After bringing to light the issues surrounding Gleb Tsipursky and his Pro-Truth Pledge, he has decided to attack me in a 7,000+ word article that reads like a high school term paper I would have never read had I not been mentioned in it 47 times.
Honestly, I’m pretty sick of this nonsense. I don’t even want to write this. I’d prefer this guy and his abhorrent lack of ethics and common decency just wander off to wherever disgraced members of the secular community go after they’re exposed for who they really are. But he chose to stick around and accuse me of slander, libel, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and yes, racism. I can’t even with this guy. He’s truly in another reality.
To recap, Tsipursky has been shown to behave unethically by:
- Misrepresenting himself as a best-selling author
- Paying his staff for only 1/3 of their time
- Exaggerating claims of collaboration with other organizations
- Lying about soliciting upvotes on his articles
- Bragging about his social media impact despite paying for the engagement
- Hiring cheap labor in developing countries to promote his work on social media, and then lying about it, claiming they’re “superfans.”
- Posting other people’s free content on his Patreon and charging his supporters for it.
- Trying to correct some of the above issues after being called out, only to insert more dishonesty and lack of transparency.
I’m not going to go through his ridiculously long and poorly written diatribe of how innocent he is and how terrible of a person I am and refute every claim against me like I’m on trial. For starters, I’m not the kind of writer who’s in the business of putting my readers to sleep. Secondly, this guy is so far off his rocker at this point that addressing all of his Gleb-splaining line-by-line would just afford him credibility that he doesn’t deserve. So I’m only going to address the most egregious and untruthful of his attacks in order to defend my own reputation and finish with a final message to him directly, so please bear with me.
Here’s what you’ll notice. Gleb Tsipursky has a history of deflecting from criticism and vilifying his accusers when his behavior is brought into question. He uses logical fallacies to defend himself — mostly appeals to credentials, appeals to authority, and bandwagon fallacies — while accusing his criticizers of ad hominem and slander. His article on Saturday is no exception. He has painted the situation as persecution committed by me — a bully, a stalker, and a racist. As another prominent secular blogger commented to me, “Welcome to trying to make a movement better. It’s a rite of passage.” Yeah, no kidding. So let’s get into it.
FACT: Before I wrote any articles about Tsipursky, I confronted him in this Facebook thread (sorry Natalie):
However, in Tsipursky’s article on Saturday, he says [excuse the poor grammar please], “Having tried to reason with him, to no avail, I had to block him on Facebook as he was showing increasingly problematic behavior in spreading misinformation, to avoid having to deal with him constantly tagging me and escalating my anxiety disorder.”
Apparently, Tsipursky’s attempt to reason with me was, “I don’t see it as my role to continue to deal with people’s delusions after I have shown them that their concerns are unfounded. Goodbye and good luck.” Also, I see no evidence of me “constantly tagging” him, forcing him to fall victim of his anxiety disorder. Instead, it’s possible he’s feeling anxiety from being questioned about his ethics and not being able to answer pointed questions.
Tsipursky also says about me, “he kept spreading misinformation about me around the internet, sharing in various Facebook groups and private messages with various secular leaders and activists, as well as spreading these falsehoods in-person.” I shared my article about his inconsistent relationship with the truth in various Facebook groups, yes. I do that with most of my articles when they’re relevant to the groups. I did not reach out to “various secular leaders and activists” in private messages, nor did I meet with anyone in-person about him. I did say in one article that his name came up in conversation once over two months ago (not originating with me) and I largely disregarded it. This guy’s loose grasp of reality is alarming.
FACT: After Tsipursky published his enormous tl;dr-version of his side of the story on Saturday, he private-messaged anyone who had previously commented on any public Facebook thread about his issues (whether he was FB friends with them or not) and provided a link to his article.
That’s not creepy and desperate at all.
He also responded to all comments on SecularVoices that condemned his actions with the same statement and link. That’s called spamming and it got him temporarily banned from SecularVoices. I left one of his comments up but deleted all duplicates. As you can see, I clearly told him why I deleted the duplicate comments and banned him.
That, of course, triggered him to create an addendum to his post from Saturday, complaining that I was trying to unfairly censor him by deleting his comments, even though I told him why I did it. “It is up to you, dear reader, what to make of the fact that Davis deleted my comments directing readers to this post, where I clarify my perspective and respond to his claims.” Yes, dear reader, it is up to you. Maybe because you’re a spammer, Gleb? Seriously, my eyes hurt from all the rolling.
FACT: After Tsipursky blocked me on Facebook for exposing his unethical behavior, he later made a public Facebook post where he explained that he’s facing a lot of slander and rumors about him (referring to my articles), which is triggering his anxiety disorder. As a result, he will be, without warning, blocking and deleting comments from anyone who participates in “slander” against him or his activities. He says this is an effort to preserve his mental health.
After reading Tsipusky’s misrepresentation of my activities, calling it slander and playing the victim, I felt I needed to defend myself, so I commented. I knew full well my comment would be deleted, but I was posting it so that those who were ignorant of the situation could have a fuller picture. This post is what Tsipursky will later use to accuse me of “criminal cyberstalking and cyberbullying.”
Must be nice to scam money from people, violate intellectual property rights, misrepresent yourself as someone who fights for truth, and then play the victim when someone accurately calls you out for being untruthful and unethical. Mental illness is not something to hide behind to avoid criticism. By doing so, you insult those who live with mental illness, cope with it, and live their lives honestly and ethically. If you want to be a public figure, you’re going to need to face criticism, not run from it. Go ahead and block this profile too. I’m only posting so your supporters can be informed of the truth, not your skewed version peppered with the misuse of “slander.”
The interesting thing is that, in his article, he uses a screen shot and cuts off everything from “cope with” on, failing to share why I posted it (to inform his supporters of the truth) and instead says this in his article, “the only audience of his comment was me, and he knew it would not in any way change my mind since he knew I would delete it. This to me excluded the possibility of any other reasons than to cause me mental pain.” Yep, he’s lying again.
So based on this one comment I left from an alternate account, Tsipursky accuses me of criminal cyberstalking and cyberbullying, and threatens to turn me in to the authorities or sue me if it continues. I can only imagine how quickly his claims would be dismissed. This would be a great example of how Tsipursky attempts to deflect from criticism of his own behavior and place himself in a victim role. As a friend of mine, Alice Cichon, informed Tsipursky when he inappropriately messaged her on Facebook to share his article, “I don’t know who you are, but as an actual victim of cyberstalking, this post is laughable. The ‘criminal’ accusations that you’re attempting to make would never hold up in court.”
Tsipursky then condemns me for having a second Facebook account (inaccurately calling it a sock puppet account — something he’s actually been accused of by many for years. A sock puppet is a fake profile but my alternate has my name and is not a fake identity), which he states is a Facebook Terms of Service violation. I actually didn’t know that, since I know several people who have multiple accounts. They use alternative accounts temporarily if their main account gets suspended. In the secular community, we face this a lot, because many religious groups will band together to complain about us and try to get us silenced when we criticize their religion. So in order to maintain a presence during these suspensions, we have alternate accounts. I also have one because, as my readers are aware, I often act as a whistleblower when it comes to schools illegally promoting the Good News Club. This often gets me blocked by the schools I’ve turned in or publicly criticized, but in order to check in on them and make sure they’ve corrected their behaviors, I use an alternate account.
So why is this relevant? Well, it turns out that in his article, Tsipursky has also inadvertently admitted to violating Facebook’s ToS by giving his Facebook password to Intentional Insights staff to post on his behalf. “I trust these volunteers to such an extent that I gave one my password for my Facebook account to spend time sharing articles from my personal account.”
I guess he stopped reading at #2. Something about glass houses comes to mind here. Keep picking up those rocks, Gleb.
On to me being a racist.
As mentioned in previous articles, it appears that Tsipursky has hired people to promote his posts on social media. Why do we think that? Because a handful of Facebook group admins have reached out to me privately to inform me that they’ve had to ban several of these accounts, many of which appear to be from developing countries, as the only activity they have in their respective groups, as well as on their own walls, is posting Tsipursky’s articles. That’s a violation of most groups’ posting rules and is considered spamming.
Oh, and this. Click it. Go ahead. It’s proof that not only do these accounts exist, but that they have fake profile pictures and Tsipursky has actively recruited people to share his content in Facebook groups on his behalf. Here’s what Tsipursky says about these international accounts who do nothing but share his content:
I do have a number of supporters who like my writings and believe it is valuable for the world to promote them. Indeed, when I share my posts on Facebook, I often have a call to action asking people to share them. Naturally, my posts then tend to be shared, and these supporters tend to do most of this sharing. Some of them even created social media accounts explicitly for this purpose. Many of the people who tend to share my posts most tend to be from developing countries, as I make a particular effort to reach out to secular people there, something unusual for secular activists in the US. They tend to be more likely to become “superfans” and share my content more broadly, as well as become volunteers for the nonprofit I run.
Yeah, it’s pretty fishy, and he’s been called out on this for years. But when I accused him of it, this was his response:
It was very disheartening to observe what appears to be the implicit racism of Davis when he sees people from developing countries sharing posts and assume that they are hired to spam articles on social media just because they honestly self-identified as coming from developing countries.
Racism? No. I’m not calling him out on hiring people or using fake accounts simply because they’re from third-world countries or are of a particular race. That’s total misdirecting nonsense. In no way did I ever make any reference to race at all. If geographic location equals race in Tsipursky’s mind, then maybe he skipped a few classes on the way to his doctorate.
Hell, I don’t even know what race these people are, since they use fake profile pictures!
The above photo is of actor Alden Richards.
Meet comedian Empoy Marquez.
So, as any rational person would be… I’m done with this nonsense. I’m done with Tsipursky’s evasion of responsibility. I’m done with him playing the victim in an attempt to change the subject. And I’m done spending any more of my valuable time on someone who doesn’t deserve my attention.
This last portion is directed to Gleb. Thanks for the memories.
Gleb, I will not allow someone like you to take up any more of my time. It’s obvious that you’ve been involved in some seriously shady practices and have done a piss-poor job rectifying your mistakes. Instead of admitting your issues in an honest way, you’ve come clean on minor things, tried to explain away others (like claiming ignorance of copyright laws), and outright denied the larger issues, while vilifying your accusers and redirecting the conversation to make yourself out to be a victim in some scheme to stop your activism. If anyone has a case for libel, it’s me. Your heinous accusations of slander, bullying, stalking, and racism are an attempt to damage my reputation in an effort to save your own. You are a person of low integrity in my opinion and evidenced by your behavior, actively marketing a pledge that is intended to hold others to the truth when you can’t come to terms with it yourself. That in itself is a travesty — a walking contradiction. You’re not only damaging your own reputation as you continue this fight, but you’re also alienating yourself from the rest of the secular community. Speaking for our community, I’ll tell you that we have bigger issues to work on, and we need all hands on deck to be successful. If any of those hands are not up to the task and up to performing with honesty, integrity, and accountability, then we ask that they not be involved.
I sincerely hope this is the last I mention your name, Gleb. I don’t plan to engage with you in any respect unless a public apology is directed to me and all of the other members of the secular community that you’ve represented poorly in your own quest for attention and prominence. The secular movement is not an “I” movement. It’s a “we” movement, and if you want your part to be holding others accountable for the truth, then you need to come to terms with the truth first. I’ve actually tried to help you with that and you’ve ignored my pleas, both directly and through third parties. I can’t help you anymore. This is the bed you’ve made, and it’s time to lie down. We’re done here.