Let me set it up for you: I say that AoA is bad for the thanskgiving fiasco and being nasty to reporters. Craig points out that Orac can be mean, too, but I don't chew him out. I respond back, bad Orac and when have I not supported Craig? Oh, and what was his point, other than that he was mad at me.
"The point, Kim, is that the people whom you claim are "science-based" are just as guilty if not more guilty than AoA is of your accusations.My reply:
And yet, you say nothing to them. In fact, to all appearances, you both support and encourage it.
I'm someone who, when I see something that I feel is wrong, I say something. I did so at AoA. Do I have less respect for them? Absolutely not. Friends can disagree. I felt their article was inappropriate, and I let them know that. Honestly, I am glad they took it down.
But when Orac posts his drivel, to my observations, you are perfectly ok with his personal and mean spirited attacks. When he and Ken have done their personal attacks on me (like calling me a liar about my son's condition), whether warranted or not, have you supported me? No. But, you sure are quick to call me out on it when I do it, though.
Ms. Stagliano has supported me. Her and AoA were there for me when my son was at his most violent, and their advice and soft shoulders helped me out more than hundreds of doctors ever have. They have never judged me. They have never called me an idiot. They understand my anger and my contempt for these "doctors" who are morally obligated to help people, but instead high five each other over the best zings they can come up with."
Then, from all appearances, based on your comment, you have no problem with lies. Or you'd have stood up when they printed something that was demonstrably untrue.
You have a martyr chip on your shoulder. So, Ken is Orac's dog, and I am his cheerleader? You are stuck. Stuck in the rut of going around insisting to all who will hear you that you have been mistreated. If they acknowledge that mistreatment, all's fine and dandy for a minute before you need to get your rage on. And on you are to your next person, to discuss a generic they and their sins against you.
You are being inconsistent. I cannot police everyone's comments, nor is it my job to do so.
Again, I have supported you, not called you a liar regarding your son's adverse reaction, posted your story on my blog.
You know full well I am not going to blindly endorse the falsehoods that AoA and like organizations put out. If you feel that you have no choice but to remain loyal to AoA because they were there for you, that's your choice.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Real dialogue can't take place under moderation. It cannot. Now, without moderation, it certainly can get uncivil. But free exchange does not occur where third parties decide what gets on and what gets pulled. Huff and AoA stifle free exchange. Where your ideas and your evidence are strong enough, you don't need censorship. (Unless the person you are banning is a complete asshat, Lurker).
I have little respect for the ideas or the comments that Rileysmom often makes, however, she's right about this:
"You want to talk about character assasanation. There is plenty going back and forth here. You people aren't any better so Sheldon get off your high horse...you are no different, you just aren't as blunt as some of the others. You have a condescending nature to your post. How's that any different than being blatantly rude?She's also unabashedly anti-vaccine. She owns her words and her positions and she doesn't waver:
Everyone is guilty of this (even me), don't accuss others unless you and yours are ready to look in the mirror."
"I am ANTI vaccine. I don't believe at this point in time there are TRULY safe vaccines, period. I don't recommend any vaccines.
Once again, I will state, I'm ANTI VACCINE. I make NO apologizes for that. I sure don't owe you or anyone on this board an apology for watching what happened to my child and speaking up about it."
I respect honesty. She's not changing her avowed position to suit who she's speaking to; she's not pretending in one vein that she's for safe vaccines and then going out of her way to sabotage folks from getting vaccinated. She is upfront about it. She's wrong, but like Kathy Blanco, she lets you know where she stands. And she admits when she goes overboard. She isn't too sorry about it, but she OWNS it.
And some of her stuff, when she talks about her children, well, you can see the person, the mom, and not the anti-vaxxer. You can see her humor and her humanity. And she sounds like someone I could have coffee with if we could agree to talk about our children and things in general and not talk about religion. Sort of like how atheists and believers can be good friends.
AoA and most of its loyalists spend precious little time seeing the humanity in others who follow the science. It's anger and vitriol and ugliness. Sometimes, it's not. I work to acknowledge when their humanity shows, where they let the ugly go and share the good. They don't do that often. And most of the time their recovery stories are all about the products.
So, like Rileysmom, I'm not going to apologize for standing. Someone's got to. At least I'm not alone. Not all of the scientifically minded folks do it with sweetness and lightness. Some of them sling it back and sling hard. I've yet to see as much nastiness on their part as on the anti-vaxxers. Some have used the kool-aid gambit. I don't like that and I've often explained that and why. But NONE I have ever seen have EVER sunk to the low of Stagliano's blowjob remark or Handley's date rape drug and intellectual rape of Amy Wallace. Now, I don't read everything out there, because for goodness' sake, I have three children with autism, a husband who needs to be queued like the Sims games we both love, parents, brothers (the bagless wonder and fredless boy), students, friends who all need attention. I have courses to prep for, plagiarizers to catch. I have classes I'm taking. So, no, I don't go to forums or groups, other than the ones I belong to or run. I don't wander around to blogs not on my blog list (except for that edgy blog, AoA). I don't see a whole lot of the ugliness and the meanness that go on. Thankfully. I see AoA and I see Huff. Can you imagine if they didn't moderate? They deliberately let the one-sided ugly on. Lovely. At least if you post at Orac's it's getting on. That's a hell of a lot more than AoA. You get to speak your say, take your lumps, dish them out, all like you've got your big girl panties or big boy underoos on.
And Orac, despite his insolence, has facts behind him. Verifiable facts. Wow. Ain't that something.
Guess that makes me a cheerleader.