Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Go compare

Brianna Wu talks about being forced from her home due to sustained, horrific attacks by gamergate-affiliated bullies. Zero comments.

Michael Nugent might be wrong. 72 comments and counting (over 2 posts)

Credit fraud being used as a form of domestic abuse. Zero comments.

To be honest, everything else I’ve ever written. Zero comments.

People aren’t coming here for my writing (can’t blame them for that) and they aren’t coming here for any agreement or complaint with the sorts of thing I tend to say. They’re coming because they’re outraged that I criticised Michael Nugent.

They’re outraged that I criticised Michael Nugent because they are idiots. People who disagree with me aren’t necessarily idiots but people who attack me because they are outraged that I criticised Michael Nugent necessarily are. I’ve written things about sexism in various places which nobody has ever paid the slightest attention to. I’m not complaining about that, there’s no reason anyone should. But criticise someone who thinks he’s a leader of the atheism movement and the hits roll in.  I could have made nearly a penny if I’d had adverts.

So you people hell-bent on telling me off for saying your hero isn’t very nice: why not make such earnest comments on other things I’ve said on the same subject?


  1. Carrie1:21 pm

    Apply some scientific method to this. Commenters are coming here because they never heard of you before until you started getting cross with Michael and tweeted links to your Nugent postings. When they followed the links, they probably didn't have time to look around. If they did, perhaps they did not think there was much point in commenting on posts that were no longer current. I did look around and I did leave a couple of comments a few days ago on other posts here, but apparently you don't bother to look back on your old posts either. So, it's just your current posts that are being replied to and they mostly seem to be Nugent-related.

  2. Well that suggestion has nothing to do with the scientific method at all but otherwise, you're right. My point was that people select their targets for scorn fairly idiotically. I do understand about links, about how links are generated and about links are followed. But they don't have much to do with what you're complaining about, whatever that is.

    I also know a bit about how and why links - weak and strong - participate in the building of social networks but I know even more about your comment.

    It's bullshit. Tune your sarcasm detector a bit better. Try to tune your satire detector from it's current Daily Mail setting to Reasonable Human Being.

  3. Carrie3:35 pm

    I was not complaining about anything, try to be a little less defensive. I was suggesting that you apply some of your brilliant scientific abilities to an analysis of the data, and pointing out that your "everything else I’ve ever written. Zero comments" is inaccurate. A good scientist such as yourself should be able to use data properly.

  4. I wasn't being defensive but I think if there's anywhere I get to be so, it's my own blog. Don't come here and tell me what to do. If you ever have an actual point, by all means make it.