12/03/2009

Taken to task by a friend who doesn't read me any more

Okay, by now, you've probably read Louise, Thelma and my response to Kim Stagliano's Popegate. Craig took me to task for my original comment, writing:

Seriously.­..I've read through Kim Stagliano's post 4 times now, and I don't see anywhere in there that she says that vaccines are akin to pedophilia. kwombles (I'm using your screen name to avoid confusion since you and Kim Stagliano share the same first name), could it be that you are letting your dislike for Ms. Stagliano color your perception of her article and that you are reading more into than you should?


All I see is that she is comparing the reaction of the Medical community towards parents of vaccine injured children to how the Catholic Church treated those who came forward and said that they were being molested. The Catholic Church essentially called them crazy and ignored them. The medical community calls us crazy and ignores us. See the comparison now?


Yes, I think you are definitely reading too much into her post. This is the main reason why I quit reading your site; you too often let your dislike of someone color your perceptions of what they are writing. You think that because someone posts an article on Whale.to, it automatically makes them a Holocaust denier.


And kwombles; friends stand up and speak out to defend their friends. Orac's characterization of me on his latest hit piece should have warnered a response from you in my defense.

It's not like this will actually get on over at Huff (and it frakking didn't), but here's my response to Craig chewing me out:
Oh, you're right, Craig, it doesn't make her a holocaust denier, just someone who is in collusion with them. No difference at all; she just supports and participates in a site that engages in holocaust denialism and mind control and the idea that vaccines are a governmental conspiracy to eradicate a generation of people. Gosh, my mistake.

I don't dislike Stagliano. I don't know her. I do know when analogies go too far, though, and much like the Nancy under the table bit, this goes too far.

This is what Orac wrote: "When even Craig Willoughby, who went from seemingly at least semi-rational to full-out hate-filled ranting (particularly about me), doesn't think this is appropriate, AoA has a real problem, and trying to claim that this disgusting picture was "inspired" by Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" looks desperate at best and pathetic at worst." He said you went from semi-rational to hate filled ranting towards him. You have, and your reactions to Ken have been even more vitriolic, whether you think they were warranted or not. What, exactly, was I supposed to defend? Where have you been charitable to Orac or his Oraccalytes?



.....

So, to my friend who may not talk to me any more (except at Huff where I apparently don't get to respond)and said he doesn't read me: I was impressed with you when you stood up over at AoA and said the baby-meal was over the top. I was. And I get that this is a group of people who were there for you when you felt no one else was and so you have considerable loyalty towards them. But they're wrong. They're factually inaccurate. And they profit off of desperate parents. You don't think they're collecting money from those ads? You don't think there's some kind of monetary or product pay off when they write a testimonial for a product of one of their advertisers?

And to berate me because I didn't leap to your defense at Orac's especially after you said you weren't talking to me anymore? Friends keep talking, Craig. And have you read what you write about Orac?

It seems to me you can't quite decide whether to let go of the anger or not. Where you fit. I get that. AoA will certainly stoke that anger. As to dislike coloring perceptions, mirror. You hate Orac. You hate  Ken. Deny that. I don't hate these people, and my writing demonstrates that repeatedly. I feel for these parents, their desperation. But I don't tolerate fools. And desperation is no excuse for going down the woo-hole.

I haven't gotten mad at any of this over the last nine months, except once. One time and that mom knows who she is and why. She and my readers also know that I don't hold it against her and offered her friendship and support.

You may be factually correct in that Stagliano is not literally saying vaccines are sexual abuse; she's just implying that vaccine damages are tantamount to it and that Offit is complicit in the cover up like the Popes have been. It's offensive to autistic individuals and to those who have been sexually abused. It isn't right. And to Offit. I don't know about the popes. She went too far. Period. And that's twice in a week where she's done so.

But, hey, you'll never see this since you don't read me anymore. Seems if we were really friends, you'd still be talking to me, don't you think? Damn shame, as I like you and think you could use a soft place and support that will help you release the anger.

Won't even let this on: sorry, vaccine damage akin to sexual abuse. Seriously, not even that. (Oh, wait, they actually did!)

So, Craig, I'm not ignoring you over there, I just can't get a post on. Huh. Wow. Go figure.

Oh, and what's up with hanging up on that sentence in my response and ignoring the comment in its entirety: You know, Offit doesn't state that vaccines are infallible. Just that they are far better than the diseases they prevent. Oh, and that they don't cause autism. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that he does. It's also offensive to suggest that Offit is akin to the pope and that vaccines are akin to pedophilia, which is what you are doing.


The bolded text you just ignore. Stagliano's been at best disingenuous. At best. At worst, I've inferred that she's suggesting vaccines/vaccine damage/autism is tantamout to sexual abuse. I haven't been disingenuous, though. I didn't say she said that. I said she was suggesting it.

Not even going to bother trying to get this response on over at Huff. My response to Craig's staunch defense of Stagliano's comparison of Offit to the Pope and parents of children with alleged vaccine induced autism to the parents and victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy (there, better, Craig?):

By invoking this analogy, whether intentionally or not, she is implying that what Offit is doing is comparable to the blind eye the Catholic church turned towards sexual abuse. She is implying that autism is akin to, similar to suffering sexual abuse. No you're right, it's not even about autistic individuals. It's about the parents who continue to make claims that science has continually found no connection with. She's placed the decades upon decades of sexual abuse of vulnerable minors in connection with the whole vaccine/autism issue. She's compared Offit to a bureaucracy that condoned and hid sexual abuse.


Never mind that Offit has never declared vaccines infallible. Never mind any facts, either.

I saw the comparison quite well, Craig, and she's wrong. She's wrong to link Offit in any way, especially after Handley's intellectual rape bit and her own Nancy bit to pedophilia in any way. Period. She's wrong.

And I have to wonder why you're defending her so hard.

(I did try to get this on: You're right. It is a simple analogy. And wrong. As wrong as another recent post of hers.) --it did post.

3 comments:

AutismNewsBeat said...

You have, and your reactions to Ken have been even more vitriolic, whether you think they were warranted or not.

Warranted! I knew that was a word!

sheldon101 said...

I got into the comments late for Ms.Stagliano's opus on Offit and the Catholic Church, but I make up for it.

But I didn't realize how nasty she was. I knew something was wrong when I looked for the standard money-grubbing profiteer Offit and couldn't find it.

I think she outsmarted herself with this as most people ignored it.

But I was astonished to see her admitting that vaccines were so effective 60 years ago. Ok, she got the time wrong and she got the impact at that time, but boy is that quotation going to haunt her.

But as a newbie at Huff-Post, I'm still amazed that the moderators are allowed to be so biased.

cawill said...

Well, Kim, you could have told him, "Craig's not really as bad as you say, Orac. Sure, he's a bit harsh, particularly when it comes to you, but overall, he's a very nice guy who cares deeply about his children. Plus, he's really intelligent and damned good looking."

;-)