On the attacks against this blog
Francois Tremblay Permalink
28 comments
The Raving Atheist once again goes on the offensive against me :
Don over at Diana Mertz Hsieh's Noodlefood has jumped ship:
(...)
I just finished the book, and let me say: I was convinced. I must humbly renounce my former views and state publicly that I have discovered and accepted in my heart and mind the Truth that Jesus was born of God and died for our sins.
However, Don was an Objectivist, so it's really just switching from one cult to another. Could Francois Tremblay be next?
How hard pressed do you have to be to stoop down to this level of attack - using the old Christian canard of "it's just a phase" when you're an ATHEIST ? What's next, "I know what you are but what am I" ? Is he going to "double dog dare me" ? There's no way I can beat the double dog dare...
Flash news : I never claimed to be an Objectivist, and quoting David Kelley doesn't make me an Objectivist. Okay ? Stop lying about me.
Now The Uncredible Hallq also retracts much-needed support for this blog. Every such attack hurts me personally because people are taking away support based on their personal opinions and not on the quality of my work. If anyone actually asked me politely to take them off the shit list, I would do so, but instead I get attacked by Raving Bigot and it's supposed to be my fault.
Many blogs have a shit list. Blog carnivals and controversy are the only two means blogs have to get read, and we write so we can be read. Why should I be any different ?
Attack my blog and I'll punish you the only way I can. Extend the hand of friendship and I'll be your friend. Seems simple enough to me. What am I supposed to do with the so-called "atheist community" when no one extends a hand ? If I was a collectivist who believed in the notion of community, I would be very pissed off about it and probably resent being an atheist. Fortunately, I'm an individualist so I'm not that far gone - I just resent the people who expand their energies opposing me when it would take very little effort to be a friend.
And to be honest, I also resent the fact that these ego clashes are overshadowing my work, and that less people are going to read my blog because of it. From my perspective, these people are NOT interested in a "strong atheist community". Putting down people because they dare to read this or that book, or because they criticize what you say, or even simply because you ask a couple questions, is intolerence based on personal opinion. And intolerence based on personal opinion does not make a "strong community".
I don't care if you think I'm abrasive or even morally wrong. That is your prerogative. But don't take away support for my blog based on that. It's crass and unjust. I work hard on this blog, and I don't do it so I can have the privilege of getting insulted by all sorts of people I don't know.
Post a Comment
28 Comments:
Kill The Afterlife has a "Hit List" of its own, but it is populated by Christian blogs. The list on this blog list seems to have mostly atheist blogs in it. It seems a little counter intuituve.
The shit list doesnt seem to help anything, and it is upsetting alot of atheist bloggers because Raving Atheist and Evangelical Atheist and others are popular blogs.
In my opinion, the shit list should have a more exclusive selection criteria or something. Maybe it should be reserved for those whose worldviews are more antithetical to atheism, rather than just those who differ on one or two little points but have the same basic anti-God stance.
If I were you, I would remove EA, RA, and UH because it will help the cause of atheism and help the readership of this blog. It will increase the appeal of this blog because it looks bad when a reader comes across an atheist blog like this one that has a bunch of other (and popular) atheist blogs on a shit list. It will turn readers off, especially if they are already fans of RA and EA etc...
If you still want to keep them up there then go for it, but you should only do so with the understanding that it will hurt the popularity of this blog and will cause your/our work here to reach less people. Thats why I recommend removing some of the entries from the shit list, because I think its more important to focus on the main goal here (spreading atheism) and not let disagreements get in the way of that goal.
Doesn't phase me a bit. You can call me a complete liberal bleeding-heart shithead with no more brains than a nun's dildo and I still won't go away.
Your answers to my questions might be a little dismissibve at times, but your material is thought-provoking and well-reasoned.
"Dismissive." Damn typos!
Thanks mark. The fact is, my shit list is giving them hits, so why should they complain anyway ?
However, in the view of Aaron's comments, I will erase the enemies list. My opinion is that it may not be the best thing to do for the blog, but Aaron has never sent me astray.
I would suggest building consensus as much as possible. I agree with you more than disagree, and have learned a lot from your blog. But I know that there might be issues we disagree about in the future.
The more you can temper your rhetoric and build bridges to other atheists, libertarians, and critical thinkers, the more influence you will have.
I suggest a more 'big tent' approach. It's good not to dismiss people out of hand. Given time, they may come around to your point of view if your arguments are sound.
All right, but it's no use for me to try to "build consensus" if I can't be seen. Controversy is a great way to do that. If I'm going to try it your way, I need an equally powerful method.
One powerful method is to practice lots of positive interaction with other atheist bloggers. I like to comment on lots of other blogs even to the point where some atheists call me ubiquitous. Then sometimes I reference my own posts and thoughts from my blog and people can go check out what I got over there. I make a point to have positive and supportive things to say and when I disagree with someone I let them know what I think in a diplomatic and constructive way. I think this is one method that has helped with my readership.
Thanx for taking my advice Franc. I think this will be a good thing. Maybe you can bring back the shit list if you really want to but only put theistic or wacko-mystical sites on the shit list rather than atheists?
Either way, I think this will be good for the blog and for our relations with other atheists. But you should keep the momentum going and handle your relations with other atheists in the way that Blacksun suggested.
nice post bleedingsaac.
"Self-refutation is the worse form of refutation" -Anonymous
Ignoring the two assholes who just posted, I have to say your method doesn't seem very effective. For one thing, very few people click on the sites of people who comment. I know this from checking our hits many times a day and monitoring their origins. If we relied on that alone we'd never grow. The fact remains that controversy has been a driving force here, and I don't really see why we should drop that per se.
"If you believe that objectivism is "the most rigorous philosophical system" and "the most reliable guide to a healthy relationship with reality," why aren't you an objectivist? Do you want to adhere to the second most rigorous philosophical system?"
No, I'm an individual and I don't need to adhere to a system that I don't agree with on major points. Is that hard to understand for a robot like you and Paulie here ?
Get the fuck out of my blog.
(Sorry about that Aaron, but I don't think I need to build consensus with two fundies ;)
Wasn't I forceful enough ? Should I swear at you with longer words, or is it a problem of comprehension ?
Jebus, what do you two have to gain by arguing?
You seem to be confused. I'm not arguing, I'm telling him to leave. He seems to be having reading problems.
Fair enough. Although I would think that if you ignore him, he'll probably go away as well…and that involves less swearing :-P.
I just don't want to see petty arguments bring the online atheist community to the same social level as my school. It's unpleasant enough to see people yell at each other there.
I've been attacked and villified for years. To me it's already down to that level. ;P
The fact remains that if I had gotten any support from prominent atheists instead of being ignored for personal reasons, I would probably be as well-known as Dan Barker, Infidel Guy or anyone else out there. Their strategy works, and there's nothing I can do about it. It's very frustrating.
Well, I would think the best strategy to start climbing would be to avoid attacking fellow atheists. Sure, they're doing it to you; but you want to be better than them, no?
If we can end these pointless feuds, then perhaps you will eventually receive the recognition you deserve.
Yes, I want to know how to do that, while being able to progress. So far I can see no means to do both at the same time.
Just ignore him.
…Open Letter To the Atheist Blogosphere
I have replied to your entry. I will also link to it on my next entry.
"The fact remains that if I had gotten any support from prominent atheists instead of being ignored for personal reasons, I would probably be as well-known as Dan Barker, Infidel Guy or anyone else out there. "
LOL!
Hey Franc, after you answer bleedinisaac's questions, can you answer my post?
http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/04/tremblay-on-transcendental-arguments.html
thanks
LOL indeed.
Francois why on earth does that concern you. I've seen these other more famous atheist sites and I would say there is a reason they get more readership, and it isn't due to lack of publicity due to personal vendettas.
I don't understand why you immediately attacked BleedingIssac. His post seemed to simply ask a polite question and you call him an asshole. Since you don't respond I am going to assume he didn't misquote you or something.
Too bad you took down the shit list before I could take a look. I find it strange that you should expect people to respond in a positive way to having their name put on a shit list.
"I've seen these other more famous atheist sites and I would say there is a reason they get more readership, and it isn't due to lack of publicity due to personal vendettas."
And what reason would that be ? Or are you just talking for nothing ?
Personality. The Raving Atheist is funny, the infidel guy comes across well in his radio interviews.
Why are you so concerned about the popularity of your blog and how much work you put into it? I've got a blog but frankly I've got better things to do. Are you trying to make a living at this?
Nor do I understand this atheist-community crap I read from some of your critics. Why do we need a community of people who don't believe in the same thing. I'm as likely to form an Atheist community as an Aleprechanist one.
Perhaps I'll go over to Hallquist's blog and pester him too. I don't mind organizing but the least people can do is organize around something they believe in, not something they don't.
Francois wrote: "I don't care if you think I'm abrasive or even morally wrong. That is your prerogative. But don't take away support for my blog based on that. It's crass and unjust. I work hard on this blog, and I don't do it so I can have the privilege of getting insulted by all sorts of people I don't know."
So people who regard you as an insufferable, vicious prick ought to promote your blog... because you've worked so very hard on it? What a crass demand of entitlement! What unjust tolerance and altruism you demand from others! (And yes, I'd be happy to be added to your shit list, if I'm not on it already.)
I don't want to make money out of this blog (although given my financial state, that would be great). I want to be read and I want to promote my other projects. Just like any other blogger. No one is doing this because he likes to read himself or thinks his web design is an art form.
Haaaa ha ha ! Spittle, I was going to try to get you on the show and talk it out, but this latest comment of yours leads me to believe that you deserve to die.
Francois,
I keep a blog because I like feedback on my opinions and like to participate in discussions for the purpose of furthering my knowledge.
I too come across badly at times.
Certain things irk me and then I can't talk with a person till I get it out of the way.
For instance, I don't like the fact that you didn't answer Bleedingisaac and are putting the burden on me to figure out whether you wrote those things, and whether those are your present positions.
I think taking down the hate list was a good first start. It seems that you also see insult where none was intended. You have to remember that new visitors do not have the time nor inclination to read every friggin post to figure out who is in the right, and frankly don't care.
As an example, you stated "Ignoring the two assholes who just posted". How is the new reader, me, suppose to take that when one guy merely asks what seem to be legitimate questions and the other says "nice post", then you call them assholes.
Look I've read a lot of Ayn Rand and I like some of her insights but I can't tell what is original or not because she doesn't credit anyone else, and in addition her system is quite lacking in many essentials.
It certainly is more valid than many other philosophical systems she criticizes like say skepticism, but frankly there are other philosphers out there. I am no great philosophical student but I find Popper very appealing and he is strong where Rand is very weak.
Rand addresses areas that Popper doesn't but in those areas she gets things so very wrong. She stresses selfishness too much and uses the term in an unconventional way. I thought at first that this was acceptable because I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she was using the word selfish to denote "enlightened self interest". However when I finally read about her actual behavior to her husband and friends I realized that despite her qualifications on the term "selfish" she actually meant for people to behave selfishly in the bad sense of the word. Not enlightened self-interest but self interest with no regard to self or others.
So why should I listen to someone who says "The most rigorous philosophical system is Objectivism. It is the only such system based on explicit and valid axioms and deductions, which makes it the most reliable guide to a healthy relationship with reality."?
If you want a popular blog you need readers and readers like to read things that expand upon their own world view, not negate it. Especially when it is obvious that the positions being taken are false. Seems like you have picked a minority position, atheism, and taken a subset of the position, objectivism, as your position.
Doesn't matter if you actually disagree with objectivism either, if you write and point to the things BleedingIssac claims you have when he says "This is in addition to your objectivist movie reviews, on-line course on objectivism, and you book on objectivism."
I have looked very deeply at Objectivism and have decided it is not in any way the basis of my beliefs. I came to my beliefs in a Popperian fashion and have been expanding them that way ever since. I did go about this by realizing that "A is A" and then somehow deduce the tenets of Objectivism. Instead I looked at it, saw Rand was right about some things and wrong about others then rejected what she was wrong about.
Objectivism comes across as mean spirited. It doesn't allow for the nature of men, which is that they are decidedly irrational, and quite less than perfect. The fact that you jump on anyone, who is the least bit in disagreement with you with insults makes you appear mean spirited also.
So the first thing you can do is to be a full apostate to Objectivism, don't mention it without qualifications. The second is to grow a thicker skin. The third is to ignore, not berate assholes. The fourth to do everything in your power to clear up misconceptions about your positions in a way that does not put a burden on the reader.
BTW, where I don't follow my own advice I often get in trouble. Being human I often don't. Some people are just that way, I recognize it to some extent in myself. You need to do so for yourself. My first impression of you is that you are a prick, and I say that in the most loving way, really. I wish you the best. I think the fact that I took the time to write this shows that. It was an almost purely altruistic act.
BTW, I would appreciate it if you'd answer BleedingIssacs question and give him an apology. Perhaps if you did that he might reconsider his opinion of you, perhaps he will tell you to fuck a goat, in which case we would know what kind of guy he is.
Frankly, I kind of liked the guy till I read how he got to feel up so many young sexually repressed Christian womens breasts at his blog and that made me jealous and now I am not so sure. Bastard. That was till I remembered that although started a little later I was getting a lot farther than second base. Human nature, what a gas.
Ok, I took a look. I think that a "rational man" would be reasonable to conclude that only an objectivist could do objectivist movie reviews, unless he wasn't also a liar. I read a few to see if it was parody or something and it wasn't. The only conclusion I can come to is that he was claiming to be an objectivist at the time he wrote the reviews.
You'd think he'd update his web site to make clear he isn't an objectivist, if he wasn't one.
<< Home