On Gleb Tsipursky’s Attacks: My Final Response

After bringing to light the issues surrounding Gleb Tsipursky and his Pro-Truth Pledge, he has decided to attack me in a 7,000+ word article that reads like a high school term paper I would have never read had I not been mentioned in it 47 times.

Honestly, I’m pretty sick of this nonsense. I don’t even want to write this. I’d prefer this guy and his abhorrent lack of ethics and common decency just wander off to wherever disgraced members of the secular community go after they’re exposed for who they really are.  But he chose to stick around and accuse me of slander, libel, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and yes, racism.  I can’t even with this guy.  He’s truly in another reality.

To recap, Tsipursky has been shown to behave unethically by:

  • Misrepresenting himself as a best-selling author
  • Paying his staff for only 1/3 of their time
  • Exaggerating claims of collaboration with other organizations
  • Lying about soliciting upvotes on his articles
  • Bragging about his social media impact despite paying for the engagement
  • Hiring cheap labor in developing countries to promote his work on social media, and then lying about it, claiming they’re “superfans.”
  • Posting other people’s free content on his Patreon and charging his supporters for it.
  • Trying to correct some of the above issues after being called out, only to insert more dishonesty and lack of transparency.

It’s all here, here, and here.

I’m not going to go through his ridiculously long and poorly written diatribe of how innocent he is and how terrible of a person I am and refute every claim against me like I’m on trial. For starters, I’m not the kind of writer who’s in the business of putting my readers to sleep. Secondly, this guy is so far off his rocker at this point that addressing all of his Gleb-splaining line-by-line would just afford him credibility that he doesn’t deserve.  So I’m only going to address the most egregious and untruthful of his attacks in order to defend my own reputation and finish with a final message to him directly, so please bear with me.

Here’s what you’ll notice.  Gleb Tsipursky has a history of deflecting from criticism and vilifying his accusers when his behavior is brought into question. He uses logical fallacies to defend himself — mostly appeals to credentials, appeals to authority, and bandwagon fallacies — while accusing his criticizers of ad hominem and slander.  His article on Saturday is no exception. He has painted the situation as persecution committed by me — a bully, a stalker, and a racist.  As another prominent secular blogger commented to me, “Welcome to trying to make a movement better. It’s a rite of passage.” Yeah, no kidding.  So let’s get into it.

FACT: Before I wrote any articles about Tsipursky, I confronted him in this Facebook thread (sorry Natalie):








However, in Tsipursky’s article on Saturday, he says [excuse the poor grammar please], “Having tried to reason with him, to no avail, I had to block him on Facebook as he was showing increasingly problematic behavior in spreading misinformation, to avoid having to deal with him constantly tagging me and escalating my anxiety disorder.”

Apparently, Tsipursky’s attempt to reason with me was, “I don’t see it as my role to continue to deal with people’s delusions after I have shown them that their concerns are unfounded. Goodbye and good luck.” Also, I see no evidence of me “constantly tagging” him, forcing him to fall victim of his anxiety disorder. Instead, it’s possible he’s feeling anxiety from being questioned about his ethics and not being able to answer pointed questions.

Tsipursky also says about me, “he kept spreading misinformation about me around the internet, sharing in various Facebook groups and private messages with various secular leaders and activists, as well as spreading these falsehoods in-person.”  I shared my article about his inconsistent relationship with the truth in various Facebook groups, yes. I do that with most of my articles when they’re relevant to the groups. I did not reach out to “various secular leaders and activists” in private messages, nor did I meet with anyone in-person about him.  I did say in one article that his name came up in conversation once over two months ago (not originating with me) and I largely disregarded it. This guy’s loose grasp of reality is alarming.

FACT: After Tsipursky published his enormous tl;dr-version of his side of the story on Saturday, he private-messaged anyone who had previously commented on any public Facebook thread about his issues (whether he was FB friends with them or not) and provided a link to his article.

That’s not creepy and desperate at all.

He also responded to all comments on SecularVoices that condemned his actions with the same statement and link. That’s called spamming and it got him temporarily banned from SecularVoices. I left one of his comments up but deleted all duplicates. As you can see, I clearly told him why I deleted the duplicate comments and banned him.


That, of course, triggered him to create an addendum to his post from Saturday, complaining that I was trying to unfairly censor him by deleting his comments, even though I told him why I did it. “It is up to you, dear reader, what to make of the fact that Davis deleted my comments directing readers to this post, where I clarify my perspective and respond to his claims.” Yes, dear reader, it is up to you. Maybe because you’re a spammer, Gleb? Seriously, my eyes hurt from all the rolling.

FACT: After Tsipursky blocked me on Facebook for exposing his unethical behavior, he later made a public Facebook post where he explained that he’s facing a lot of slander and rumors about him (referring to my articles), which is triggering his anxiety disorder. As a result, he will be, without warning, blocking and deleting comments from anyone who participates in “slander” against him or his activities. He says this is an effort to preserve his mental health.

Of course, I didn’t see this post because I was blocked, but a handful of people sent me a link to it knowing it was referring to me. So I logged onto my alternate account with my real name (not a fake or misrepresentation account) and viewed the link since it was indeed public.

After reading Tsipusky’s misrepresentation of my activities, calling it slander and playing the victim, I felt I needed to defend myself, so I commented. I knew full well my comment would be deleted, but I was posting it so that those who were ignorant of the situation could have a fuller picture. This post is what Tsipursky will later use to accuse me of “criminal cyberstalking and cyberbullying.”

Must be nice to scam money from people, violate intellectual property rights, misrepresent yourself as someone who fights for truth, and then play the victim when someone accurately calls you out for being untruthful and unethical. Mental illness is not something to hide behind to avoid criticism. By doing so, you insult those who live with mental illness, cope with it, and live their lives honestly and ethically. If you want to be a public figure, you’re going to need to face criticism, not run from it. Go ahead and block this profile too. I’m only posting so your supporters can be informed of the truth, not your skewed version peppered with the misuse of “slander.”

The interesting thing is that, in his article, he uses a screen shot and cuts off everything from “cope with” on, failing to share why I posted it (to inform his supporters of the truth) and instead says this in his article, “the only audience of his comment was me, and he knew it would not in any way change my mind since he knew I would delete it. This to me excluded the possibility of any other reasons than to cause me mental pain.”  Yep, he’s lying again.

So based on this one comment I left from an alternate account, Tsipursky accuses me of criminal cyberstalking and cyberbullying, and threatens to turn me in to the authorities or sue me if it continues. I can only imagine how quickly his claims would be dismissed. This would be a great example of how Tsipursky attempts to deflect from criticism of his own behavior and place himself in a victim role.  As a friend of mine, Alice Cichon, informed Tsipursky when he inappropriately messaged her on Facebook to share his article, “I don’t know who you are, but as an actual victim of cyberstalking, this post is laughable. The ‘criminal’ accusations that you’re attempting to make would never hold up in court.”

Tsipursky then condemns me for having a second Facebook account (inaccurately calling it a sock puppet account — something he’s actually been accused of by many for years. A sock puppet is a fake profile but my alternate has my name and is not a fake identity), which he states is a Facebook Terms of Service violation. I actually didn’t know that, since I know several people who have multiple accounts. They use alternative accounts temporarily if their main account gets suspended. In the secular community, we face this a lot, because many religious groups will band together to complain about us and try to get us silenced when we criticize their religion. So in order to maintain a presence during these suspensions, we have alternate accounts.  I also have one because, as my readers are aware, I often act as a whistleblower when it comes to schools illegally promoting the Good News Club. This often gets me blocked by the schools I’ve turned in or publicly criticized, but in order to check in on them and make sure they’ve corrected their behaviors, I use an alternate account.

So why is this relevant? Well, it turns out that in his article, Tsipursky has also inadvertently admitted to violating Facebook’s ToS by giving his Facebook password to Intentional Insights staff to post on his behalf. “I trust these volunteers to such an extent that I gave one my password for my Facebook account to spend time sharing articles from my personal account.”


I guess he stopped reading at #2. Something about glass houses comes to mind here. Keep picking up those rocks, Gleb.

On to me being a racist.

As mentioned in previous articles, it appears that Tsipursky has hired people to promote his posts on social media. Why do we think that? Because a handful of Facebook group admins have reached out to me privately to inform me that they’ve had to ban several of these accounts, many of which appear to be from developing countries, as the only activity they have in their respective groups, as well as on their own walls, is posting Tsipursky’s articles. That’s a violation of most groups’ posting rules and is considered spamming.

Oh, and this. Click it. Go ahead. It’s proof that not only do these accounts exist, but that they have fake profile pictures and Tsipursky has actively recruited people to share his content in Facebook groups on his behalf. Here’s what Tsipursky says about these international accounts who do nothing but share his content:

I do have a number of supporters who like my writings and believe it is valuable for the world to promote them. Indeed, when I share my posts on Facebook, I often have a call to action asking people to share them. Naturally, my posts then tend to be shared, and these supporters tend to do most of this sharing. Some of them even created social media accounts explicitly for this purpose. Many of the people who tend to share my posts most tend to be from developing countries, as I make a particular effort to reach out to secular people there, something unusual for secular activists in the US. They tend to be more likely to become “superfans” and share my content more broadly, as well as become volunteers for the nonprofit I run.

Yeah, it’s pretty fishy, and he’s been called out on this for years. But when I accused him of it, this was his response:

It was very disheartening to observe what appears to be the implicit racism of Davis when he sees people from developing countries sharing posts and assume that they are hired to spam articles on social media just because they honestly self-identified as coming from developing countries.

Racism? No. I’m not calling him out on hiring people or using fake accounts simply because they’re from third-world countries or are of a particular race. That’s total misdirecting nonsense. In no way did I ever make any reference to race at all.  If geographic location equals race in Tsipursky’s mind, then maybe he skipped a few classes on the way to his doctorate.

Hell, I don’t even know what race these people are, since they use fake profile pictures!

This is actor Alden Richards.

The above photo is of actor Alden Richards.

Meet comedian Empoy Marquez.

Meet comedian Empoy Marquez.

So, as any rational person would be… I’m done with this nonsense. I’m done with Tsipursky’s evasion of responsibility. I’m done with him playing the victim in an attempt to change the subject. And I’m done spending any more of my valuable time on someone who doesn’t deserve my attention.

This last portion is directed to Gleb. Thanks for the memories.

Gleb, I will not allow someone like you to take up any more of my time. It’s obvious that you’ve been involved in some seriously shady practices and have done a piss-poor job rectifying your mistakes. Instead of admitting your issues in an honest way, you’ve come clean on minor things, tried to explain away others (like claiming ignorance of copyright laws), and outright denied the larger issues, while vilifying your accusers and redirecting the conversation to make yourself out to be a victim in some scheme to stop your activism.  If anyone has a case for libel, it’s me. Your heinous accusations of slander, bullying, stalking, and racism are an attempt to damage my reputation in an effort to save your own. You are a person of low integrity in my opinion and evidenced by your behavior, actively marketing a pledge that is intended to hold others to the truth when you can’t come to terms with it yourself.  That in itself is a travesty — a walking contradiction. You’re not only damaging your own reputation as you continue this fight, but you’re also alienating yourself from the rest of the secular community. Speaking for our community, I’ll tell you that we have bigger issues to work on, and we need all hands on deck to be successful. If any of those hands are not up to the task and up to performing with honesty, integrity, and accountability, then we ask that they not be involved.

I sincerely hope this is the last I mention your name, Gleb. I don’t plan to engage with you in any respect unless a public apology is directed to me and all of the other members of the secular community that you’ve represented poorly in your own quest for attention and prominence.  The secular movement is not an “I” movement. It’s a “we” movement, and if you want your part to be holding others accountable for the truth, then you need to come to terms with the truth first. I’ve actually tried to help you with that and you’ve ignored my pleas, both directly and through third parties. I can’t help you anymore. This is the bed you’ve made, and it’s time to lie down. We’re done here.

Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis is the head writer and editor for SecularVoices, co-founder of Young Skeptics, and author of Understanding an Atheist. He is known for local and national secular activism and has spoken at conferences and events such as Reason Rally 2016 and the Ark Encounter Protest and Rally.

View all posts by Kevin Davis →

33 thoughts on “On Gleb Tsipursky’s Attacks: My Final Response

  1. Next: Gleb Tsipursky explains why his “superfans” used fake profile pictures.

    “They were so eager to share my work that they used fake profile pictures–

    Okay, I don’t know how he can explain this. He’ll probably just spam until you block him again and he cries censorship.

    1. I’m the lone atheist in Burkina Faso, and my generator’s about to conk out, but instead of pumping water for my sickly crops, I’m gonna use my last bit of electricity to log onto the internet, create an account, search for a pix of some obscure celebrity to use as my own — because Gleb Tipursky, Genius and Saint, deserves support for the amazing selfless work he’s doing to liberate third-world atheists like me!

    1. That’s a smoking gun right there: “You would be asked to share a specific piece to a whole bunch of groups – for example, to all liberal groups on FB.”

      So, they’re not “Superfans” just organically sharing your stuff cause they like you. This is written documentation instructing them on what to do and how to do it.

    2. Just fyi, Here’s a link to a Disqus comment on Gleb’s blog that looks like he’s still either creating socks or encouraging his employees to write posts and comments that praise him to the skies. “Juan Moreno’s” account was created just for that comment; it’s the only one on that Disqus account. “Juan” praises Gleb heartily, all but repeating his arguments word-for-word, and doesn’t seem in the least concerned about these ethical charges. I looked for the profile pic online and as this link shows, it sure isn’t a personal photo of that user. And Gleb’s reply to “Juan” is an echo of the replies he gave his other fawning superfans employees.

      Dude’s his own worst problem. Thanks for bringing all this distasteful stuff up.


      1. He’s a total piece of shit and I want nothing to do with him. He just went on a FB blocking rampage and blocked almost everyone in the secular movement who supports me. That’s a decent amount of influential people. He’s retreating to his echo chamber to feed his narcissistic god complex. This whole back and forth should be sent to whoever handles his mental health treatments.

        1. On the plus side, his rampage means I’m probably blocked too. I’m not influential I don’t think, but I’ve tapped a lot of upvotes in your posts. Must have been quite the rampage, if you’re right about that, because weirdly, almost all the people with established Disqus histories are deeply concerned with what he’s been up to. Ah well! Somehow I’ll find the will to go on…

          There’s another good side to this brouhaha: Ever heard of the Geek Social Fallacies? Sometimes it seems like the atheist movement suffers from that too. If people are spurred to double-check their charity choices and affiliations, that only stands to benefit us all.

    3. Gleb’s buddy, Dicky Carrier, is also a notorious sock-puppeteer. All those stilted, nearly identically-worded endorsements of Carrier by ‘girlfriends’ were likely written by Gleb.

      (FYI, that doc is locked.)

  2. It looks like InIn is violating the law by having paid staff people volunteer to do tasks similar to their actual paid jobs. In the US non-profit employees can volunteer for their employer for unrelated tasks, but they must be paid when they are basically doing their job. For example, the bookkeeper at a nonprofit can volunteer to set up tables before the annual fundraiser but the bookkeeper would have to be paid for the time they spend tallying donations and tracking pledges during the silent auction at that same event. More info is here: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9e1ec60-c568-4e81-b5c8-d8b8c61bd282

    1. Sketchy af and unfortunately not the first time, it seems. Didn’t some nonprofit get caught doing the same thing a year or so ago? Like Recovering from Religion or something? I don’t normally follow these fights but even before I heard about it, I knew that its director/main voice/whatever did a LOT of work for an unpaid volunteer.

  3. I’d prefer this guy and his abhorrent lack of ethics and common decency just wander off to wherever disgraced members of the secular community go after they’re exposed for who they really are.

    It just so happens that FreeThoughtBlogs has a recent opening.

  4. You’re dealing with a complete whack-job here. Delusions of grandeur, narcissist, pathological liar, fabulist.

    I am now in the position of losing financial support due to demonstrable libel, and if I chose to do so, could pursue a defamation lawsuit against Davis in civil court. I can also report him for his abuse of Facebook Community Standards, for 1) having a false profile (not that bad in itself), and 2) much more problematically, using it for the purposes of cyberstalking and cyberbullying, potentially getting him kicked off Facebook. I also have the option of calling the police and pressing legal charges, given Davis’ recent cyberstalking and cyberbullying behavior, with a variety of potential penalties. I do not wish at this moment to pursue these options, as Davis has in the past demonstrated some productive activism that has benefitted the secular community; as well, I am reluctant to go through these institutional and legal routes when there are other venues remaining that would not leave a permanent record inhibiting Davis’ ability to get a job like a police record. However, I do not rule out pursue any or all of these possibilities in the future depending on whether Davis continues behaviors that fall under libel, defamation, cyberstalking, and cyberbullying.

    This is precious. Maybe Gleb can get some pointers from Dicky Carrier on defamation suits. Gleb probably fantasizes about a trial-by-jury where potential jurors Alex Gomez and James Richards gush encomiums of him during voir-dire.

      1. I just realized that if Gleb reads this, he may wish to sue me for slander. I am literally quaking in my Tony Lama’s.

    1. I think there’s some mental illness in play here too. I’ve been on Gleb’s FB friends list for awhile and been treated to his rants of his reputation being besmirched and the copious pearl-clutching he’s done over it and had to conclude he’s not the most tightly wrapped person. It gets dreary, it gets old. Just as I was on the point of unfollowing him Gleb posts agreeing with Donald Trump that the riot in Charlottesville was the fault of both sides. I lived until recently very near that city, know it well, know some of the protesters that went against the white supremacy hordes and heard enough first person stories to realize that Gleb is full of shit about this. When I and others called him out on his Truth pledge on this he lost it. Immediately blocked and unfriended him. He is a drama king with issues and ain’t no one got time for that.

  5. Kevin Davis (SecularVoices),

    I was one of those that pulled financial support. Intentionally, I
    capped my contribution per ”creation,” as it seemed there was
    something coming from InIn all of the time.

    Drama, suspicion, and the like, I try to distance myself. This is why I stopped my Patreon pledge.

    Upon removal of my monetary pledge (which is a pain to locate, but I had the insight to search on how to do so), Gleb Tsipursky
    messaged me on FB saying that Patreon informed him that “there was an issue with my pledge for support” for him. There is no issue with Patreon.

    For me, I didn’t pull my pledge because of the posted content to other websites, as it’s usually garnished with commentary or essay. I pulled my support because I am not quite sure what I’m funding. I am unaware of any charts or breakdowns on how the money is spent (as non-profits should), and I feel that there hasn’t been much transparency with other factors of the InIn establishment.

    On a personal level, I’ve had good talks with Gleb and his wife. They seem like kind, gentle people. But when it comes to supporting financially an entity that is in competition with other entities asking for my support, I have to know when to knuckle down and say No or Not Yet instead of Yes all of the time.

  6. Yeah the first thing he says on his diatribe was basically apologetics for shady behavior. He said he sees people in the secular community do shady stuff and that because they also do many good works so he says nothing about it. I knew immediately that nothing he said further could be trusted. One good deed does not erase any bad deeds done. The rest was a lesson in how to hyperbolize hilariously. Bad behavior deserves calling out and it is not slanderous or libelous to do so.

    1. “…for public figures, signing the pledge provides a marker of credibility, since they are being held accountable, in the same way that the Better Business Bureau provides a marker of credibility for ethical businesses.” Actually, no. The BBB rates businesses based on complaints they receive (and from what I’ve been told, ratings can be purchased). So who keeps public figures accountable? Is he saying that he’s going to keep them accountable himself by publicly shaming public figures who lie? Haha good luck with that. That’s what the press does, and much of the time, it doesn’t even work. Does he think he’s going to be more effective? How do you effectively raise awareness to someone else’s untruths when no one even knows who you are?

      And above all that, how do you effectively police other people’s lies when you’ve been proven to be dishonest yourself? This guy is such a joke. I don’t know why anyone would ever publish anything he writes.

  7. I found this blog post after seeing an article “Gleb” wrote on LinkedIn and just something about it didn’t seem right. I went searching for as much information as I could find on him, most of it seems bogus, and this blog post is pretty much the only thing I could find on him that isn’t generated by him. Which seems… odd. Considering it’s the Internet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *