The management of TSZ leaves me little alternative but to publish a corrective publicly.
I see where TSZ continues to host the following long since corrected assertion:
Kairosfocus, this is outrageous. Nobody here, to my knowledge, has suggested that you are a Nazi, and I certainly have not.
This is false and should be known to be false by the poster and blog owner. It is an example of exactly the sort of enabling behaviour that has long been a point of concern regarding the standards at TSZ.
Here is my original complaint on this point, of April 2nd:
=======
>> . . . Let’s roll the tape from TSZ, screen capture A:
And, B, a little lower in the same comment by OM:
[ . . . . ]
2 –>Notice, how the issue in [a referenced cite] is that I spoke to how ordinary Germans were taken to the camp after the defeat of the Nazis, to see what they had been enabling. And that has patently been my concern, in the face of a pattern of censorship and expulsion sustained by widespread blame/scapegoat the victim tactics and associated enabling passivity. As is documented above [in the linked].
3 –> Now, see what OM — commenting at TSZ — twists this into as captured above:
What KF is saying is that people like Alan Fox (AF) and the posters here are like the Nazi party, fully aware of the horror they are inflicting but who don’t particularly care, no doubt because of the lack of morals.
4 –> By right of fair comment, this is a willful case of speaking in disregard of duties of care to truth, hoping to profit by the false being seen as truth, and from the associated demonisation and well poisoning. In one word, a lie. (Cf. linked definition.)
5 –> Now, look at the propaganda tactic of the twisted about, false accusation OM then resorts to, here loaded with the slander that design thinkers are pursuing a right wing, Creationist theocratic totalitarian agenda, compounded by invidious association with Nazism on the notion that only a Nazi — how ignorant of history this is! — or fellow traveller could object to the notion that homosexual behaviour is a right rooted in unchangeable and essentially benign characteristics:
And at what point is it KF that you expect to march Alan around the camps? When your religious war is won and the immoral atheists defeated?
I’d go on but I’m afraid I may say some things that would not be compatible with the general purpose of the thread or indeed civility.
I would like to note however that both the Nazis and KF think that homosexuals are immoral and/or deviants. So draw your own conclusion as to who’ll be marching who round what camp if they get their way.
[ . . . . ]
8 –> The invidious association OM made of course intends to imply that only a Nazi could object to homosexualism. That itself speaks volumes on the demonisation of principled objection to homosexual behaviour as patently disordered and damaging to self and community. The intent of such tactics of guilt by improper association, is to use well-poisoning tactics to shut down reasonable discussion of a serious matter and its implications for the future of our civilisation. {NB: Cf a recent note on Marsha Gessen’s recent remarks here on radical homosexualist intent towards marriage. Note, applause in the tape at the relevant point. Let me insert the relevant image with the key remark during a panel discussion:}
9 –> Which [well-poisoning, guilt by invidious association, enabling behaviour etc.], is exactly what I was complaining about on how design theory is being treated.
10 –> That is, the uncivil tactics we are complaining here of have a tendency to become habitual. As shown by concrete example provided by OM.>>
=======
In short, as long as it is true that there are many people who have principled objections or concerns to homosexual behaviour, homosexualisation of marriage and similar issues, it is an improper tainting invidious comparison to pretend that it is Nazis and X who have objections.
As any REASONABLE person should recognise.
I have grounds for my concern and TSZ’s leadership needs to correct the record and make amends for wrong done. END