Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,15:15)|
|Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,09:49)|
|Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,14:26)|
As usual, point missed, no argument offered.
1) As mentioned before, no I don't think you're a misogynist or a sexist or a rape apologist, no more than I am. Same goes for racist or homophobe or anything else. But I got your attention didn't I?
And what did I do, young padawan? I got back in your face and, apparently, didn't meet a level of discourse worthy of your consideration. See how that works?
The evidence I have of your shitty ally status is this: your own words. You frequently (and are doing so again here) mock people with legitimate complaints against the discriminatory status quo.
Mocking people's behavior is not the same as mocking their complaint. But, I wouldn't expect anyone invested in their own victim-hood to see the difference.
|Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern? |
I didn't apologize for oppression. Or is this another case of you sorta, not really calling me names?
At what point will PZ deign to partake in GG tasty comestibles? Since one apology apparently enough, how many is? 2? 10? 150 million? Or was it a question of insufficient sincerity? What are the units of measure on that, Mr. Science?
| Your disagreements don't seem to be very substantial, and you've used yet another post to avoid that substance.|
I've left plenty of clues there for anyone not invested in reading it literally to understand my point.
A thousand flowers? Indeed.
Again, no argument offered no substance provided. And I'm not invested in anything, I'm not the one with bundles of straw under my arms hastily erecting figures to bash about.
1) What pity party? Noting that society is unequal and wanting to change that as far as possible is not a pity party. The fact that you think it is is either a) highly indicative of something profoundly unpleasant on your part, or b) yet another manifestation of your inability to link people with what they are actually saying and instead projecting your own horseshit onto them. Aren't you tired from all that straw yet?
And as for calling you names, you seem rather concerned that this is all about you. Awwww does Carlson has his fee-fees hurted? If you waddle like a duck, quack like a duck and walk like a duck, expect to be thought of as rather duckish.
2) You absolutely ARE making an apologetic for oppression (although discussing it in terms of gelato guy's sign seems more than faintly ridiculous, it's such a minor example). I've never said that one must adhere to some party line on how to deal with Gelato Guy, I'm not even sure I agree with PZ although I respect his right as an individual to make his choice (one flower).
I would, most likely, make another choice (another flower), and perhaps you would make another one (yet another flower). I'm content to let those flowers flourish. Must I be silent then? Are you so absolutely intellectually bereft that you think criticism of a choice (specific flower) is oppression of it? Are you so utterly blinded to your own privilege that you think anyone drawing attention to it is oppressing you?
Is PZ not entitled to refuse to accept an apology and avoid a specific business? That's his prerogative as a individual and not binding on me or anyone else. If I found out my local ice cream merchant was a member of the KKK you bet I'd avoid his business. Is there a point of diminishing returns here? Sure. Can we avoid every business which disagrees with some principle or another? Nope! In my case that would be really hard! Hell, my bank has shares in land mine making companies. Do I lobby them to divest themselves of those share? Of course! Do I join my voice to that of Amnesty International in doing so? Of course! Will it do any good....
....erm, probably not. Does this make me ethical or an activist or a mighty warrior? No. I'm as compromised, prejudiced and hypocritical as the next guy. But I'm not in denial about it. It just means I'm trying to act in accordance with my principles with varying degrees of success. Principles I have developed through discussion and debate by the way.
3) Why are you making an apologetic, or rather how are you making it...glad you asked, let's deal with something substantial shall we?
The fact that in the USA, as in other countries and societies, minority groups typically face oppression (often unintended) by the majority is as uncontroversial a fact as possible. I'm hoping you do not find that to be in dispute because if you do I will genuinely question your sanity. Survey after survey reveal that atheists are the least tolerated minority group in the USA. People get attacked (rarely), cars displaying atheist stickers are vandalised, signs advertising atheist groups are vandalised or torn down or prevented from even being put up, people say that an atheist president is beyond the pale, the currency and the Pledge bear the words "Under God" etc. All pretty minor, all pretty insignificant. There are no atheists being raped for being atheists that I know about, there are no atheist slaves, there is no campaign of atheist bashings. So as oppression goes it is pretty weak sauce by compared to other groups. As I said above, the analogy being made is one of PRINCIPLE not EXTENT. An analogy and an argument you have utterly ignored and not engaged. I suspect this is because you cannot engage it.
Instead of acknowledging the facts, however trivial, of this oppression you object to the tone of some people who do acknowledge them. You aren't considering the message, you are considering how the message is delivered. The message is the important part. Look at the King quote above, what you are doing is telling people to act differently, to act against their principles, to act in such a way that does not challenge their oppression at all. You are criticising people for bringing these matters into the light and acknowledging the tension that exists. THAT is an apologetic for oppression.
Again, the EXTENT of this is a distraction when someone is discussing the PRINCIPLE, as I am.
You ignored it before, and doubtless will ignore it again because you clearly lack the self reflection to consider its implications, consider the parallel sign:
People from the Million Man March are NOT welcomed to my White business.
People from Local Church are NOT welcomed to my Atheist business.
All are equally discriminatory in PRINCIPLE. All need to be challenged on the basis of that PRINCIPLE.
The fact that this is a very minor issue and involves some blog comment drama is irrelevant, you're focussing on the EXTENT (as predicted) not the PRINCIPLE. And since I've acknowledged the EXTENT is not identical, nor am I trying to equate them, your continual straw men about this are rather pathetic.
4) It's Dr Science to you, Ignorant Horse Boy. Get it right.
I could not care less what will take PZ to go back to GG's store. I don't care how many apologies are necessary, it's another fucking red herring. Worse, it's not even coherent.
If your "oh so subtle" point is that "humans are not ratiocinating machines that act all Spock-like" then welcome to something I've never disagreed with! Hence why I favour PLURALISM here too. I am content for you to forgive GG and accept his apology (if you do), and for PZ not to. Neither are "right". However, one is more consistent with a stated principle of trying to achieve a more equitable, secular society and one is less consistent. THAT is possible to investigate by reason, by evidence. Once the axioms, the principles, have been agreed upon, then these systems can be analysed with reason. Rocket surgery this is not.
The pluralism I am also advocating is one of methods of communication and activism. So if you don't like PZ's tone and content, fine, find someone's you do like or produce your own. Don't like the show? Change the channel. Or are you too invested in your pity party, because it ain't ME doing the whining. So yes, absolutely let a thousand flowers bloom, allowing them to bloom does not imply agreement with either medium or message.
5) The tale of history is littered with minority movements standing up to the majority to attempt to grab equality. This is exactly what is happening here. The social majority is Christian, this guy felt entitled to restrict his business (in an admitted moment of madness, apologised for) in such a way as to exclude some segment of non-Christians. That is the epitome of discrimination on the basis of prejudice and majority entitlement. Should someone forgive him for that? Not for me to say, do it, don't do it, I don't care. But again, my point here is that you are not focussing on the incident of prejudicial discrimination (however minor it is) you are focussing on the (perceived) odiousness of the people highlighting it.
THAT is why you are, as I said, a shitty ally. Ignoring the principle at stake and scatter shooting a variety of irrelevant drivel instead is precisely to ignore the problem. It is precisely an apologetic for the oppression. Anything that does not oppose the oppression is effectively an apologetic for it, don't you get that? You are permitting it to exist by your inaction. Guess what, I do the same thing. I am just as shitty an ally, just as much a hypocrite, just as compromised as I have admitted several times now. The difference is you are expending your energy to refuse acknowledging that, I've come to terms with it and am trying to expend my energy to minimising my own shitty-allyness.
But worse than that, the heart of the apologetic for the status quo, is that your targets of criticism are not those people who are the genuine oppressors, but the people you claim to ally with. It's classic "I'm not a [whatever]ist, but...". The first part is denial (you are a [whatever]ist, as is everyone, it's a matter of degree), the second part, the but, is an apologetic. In this instance it is a specific complaint about the foibles of the people drawing attention to the oppression as opposed to the oppressors themselves.
You're simply flannelling around trying to rationalise your dislike of PZ and Pharyngula. Your denial and fallacious reasoning are remarkably telling.