This is a quick source document for anyone who “hates drama” and doesn’t want to do much work to investigate what all the hubub is about. Why did Atheist Ireland write a dishonest disassociation letter against PZ Myers, and why did gullible nice guy Hemant Mehta fall for it? Details below.
Basic Principles: Drama vs. Truth
In the atheist movement over the past five years or so what people call “drama” the rest of us call fighting for respect for minorities and victims of harassment and sexual assault. The people who hate that we do that are the ones who have caused almost all the drama you have ever called drama. Pretty much entirely.
The enemies of truth and justice do this by counting on people who don’t care enough about the truth to check and find out what’s really going on. Because out of an apathetic aversion to “drama,” such people will just believe whatever bullshit anyone says loudly enough or officially enough.
But remember, avoiding drama, more often than not means avoiding the truth. So you might not like the choices. But you have to pick one. You can’t just dismiss something as drama. In doing so, you are saying you are not interested in the truth. And if there is anything atheists should never stand for (much less defend), it’s a disinterest in the truth.
Summary of the Present Issue
Atheist Ireland (more like just Dublin) is essentially a fiefdom wielded by Michael Nugent. He (or possibly they, if really anyone else at AI had their hand in this) received or collected propaganda from an anti-feminist hate-site (literally called the Slymepit) and used it to attack PZ Myers. It seems that Nugent did this for really only one actual reason: Nugent defends Michael Shermer instead of Allison Smith, the woman who has a credible claim of rape or at least extreme sexual misconduct against Shermer (one better evidenced than many such claims against Catholic priests), and people who see things the other way around have said Nugent is defending a rapist, at which he took such offense as to spiral out into the most extraordinary example of high dudgeon.
That is literally all this is about. Because Nugent has no problems with appalling rhetoric when it appears from supporters in his own blog comments; or with controversy when it is raised by people he likes. So he is being disingenuous when he quote mines PZ to grossly misrepresent reality. Hemant Mehta did not do his due diligence to check Nugent’s claims, he just believed everything his statement said, because Hemant is overly trusting I guess, or else he is one of those folks who cares more about avoiding drama than learning the truth, in which case his values are exactly ass backwards.
Links to everything mentioned or claimed above are provided below or within the articles linked below.
Primary Resources
Want to vet the claims I just made but can’t find the time? You’re in luck. Because all the groundwork demonstrating everything I just said has already been done for you.
- If you read nothing else, you must read Ashley Miller’s summary in The Background of Atheist Ireland’s Breakup with PZ: It’s about Michael Shermer. This is a short read, it will get you up to speed, and it has links to several other supporting resources.
- Next most essential is Alex Gabriel’s hyperlinked edition of Atheist Ireland’s announcement, Atheist Ireland’s Statement on PZ Myers, with Added Links to Actual Things He Actually Said. That exposes Nugent’s deceit by allowing you to actually go and check the context of each thing Nugent represents Myers as saying, showing that they are actually far more reasonable than represented–and even include cases where Myers already apologized ages ago (e.g., after PZ said something sexist about Bill Maher’s girlfriend, he footnoted the post with an apology and correction, a fact duly not mentioned by Nugent).
- Next most important is the official statement on this matter released by the organization Secular Woman: Where We Stand – Voicing Our Priorities. This establishes the wider context of Nugent’s reckless obsession that’s crucial for anyone who wants to understand what is going on.
- Then there is the demonstration by M.A. Melby, in The Melby Foundation Official Statement of Disassociation, that Nugent doesn’t actually care about tone or rhetoric, because he supports all the same kind of writing when it appears in comments on his blog. So his pretending to be concerned about it on Myers’ blog is an evident ruse, disguising the real issue, the one documented by Miller. (As if to prove her point, the very first comment there, from a Nugent supporter, says “PZ is a c***. You are a dipshit.” Yep. The asterisks are mine, BTW.)
- Finally, you should cap your reading at least no sooner than Ashley Miller’s More on Shermer, PZ, and Michael Nugent. This illustrates the breakdown of Nugent’s attempt to subvert Myers because of Nugent’s own desire to defend an accused rapist, and how parties involved are now scrambling to rationalize what happened into a historical revisionism akin to the Gamergate saga.
- Last but not least, two other prominent folks hitched their wagon to Nugent’s cause: JT Eberhard and Republican sometimes-lobbyist Edwina Rogers (through her quasi-fake atheist organization the Secular Policy Institute…oh, and yes, that’s this Edwina Rogers). They say nearly the same things, which I personally find disturbing, and very alienating. But no need to fisk that. If you are curious, you can explore and judge for yourself. On both, though only explicitly addressing the latter, essential reading is the succinct analysis of Alex Gabriel. And then supplement that with a survey of JT Eberhard’s hypocrisy: like this; this; this; this; this; and this. Just for starters. Because it illustrates one of Alex’s general points: JT does all the same things PZ does…when it comes to religion. He just doesn’t like it when the same confrontationalism is turned on atheists. And assuming your own people should be immune to criticism and should be subject to a protectionist double standard? That’s a character flaw. And you know who is most famous for acting like that? The Catholic Church. Even Fake Jesus said remove the plank from your own eye first…
-:-
That’s the sum of it.
If additional developments of significance arise in this matter I’ll include them below.
1. Michael Nugent responds with “Richard Carrier’s latest smears are poorly researched, insulting to women activists, and defamatory” (seriously, that’s its title, complete with lower caps), in which he dodges every substantive issue and just engages in an old-school honor defense of his and his organization’s dignity. So bizarre, in fact, that he even asks me to apologize to certain women I never mentioned and said nothing about. There is hardly any more worth addressing in it.
2. In “An Open Letter to Michael Nugent,” Ashley Miller notices that Nugent responded to my article right away, but has continually ignored hers, and in fact that of every other woman who has written on this matter (even though most of what I wrote here is just a summary of and reaction and referral to their work). Miller correctly notes that Nugent chose to answer mine because of its harsh tone. So he will only respond to harsh tone. While arguing no one should use a harsh tone. Meanwhile the people who write in the tone he likes get no notice or response. Well isn’t that interesting. This is often, indeed, why activists get so vocal and angry: the privileged only notice anger and provocation; they ignore polite criticism. While insisting everyone be polite. Do you notice a power dynamic there?
3. One member of Atheist Ireland resigns in protest over Nugent’s behavior, with valuable further observations.
4. Jadehawk builds a Storify that documents and verifies everything I’ve said about the Slymepit and Nugent’s association with them: [Part 1][Part 2]. Greta Christina then documents continuing examples after that.
5. Dubito Ergo Sum, in “Michael Nugent, Vice Principal of Atheism,” fisks the original letter with their own hyperlinked commentary that is top-notch excellent and a valuable resource for exploring and understanding this event in atheism history.
Doesn’t the recent Rolling Stone debacle give you pause? Anonymous accusations are not facts.
The accusations were not anonymous. And key elements of Smith’s account have been independently corroborated by other witnesses. Whereas Shermer’s story has changed three times (demonstrating that he is a liar and hiding something). And the accusations in the Rolling Stone article actually weren’t found false; rather, the police said they couldn’t pursue them because the witness stopped cooperating–which is not what is happening in this case, so that becomes a false analogy. It is also a false analogy because the accused haven’t told their story in that case, whereas Shermer has done so amply, in fact he has told three completely different stories to different people. It was Rolling Stone‘s failure to get the accused’s story that was the actual scandal forcing a retraction for violating journalistic ethics (not because the witness lied or her story was false; the magazine simply didn’t check; she may have corrected some things she mis-remembered, which is common). Plus, data mining is a fallacy. You pick one exceptional case and pretend it can be generalized to all cases. By that logic, all Muslims are terrorists, and all men are rapists. Think that through.
I highly recommend you read this and this.
Thanks for posting the Link for all the comments in context- I would advise everyone interested to follow those past the point of interpretation by others and see them in full context, hardly a case of a single issue.
As a long time member of AI in Kerry,currently actively involved in a local dispute alongside AI and a regular attendee of meetups here and in Dublin, I do not recognise your description of AI its Committee or its structure.
I would love to know what Secular Woman think- but its hard to follow a group that ban you after one tweet asking them for the evidence behind their stated views.
Personally I am content that AI has behaved honestly and with integrity.You may not agree with it but it has openly stated where disagreement lies and why it has taken the action it has. Sticking to the facts may not bring you into agreement with us, but it will at least avoid the rather Snarky attitude that seems to be employed when the evidence is either unattractive or simply absent.
The Blogs,the links the perspectives are all available- I would urge everyone interested to look at all sides in this matter- For my part I am happy to be part of an organisation that has been active both nationally and Internationally at all levels- I would also point out that the disagreements with Prof Myers approach are not isolated to or newly made by AI – the critique made against AI and individual committee members has been cut entirely out of the cloth of this dispute and peoples personal interpretations- strange that no one seemed to have noticed these nefarious behaviours prior to our disassociation with Prof Myers.
I am rushing out the door this morning (a school day) thankyou for allowing this alternate view on your blog.
Peter Hinchliffe
Kerry
Ireland
“its hard to follow a group that ban you after one tweet asking them for the evidence behind their stated views”
That is a stock MRA complaint.
Let’s test it. Give me an example of you sending a single tweet asking for evidence backing something they said.
And note: by your own standards just stated, you have to supply me with that evidence.
Of course the Drama Mongers are going to say they only throw conniptions because they’re right. Doesn’t really mean anything. Only the evidence makes a difference, and when you’re hanging your position on ‘arguments’ like “It clearly isn’t about tone because one of his ‘supporters’ (presumably) used a bad word on a different blog, which he has nothing to do with, therefore he is lying and it’s about something else” it’s pretty weak.
I think you are confused. You don’t seem to have correct anything you just read.
Hi Richard, I have a many points that I would like to raise on the above article. However, I would like particularly to correct your assertion that Atheist Ireland is a) Dublin-based and b) is “a essentially a fiefdom wielded by Michael Nugent.
A small amount of time spent doing some research on Atheist Ireland will show that the organisation is run by a management committee that is elected each year at our AGM. To ensure all our members have an opportunity to vote attend and vote at our AGM it is held outside of Dublin every second year. The management committee can bring others onto it to fulfil certain roles as required. As the Chair of the Dublin Regional Branch I am on the management committee as are the Chairs of the other regional branches across the country. The regional branches organise local events such as brunches and meetups as well as lobbying their local politicians. They also act as a support system for each other where, in rural Ireland, you can literally be the only atheist in the village.
Richard, the assertions you have made here are simply untrue. Your claim that Atheist Ireland is a Dublin-centric fiefdom dismisses that hard work being carried out by dozens of members of Atheist Ireland, all of whom, including the management committee, are volunteers. Many of the members who carry out this work do so at some personal risk. In Ireland, where most of the schools and hospitals are run by the religious, employees can still be legally fired from their jobs if they are thought to undermine the religious ethos of their employers. Others members have faced ostracization from family, friends and indeed entire communities. I personally know these people, I respect them for their efforts to bring about a fairer and more equitable Ireland and I feeel you have done them a real injustice here.
You say that “the enemies of truth and justice do this by counting on the people who don’t care enough about the truth to check and find out what’s really going on”. I couldn’t agree more. I would ask you and anyone else reading this to please take the time to do a little research about the organisation Atheist Ireland. Look at our website, our Facebook page, our Meetup page, our YouTube channel and find out for yourself what we really do. You may not agree with our aims, but please do not pretend that we are not out actively trying to change Ireland for the better.
Thank you.
For somebody who seems to be prioritising truth here, there is very little truth in it.
“Atheist Ireland (more like just Dublin)” Unequivocally wrong. Atheist Ireland has over a dozen regional groups in Ireland that meet regularly, they also have a number of regional committees and a number of the regional committee members have positions on committee (the co-opted spots). So not sure how you can say it is just Dublin. Such a claim, to be blunt, is a load of shite.
“A feifdon wielded by Nugent” – Pile of shite too. There are many people who volunteer for Atheist Ireland, who put in a huge amount work. Some volunteer a vast amount of time at their own expense. So your description does a huge disservice to those volunteers. Not to mention you are removing their agency by acting as of they just do with whatever Michael wants. Again untrue.
Any evidence that Nugent got his “propaganda” from the slimepit? Just because it may or may not appear there too doesn’t mean he got it there. He is quite capable of doing his own research. Plus genetic fallacy even if he did.
“Nugent defends Michael Shermer”. Well aside from the fact he has explicitly said on a number of occasions that he is not defending Shermer. Saying you don’t think people should publish anonymous, unevidenced (other than victim’s testimony, obviously) accusations isn’t an unreasonable position. Now you say there is evidence, but that came after what PZ did and was in the Oppenheimer piece. I haven’t seen Nugent criticise that.
“This is literally what this is about” – Actually this is literally what it is not about. Nugent had raised concerns about PZ’s behaviour prior to Shermer. So to pretend that Shermer is the issue is to engage in historical revisionism. Also Shermer was one bullet point in a litany of bullet points. And finally, Shermer wasn’t even mentioned in Atheist Ireland’s disassociation, a very odd omission since “that’s what it’s all about”.
In order to make the claim that it’s all about Nugent and his “defence” of Shermer you had to ignore reality on several fronts. You are using Shermer as a big fat red herring, and even if Nugent is wrong on that point there is still all the other criticisms of PZ which stand on their own.
He certainly doesn’t speak for the atheists of Sligo, I can assure you.
Thanks for this. I’d read most of those but it’s nice to see them all collected in one place.
Richard,
This is a grossly unfair portrayal of the situation. It’s really not worthy of a scholar. I’m not familiar enough with your work to know whether this is typical of your output but it seems disingenuous to refer to it as a “source document” when it is obviously an opinion piece, apparently written with the intention of portraying someone whose opinions you don’t share as an “enem[y] of truth and justice”.
I feel the need to correct some of your falsehoods. I’m a member of Atheist Ireland’s committee, and what follows is informed by that membership, but is my personal opinion, and I alone am responsible for any errors.
Dublin is the capital of Ireland, and more than a third of Ireland’s population lives in the greater Dublin area. Irish government and media are mostly based in Dublin, and as the only major city in the Republic of Ireland (sorry, Cork!) Dublin has the highest proportion of non-religious people in the country. And, inasmuch as it is based anywhere, Atheist Ireland is based in Dublin. Nonetheless, we have made a sustained, deliberate and somewhat successful effort not to be merely a Dublin organisation. Several committee members live outside Dublin. We have members from all over the country, regional committees, and regular regional meet-ups. We have spoken innumerable times on local radio stations based outside Dublin and have had articles published in regional newspapers. We hold every other AGM outside Dublin, and have organised or taken part in a number of events in other cities.
This is simply not true. While Atheist Ireland would struggle without Michael’s leadership, enthusiasm, media experience and the huge amount of time that he is able and willing to devote to Atheist Ireland activities, it is simply not the case that he makes all the decisions. Committee meetings are held regularly and members of the committee communicate frequently by email or otherwise, with significant and important contributions from all the committee members – in particular our Human Rights Officer Jane Donnelly who spends as much or more time as Michael on Atheist Ireland activities, and is a fount of knowledge on all that is wrong with Ireland’s education system. We tend to be largely in agreement on most issues, but when we do disagree it is far from certain that Michael’s opinion will prevail. It does us a great disservice to pretend that we are all Michael’s puppets.
The letter was drafted by Michael but had multiple contributors and was approved by the entire committee. Speaking personally, I would have preferred to avoid the drama, and just leave PZ alone to spew his hatred while we got on with more important things. But you’re right: we sometimes have to choose between drama and truth. And the truth is that PZ’s behaviour is harmful; and being associated with the sort of behaviour he engages in and encourages, even by implication, was incompatible with the goals of Atheist Ireland.
The quotes in the letter are PZ’s own words. They were collected from PZ’s website.
It seems? How does it seem so? Michael has not defended Michael Shermer; as a small part of the litany of things PZ has done that are inadvisable or unhelpful, Michael included his publicly accusing a named person of rape on the basis of hearsay. He has repeatedly condemned rapists and those who protect them. Michael’s attempts to encourage PZ to behave more ethically and compassionately predate the Shermer incident and are not at all limited to that.
No. PZ said that Michael was defending, protecting and providing a haven for rapists. This is an incredibly serious and defamatory accusation, and it is perfectly reasonable to find it offensive.
Again, it’s absolutely not. PZ’s behaviour was an issue long before the Shermer incident, and the many other examples of his harmful behaviour are not just there as filler.
That’s not true. Michael regularly removes comments from his blog that breach these standards – or responds to them pointing out why they are problematic. He repeatedly encourages polite debate that criticises ideas and not people.
There’s possibly some truth in that. Like most of us. Michael is probably more likely to accept or excuse questionable behaviour when it comes from someone he likes. And I suspect that is why he took so long to publicly criticise PZ, something for which he received considerable criticism. I’ve met PZ a few times, and he’s very likeable in person (as long as you’re not already on his enemies list!). Because of this, I’ve been more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt than I would someone whom I hadn’t met. That’s a failing, but it’s a very human one, and it’s something we can probably all learn from. It’s very easy to talk about stabbing people, or anally raping them with dead animals when you don’t have to look them in the eye and say those words with your mouth. And it’s very easy to assume the worst of people we don’t know, while failing to reflect on our own behaviour.
Doc, aside from your deeply hubristic mendacity, and profound delusion, you are the most blatant, extreme, and embarrassing narcicist and self-important egoist I have ever encountered. Frankly, you completely creep me out.
Bizarre. A post nothing about me is not only narcissistic (!?) but “the most blatant” and “extreme” kind. You are unhinged my fellow.
I didn’t see you link Jason Thibeault’s timeline: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/08/12/sexual-harassment-accusations-in-the-skeptical-and-secular-communities-a-timeline-of-major-events/
It is a worthy addition to the links you’ve already included.
Mr Nugent has issued a rebuttal … http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/17/richard-carriers-latest-smears/
Yeah. That rebuttal is unhinged. Bizarre even. Somehow pointing out that a lot of his data was collected and provided to him by Slymepitters is me insulting feminists in Atheist Ireland. That’s the weirdest attempt to use feminists as a shield against someone pointing out you are using anti-feminist propaganda. Like “but I have gay friends, so it is insulting to my gay friends to say I’m a homophobe.” I love how he now wants an apology from me for insulting people I never even mentioned nor ever said anything about (they aren’t even the people who wrote the propaganda post I’m talking about!).
As to the rest, people just need to peruse the articles I listed (and even, for example, some of the defenders of AI here in this thread) and compare data, and come to their own conclusion.
For example, the “Nugent criticized PZ before!” argument is disingenuous. We all criticize each other, and get along still; while disagreeing about our tonal preferences, we only care about substance. So that’s never been an issue. It only became a big deal when it started being about Nugent defending Shermer, attacking PZ for giving Smith a voice, and then being criticized for supporting rape apologetics. Only then did he flip his lid, write screed after screed for months and months, and then eventually convince his colleagues to endorse his unsourced propaganda disaffiliation letter, whose content is essentially impossible (or lunacy) to have assembled without the “research” already conducted on the Slymepit, where it was all previously published (just not in one place; maybe Nugent added some items, but most of it is old Slymepit complaints; its being taken out of context, also Slymepit). That his comments on his blog, ever since Nugent starting talking about Shermer, have been populated regularly with by Slymepitters (if not outright dominated by them) only gives away the game.
So people can figure out for themselves in this dispute whose manufacturing spin, and who’s reporting their actual observations.
P.S. I should also mention, Nugent thinks Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist, and per his propaganda letter, is appalled feminists like PZ criticize her. So Nugent might not be the best at actually knowing who or what a feminist is.
Can I ask why my comment is still in moderation when others have been passed?
I am going through the queue now. I am not The Flash.
Apolagies I see it is up. Thankyou
Richard, the tweet I was Blocked for- My 1st ever interaction with Secular Woman https://twitter.com/phinch1234/status/586180665080733696
So, you asked for something that was so obvious you could have found it yourself? Nugent defended Shermer against his targets/victims Allison Smith, Ashley Miller, and others documented; Nugent also advanced arguments that protect abusers generally. You knew that’s what they were talking about. You also know that’s true. Therefore your question was disingenuous and not asked in good faith. That makes you a troll. Precisely what warrants blocking you. This is why you are on the wrong side of history. You are not defending abuse victims. You are attacking the people who defend them. Your own tweet is an example of doing precisely that.
Richard- visit my FB page, look at my few Twitter comments. I am not a troll or an “MRA” you are making sweeping judgements based on your own interpretation of one event.
I believed my tweet to be an honest enquiry for evidence in response to this tweet “have they argued for the silencing of rape victims? Yes 2/2”
I would also not that you have received ample evidence from active members of AI working across Ireland, you may still feel that your assertions over Michael are fair- but will you address your description of AI –“Atheist Ireland (more like just Dublin) is essentially a fiefdom wielded by Michael Nugent” This description is directly conflicted by my experience and the statements above.
Can I ask that now you have cast me as MRA and a Troll on the basis of one tweet that you either pursue my offer of evidence or make it clear that you do not welcome genuine debate over your assertions by those directly affected.
Asked and answered.
Doc, you’re unhinged, totally unhinged.
And extraordinarily dishonest.
But, well, it’s all Freethought, right? Right.
Carry on, carry on.
For my readers:
This troll JohnGreg, who can never adduce any evidence for anything he says about me (as exemplified just now), is this guy.
Just FYI.
Richard,
Do you think that the position of being against anonymous accusations with no supporting evidence being posted in media is an unreasonable? I am not talking about any individual cases but as a general principle. I am also not asking for your personal opinion nor am I am proffering my own. I am just wondering if it is an unreasonable position, because even if I disagree with it myself I don’t see it as unreasonable or as a moral indictment upon anyone who holds it.
Sigh.
How many fucking times do we have to repeat ourselves?
Accusation: not anonymous.
Supporting evidence: exists.
Get with the program.
Thank you, Dr Carrier, for highlighting the differences and incompatibilities between morally nihilistic atheists and morally empathetic atheists from a philosophical perspective motivated by truth seeking. Philosophical naturalistic ethics informs and instructs both cognitive and outwardly physical behaviors towards the morally good. Keep up the good work.
This really is absurd. Your “primary resources” don’t include Nugent’s actual post archiving Myers’ smears. You’d never make such a blatant omission in your actual scholarly work.
I really hope your readers don’t rely on you in this case, and do their own research.
Huh? The entire exact text of it is in the linked article by Alex Gabriel. So, yeah, I did include it.
Nugent’s defenders here are busy challenging Richard Carrier’s description of AI as Nugent’s “fiefdom.” They want us to know that AI is more than that, and that it does important work.
Sounds like deflection to me. With a great big dollop of Missing the Point.
Seriously, the OP is not about the structural organization of Atheist Ireland. It is not a criticism of AI’s volunteers, or of AI’s work.
It’s a criticism of Michael Nugent.
Specifically, it’s a criticism of the absurd obsession Nugent has with PZ Myers, who has criticized Nugent for hosting the Slymepit on his blog’s comment threads and for defending Michael Shermer after PZ allowed one of Shermer’s accusers to tell her story on his blog.
Frankly, nobody much cares about organizations’ internal structure. And if AI’s supporters are truly concerned about how their organization is perceived, they have a much bigger problem than being possibly mischaracterized as a fiefdom.
Face it: Atheist Ireland is now known as the organization run by the guy who can’t shut up about PZ Myers. The guy who tweeted at Myers daily for months. The guy who has taken it upon himself to police the tone of the atheist movement. The guy who has written over 30 blog posts and spent gawd only knows how many hundreds of thousands of words chiding an American blogger who has nothing to do with him, wants nothing to do with him, and has mostly ignored him.
Yep. That.
(Meanwhile, so far as I can tell, Michael Shermer remains un-disassociated with. Priorities!)
Hi Richard,
I wonder could you comment on the points raised by myself, Derek, Peter F. and Peter H. about inaccuracies and misinformation you have written here about Atheist Ireland. Will you accept that what you have written here with regards to Atheist Ireland is wrong now we have provided you with accurate information and will you apologise to the many members and activists whose efforts you have dismissed for writing these untruths.
Thank you
I’m letting people decide for themselves. They have my thoughts. They have your data. That’s sufficient.
I’m really sick of this endlessly repeating cycle where people avoid addressing the most important, most urgent points, and instead focus obsessively on piddling little factual disputes. It’s an evasion strategy, and Nugent’s been keeping it up for months now. I don’t doubt the sincerity of his outrage, but I don’t care. Whether or not Richard Carrier fairly and/or accurately characterized Atheist Ireland in a blog post just isn’t very important*. Whether we support or silence victims of sexual assault is very important indeed. I’ve been following this argument with great interest, patiently waiting for Nugent to address that point, which has been put to him again and again and again.
However, while Nugent dances around the issue, many of his commenters do not. Not just in his comments, but in Ashley’s comments as well, there are plenty of people arguing that victims should be silenced (usually not in so many words, but the implication is unavoidable). I can’t imagine how Nugent could fail to be aware of this, since so much of it is happening in his own comments section. So while he’s dithering on about trivia, the argument is taking place without him, but in his name.
Yet every time someone brings this up, he evades. Every time someone confronts him with “This is what you are doing”, he responds with “That is not who I am.” At first I thought he was simply clueless, because he seems kinda clueless. But as this drags on and on, that assumption gets harder and harder to maintain.
* – I want to warn anyone inclined to push back on this point that it is a trap. Anyone who argues that how Richard Carrier characterizes Atheist Ireland in a blog post is important will simply be proving my point, particularly if they do so without addressing any other issue.
Any atheist group using the Slymepit as it’s source needs to retract allegations based round that unworthy group’s ravings.
Michael Shermer needs to own up to his improprieties and atheist groups need to stop lying about “anonymous” allegations since the persons who originally wished to remain anonymous originally have come out in the open.
Critics of P Z Myer’s actions also need to consider how they would respond if a friend of theirs asks them to warn others about a sexual predator, especially if that predator’s conduct had been seen to be publicly dubious.
Thanks Dr Carrier.
Wow. Nugent says (paraphrased), “Carrier says that Atheist Ireland endorses anti-feminist propaganda, which carries an implication that the women who work for Atheist Ireland endorse anti-feminist propaganda; but self-evidently they don’t endorse anti-feminist propaganda, because they’re women; therefore Carrier owes those women an apology.”
So you owe AI’s female employees an apology. But not the male employees. Saying the male employees endorse anti-feminist propaganda is A-OK. WTF?
He actually apparently thinks that (1) no woman can be anti-feminist and (2) only women give a shit about feminism. Unreal.
Well, I’ll be fair and assume he wasn’t really thinking that hard about it.
Essential reading on what the Slymepit is and its relevance to establishing my claims about what Nugent has really done here: [Part 1] [Part 2]
Example of how the leadership of Atheist Ireland doesn’t get it: this member’s resignation.
More updates have been appended to the end of the article (above).