Categories
a voice for men drama entitled babies lying liars MRA paul elam

Paul Elam blames me for his alleged ignorance of the blatant fraud on his own site [CORRECTED]

Thanks Obama! (And David Futrelle.) (For more, click image)

CORRECTION: New evidence suggests that the screenshot discussed in this post and elsewhere was not a forgery but the result of a glitch. I offer a correction, and an apology, and a discussion of the implications, here.

So the mighty Paul Elam has acknowledged — in the comments section of Girl Writes What’s blog, at least –that there might just be some sort of problem going on with regard to, you know, that whole fake screenshot thing. You know, the blatant fraud that A Voice for Men mangling — sorry, managing — editor Dean Esmay seems to have engaged in to cover up a mistake.

But, Paul being Paul, he somehow manages to turn his sort-of acknowledgement of the problem into an attack on me, bizarrely blaming me (the person who actually pointed out this fraud) for him not knowing about it before today:

As much as I hate to say it, Futrelle does have a valid point. I am looking in to it today, and unlike Futrelle, I will address the results of my inquiry in public no matter where they end up.

I don’t mind looking into problems, even when they are pointed out by such a bald faced liar. I would have actually been aware of this sooner if his blog were worth reading. I had to become aware of it in your comments to even know there was a problem.

Well, Paul, I would have happily brought my findings to the comments section of A Voice for Men, rather than the comments section of Girl Writes What’s blog, but you may recall I am banned there. And I wonder if anyone there would have had the courage to stand up and say that, gosh, this Futrelle guy has a point, given how quickly people are censored there for deviating from your site’s perverse “conventional wisdom.”

And gosh, Paul, how unfair it is to expect the publisher of a site to be aware of what’s, you know, published on it. Concerns about the story were brought up by your own commenters shortly after it first ran. Esmay referred in an article and an editorial note to my alleged “lies” about the story; it didn’t occur to you to even go look at what I had said? And even aside from the phony screenshot, or anything I’ve written, did you really think that Esmay’s bizarre explanations for the original mistake made any kind of sense?

In other words, are you incompetent, or are you lying about being unaware of the problem until now?

In any case, I await the results of your “investigation.” I am especially eager to see how you will manage to spin things so it becomes someone else’s fault. Will it be some evil conspiracy that “set you up?”

And when exactly have I lied, Paul? Could you offer a citation? When I point out the lies on your site, I fucking back up each claim.

[EDIT: Added some stuff in the “gosh, Paul” paragraph and made a few other changes.]

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

275 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Aaliyah
8 years ago

Fucking Elam. =S

Lady Mondegreen
8 years ago

Shorter Paul Elam: Goddam it, that was sloppy of Dean. Can’t think of any way to explain this away. “OK, readers, Futrelle’s right–but he’s a poopyhead! Nyah! Now go back to ignoring him kthxbai.”

ltkessler
8 years ago

I would prefer not to, Aaliyah. Oh wait, I think I misunderstood. Quite.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

*headdesk*

Well, at least he’s reading GWW’s blog. She’ll be happy.

Stuffed Fantod
8 years ago

None of them possess even a slight amount of integrity.

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

That’s it! Paul Elam is an escapee from the As Seen On TVerse, where everyone is stymied by even the simplest tasks, including skinning potatoes, watering hanging plants and, of course, reading their own damned blog site!

cloudiah
8 years ago

This is sadly hilarious.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Freemage: the As Seen On TVerse helplessness is one of MR. HK’s favorite things to jokingly impersonate while doing stuff around the house.

Jake Jones
Jake Jones
8 years ago

Elam is an incompetent prick.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Says the person who can’t figure out what a writer means. Oh the irony.

katz
8 years ago

Jake, FYI, this is not one of those fora where we just magically forget that you were being a dick in the other thread.

Jake Jones
Jake Jones
8 years ago

I wasn’t being a dick, and I’d be happy to continue the discussion in the previous thread.

Jake Jones
Jake Jones
8 years ago

Elam’s only recourse may be to cut ties with some of the rest of the top brass. Unfortunately it would also require a level of finesse that swollen scrotum isn’t capable of.

SittieKitty
SittieKitty
8 years ago

*clears throat*

Gosh Darn it! If only there was something worth reading on Futrelle’s site! Then I’d have known my own site was publishing blatantly false things!! Futrelle should get his act together!!

*scene*

*prays that blockquoting works as this kitty has no clue how to format properly*

katz
8 years ago

I suppose that, much like authorial intent, whether you were being a dick is defined by whether or not you admit to being a dick?

Aaliyah
8 years ago

Against all odds, you have escaped the blockquote monster. Please claim your reward of canned tuna.

SittieKitty
SittieKitty
8 years ago

*om nom nom*

Kittehserf
8 years ago

Well done, SittieKitty!

Which thread was Jake Jones being a dick on? There are so many going at the moment I think I missed it.

Kittehserf
8 years ago

SittieKitty, I’m going to have to look at that video tonight (no sound at work) – I want to know if kitten sounds like my Fribbie when she talks to her food. 😀

SittieKitty
SittieKitty
8 years ago

Can I ask… how on earth do you keep so many threads open/going at once? Am I missing some Sūpr Sēkret™ ability?

(In addition, I’m not usually this strange with the letters, I’m just tipsy and a wee tad bored so I’m playing with my special characters keyboard)

Jake Jones
Jake Jones
8 years ago

I suppose that, much like authorial intent, whether you were being a dick is defined by whether or not you admit to being a dick?

Wasn’t my best point, I’ll grant that, because it’s very possible Hitchens did believe what he was saying to a point. I read it as a flippant piece, but others might not have.

Still, my point about scale remains. Even if you think Hitchens wrote a sexist piece, that doesn’t then make him a raging misogynists. For one thing, what then is Elam?

SittieKitty
SittieKitty
8 years ago

Even if you think Hitchens wrote a sexist piece, that doesn’t then make him a raging misogynists. For one thing, what then is Elam?

The same. Scaled forward. Both can be true even if they are not equal.

katz
8 years ago

Sistiekitty: Our foster kitty Sweet Pea eats wet food and mews at the same time and it comes out as this gargly noise. Wish I could get it on tape; I’d finally make my YouTube fortune.

katz
8 years ago

The same. Scaled forward. Both can be true even if they are not equal.

Yup. You wouldn’t accept “Just because I killed one person doesn’t make me a murderer. What would that make Pol Pot, then?” as an argument, would you?

Aaliyah
8 years ago

So…it’s actually a matter of dispute whether Hitchens was a misogynist?

I think not.

katz
8 years ago

I think not.

Poof, you disappear!

SittieKitty
SittieKitty
8 years ago

katz, that’s adorable! I’ve had to put my babe on wet food (because she can’t ration her dry food and the vet thinks it’s bad for her to just constantly eat), and now she thinks dry food is kitty treats and won’t eat the wet unless it’s garnished with a few pieces of dry. She, truly, will not eat for weeks (I’m assuming, I haven’t actually been able to hold out for more than a few days) if I don’t garnish the food, but a few pieces of dry food makes it THE BEST FOOD SHE’S EVER HAD.

Jake Jones
Jake Jones
8 years ago

I disagree with the underlying idea that writing something kind of sexist at one point makes that person a misogynist. That’s stupid. Done with the discussion, I think.

ostara321
ostara321
8 years ago

Aw now katz, that’s not fair. Jake’s INTENT was not to be an asshole, that’s just how we read it because it affirms our worldview.

FWIW Jake, since you seem to think that tone matters more than content (which, in the written word can be very different than spoken word, which I’m sure you know) your tone was pretty assholish as well.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

“I disagree with the concept that just because someone wrote something misogynistic, and refused to ever apologize for it despite there being widespread criticism, makes thm a misogynist.”

Imagine making the same argument about racism.

Words mean things. If you write/say something sexist and double down on it, you’re sexist. What other benchmark would we use?

SittieKitty
SittieKitty
8 years ago

I disagree with the underlying idea that writing something kind of sexist at one point makes that person a misogynist.

I also agree. Since we’re not really talking about that guy who that one time wrote something kinda sexist, we’re talking about Hitchens who was very well known for multiple instances of sexism, I stand by my assertion that the collective works of his shows he’s pretty misogynist. Especially since he was called out on it and said jack shit to correct himself or show any sort of understanding. It’s like … hmm… that thing… where people make mistakes and either own up to them or ignore it completely and/or falsify evidence and try to shift blame onto someone else… I could have sworn I’d read something recently about something just like that…

Aaliyah
8 years ago

If someone has misogynistic beliefs, especially if they inform a significant part of their worldview, that person is a misogynist.

katz
8 years ago

Done with the discussion, I think.

And being done with the discussion, much like authorial intent and being an asshole, is defined by whether you say it’s happening?

Are you noticing a common thread here?

ostara321
ostara321
8 years ago

Anyway, since everything isn’t about Jake, on topic, Elam’s whinge reminds me heavily of another Paul. Ron Paul, who first claimed he had no idea that his friend was supposedly publishing all that racist garbage in his paranoia leaflets, then got all pissed at people who kept bringing it up and asking him about it.

At best he looks incompetent. At worst… nope, he just looks really really incompetent.

Jake Jones
Jake Jones
8 years ago

Katha Pollitt on Hitchens’ misogyny:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher#axzz2WcH9zb8t

Well, thank you. That’s an interesting article. But my point is that I often see people who seem to have read no Hitchens except the women aren’t funny article and have mentally placed him in the Raging Misogynist category (right next to the only other one, Perfect Feminist). That’s shitty, sloppy, bullshit thinking and I’m seeing more and more of it in these kinds of internet communities.

Kittehserf
8 years ago

That’s shitty, sloppy, bullshit thinking and I’m seeing more and more of it in these kinds of internet communities.

But Hitchens’s shitty, sloppy, bullshit thinkng (and misogyny, and bullying, and all the rest) is just fine dandy, hmm?

Go fuck yourself.

dustydeste
dustydeste
8 years ago

But my point is that I often see people who seem to have read no Hitchens except the women aren’t funny article and have mentally placed him in the Raging Misogynist category (right next to the only other one, Perfect Feminist).

Umm, probably because it was a douchey, misogynistic thing to say. Guess what, if we only have a small sampling of a person’s behavior to judge by? They’re still getting judged. And frankly, the judgment people tend to come to in this case? It’s pretty damn accurate.

And by the way? Your assumptions on other people’s assumptions? Also judgmental. So shove off, hypocrite 😀

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Does Jake sound awfully familiar or what?

dustydeste
dustydeste
8 years ago

Ugh, WordPress is switching my nyms again >:(

katz
8 years ago

But my point is that I often see people who seem to have read no Hitchens except the women aren’t funny article and have mentally placed him in the Raging Misogynist category (right next to the only other one, Perfect Feminist). That’s shitty, sloppy, bullshit thinking and I’m seeing more and more of it in these kinds of internet communities.

Argenti, help me out here. Is there a fallacy for demanding that someone read all of a person’s writings before drawing conclusions about them on the grounds that, if you haven’t read everything, then the bit you didn’t read might totally change everything? It’s a great way to stonewall discussions by not letting anyone talk about anything they aren’t a complete expert in.

In the meantime, Jake wouldn’t possibly characterize our community as the sort that does this based on just one or two threads, would he? Surely he’d be diligent and read through the entire archive first, right?

Kittehserf
8 years ago

Yeah, that smug attitude has a familiar feel to it.

BlackBloc (@XBlackBlocX)

>>>my point is that I often see people who seem to have read no Hitchens except the women aren’t funny article and have mentally placed him in the Raging Misogynist category

I haven’t read much Hitchens but it doesn’t take a lot to put him in the Raging Misogynist AND Racist Asshole (who can occasionally say he was dead wrong with regard to water boarding not being torture, which brings him to 0.00001% Decent Human Being level).

SittieKitty
SittieKitty
8 years ago

for katz: http://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdf

Maybe a type of ‘burden of proof’? I do find this to be very useful regarding fallacies, even if it’s not complete…

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

Jake Jones: Honestly, unless I’m being called to court to sit on a jury about someone’s misogyny, one quote, plus assurance from someone I trust that this is typical for them, really is enough for me to write that person off, because I don’t have time to investigate the views of each and every last individual on the planet, or even all of the celebreties.

What really happened is that you came in late to the discussion. The stuff in the linked article, Hitchens’ ongoing dismissal of women in power, his selective views–all that has been known to feminists for years already. And this site isn’t about Hitchens. It’s about misogyny, and the mocking thereof. Hitchens was a misogynist, he wrote an extremely sexist article and then doubled-down when called on it. So, Hitch is eligible for mockery. Is he ‘as bad as’ Paul Elam or one of the other MRA ilk? Not in the overall intensity of his misogyny, perhaps, but arguably much, much worse in terms of his impact–nobody really pays much attention to Mr. Elam, but Hitchens had a serious following, and a lot of cultural impact. Small errors by a giant will still cause much greater calamity than great errors by a flea.

Kittehserf
8 years ago

(who can occasionally say he was dead wrong with regard to water boarding not being torture, which brings him to 0.00001% Decent Human Being level).

Didn’t he only come to that conclusion after benig (very briefly) waterboarded? If so … what does that say of Mr Genius that he hadn’t even the imagination to grasp what that would be like?

Shaenon
8 years ago

Just to tie the two conversational threads together, if you Google “women and humor,” Hitchens’s essay is the third entry.

The second is an AskMen.com article, “Top 10 Ways to Attract Her With Humor.”

And yet I carry on.

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

Kittehserf: That he’s got more integrity than Rush Limbaugh (who made a similar claim and offer, but then never backed it up)? Which, admittedly, is setting the bar so low it leaves an indentation in the grass.

Kittehserf
8 years ago

@SittieKitty – that’s an interesting file. I’m a bit worried that Bill the Cat is also arguing about smoking, though. 😛

One fallacy surprised me, or rather, this as an example did: “Example #4:
I acknowledge that I have no argument for the existence of God. However, I have a great
desire for God to exist and for there to be an afterlife. Therefore I accept that God exists.”

I wouldn’t have thought that was a fallacy. The speaker has made a conscious choice about their belief, and acknowledged that. I’d have looked on it as a utilitarian sort of thing (I’m using the term very generally) – they go with the belief that works for them. It’s sort of akin to my stance, which is why it caught my eye.

Oh well, fallacy ahoy. 🙂

Kittehserf
8 years ago

@freemage – that bar’s subterranean! 😀

1 2 3 6