Rebecca Hamilton has a comment policy on her blog that seems about as random as what the GOP is scared shitless about this week (is it gays? Ebola? The minority vote? Roll the dice and let’s find out!). She moderates contrary comments heavily, often blocking perfectly polite comments that point out how she has been wrong. She seems to demand perfect kindness from atheists while letting a swath of unseemly comments through from people who agree with her. She then attempts to defy irony by claiming atheists are bullies.
However, recently an interesting comment got through on her site and she left and even more…interesting…response. Here’s the sitch: the other day Rebecca Hamilton wrote an article about an anti-discrimination measure in Houston in which she called atheists bullies and said a bunch of stuff that just flat out wasn’t true. I rebutted.
Then one of my readers posted this image of a comment that got through on Hamilton’s site along with her response:
Ok, so she would never “skewer” her colleagues at Patheos. It’s great to call atheists bullies, but when they respond and point out that her fact claims were inaccurate then it’s “second-rate behavior” to which Rebecca will not stoop. Right.
And yes, Rebecca, you don’t skewer your colleagues here at Patheos. Not because you don’t write disparaging things that apply to us, but because when you do so with inaccurate factual claims and bad arguments it doesn’t count as skewering.
And then she tries to make pretensions to occupying the high ground. She’s too noble to sink to responding to someone who pointed out all the ways she was wrong. No, she’ll stick to throwing out the first batch of slings and arrows and then ignoring her targets when they say “that’s not right.” As far as the high ground goes, that’s like paddling behind me in a canoe making fun of my yacht.
Conversation’s a two-way street, lady. If you want us to read and consider what you write about the state of atheism and the world, you need to be willing to do the same when we respond – and you need to at least act like facts matter. I at least had the courtesy to read what you wrote in full and respond thoroughly. Conversely, you just said you don’t care for any of it, as if we’re supposed to give weight to your words after you’ve just asserted you don’t care to hear any contrary opinion from the people you just bitched about. These are the actions of a self-absorbed person who’s in it to trump up malcontent, not somebody who’s primary concern is making sure their beliefs are true.
I wonder if she treats her belief in Jesus with the same lack of care.