Say something negative about PZ Myers (even in jest) and he may well expose you and encourage his allies to harass you by contacting your employer:
I think the UW hospital should know what one of their doctors does in her spare time, so I’m not going to shy away from mentioning her name.
And they will.
Wow. Online troll @Ellesun who started rumor that @pzmyers had an STD is Eliza Sutton, a doctor at @UWMedicine: http://t.co/cTMHk2GtmE
— skepchicks (@skepchicks) October 8, 2014
I would call this dropping docs, but that term doesn’t seem to quite cover it this time around.
Contacting someone’s employer in an attempt to interfere with their career is a whole other level of crossing the line, the sort of thing that is only justified if you believe they are truly a danger to those around them (e.g. serial murderers, child rapists, bronies). As opposed to, say, someone making an obviously unserious joke about sexually-transmitted infections, in admittedly poor taste, on a website dedicated primarily to making bad jokes in poor taste.
The keyboard warriors for identitarian intersectional feminism will justify deploying this (hitherto verboten) line of personal attack in the same way that they typically justify personal attacks, to quote Irving Janis:
The member’s firm belief in the inherent morality of their group and their use of undifferentiated negative stereotypes of opponents enable them to minimize decision conflicts between ethical values and expediency, especially when they are inclined to resort to violence. The shared belief that “we are a wise and good group” inclines them to use group concurrence as a major criterion to judge the morality as well as the efficacy of any policy under discussion. “Since our group’s objectives are good,” the members feel, “any means we decide to use must be good.” This shared assumption helps the members avoid feelings of shame or guilt about decisions that may violate their personal code of ethical behavior. Negative stereotypes of the enemy enhance their sense of moral righteousness as well as their pride in the lofty mission of the in-group.
Sound familiar? Whenever you see the “social justice” faction within freethought resorting to ever more unethical attacks in order to intimidate and silence their critics, you can be confident that expediency will take priority over whatever ethical values they have left to hand, as their opponents are so thoroughly demonized so as to be considered fair game.
