|Brian Dunning, kind of a|
He's now out, and Dunning, one of the leading pseudoskeptic libertarians in the crowd, is already showing he's not learned a thing.
He's already boo-hooing about how eBay was, essentially, a bigger, more powerful libertarian than him. The fact that he calls eBay's civil suit "bogus" is part of that. (I'm surprised that he didn't get his wife, mom, and mother-in-law, since they were on his payroll from his ill-gotten booty, to add their testimonials to his piece.
The boo-hooing, as in the past, seems to shade toward the lying. And, from near the start:
(The cookie stuffing) seemed like a cheesy, fly-by-night kind of thing. But my partner pressed hard, and an acquaintance kept telling me how much money he was making.So, let's unpack all of this.
|Yours for just $15, in one of many|
Dunning website ripoffs
His partner Swengali-ed a skeptic. Got it.
Money is addictive, as well as being SCOTUS-approved as "speech." Got it.
THERE's some bullshit, Brian. Sell it!
Dunning goes on from there to blame middlemen, big bad eBay for aiding and abetting his cookie-stuffing, then changing the game, and more. Very much more. In a new level of both irony and hypocrisy for an alleged skeptic ...
Dunning goes on into full-blown conspiracy theorizing:
Our rep at eBay, whom I'll call "K," sometimes gave suggestions on things to try. ... But (after my arrest) things took a dark turn. ... (W)e wanted to depose K. Turns out K had disappeared with a mysterious, unknown illness. When she resurfaced six months later, eBay had transferred her overseas to their London office.Sure, Brian, and the melting point of steel proves al Qaeda crashing airliners couldn't have caused 9/11.
He then claims other eBay reps made "provably false statements to the FBI." They'd probably sue you, if you named them, Brian. Why don't you go ahead?
Finally, Dunning claims the conviction rate for federal wire fraud is 97 percent, so he just had to cop a plea. No choice.
The true "bogus" is that he's a quasi-guru and now, after federal jail time, he's going to have struggle to try to rebuild his old financial empire.
The true "bogus" or rather "bullshit," including what at least used to be the overpriced $15 bullshit at his website, as noted at left, is a man making enough by his cookie-skimming (and Internet cookie stuffing is the second bane of the commercialized Net after banner ads) to pay his wife $10K a month (possibly to shelter money), to pay his mom and mom-in-law both $2,500 a month and more.
(But, per Brian, they were "traumatized" by the FBI. Ahh, a libertarian conservative having sympathy with the victim, but not real, poor, minority victims before that, as far as I know. That's OK; even if they were actually victimized some small bit, $10K a month buys good psychotherapy. Maybe Dunning has that for sale on his website, for all I know? Doorknob, I'm in fine snark today.
That and more about his "shells" for his nefariousness (and it ain't alleged nefariousness, Brian, you're a convicted criminal) is at my second-last blog post about him. It's long, but, if you're just seeing Dunning, and his would-be "explanation" from his freshly-scrubbed, Hucksterberry Finn face, and think his freckly-like self could never tell a lie, a half-lie, or close to it, you need to know differently.
It's important to expose the reality of his history, and not let him take control of his narrative right away like this.
That's true because he's not alone. He's a "type." He's the one person of this type who's visible within pseudoskeptical libertarianism, and true skeptics, who think beyond narrow debunking of pseudoscience of the Skeptics™ movement, will know that's part of why the actions of a likes of Dunning, whether he's as bad as Jesse Willms or not, must be pointed out.
As must his mental doubling-down on denialism.
Hence, this response to him.
my last post about him before his incarceration, he tried to shield his nefariousness behind seeking nonprofit status, never had an iota of repentance, and generally saw events through Dunningesque glasses that he probably sells for $399 on his website.
"Welcome back," Brian. I'll take pleasure in punching you in the intellectual "face" if you keep uttering such stupidities.
Per that photo-poster at left, Dunning's not the only "skeptic" to confuse, or else deliberately conflate, skepticism and libertarianism. Far from it.
Among "names," Penn and Teller and Michael Shermer come immediately to mind.
Dunning is useful to me, as a reminder of the fact that the Dunning-Kruger event is about overestimating one's intelligence. I remember that it has the names of a cartoonish horror monster ... and Freddy Kruger!
Thanks, folks, I'll be here all week.
And, Brian, it will give me pleasure to continue to slap you down.
Add in that you, as on your website in general, make your webpages so your text can't be copied and pasted, guaranteed to increase my piss-off factor, and I'll slap you down.
And, slap down supporters of you, including among the Skeptics™ crowd, libertarian quasi-skeptics and libertarian pseudoskeptics. You know who you are, the D.J. Grothes, Shane Bradys and others of that world, besides more prominent names already mentioned.
In case I didn't mention you, or didn't know to mention you, please let me know
Update, Dec. 27, in reference to comments below, but not just to the particular person who's making them, in part extrapolating from my replies.
1. I've heard again and again from the commenter, and it may be believed by others, that "Dunning wasn't guilty."
1A. If you're a lawyer and a personal friend, why didn't you defend him yourself?
1B. If you're not, whether you want to admit it or not, I am point-blank telling you that Dunning had the money for a criminal defense better than 99 percent of Americans. He may not be 0.1 percenter, but he was a 1 percenter. Period and end of story. Therefore, if his lawyer worked out a plea deal for him, it was almost certainly because Dunning was guilty and this was the best plea bargain available. And, if that's not good enough, given the cult-like nature of Dunning's followers, why didn't one of you start a Kickstarter for his legal defense fund.
2. Because of that, I am not accepting further comments that don't argue new ground. That's not only about this post, but any about Brian Dunning.
3. To the best of my awareness, and certainly on this post, I have called bullshit on ideas and actions first, individuals second (if at all, besides Dunning himself). I have called a bunch of people "pseudoskeptics." And? Deal with it.