|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
OK, another right-wing blogger holds forth, this time on how Genie Scott is a "science nazi".
So I responded:
You're not the first to say so, by any means. So who did you pick up this bad habit from?
Wesley R. Elsberry
RKBentley eventually approved the comment and added a reply:
Thanks for visiting my blog. Yes, I'm sure I'm not the first person who has used the term "Science Nazi." Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" was premised on this very idea. He may have even used the term in there - I can't recall. Of course, there is also the link you cited.
I'm not sure what "bad habit" you're referring to. Is it simply calling someone a "Nazi"? Well, I believe I supported my claim in my post. Many sites I've visited merely call people names without making any argument of substance. Being a conservative, I'm well aware of the usual tactic of liberals to call any conservative a "Nazi." It's used so often that it's lost some of its "shock value." Perhaps I shouldn't use the term but if the shoe fits...
Thanks again for visiting. Please come back. Also, tell your friends about the crazy, right-wing, Christian nut who has a blog.
I wrote a response (currently awaiting approval):
Your question about what the bad habit is could be answered by reading the essay at the link. But if that doesn't suit, let me sum up: the use of "nazi" and "soviet" as epithets by the religious antievolution community turn reality on its head. The essay looks at previous examples, but Ben Stein's and your own usage are simply further unwarranted instances.
As for usual tactics, the two incompatible flavors of totalitarianism noted above are nonetheless a commonplace piece of invidious comparison rhetoric aimed at pro-science advocates. See the link for copious documentation of antievolution advocates having their ugly bits of hateful speech.
You think that you've supported your use of the term, but what I see mostly in your "rant" is ignorance. For instance, you make the claim that Genie Scott loathes the idea that anyone anywhere believes in creation. Anyone paying attention to recent events would have noticed that Genie Scott and NCSE have come under fire from a variety of the "new atheist" writers for being too accommodating of religious belief. This doesn't go well with your claim, does it? Speaking of propaganda, let's examine your final paragraph, you know, the one whose message is entirely based on transparent equivocation on your part. Genie obviously was saying that NCSE did not have expertise in the role of "policy think tank", yet you insist that her statement was about NCSE's familiarity with the issues in climate science. Are you really that desperate to claim to have a wholly illusory point?
Wesley R. Elsberry
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker