh come on PZ – they want people to murder you, you’d rather not be murdered, surely there’s a compromise that can be reached through reasoned debate and argument whereby they only beat you half to death or something…
GUYS. elfie didn’t misgender Muscato. She can’t possibly be an arsehole!!! Pat on the back to anyone who translates her post from teal deer to English.
Also reminder that calling elfie crazy is ableist. She’s wrong, on many layers, but this does not necessitate mental illness. :)
Also being trans BOOSTS your career?! In what planet???
Honestly, I thought the first emission (@14) was sarcastic and quite funny, so did I get reverse-Poed? Or just Poed? I rapidly did get PO’d.
@68 petesh
Me too. I think there’s a chance that it was and that littleelfie only went on their transparently trollish, stick-poking for shits and giggles, because they saw that the first comment, instead of being seen as sarcasm, was having an effect. I think they saw some frowns and decided that poking them with a pointy, shitty stick to see if they turned into something more, would be superfunny. Like you know, adolescent arseholes do…
How people can find that funny has always been beyond me…
I’m calling a textbook case of projection.
Lesbian Catnip,
Why, in the present dystopian SJW infested world, of course.
I also love how effie went from “stop debating meaninglessly and get from behind your computers ” to “come to twitter were the real debates are” in like 2 comments.
I am torn between dishonest douchebag and total idiot. Could be both, as always.
often when I hear someone railing on about how some wont debate them like our departed antagonist what I hear is “why are you disagreeing with me? you should agree with me I KNOW THE TRUTH”, nothing more no reasoning forth coming other than opinion supported by unsubstantiated suppositions and bogus claims. some times in person they even resort to violence to “win” the debate if they think they can get a way with it. Such arguments have never changed the nature of reality. How can you ever hope to win an argument with reality, reality is not asking permission nor is it depending on what anyone’s opinion is.
uncle frogy
uncle frogy
uncle frogy
I think i missed the day when all of you gave links to you podcasts and announced that you never vote or otherwise promote and fight for the changing of laws and social behaviors. You’re all just sitting on your duffs here or on Twitter. But wait, I thought FB and Twitter were the places people had highly thoughtful debates about things in these modern times? Now I’m confused. Also confused about opening “debate” by wishing violent death on others or calling people pussies. Jesus fuck i am so behind the curve and astonishingly ignorant.
I’m an active member of the Green Party, I am in its electoral commission.
I am also a dance teacher, my classes are gender neutral and I teach enthusiastic consent in them.
I wonder how you will answer now.
Will you tell me that I am lying?
Will you tell me that I don’t count?
Will you just cover your ears and yell LALALALALALA?
I am really curious, since you are not going to change your fantasy-based ideas, how will you rationalize me away.
Well, littleelfie has been banned, so we’ll never know for sure. But this is probably a pretty accurate template:
Insult directed at the Green Party, PETA, and Ralph Nader.
Sneering comment about social justice warriors.
Mocking reference to teachers and doers.
Transphobic reaction to the phrase ‘gender neutral’.
Obscene redefinition of ‘enthusiastic consent’.
Irrelevant reference to Richard Carrier, P.Z. Myers, and, I dunno, probably Rebecca Watson or somebody.
Continuing failure to understand the purpose of the Enter key.
Good guess, you think?
Am I the only one who thinks #74 should be set to music?
Funny how these trolls always claim to be female/coloured/LGBTQ but never use their real names.
This script is old.
Jayaprakash Sathyamurthy
Oh, I think there’s two types:
Type 1: The “your slip is showing” false identity characters* who are trying to play the strawcard “I am of minority XYZ, therefore you can’t disagree with my or you’re ….-ist”, which is of course exactly what they usually accuse us of.
Type 2: The proud white guy. Often with links to their FB page. They honestly believe that straight white cis men are discriminated against as straightw hite cis men and thatth e hateful bigotry they’re spewing is in fact reasonable and rational talking points.
*though there are, of course, always bigotted assholes within those minority groups as well, aka, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Germaine Greer, Milo, CHS…
I’m confused… Is arguing with people on the internet supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing? It seems Littleelfie is simultaneously condemning us for spending too much time arguing with people on the internet, and for not arguing with people on the internet enough.
Tweet has been deleted.
Glimmerings of self awareness or transparent attempt at plausible deniability?
I’m going with option “2”.
No matter how octopuses are the superior species, tentacle sex never appealed to me.
And neither to PZ I guess.
Dunc @80: Not to mention that littleelfie seems to be… arguing with people on the internet.
Jayaprakash Sathyamurthy @ 77:
Why would that make any difference? I could tell you my name is Jayne Smith – what does that tell you? How does that impart SeriousTruFax™ to anything I say about myself? A lot of people have very good reasons for using a nym, rather than their full legal name. Also, plenty of people you would consider to be trolls happily use their legal name. The name someone goes by on the ‘net is fucking meaningless.
***
As for the notion of “hey, why not debate on twitter”, leaving aside the fact that twitter is hardly the best medium for debate of any kind, let alone a long discussion, you can’t debate, discuss, or converse with someone who is engaged in a war of attrition.
It’s also worth noting the PZ has said many, many times that debate is excellent at settling who is the better debater, but often not who is more correct in what they are debating. A skilled debater can take pretty much any position and put together some sort of case for it, even if they believe (or know) it to be wrong. In fact, that’s a primary technique in teaching debate, yes? Taking a position opposite your own and successfully defending it?
That alone should demonstrate that debate is not exactly the gold standard in demonstrating truth, I would think.
A lengthy report on the Skepticon PR disaster that describes the event in more detail than I’ve seen elsewhere:
Known for Mizzou Protest Coverage, Mark Schierbecker Ended Up in a Skepticon Shitstorm
Nut graf:
To Schierbecker’s questioners at Skepticon, he was part of the problem because he wasn’t part of the solution. That does run counter to what journalists are supposed to do when they report on events.