RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (11) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The official Post Atheism Movement starts now< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2011,18:52   

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....keptics

PZ Meyers has gone so far beyond stupid douchebaggery now that I need a label which explicitly excludes him from polite society.

I am calling the new movement "Post Atheism" and it's mantra is, "Fallwell has been dead for quite a while now, Dover school board lost, The Discovery Institute authors can't sell enough books to fill a wagon any more, religion makes people do stupid things, so does atheism."*

Yeesh. The cult members in the fanboi club over there are embarrassments to humanity.

Pharyngula, is Uncommon Descent. PZ is Dembski.

Fucking A.

Sickening really.

*Edited to add discovery institute bit and to add that PZ has become dembski.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3314
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2011,19:17   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 23 2011,18:52)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....keptics

PZ Meyers has gone so far beyond stupid douchebaggery now that I need a label which explicitly excludes him from polite society.

I am calling the new movement "Post Atheism" and it's mantra is, "Fallwell has been dead for quite a while now, Dover school board lost, The Discovery Institute authors can't sell enough books to fill a wagon any more, religion makes people do stupid things, so does atheism."*

Yeesh. The cult members in the fanboi club over there are embarrassments to humanity.

Pharyngula, is Uncommon Descent. PZ is Dembski.

Fucking A.

Sickening really.

*Edited to add discovery institute bit and to add that PZ has become dembski.

Fanaticism is bad... even when you agree with them.

I (and I think everyone here) has commented on this before.

Heck, I sent PZ a personal note about the fanaticism of his followers and the little cult he's developing.  In the end, it will be as bad as fundie religions.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2011,19:21   

Give me a friggin' break. PZ said he won't accept GelatoGuy's apology, and he won't buy the dude's ice cream on those rare occasions when he's in the same town.
And that, in your mind, is "so far beyond stupid douchebaggery now that I need a label which explicitly excludes him from polite society"?
Give.
Me.
A.
Friggin'.
Break.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2011,19:53   

Yes. It is.

I guess you won't be in the post-atheism movement.

Well, enjoy your group's eventual merging with fanatic theism.

:)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2011,20:00   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 23 2011,17:17)
Fanaticism is bad... even when you agree with them.

I (and I think everyone here) has commented on this before.

Heck, I sent PZ a personal note about the fanaticism of his followers and the little cult he's developing.  In the end, it will be as bad as fundie religions.

I have been basically turned off by pharyngula for a couple of years. An occasional story is good enough to read but the comments have been positively disturbing for a long time.

This time I felt that the corner has been thoroughly turned. This is now fundamentalist atheism and it would be nice to have a label which allows that the world has changed and another ism has slipped into the annals of past-tense.

Post-atheism. A label which acknowledges the theist-atheist fight is no longer relevant. Now there is only information.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2011,20:02   

From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2011,20:08   

Greta Christina can blow goats.

Post Atheism doesn't give a fuck what the atheists and theists want to argue about their labels.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2011,22:32   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 23 2011,18:52)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....keptics

PZ Meyers has gone so far beyond stupid douchebaggery now that I need a label which explicitly excludes him from polite society.

Aw, yer jus' jealous.  I suppose you won't be reading his new book "From Grievance to Gold:  How to be Professionally Offended."

Rumor has it, Bill Donohue is writing the forward.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2011,23:10   

Ok. That made me chuckle.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2136
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,01:41   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 23 2011,18:02)
From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."


(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to.  Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or  not. Whatever.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,05:44   

So because PZ and many commenters at Pharyngula are {insert series of adjectives of choice here} therefore the issues which face non-religious people in predominantly religious countries are old hat and gone?

Are we in a post-sexist society? A post-racist one? A post homophobic one? I don't think so.

I would love to be a post-atheist person, unfortunately I'm not sure that luxury is available to me yet, or if it ever will be, despite my disillusionment with a variety of things both within and without the atheist "community".

That said, it is, however, with the usual resigned sadness I see the usual pointless straw men being erected here. As per usual and from the usual quarters. Is there any hope the actual points being made could be engaged for once in this endless (and utterly vacuous) wrangle?

Louis

Edited for mistake!

--------------
Bye.

  
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,05:50   

What's the point of your Post Atheist movement, BWE? I might be persuaded to sign on, depending on what it is and what it's intended to do. At present, all I can make out is that it's just a "no Pharynguloids allowed" club, and if I'm right about that, please count me out. But if I'm wrong about your Post Atheism movement, could'ja please clue me in on what its actual goals & etc are?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,06:16   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,06:41)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 23 2011,18:02)
From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."


(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to.  Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or  not. Whatever.

I disagree with this.

Words are important, it's not merely sophistry to reject the labelling of one thing as another, different thing because of some superficial similarity or other. Clarity, or at least the attempt at it, is important.

While I have no doubt that there are unpleasant {insert further negative adjectives here} atheists, who do {insert series of nasty or tactically disagreeable things here}, I always want to ask the question HOW are they "fundamentalists"? The word means something, it has more to it than a simple sequence of unpleasant traits associated with genuine fundamentalists. I've yet to receive a coherent answer to the question.

To be frank, I think it's merely used to sate the desire to be insulting on the part of people who don't like what the so labelled "fundamentalist atheists" are doing. Incidentally, I think the term "accomodationist" is the same deal.

The subtle use of language to damn one's opponents has a long and well established history and that is precisely what is occurring in the "accomodationist" vs "gnu atheist" pseudo-debate......oh sorry, you all do know it's not a genuine debate right? A false dichotomy. You do know it's basically solved by one phrase: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Pluralism wins here, as it so often does in complex situations like this.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,06:31   

Two points:

1) Colin McGinn beat you all to the idea of "Post Atheism". He, like me, thinks the issue of "atheism" (i.e. the non existence of god or gods) is done. There's no evidence for deities we can move on philosophically. It's as intellectually dull as ditchwater. So catch up everyone!

What is interesting, and what is still live, is how theism and theistic privilege is manifested in various societies. Increasing the secular nature of societies so people of all faiths and none can have equal access and opportunity on the basis of their faith (or none) is a live issue, and one I care about. When one's religion or lack thereof is as irrelevant to any specific decision outside of its sphere of influence (say, getting a job etc) as one's eye colour, then the job will be done. It isn't even here in largely secular Europe, so that issue is still live.

The issue here is not with ATHEISM it's with the nature of other people ACTIVISM. BWE and others don't like it and want to marginalise it, fine, but expect to be argued with. That's the extent of the pushback you'll get...well apart from a little mockery of course. No fire bombs, no planes into buildings, no quoting from a series of scriptures deemed inerrant, you'll be argued with. Period.

So when the word "fundamentalist" is so liberally chucked around when complaining about the (real?) excesses of someone else's language/tone how about you...ahahaha...pluck the ironically placed beam from your own eye before examining the mote in that of someone else?

Fuck me, never thought THAT would come in handy on another non-theist!

2) I'm going to make an analogy, and just to be clear it is an analogy of PRINCIPLE not one of EXTENT. So keep your straw men to yourselves thanks, I've heard them before.

Everyone should read the Letter From a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King. Pay particular attention to this section:

Quote
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.


Of course, to again stave off the inevitable, a rashly constructed sign in a window is not equivalent in EXTENT to the centuries of violence and oppression suffered by black people. This is obvious to anyone with the intellectual gifts of a house plant so spare me red herrings derived there of.

It is however an illustration, a tiny, insignificant one to be frank, almost beyond mentioning, of an equivalent PRINCIPLE. So whilst *I* personally could not give less of a shit about the huge hand wringing over some non entity gelato vendor in a pointless bit of some insignificant former colony of a proper country, I'm happy to let those interested in it wring their hands and jump up and down.* I'll concentrate on things more important to me thanks, other than, of course, noting this is yet another tiny thread in a very ugly rug.

There's a wealth of religious privilege out there to be challenged, from the unbridled, unearned access to the halls of power, be they lobbyists in the USA or bishops in the House of Lords, to the tax breaks given to churches. I'll campaign for a secular society where individuals of all religions and non have equal access to services and opportunities, where governments don't preferentially laud one religious viewpoint over another, or worse, over the facts.

Louis

*Oh so YOU are the only people who are allowed to mock pathetically overblown outrage? No no my friends, as you mock, so shall you be mocked.

ETA: Consider the parallel sign: People from the Million Man March are NOT welcomed to my White business

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,06:42   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 24 2011,10:50)
What's the point of your Post Atheist movement, BWE? I might be persuaded to sign on, depending on what it is and what it's intended to do. At present, all I can make out is that it's just a "no Pharynguloids allowed" club, and if I'm right about that, please count me out. But if I'm wrong about your Post Atheism movement, could'ja please clue me in on what its actual goals & etc are?

I wouldn't worry about it. Pharyngula comments are deliberately harsh and frequently overblown, and PZ's style isn't for everyone. It's not always for me but I seem to lack the butthurt for some reason. There seems to be a great deal of butthurt across the webs and thus {jazz hands} DRAHMAH!!!!!!

I can't say it bothers or affects me much to be honest. Like any blog or paper or thing I read, what goes on at Pharyngula is read, understanding is attempted, where understanding is gained I argue/agree as appropriate, where understanding is not gained I question, and where agreement or dialogue is impossible I discard.

Of course if any specific individual is going to make a spectacular arse of themselves by acting as if they are impenetrable to reason, then I'll take the chronic piss out of them, or ignore them as is appropriate.

Some people just don't like PZ's profile, some don't like having their sexism exposed, some don't like their woolly thinking exposed, some don't like the rag tag bunch of virulent commenters there, some {gasp} ACTUALLY GENUINELY DISAGREE FOR VALID REASONS!!! I know, it's amazing right?

I'm happy to exist in the latter category on many issues, and I've previously been in every one of the former categories I mentioned. I just can't be bothered with the butthurt and {jazzhands} DRAHMAH!!!!!! What interests me is the argument, the reason, the evidence, the underpinnings of it all. And there seems precious little of it about, more noise than signal on this issue as usual.

Disappointing really.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,07:08   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,06:31)
Everyone should read the Letter From a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King. Pay particular attention to this section:

   
Quote
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.


Of course, to again stave off the inevitable, a rashly constructed sign in a window is not equivalent in EXTENT to the centuries of violence and oppression suffered by black people.

Nor was the reaction.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,07:28   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,12:08)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,06:31)
Everyone should read the Letter From a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King. Pay particular attention to this section:

       
Quote
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.


Of course, to again stave off the inevitable, a rashly constructed sign in a window is not equivalent in EXTENT to the centuries of violence and oppression suffered by black people.

Nor was the reaction.

So just like those uppity women you don't like expressing feminism that questions your privilege and upsetting the applecart, you equate people using an (admittedly trivial) example of theistic privilege to illustrate a (vastly more serious) point of principle to a child throwing a tantrum?

Hmmm. Tell me Carlson, is there any discriminatory status quo you don't support, or confrontation of it you wont run away from? I wonder what your views on those vocal gays and terrible blacks who dare to act like proper people are.

Too harsh? I'm beginning to think not. You are consistently on the side of shutting people with legitimate complaints up, simply because you don't like how those complaints are expressed or over what specific incidents.

I rather think it's you and your shallow chums who need the Waaaaahmbulance called. After all, do you have ANY argument, any at all, that doesn't simply dissolve to either a complaint that people at Pharyngula are mean or you don't like their style? *I* think they're mean, *I* frequently dislike their style and I realise that this is insignificant and not a useful criticism. Even BWE's original (and subsequent) comment contains no argument. So who's the baby? This is yet another instance of "WAH PHARYNGULA, WAH PZ". Great! "WAH" all you like, but without argument how far does that get us?

Oh wait, let me guess, *I'm* the bad guy for asking for substance from you and not faltering in the face of confrontation.

Read what PZ has actually written and engage with it. The possibility exists that he is wrong, but that possibility is exposed by dealing with his arguments, not with arrogant and evidence free dismissals and assertions.

Louis

ETA: Given that you a) ignored my argument, b) simply responded to a serious point with a YouTube video, forgive me if I doubt your capacity for rational, considered response.

--------------
Bye.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2136
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,08:39   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,04:16)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,06:41)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 23 2011,18:02)
From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."


(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to.  Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or  not. Whatever.

I disagree with this.

Words are important, it's not merely sophistry to reject the labelling of one thing as another, different thing because of some superficial similarity or other. Clarity, or at least the attempt at it, is important.

While I have no doubt that there are unpleasant {insert further negative adjectives here} atheists, who do {insert series of nasty or tactically disagreeable things here}, I always want to ask the question HOW are they "fundamentalists"? The word means something, it has more to it than a simple sequence of unpleasant traits associated with genuine fundamentalists. I've yet to receive a coherent answer to the question.

To be frank, I think it's merely used to sate the desire to be insulting on the part of people who don't like what the so labelled "fundamentalist atheists" are doing. Incidentally, I think the term "accomodationist" is the same deal.

The subtle use of language to damn one's opponents has a long and well established history and that is precisely what is occurring in the "accomodationist" vs "gnu atheist" pseudo-debate......oh sorry, you all do know it's not a genuine debate right? A false dichotomy. You do know it's basically solved by one phrase: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Pluralism wins here, as it so often does in complex situations like this.

Louis

Greta's saying the word "fundamentalist" can only be applied to Christians. I disagree. I think that restriction is completely arbitrary. Look what happened to "chauvinist". YMMV.

Yup, it's sure used as a thorn, a barb, a goad, because, well, everyone knows what "fundamentalist" really means, right? Right?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,09:26   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,07:28)
So just like those uppity women you don't like expressing feminism that questions your privilege and upsetting the applecart, you equate people using an (admittedly trivial) example of theistic privilege to illustrate a (vastly more serious) point of principle to a child throwing a tantrum?

See here is the thing.  What could have possibly led you to equate my point of disgust with a particular person into a entire political position? Do you have any actual, you know, evidence that I am a mysogynistic trogolodyte or are you just assuming that, because I dislike one aspect of PZs schtick that I somehow reject all of his opinions?  I either agree with him 100% or I am a rape apologist, amiright?
           
Quote

Hmmm. Tell me Carlson, is there any discriminatory status quo you don't support, or confrontation of it you wont run away from? I wonder what your views on those vocal gays and terrible blacks who dare to act like proper people are.

Ahh, so now I am also a homophobe and a racist?  You claim to be a scientist, do you have any actual, you know, evidence of this?  Or are you just building further assumptions on top of what you assume is my manifest misogyny?

I am either completely with you or completely agin you. You want to see the fundamentalism being referred to? Look in the fucking mirror. In fact, let me hold a mirror up for you.


           
Quote

Too harsh? I'm beginning to think not. You are consistently on the side of shutting people with legitimate complaints up, simply because you don't like how those complaints are expressed or over what specific incidents.

Oh, I wouldn't dream of shutting PZ, or you, up.  Here is a microphone, knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to do anything other than point and laugh at your tiny little balled up fists of rage.
           
Quote

I rather think it's you and your shallow chums who need the Waaaaahmbulance called. After all, do you have ANY argument, any at all, that doesn't simply dissolve to either a complaint that people at Pharyngula are mean or you don't like their style?


My issue is simple. This:



is not not in the same ballpark as this:



...[it] ain't the same fucking ball park. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport.
       
Quote

Oh wait, let me guess, *I'm* the bad guy for asking for substance from you and not faltering in the face of confrontation.

Oh, heavens no.  You aren't a bad guy, you are a hero of the fucking cause.  You have given a handful of discussion board participants a sound thrashing. Now run along and get your martyr merit badge. You have certainly earned it. I am quite sure the rest of the College of Cardinals Order of Molly will forgive your earlier heresy about letting a thousand flowers bloom.

You may think you are smart and perceptive, Louis. And I am sure within your real life sphere of activity, you are.*  But, I am here to tell you that you overestimate yourself. You aren't smart enough to have figured out how to monetize your anger.  Nor perceptive enough to see that PZ has.

When Gelato Guy prostrated himself publicly to apologize (and no doubt earning the righteous** anger of many of his Christian brethren), PZ was presented with a teachable moment.  Instead of addressing the person that actually reached out to him, he turned and played to the crowd.



I mean if all y'all want to tap into your collective id, have at it?  I am sure it is cathartic. But don't expect anyone but the True Believers ™ to enjoy the shower.




*  You are probably also handsome and kind enough to buy the sheep dinner first.
**For sufficiently small values of right.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,09:39   

I hate it when Mummy and Daddy fight.   :(

Once I figure out which one is which I'm sure I'll be even more sadderer.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,09:49   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,14:26)
[SNIP Horseshit]

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?

But you are a shitty ally. Does that make you my enemy? No of course not, READ THE FUCKING QUOTE FROM MLK! Being a shitty ally makes you a shitty ally. I'm the one mentioning the shades of grey here. So keep your mirror. Oh and get some substance.

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. I'm not outraged at the gelato guy's sign (nice straw man), I'm outraged that any such thing is apologised for in a civil society. Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern?

Are you a misogynist, racist homophobe? No idea, but you spend more effort fighting people challenging the REAL bigots than you do fighting those bigots. So whilst you might claim not to be agin me, are you FOR me? The shades of grey here are not all equal.

So LEARN Carlson. You are the one attributing PZ's positions to me when I've already mentioned umpteen times they're not, but SOME of those positions have SOME merit. Your "but they are all going WAAAAH" is not a disagreement with any of those positions, it's your own "WAAAAH". Where's the substance, Carlson?

Don't agree with PZ, please don't agree with PZ, there is much *I* don't agree with PZ about, but make a substantial disagreement. Your disagreements don't seem to be very substantial, and you've used yet another post to avoid that substance.

Louis

P.S. I don't claim to be a scientist, I am one. Don't lecture me on stuff above your pay grade.

--------------
Bye.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,10:15   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,09:49)
       
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,14:26)
[SNIP Horseshit]

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?
       
Quote

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.


       
Quote
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?

       
Quote
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.



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,10:23   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,14:26)

Quote
My issue is simple. This:



is not not in the same ballpark as this:



...[it] ain't the same fucking ball park. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport.
         
Quote

Oh wait, let me guess, *I'm* the bad guy for asking for substance from you and not faltering in the face of confrontation.

Oh, heavens no.  You aren't a bad guy, you are a hero of the fucking cause.  You have given a handful of discussion board participants a sound thrashing. Now run along and get your martyr merit badge. You have certainly earned it. I am quite sure the rest of the College of Cardinals Order of Molly will forgive your earlier heresy about letting a thousand flowers bloom.

You may think you are smart and perceptive, Louis. And I am sure within your real life sphere of activity, you are.*  But, I am here to tell you that you overestimate yourself. You aren't smart enough to have figured out how to monetize your anger.  Nor perceptive enough to see that PZ has.

When Gelato Guy prostrated himself publicly to apologize (and no doubt earning the righteous** anger of many of his Christian brethren), PZ was presented with a teachable moment.  Instead of addressing the person that actually reached out to him, he turned and played to the crowd.


This gets a specific response.

1) I didn't ask for or want an Order of Molly award. I'm chuffed people though some shite I spewed onto the web was worth something, but it's meaningless. As I said, it won't change anything. Nor should it. You have more of a problem with it than I do. It is an irrelevance. Perhaps a funny one, an in joke, but an irrelevance.

I disagree with who I disagree with. Period. I'm viciously burning bridges here right this second because I vehemently disagree. And guess what? I'm not sure I care, I'll burn bridges there too (have in the past) because I vehemently disagree with something or someone. Where are my comments asking for back pats on Pharyngula? Erm nowhere. Where are my rallies of support being held aloft by Pharygulite hoardes? No where. The reason I disagree with you is because I disagree with your content free whining about genuine matters of serious principle. You, and people like you are shitty allies. In exactly the manner MLK describes you are as much of a roadblock to a more equitable society as the genuine bigots. Should you be above criticism because you're sort of supposedly maybe on my side about some things? Hell *I'm* not above criticism, why should you get a free pass?

So nice straw man, nice fiction. No dice.

2) PZ probably has monetised his anger. And? Does this mean any specific thing he says is incorrect? You claim I lack perception when you miss the fact that I know but don't care. If PZ makes some bucks stirring ire from some people, great. IF that's what he is doing. Now I think some days it is, some days it isn't. But again, are women's rights somehow unimportant? Is theistic privilege somehow unimportant? No! And yet your complaint is with the medium, the messenger not with the actual substance. You cannot criticise the message so you go after the messenger. Yet more data in favour of the "shitty ally hypothesis".

Substance free again, and a complete red herring.

3) Keyboard warrior does not equal being hosed by the police. You and I agree. I don't think I'm in either category, a fact you repeatedly seem to miss. I make no claim to activism other than the real life stuff I do, and I've yet to be hosed so it's pretty weak sauce. You are arguing with a straw man of your own confection.

Are people not free to discuss things on the net? It isn't me claiming this stuff is activism and mistaking it for important. It isn't. It can lead to important things (see the organisation for the Arab Spring as one example), but it isn't in and of itself important. What motivates me is understanding stuff, one part of that is dialectics, arguing, discussion, dialogue. What pisses me off the most here is the number of voices suppressing dialogue, and YES Pharyngula contains those voices.

So what's the problem with discussing these things? Even passionately? It's a part of the process. Is it the whole process? No of course not, but then no one but you is claiming it is. It's YOUR uncorrectable straw man, you deal with it.

Straw man two!

4) I could not care less about Gelato Guy. The incident itself is pretty laughable. A guy lost his rag at hearing something he didn't like and acted like a moron. Big whoop. He apologised for acting like a moron. Great. Is his apology sincere? No clue. Does he realise the context and extent of what he did? No idea, does it matter?

Read the rest of the post of PZ's, he's barely having a crack at this Gelato Guy, he's merely said he's not accepting his apology. Personally I'm in two minds. I see the principle, but someone who lives by principles alone starves fast. My view is I'd have to know the guy better, and since I never am going to, I'll suspend judgement. The people PZ is having a go at is people like you. People who whatever happens continually apologise for the wrongs of others and try to avoid confrontation. He's having a go at the shitty allies. And good on him! There are far more shitty allies out there than genuine enemies, if even genuine enemies exist. And what PZ does is a valid tactic, it does stir the pot and highlight issues. Is it the only tactic? Nope. Do I always like it? Nope. Demagoguery has its place in the thousand flowers.

5) I have yet to give any message board participants a sound thrashing. I charge by the hour for that anyway.

You are under a series of illusions that I think this {waves hands all around} matters. I don't. Well, I don't think it is all that matters. It has some small value, debate, discussion, dialogue, via ANY medium can change minds, can inform, enlighten. It can shift little Overton Windows. Is it the totality of activism of any kind? Of course it bloody isn't and no one, least of all me has said it does. PZ doesn't think it matters, ask him, you'll get the same answer. What does matter is motivating people to act, organising and acting themselves after the discussions. Nothing can change without that. Would I prefer the arguments, once won, were settled forever? Of course. Would I prefer never to have to revisit the same tired old shite time and again? Of course. But I'll never get the chance, people die, people are born, so the struggle to change things continues. I have no illusions that an isolated message board post with change anything, but an ongoing discussion or series of discussions? This is how we have the Royal Society and every major European learned society. This is how trade unions formed, how political parties formed and operate. From tiny seeds greater things can grow. It's not me mistakes the seed for the tree, it's you.

So what I have from you again is this: a couple of straw men, a red herring and a persistent misunderstanding of someone else's goals and ideas. A misunderstanding that you persist in post-correction. All of this done without argument, done without substance. No reason, no logic, just your own prejudices and caricatures vomited forth onto the screen. Why should anyone take your complaints seriously?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,10:29   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,13:39)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,04:16)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,06:41)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 23 2011,18:02)
From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."


(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to.  Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or  not. Whatever.

I disagree with this.

Words are important, it's not merely sophistry to reject the labelling of one thing as another, different thing because of some superficial similarity or other. Clarity, or at least the attempt at it, is important.

While I have no doubt that there are unpleasant {insert further negative adjectives here} atheists, who do {insert series of nasty or tactically disagreeable things here}, I always want to ask the question HOW are they "fundamentalists"? The word means something, it has more to it than a simple sequence of unpleasant traits associated with genuine fundamentalists. I've yet to receive a coherent answer to the question.

To be frank, I think it's merely used to sate the desire to be insulting on the part of people who don't like what the so labelled "fundamentalist atheists" are doing. Incidentally, I think the term "accomodationist" is the same deal.

The subtle use of language to damn one's opponents has a long and well established history and that is precisely what is occurring in the "accomodationist" vs "gnu atheist" pseudo-debate......oh sorry, you all do know it's not a genuine debate right? A false dichotomy. You do know it's basically solved by one phrase: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Pluralism wins here, as it so often does in complex situations like this.

Louis

Greta's saying the word "fundamentalist" can only be applied to Christians. I disagree. I think that restriction is completely arbitrary. Look what happened to "chauvinist". YMMV.

Yup, it's sure used as a thorn, a barb, a goad, because, well, everyone knows what "fundamentalist" really means, right? Right?

No she isn't.

The word "fundamentalist" refers to someone adhering to the fundamentals of a specific text or set of texts, so it could be a Christian or a Communist. Pick me up a copy of the atheist gospels.

The point she is making is that if people have a legitimate criticism of vocal atheists (and there ARE legitimate criticisms) then simply by falsely equating them with their perceived polar opposite is inaccurate and misleading. It is a poor, and purely rhetorical, label.

The same goes for the accomodationists. That word is a poor, purely rhetorical, label. It is designed to polarise. As is the term "new atheist", especially since the atheism being evinced is identical to that of people born well over 3000 years ago. Not so "new". It's an attempt to discredit without analysis, to avoid the substance and engage only with the tone. It is, in a word, abso-fucking-lutely-arse-quakingly-pathetic whoever does it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2136
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,11:08   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,08:29)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,13:39)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,04:16)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,06:41)
     
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 23 2011,18:02)
From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."


(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to.  Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or  not. Whatever.

I disagree with this.

Words are important, it's not merely sophistry to reject the labelling of one thing as another, different thing because of some superficial similarity or other. Clarity, or at least the attempt at it, is important.

While I have no doubt that there are unpleasant {insert further negative adjectives here} atheists, who do {insert series of nasty or tactically disagreeable things here}, I always want to ask the question HOW are they "fundamentalists"? The word means something, it has more to it than a simple sequence of unpleasant traits associated with genuine fundamentalists. I've yet to receive a coherent answer to the question.

To be frank, I think it's merely used to sate the desire to be insulting on the part of people who don't like what the so labelled "fundamentalist atheists" are doing. Incidentally, I think the term "accomodationist" is the same deal.

The subtle use of language to damn one's opponents has a long and well established history and that is precisely what is occurring in the "accomodationist" vs "gnu atheist" pseudo-debate......oh sorry, you all do know it's not a genuine debate right? A false dichotomy. You do know it's basically solved by one phrase: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Pluralism wins here, as it so often does in complex situations like this.

Louis

Greta's saying the word "fundamentalist" can only be applied to Christians. I disagree. I think that restriction is completely arbitrary. Look what happened to "chauvinist". YMMV.

Yup, it's sure used as a thorn, a barb, a goad, because, well, everyone knows what "fundamentalist" really means, right? Right?

No she isn't.

The word "fundamentalist" refers to someone adhering to the fundamentals of a specific text or set of texts, so it could be a Christian or a Communist. Pick me up a copy of the atheist gospels.

The point she is making is that if people have a legitimate criticism of vocal atheists (and there ARE legitimate criticisms) then simply by falsely equating them with their perceived polar opposite is inaccurate and misleading. It is a poor, and purely rhetorical, label.

The same goes for the accomodationists. That word is a poor, purely rhetorical, label. It is designed to polarise. As is the term "new atheist", especially since the atheism being evinced is identical to that of people born well over 3000 years ago. Not so "new". It's an attempt to discredit without analysis, to avoid the substance and engage only with the tone. It is, in a word, abso-fucking-lutely-arse-quakingly-pathetic whoever does it.

Louis

?

So, it has to be a text, but not necessarily a Christian text.

Like I said, arbitrary.  

The OED is descriptive, not prescriptive. People are gonna use words any way they want. I'm not happy with the way the latest generation uses "gay", and I fight it when I can, but there you are.

No letter to The Times from me.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,11:34   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,15:15)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,09:49)
         
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,14:26)
[SNIP Horseshit]

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?
         
Quote

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.


         
Quote
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?

         
Quote
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.

How about:

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.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,11:53   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,16:08)
[SNIP]

?

So, it has to be a text, but not necessarily a Christian text.

Like I said, arbitrary.  

The OED is descriptive, not prescriptive. People are gonna use words any way they want. I'm not happy with the way the latest generation uses "gay", and I fight it when I can, but there you are.

No letter to The Times from me.

It's no more arbitrary than any other word or term.

Once quick thing, Wesley kindly reminded me I erred, in Christianity "fundamentalist" comes more from the adherence to five fundamental principles of Christianity than any specific reading of any text. The literalism/specific readings comes into it, but that's not the biggest or original bit. The same question remains however, what fundamentals are these atheists sticking to? Considering Christians are also atheists, as are Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc etc etc I think you'll find that the definition needs so much stretching that it breaks.

Anyway, yes language evolves. So? I don't think the distance between "fundamentalist" as "someone who adheres to the fundamentals of X" and "frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar" or whatever is sufficient. Especially, contra "gay", the original meaning is still in majority use. Wesley suggested "Evangelical Atheist" due to the "for the shared property of not being satisfied to leave another party with the same beliefs that they started with". Now that is a bloody good way of phrasing it, even if I would prefer another word to Evangelical. At least it confers the right connotations. It even maintains the rhetorical punch.

One doesn't simply Humpty Dumpty-esque get to define words as one wishes and maintain clarity. Whilst language evolves the use of words with reasonably shared definitions is what permits good communication. What Greta (and I) is saying is that as a descriptor "fundamentalist" is a crap one. It implies, falsely, an equivalence of opposed positions that the middle ground would be preferable to. I.e. that between "fundamentalist religionists" and "fundamentalist atheists" there exists some median point at which the right answer lies. It's false balance.

Consider the phrase "fundamentalist a-Santaists", i.e. fundamentalist people who do not believe in Santa. It's an absurdity. Likewise "fundamentalist atheist". The only reason this isn't considered so is simply because we are swimming through a religiously privileged sea, we are used to accommodating and apologising for religious privilege. And I do mean WE. I do it too. (Just so Carlson doesn't get his fee-fees hurt again, I can do that directly, I don't need hints).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,12:06   

Vis Pharyngula, I just want to know why there's a little guy pantomiming a uterus and fallopian tubes pasted atop every quoted passage. What's up with that?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,13:44   

Louis, where did i say i didnt expect to be argued with? In fact, it was the exact thing which led me to post this thread. I posted on pharyngula and got only no u as a response.

It was pretty much identical to responses on UD to elizabeth liddle.

Im on my phone right now so cant give a long reply but watch this space! I will offer a detailed response. And i do expect to argue the point. Thats why i posted the thread!

And it looks like the issue is worth arguing judging by the replies on this thread.
:)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,13:48   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 24 2011,03:50)
What's the point of your Post Atheist movement, BWE? I might be persuaded to sign on, depending on what it is and what it's intended to do. At present, all I can make out is that it's just a "no Pharynguloids allowed" club, and if I'm right about that, please count me out. But if I'm wrong about your Post Atheism movement, could'ja please clue me in on what its actual goals & etc are?

Yes. You are wrong and i will flesh it out on friday or maybe tonight.

This reply is mostly so i remember to respond directly to this post. And thanks.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2136
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,14:09   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,09:53)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,16:08)
[SNIP]

?

So, it has to be a text, but not necessarily a Christian text.

Like I said, arbitrary.  

The OED is descriptive, not prescriptive. People are gonna use words any way they want. I'm not happy with the way the latest generation uses "gay", and I fight it when I can, but there you are.

No letter to The Times from me.

It's no more arbitrary than any other word or term.

Once quick thing, Wesley kindly reminded me I erred, in Christianity "fundamentalist" comes more from the adherence to five fundamental principles of Christianity than any specific reading of any text. The literalism/specific readings comes into it, but that's not the biggest or original bit. The same question remains however, what fundamentals are these atheists sticking to? Considering Christians are also atheists, as are Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc etc etc I think you'll find that the definition needs so much stretching that it breaks.

Anyway, yes language evolves. So? I don't think the distance between "fundamentalist" as "someone who adheres to the fundamentals of X" and "frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar" or whatever is sufficient. Especially, contra "gay", the original meaning is still in majority use. Wesley suggested "Evangelical Atheist" due to the "for the shared property of not being satisfied to leave another party with the same beliefs that they started with". Now that is a bloody good way of phrasing it, even if I would prefer another word to Evangelical. At least it confers the right connotations. It even maintains the rhetorical punch.

One doesn't simply Humpty Dumpty-esque get to define words as one wishes and maintain clarity. Whilst language evolves the use of words with reasonably shared definitions is what permits good communication. What Greta (and I) is saying is that as a descriptor "fundamentalist" is a crap one. It implies, falsely, an equivalence of opposed positions that the middle ground would be preferable to. I.e. that between "fundamentalist religionists" and "fundamentalist atheists" there exists some median point at which the right answer lies. It's false balance.

Consider the phrase "fundamentalist a-Santaists", i.e. fundamentalist people who do not believe in Santa. It's an absurdity. Likewise "fundamentalist atheist". The only reason this isn't considered so is simply because we are swimming through a religiously privileged sea, we are used to accommodating and apologising for religious privilege. And I do mean WE. I do it too. (Just so Carlson doesn't get his fee-fees hurt again, I can do that directly, I don't need hints).

Louis

Well put.

I think, maybe, that the distance between "someone who adheres to the fundamentals of X" and "frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar" depends on where you're standing.

True, no-one flies airplanes into buildings in the name of godlessness. So far.

Anyway, I'm not about to go frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar on this particular issue. :-)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,14:33   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 24 2011,12:06)
Vis Pharyngula, I just want to know why there's a little guy pantomiming a uterus and fallopian tubes pasted atop every quoted passage. What's up with that?

It introduces a tard quote and refers to a Monty Python sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....related

I hope this is what you meant.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,16:58   

Just spent a couple of days in Montpellier with Ali for a Pain Of Salvation/Opeth concert. Good show, crappy concert. Full of students very noisy and not caring about the performance at all.

Still, I was so happy to be home and get to read the new stuff here at AtBC.

Not so much anymore.

I'll get back to my old peanut gallery postings for a while...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,18:18   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,09:49)
...

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. I'm not outraged at the gelato guy's sign (nice straw man), I'm outraged that any such thing is apologised for in a civil society. Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern?



Louis...

Sticking with just the sign thing, how do you consider this as part of a discriminatory status quo (if you do)?

Personally, I see it as a hot blooded reaction to a perceived personal attack. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

  
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,18:25   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 24 2011,13:48)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 24 2011,03:50)
What's the point of your Post Atheist movement, BWE? I might be persuaded to sign on, depending on what it is and what it's intended to do. At present, all I can make out is that it's just a "no Pharynguloids allowed" club, and if I'm right about that, please count me out. But if I'm wrong about your Post Atheism movement, could'ja please clue me in on what its actual goals & etc are?

Yes. You are wrong and i will flesh it out on friday or maybe tonight. i remember to respond directly to this post. And thanks.

Coolness. I gotta say, my expectations are not high; your explicitly-stated Fallwell has been dead for quite a while now, Dover school board lost, The Discovery Institute authors can't sell enough books to fill a wagon any more, religion makes people do stupid things, so does atheism 'mantra' does not inspire confidence. I mean, sure, Falwell's dead, but the USAn political system is still full to the brim with godbots & people who shamelessly pander to godbots; Dover was a win for the good guys, but the bad guys just keep on tryna cripple science education; etc etc etc; and your 'mantra' carries real heavy connotations of it's all good, don't worry be happy, can't we all just get along. That's one almighty big and thick pair of rose-colored glasses you're wearing, y' know? So... let's just say that the omens are not even mildly auspicious.
Nevertheless, I'm perfectly willing to give you a chance to demonstrate that you've got more on your mind than just demonizing Pharyngula and minimizing/ignoring the very real problems atheists face in the current culture.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,18:29   

Re: louis' request for the atheist bible.

Most of it can be found on pharyngula. If you would like to see it printed, hit ctrl+p.

Here's the deal, when there is a them, the path toward an us leads to a set of absolutes. Oz has made it disengenuous to try to maintain that atheism is not avpositive doctrinr. Now atheism means that atheists are a group that can be oppressed rather than a simple statement of rwjection of theist doctrine. Now, the church of atheism is actively trying to supplant the church or theisms doctrines with new ones rather than simplyrejecting the old ines.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,18:33   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 24 2011,18:29)
Re: louis' request for the atheist bible.

Most of it can be found on pharyngula. If you would like to see it printed, hit ctrl+p.

Here's the deal, when there is a them, the path toward an us leads to a set of absolutes. Oz has made it disengenuous to try to maintain that atheism is not avpositive doctrinr. Now atheism means that atheists are a group that can be oppressed rather than a simple statement of rwjection of theist doctrine. Now, the church of atheism is actively trying to supplant the church or theisms doctrines with new ones rather than simplyrejecting the old ines.

I don't think that I agree with that, unless you think that atheism is a movement with thought leaders/designators.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,19:13   

You know what, Louis, I could respond at length, but it all boils down to just a few responses.

     
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,10:23)
The reason I disagree with you is because I disagree with your content free whining about genuine matters of serious principle. You, and people like you are shitty allies.

The fact that you can't or won't figure it out doesn't mean it is content free. It should be abundantly clear what I am trying to say. You seem willfully intent in not understanding it.
     
Quote
In exactly the manner MLK describes you are as much of a roadblock to a more equitable society as the genuine bigots.

You tried to call me a misogynist before:
     
Quote
So just like those uppity women you don't like expressing feminism that questions your privilege and upsetting the applecart

...only to backpedal with a "Jeesh, don't be so sensitive. when I said 'you', I didn't really mean *you*." This is the same thing here. You know nothing about me, how I have conducted myself throughout my life, or what I may have done to advance or impede the cause of equality.  But, I have criticized PZ and that is apparently sufficient to brand me a traitor to all humanity.  

     
Quote
PZ probably has monetised his anger. And? Does this mean any specific thing he says is incorrect?
.......
And yet your complaint is with the medium, the messenger not with the actual substance. You cannot criticise the message so you go after the messenger. Yet more data in favour of the "shitty ally hypothesis".

You have managed to almost be correct here. Blind pigs, truffles and all that.

I have no problem at all if PZ makes some bucks off of this.  Why should Bill Donohue and Rev. Al Sharpton be the only ones making victimhood a career move?  But, let's not kid ourselves as to his righteousness.

There are plenty of things that could have been done after GG's boneheaded move.  They could have organized a sit-in at the the guy's shop. They could have confronted the guy in person, they could have dispatched a conference organizer to deal with the guy.  Or they could snuggle in next to their Dell and blog about it!  

Then when the guy prostrates himself publicly and offers a personal apology, how does PZ respond?
     
Quote
     
Quote
   Apology not accepted. What I see in you is a person who hates me for not believing in the nonsense of your religion; while you may now be in a panic because your actions were unethical and illegal, and you were caught out, and face economic consequences for them, I don’t see any sign that your attitudes have changed in the slightest.

   You’ll just have to live with the fact that I won’t be buying your ice cream on the rare occasions I visit your town, while I have to live with the fact that I live in a country where my rejection of your religion makes me a pariah. There’s absolutely nothing you can do to make up for that.

......
I don’t give a good goddamn what they say, I care about what they do. And until 150 million Christians rise up and show some respect for common humanity and reason, and apologize to me and every godless citizen in this country, I will not be magnanimous.

In other words, the price of PZ's magnamity is 150 million apologies. And, until he gets them, he will summarily dismiss the guy standing in front of him with a magisterial wave of his hand. So what if that person is offering just such an apology. It is obviously not sincere. Because if it was. the person would have brought the other 149,999,999 with him.

He could have had a positive impact on that one guy.  Hell, he might have even won the guy over.  PZ is an educator, ferchrissake. I thought they lived for teachable moments? But, alas, no. Somewhere, one of GG's co-religionists thinks atheists should be discriminated against.  Better smite them all just to be sure. How very Old Testament.  

     
Quote
The people PZ is having a go at is people like you. People who whatever happens continually apologise for the wrongs of others and try to avoid confrontation. He's having a go at the shitty allies. And good on him!


And it is right here where I finally figured out that it is useless to even try and communicate with you. I guess I am a little slow sometimes.  My foolish belief in better angels and all that. But, it seems, you are just as intractable as he is.  You aren't interested in trying to understand what I am saying.  You only are interested in proving that I am wrong and if you construct a few strawmen along the way, well, it's all in a days work.

Not once have I apologized for the wrongs of GG. Not once. (Go ahead, smart ass, try and find it.) All I have done is criticize PZ.  You might want to ask yourself, Pumpkin, why you seem incapable of differentiating the two.

Nor, I would add, have I eschewed confrontation.  Heck, despite being an unapologetic capitalist, I am fully supportive of what the Occupy Wall Street movement is trying to accomplish. Confrontation that highlights the discrimination and plays deftly on the power imbalance is an effective way to drive a point home and to galvanize support.



But temper tantrums are a shitty form of confrontation.  If they were any damn good, we would been eating our dessert before our vegetables ages ago.

     
Quote
And what PZ does is a valid tactic, it does stir the pot and highlight issues. Is it the only tactic? Nope. Do I always like it? Nope. Demagoguery has its place in the thousand flowers.


But, apparently I don't.  Is the garden already full, Louis, or isn't my brand of flower on the Approved List?

     
Quote
5) I have yet to give any message board participants a sound thrashing. I charge by the hour for that anyway.




--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,19:31   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 24 2011,18:44)
Louis, where did i say i didnt expect to be argued with? In fact, it was the exact thing which led me to post this thread. I posted on pharyngula and got only no u as a response.

It was pretty much identical to responses on UD to elizabeth liddle.

Im on my phone right now so cant give a long reply but watch this space! I will offer a detailed response. And i do expect to argue the point. Thats why i posted the thread!

And it looks like the issue is worth arguing judging by the replies on this thread.
:)

Well you'll never find me disagree with the fact that some people on Pharyngula make it bloody hard to discuss anything there. If that's the total of it, then well, erm, not controversial. I've not bothered much with the threads there on this issue for a reason.

If there is a serious argument to be had, and I'm not really convinced there is, what I'd ask is what are the specific claims/arguments you disagree with from PZ?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,19:44   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,19:09)
[SNIP]

True, no-one flies airplanes into buildings in the name of godlessness. So far.

So far? Really? Tell me how you get from ATHEISM, a lack of belief in a deity, to flying planes into buildings. I can draw you a line from fundamentalist christianity, or extremist islam, or extreme revolutionary communism to an act like this (hell, a few hours on google and I could probably find you examples), but atheism. I don't see it. Not because I'm an atheist, but because there's nothing there to base such a decision on. You can get specific jihadist interpretations of the qu'ran, or violent interpretations of the bible, but atheism lacks anything remotely like this.

I can see how people who are also atheists could do nasty things, plenty of evidence for that, but nasty acts specifically derived from atheism? Nope. That reduces to the theist claims that atheists lack morals etc, which are rank nonsense.

Quote
Anyway, I'm not about to go frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar on this particular issue. :-)


I think I've sailed that ship!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,20:16   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 24 2011,23:18)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,09:49)
...

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. I'm not outraged at the gelato guy's sign (nice straw man), I'm outraged that any such thing is apologised for in a civil society. Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern?



Louis...

Sticking with just the sign thing, how do you consider this as part of a discriminatory status quo (if you do)?

Personally, I see it as a hot blooded reaction to a perceived personal attack. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Ok this is quite simple. The two (hot blooded response and expression of discrimination/greater status quo) are not mutually exclusive.

Imagine the analogous sign in a white majority country:

"No people from the Million Man March are welcome in my WHITE shop".

However that sign came about I hope we'd both agree that it's a pretty clear example of a discriminatory sign. The sign that this chap put up, for whatever reason, took the same form. The sentiments expressed in the sign are explicitly discriminatory however they came about.

Sure the guy reacted hotheadedly and poorly, and whatever reaction people have to that is theirs to have, let them have it, but it doesn't detract from the fact that his sign, his act was one of discrimination.

This act didn't occur in a vacuum, the greater social context genuinely matters. This guy felt perfectly entitled to exclude people from his business for their difference from him. He wasn't attacked IN his business, he wasn't attacked personally, he wasn't actually attacked at all. He simply exists in a society where the questioning of people's religion and the religious privilege (tax breaks etc, the standard stuff) that exists is frowned upon. It is socially awkward. Go and read the MLK quote I posted above, it's not like this is a new or unique problem. The form that every minority group challenging every majority group follows is roughly this one. None of this is a surprise.

Again, as mentioned above, there exists in the USA a culture where atheists are discriminated against. Granted that discrimination is usually not that serious and certainly not as serious as that that previous and current minority groups experience. Imagine if this guy had noticed the speaker that so offended him was black, or gay, or a woman, and put up a sign saying "black/gay/female Skepticon people are not welcome in my Christian shop". I don't think he'd have got away with THAT so lightly! And rightly so.

There were times when similar signs put in doors (no Blacks, no dogs, no Irish). This was socially accepted, part of normal society. People felt entitled to do this. As rash as this guy was, this guy felt entitled to do it. I doubt he would have felt entitled to make the analogous signs above that I mentioned (even if they had been relevant). The reason being is that those sorts of signs are now less socially acceptable. Sure, they're probably acceptable somewhere, but I'd guess an urban environment isn't one of them. Open discrimination against atheists is still tolerated in the USA (and elsewhere). It's socially acceptable by and large. This hotheaded act would have been vastly less likely in a society where such an act was beyond the pale.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3044
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,22:20   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 23 2011,19:17)
 
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 23 2011,18:52)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....keptics

PZ Meyers has gone so far beyond stupid douchebaggery now that I need a label which explicitly excludes him from polite society.

I am calling the new movement "Post Atheism" and it's mantra is, "Fallwell has been dead for quite a while now, Dover school board lost, The Discovery Institute authors can't sell enough books to fill a wagon any more, religion makes people do stupid things, so does atheism."*

Yeesh. The cult members in the fanboi club over there are embarrassments to humanity.

Pharyngula, is Uncommon Descent. PZ is Dembski.

Fucking A.

Sickening really.

*Edited to add discovery institute bit and to add that PZ has become dembski.

Fanaticism is bad... even when you agree with them.

I (and I think everyone here) has commented on this before.

Heck, I sent PZ a personal note about the fanaticism of his followers and the little cult he's developing.  In the end, it will be as bad as fundie religions.

William Dembski is disingenuous, if not an outright liar, and also a bad representative of the "science" in which he claims expertise (mathematics - yes, he has called himself a "scientist"), and knows little of which he speaks (remember that disastrous WEASEL claim).

Whatever you think of PZ's actions, is he really William Dembski? Has he caused the kind of damage that Dembski has caused? I am not comfortable with such an assertion.

Pharyngula still provides good science information - UD never has and never will.

I have a hypothesis of my own - that we are not born atheists (at least most of us - I may have been), but pagans, so PZ essentially cursing this guy and not forgiving him doesn't bother me much. (That guy who said, "Humanists forgive others their trespasses," blah blah, made me want to barf! Go to a Unitarian Universalist church already, buddy! ) I just think that if he's going to go there, do it with humor and with an economy of words.

I mean, I would have said, "Ah, ice cream man is back for another lick!" or something like that, if I am going to not accept an apology. (It seems like it was an apology, not a notpology.) Knowing me, I'd probably not accept his apology but eat his ice cream anyway - or at least demand a lot of samples, and then not buy anything. ;)

What does this have to do with atheism, as far as we being in the "post-atheism" era or whatever? I have not changed. I don't follow anyone, not PZ and not Dawkins - my ego is, frankly, too big for that. I'm me, and other atheists/nonatheists are themselves, too. I'm only interested in this "movement" insofar as it accomplishes cultural/political/legal change. Other than that - phhhht! Atheist poetry sucks, and I've dropped out of most atheist events around here, unless they are hosting an event about science.

Yanno...science? Something I am really interested in?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,22:48   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 25 2011,00:13)
You know what, Louis, I could respond at length, but it all boils down to just a few responses.

     
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,10:23)
The reason I disagree with you is because I disagree with your content free whining about genuine matters of serious principle. You, and people like you are shitty allies.

The fact that you can't or won't figure it out doesn't mean it is content free. It should be abundantly clear what I am trying to say. You seem willfully intent in not understanding it.
       
Quote
In exactly the manner MLK describes you are as much of a roadblock to a more equitable society as the genuine bigots.

You tried to call me a misogynist before:
       
Quote
So just like those uppity women you don't like expressing feminism that questions your privilege and upsetting the applecart

...only to backpedal with a "Jeesh, don't be so sensitive. when I said 'you', I didn't really mean *you*." This is the same thing here. You know nothing about me, how I have conducted myself throughout my life, or what I may have done to advance or impede the cause of equality.  But, I have criticized PZ and that is apparently sufficient to brand me a traitor to all humanity.  

       
Quote
PZ probably has monetised his anger. And? Does this mean any specific thing he says is incorrect?
.......
And yet your complaint is with the medium, the messenger not with the actual substance. You cannot criticise the message so you go after the messenger. Yet more data in favour of the "shitty ally hypothesis".

You have managed to almost be correct here. Blind pigs, truffles and all that.

I have no problem at all if PZ makes some bucks off of this.  Why should Bill Donohue and Rev. Al Sharpton be the only ones making victimhood a career move?  But, let's not kid ourselves as to his righteousness.

There are plenty of things that could have been done after GG's boneheaded move.  They could have organized a sit-in at the the guy's shop. They could have confronted the guy in person, they could have dispatched a conference organizer to deal with the guy.  Or they could snuggle in next to their Dell and blog about it!  

Then when the guy prostrates himself publicly and offers a personal apology, how does PZ respond?
       
Quote
       
Quote
   Apology not accepted. What I see in you is a person who hates me for not believing in the nonsense of your religion; while you may now be in a panic because your actions were unethical and illegal, and you were caught out, and face economic consequences for them, I don’t see any sign that your attitudes have changed in the slightest.

   You’ll just have to live with the fact that I won’t be buying your ice cream on the rare occasions I visit your town, while I have to live with the fact that I live in a country where my rejection of your religion makes me a pariah. There’s absolutely nothing you can do to make up for that.

......
I don’t give a good goddamn what they say, I care about what they do. And until 150 million Christians rise up and show some respect for common humanity and reason, and apologize to me and every godless citizen in this country, I will not be magnanimous.

In other words, the price of PZ's magnamity is 150 million apologies. And, until he gets them, he will summarily dismiss the guy standing in front of him with a magisterial wave of his hand. So what if that person is offering just such an apology. It is obviously not sincere. Because if it was. the person would have brought the other 149,999,999 with him.

He could have had a positive impact on that one guy.  Hell, he might have even won the guy over.  PZ is an educator, ferchrissake. I thought they lived for teachable moments? But, alas, no. Somewhere, one of GG's co-religionists thinks atheists should be discriminated against.  Better smite them all just to be sure. How very Old Testament.  

       
Quote
The people PZ is having a go at is people like you. People who whatever happens continually apologise for the wrongs of others and try to avoid confrontation. He's having a go at the shitty allies. And good on him!


And it is right here where I finally figured out that it is useless to even try and communicate with you. I guess I am a little slow sometimes.  My foolish belief in better angels and all that. But, it seems, you are just as intractable as he is.  You aren't interested in trying to understand what I am saying.  You only are interested in proving that I am wrong and if you construct a few strawmen along the way, well, it's all in a days work.

Not once have I apologized for the wrongs of GG. Not once. (Go ahead, smart ass, try and find it.) All I have done is criticize PZ.  You might want to ask yourself, Pumpkin, why you seem incapable of differentiating the two.

Nor, I would add, have I eschewed confrontation.  Heck, despite being an unapologetic capitalist, I am fully supportive of what the Occupy Wall Street movement is trying to accomplish. Confrontation that highlights the discrimination and plays deftly on the power imbalance is an effective way to drive a point home and to galvanize support.



But temper tantrums are a shitty form of confrontation.  If they were any damn good, we would been eating our dessert before our vegetables ages ago.

     
Quote
And what PZ does is a valid tactic, it does stir the pot and highlight issues. Is it the only tactic? Nope. Do I always like it? Nope. Demagoguery has its place in the thousand flowers.


But, apparently I don't.  Is the garden already full, Louis, or isn't my brand of flower on the Approved List?

     
Quote
5) I have yet to give any message board participants a sound thrashing. I charge by the hour for that anyway.



1) Carlson, you don't read so good do you. I have repeatedly said *I* am sexist (etc). If there is a difference between us, then it is that I realise that I am sexist and you are working to ignore your own sexism (or whatever-ism). You repeatedly ignore this. You're in denial. Your posts scream it. Sorry if you don't like that, but tough. Get to grips with your own failings like an adult.

Oh, and if you continually oppose genuine attempts to improve (for example) women's rights by act or argument, then yes, it's very likely you are a misogynist of some degree. Do you do this Carlson? I can't answer it for you, but I can say that you continually argue against the people trying to challenge discriminatory status quos. Why do you do that?

2) I don't think you're a traitor to all humanity, or indeed to anything, I think you're a shitty ally to making a more equitable society, which is what my goal is. You STILL haven't grasped why I think this despite several clear explanations. I'll try again.

You're right, I know nothing about your life. I don't need to. I'm sure you give your mother flowers and help old ladies across the road. Good for you, I'm sure you are a saint. I'm even happy that you are criticising PZ. Good on you, I have many criticisms of his out put. The problem I have is that your criticisms are FREE OF SUBSTANCE.

Don't play silly games and claim your point is hidden and I'm being stupid, it's isn't, it's obvious and it's still substance free. You are criticising PZ's form not the substance of his claims (and throughout your posts you do it again and again). THAT'S the issue. If the totality of your complaint is that PZ is manipulating his status as a victim to create blog drama and cash in, then great, as I said before if he is (and some days I think he is), so what. I can't get any more energised about it than I do about opinion columns in the papers. People getting paid to manufacture opinion, shock horror. Would I prefer a world without it? Sure. Will it ever happen. Doubtful.

None of this addresses the substance of what PZ has written, like I said before, repeatedly, my objection to your criticism is that it is SUBSTANCE FREE, not that it exists. Criticism GOOD. Substance free criticism BAD. See the difference?

All your criticism is due to what you see as PZ sensationalising things for profit. I've said that it's tangential to the substance of the issue and all you do is repeat it. I don't care if the information I get comes from you, or PZ, or anyone. The person, the source, doesn't matter. What matters is that the information is good. If PZ's information is crappy, then fine THAT is something worth criticising, thus far, as I've said before, all you are doing is rationalising (badly) your dislike and butthurt. You are nothing if not transparent.

Your shitty ally status is because, as mentioned above, you aren't saying "holy crap, that's outrageous, look at that piece of injustice, how the hell do we do something about that?" you instead say "hey, look at that guy who is jumping up and down in anger at that injustice, what an asshole, who's paying him to do that? Oh he's just playing the victim card to make a buck!". You don't engage with what the guy is saying about the injustice, you dismiss him for tangential irrelevancies.

3) On the day, what did PZ et al actually do? Nothing. There's your response. Disapproval. No boycott, not great drama, nothing. When did the big drama start, well let's see. It's here. In a post entitled "Fair Weather Atheists and Sunshine Skeptics". Clearly he's having a go at gelato guy....oh wait he's not.

Yeah *I'm* the moron who's not worth bothering with. Oh no, wait, I'm not, it's you. Tell me Carlson, do you tire of your dishonesty or is it something fun? Just like every creationist moron the world has ever produced you are incapable of reading a simple document for comprehension and instead have to tweak it to make it say what you want by cutting out the inconvenient bits. Let's just say your tactics are not unfamiliar.

Great illustration of your dishonesty? You're snipping out of context the bits of PZ's words you think make your case, when they don't. This first part of the post is setting up why he doesn't want to accept the apology of Gelato Guy, why he considers the apology insufficient. Whether or not you or I agree with that, that's PZ's choice. He's asking for nothing more than equality with his comment about 150 million people. He's asking that the people who thoughtlessly contribute to a culture of discrimination (which demonstrably exists by the way) against atheists (not as a community per se but as individuals) to apologise. He's pointing out the inequality of the situation. He's not scapegoating this poor gelato bloke, he's using him as a teaching example (surely you're in favour of that...right?). He's saying why should he, PZ, bear the burden of magnanimity? He's not the one doing the discriminating. What he is doing is illustrating the disparity in the situation here, the inequality.

This is obvious rhetoric from PZ, sure it's overblown. I'm not particularly a fan, but have you ever heard of using hyperbole to make a point? Surely even you've heard of that, Carlson? Or are you too focussed on making PZ a monster to be remotely honest?

Even then, rhetoric and demagoguery have their place. The rallying cry "Look chaps, this really isn't that big of a deal but one day could we get around to, you know, maybe doing something about this?" is unlikely to win great hordes to your banner.

You snipped the preceding paragraphs. The paragraphs give examples, context, all of which can be substantiated, as to the nature of the discrimination and oppression faced by atheists. That's not victimhood, that is as I said above a recognition that the playing field is not level. Pointing that out is not hand wringing or self pity, it's the first step to changing it. How can you change something if you're not aware of it first?

The second part of the post (and the title) explain the real problem here, the problem I mentioned before: fair weather friends. This is what I was pointing to with the MLK quote. There are very few genuine bona fide bigots in the world. There are a much larger number of people who want a quiet life (and good on 'em), who don't question much of what they are told, who don't challenge what they are coerced to do. This far larger number are the bigger problem. What MLK was despairing about was getting these people to act and it is exactly what PZ is despairing about.

These people are bigot-lite, I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Prejudice. Why do I say "these people" when it's a set that includes me? Anyway, US, WE, the great unwashed, we pay our bills go to our jobs and compromise ourselves endlessly to put food on the table and sundry other luxuries. We whore ourselves out. That is reality. We cannot exist without some form of compromise. However some forms of compromise are too much, sometimes drawing a painful line in the sand and standing one's ground, even though it pisses people off, is the right thing to do. This is what PZ and the other people you airily dismiss and deride are doing in their own little way. It's hardly a brave last stand, but it is a non-zero contribution. A book by Dawkins, a talk by Ariane Sherrine whatever, all these tiny little things contribute piece by piece to the change in social attitudes. They encourage people to examine their own principles, perhaps even to draw their own little lines, to make the wrong sorts of compromise a little less. This is a Good Thing ™. This is how the west was won.

Women's sufferage was highlighted by a few brave women, women derided in EXACTLY the manner you deride PZ and others. The civil rights movement was highlighted by a few brave people, people derided in EXACTLY the manner you deride people and others. The gay rights movement was highlighted by a few brave people, people derided in EXACTLY the manner you deride PZ and others. Are any of these people saints? No. Is PZ a saint? HAH! No! Far from it. Were all of these people right all the time about all things? No! Is PZ! Of course not! If anyone is making dismissive grandiose handwaves it's YOU.

There were opinion writers and pamphleteers, people who chained themselves to railings and people who made cups of tea. All of these people played some non zero part in making societies just that little bit more equal in some ways. Is the job done? Not by a long shot. They are not demanding you do the same as them, they are not demanding ideological purity, you are...which brings me neatly to....

4) Your whinge about PZ the educator and a positive impact. Projection and fantasy pure and simple. I worked for one of the hardest, nastiest supervisors in chemistry. He'd ball people out, ridicule them, be mean as hell. He was an educator too. He had a massively positive impact on me, there is no part of my life in which I have learned as much as quickly.

I'm more than happy to admit much of that was IN SPITE of him! Remember, let a thousand flowers bloom. I loathed his style of dealing with people because it took not account of detail or fact, it was one way or no way. But his methods forced me to learn, to grow and to act in ways I had previously not considered. I took a lot from it. I then moved to a job where my boss was sweetness and light. Wouldn't say boo to a goose, always helpful, but come appraisal time all the problems he'd had would appear. I hated that even more. Never knew where you stood, it was far harder to learn anything.

The former tactic worked for me to a large degree, the latter didn't at all. Oh I'd work for the nice guy in a heart beat, but I'd rather deal with someone capable of delivering some honest feedback, even if it was wrong. At least I could argue.

This is why I advocate pluralism here. PZ's methods are not yours, or mine for that matter. But they have their place and they do work. Do they work at all times, in all places for all people? No of course not. And no one, not even PZ, is saying they should.

You however are trying to tell PZ and others like him how to act. He's an educator, he should behave as YOU think an educator should. He's not having a positive influence on this guy. All evidence free whinges about PZ's tone. You have fuck all else but tone trolling noise. And where you don't tone troll you flat out lie.

For example, PZ is not scapegoating this one gelato guy for other people's discrimination, he is refusing to accept an apology for Gelato Guy's OWN discrimination. He's not said it's insincere (your lie), he's said it's insufficient. His acceptance of GG's apology is not conditional on 150 million apologies, it's conditional on it being sufficient to compensate for the discrimination GG perpetrated. The point about the 150 million thing is that, as said above, the burden does not fall on the party being discriminated against to be magnanimous. Should Rosa Parks have given up her seat if the guy had asked using the word "please"? No! A thousand times NO! The protest Rosa Parks (much more bravely) made was a refusal to give into discrimination, to act like discrimination is okay. Acceptable. That the gelato guy has apologised does not place any burden on anyone to accept it. That is the extent of PZ's point here. Situation is unequal, not in PZ's favour, no burden to accept apology on PZ. Done.

So no, your analysis is simply wrong, counterfactual and designed as per usual to reinforce your butthurt and dislike of PZ et al. You really are rather boring.

5) Straw men? From me? Where? Find one.

6) You've not apologised for the wrongs of GG? Deary me, when reading for comprehension is this bad on your part Carlson I can only begin to suspect genuine mental deficiencies. Don't worry, champ, I'll run you through it slowly. See, I can be patronising and nasty too, isn't this fun? The problem you have, fuck wit, is that I am much, much better at it. What was it you said? Oh yes:

"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."

LOL! You haven't met a level of discourse that makes me think you're capable of wiping piss off my boot. Hence why I am treating you like the driveller you are. My serious consideration is so far beyond your reach as to be a dream. You'd have to deal with the SUBSTANCE first, the arse gravy you are spattering forth is hardly challenging. Anyway, enough fun with the fuck wit...

I said you are issuing apologetics for a discriminatory status quo, and you continue to do so. This is not the same thing as apologising for GG's actions. Are you smart enough to grasp that? Gee, if you're going to accuse me of making straw men (a false accusation I might add), it's kinda a bad idea to, you know, make then yourself. Pro tip for you there, champ. Just something I picked up getting an education whilst you had your head up a horse's arse....tell me, am I being nasty enough yet? I can do better. I have a lake of vitriol waiting just for you, England did badly in the rugby world cup, I still haven't gotten over it.

For the umpteenth time: You a criticising someone blowing the whistle on an injustice and complaining about that injustice because you do not like the way they are doing it. That's it. That's the epitome of an apologetic for the status quo, it is an attempt to shout down the whistleblower/complainant, to distract from their complaint by throwing irrelevancies at them. Here, look again at your arrant whinging:

PZ manipulates outrage for a buck. (Great, if he does, so what. So does every newspaper on the planet. It's irrelevant. What matters are the facts, the claims, the accuracy, the SUBSTANCE. Not dealt with that yet have you?)

PZ could have been nice to this guy and wooed him into a more rational place. (Great, perhaps he could and perhaps he should. But the conjecture that PZ's acts DIDN'T work and DON'T work are, well, purely conjecture on your part. You are assuming your conclusions. More than that you are asking the party being discriminated against to act with a magnanimity not displayed by the party doing the discriminating, you are openly favouring the discriminator. See why you're a shitty ally yet?)

PZ is chucking a temper tantrum/is nothing more than a keyboard warrior and sundry similar claims. (Super! How dismissive is THAT. Taking someone's relatively moderately expressed refusal of an apology with reasons given, ignoring those reasons and accusing them of being both dismissive AND petulant! Isn't that content free failure to engage with the REASONS, the SUBSTANCE, kinda, you know, arrogantly dismissive? Why yes, yes it is.)

Don't tell me about irrelevant shite like supporting the OWS thingy, who the fuck cares? You said this:

"Confrontation that highlights the discrimination and plays deftly on the power imbalance is an effective way to drive a point home and to galvanize support."

What the hairy fuck do you think PZ has done? He might have done it in a way you or I don't like, but he has highlighted the discrimination by confronting it, and his refusal to accept an apology is a precise illustration of the power imbalance of religious privilege. It drives the point home and, well he has a lot of support.

Your arguments on the topic of PZ et al have ever run thus "PZ et al are a bunch of whiny titty babies because everything they do proves they are whiny titty babies" You simply assume your conclusions because you don't like the people involved. It ain't me having a hard time separating ANTHING....pumpkin.

7) What flower do you want to put in the garden? Being nice to Gelato Guy and accepting his apology? Sure there's room for that flower. The garden is in fact dominated by that type of flower. No one is trying to silence you in the way you are trying to silence people like PZ. Ohhhhh I know you don't think you are trying to silence them, but then you don't think you're a bigot (or apologist for bigotry either) so forgive my doubting your perspicacity. The effect of pushing the focus on the means and tone of the messenger at the expense of the message is an attempt to silence that message. Is it possible you are too stupid to understand even this simple thing?

8) That piffling pile of chump change you display is not enough. Anyway, you've been shellacked for free. Don't ask me again, I won't be so generous.

9) I'm done being nice to people who cannot do me the "nice" of actually engaging with what I am saying, and what they are criticising. You want manners? Fucking demonstrate them yourself.

Louis

P.S. I've wasted time and effort on many lines. One I wrote earlier sums it all up:

"You are consistently on the side of shutting people with legitimate complaints up, simply because you don't like how those complaints are expressed or over what specific incidents."

All the rest is gravy. Carlson, if you are not a bigot (and as I have said, you are probably no more a bigot on any specific thing than I am), you are an apologist for bigotry (and THIS is where we differ).  Read the "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" and try to understand why this is the case. Forgive me if I severely doubt you lack both the inclination or capacity to do so.

--------------
Bye.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3568
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,23:26   

I more often than not agree with the content of PZ's posts, if not the style, but I don't visit any more. I once made the mistake of trying to open up a shade of gray on some topic and was creamed by 50 true believers.

So I stopped reading the comments and eventually stopped going to the site.

This may seem trite, but I blame it on the economy. People all over are just in a foul mood. It seems to cut across politics and religion.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,00:51   

Quote
What the hairy fuck do you think PZ has done? He might have done it in a way you or I don't like, but he has highlighted the discrimination by confronting it, and his refusal to accept an apology is a precise illustration of the power imbalance of religious privilege. It drives the point home and, well he has a lot of support.


I really wonder how effective he and his tactics are in getting real change?  He has a big choir that he preaches to, but are his methods effective in highlighting discrimination to the right audience, the religious majority?  It strikes me that his approach might be counterproductive.  Yes, I'm going on about tone, shoot me.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,00:58   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,17:44)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,19:09)
[SNIP]

True, no-one flies airplanes into buildings in the name of godlessness. So far.

So far? Really? Tell me how you get from ATHEISM, a lack of belief in a deity, to flying planes into buildings. I can draw you a line from fundamentalist christianity, or extremist islam, or extreme revolutionary communism to an act like this (hell, a few hours on google and I could probably find you examples), but atheism. I don't see it. Not because I'm an atheist, but because there's nothing there to base such a decision on. You can get specific jihadist interpretations of the qu'ran, or violent interpretations of the bible, but atheism lacks anything remotely like this.

I can see how people who are also atheists could do nasty things, plenty of evidence for that, but nasty acts specifically derived from atheism? Nope. That reduces to the theist claims that atheists lack morals etc, which are rank nonsense.

 
Quote
Anyway, I'm not about to go frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar on this particular issue. :-)


I think I've sailed that ship!

Louis

Louis, i get to flying planes into buildings from thinking that i am right and the guy in the building is wrong. Has nothing to do with where the idea came from. Religion just has a history of well defined us and them delineations.

Seems to me that pz is using the very same playbook.

And, in terms of nasty acts in the name of atheism, you're working awefully hard to rationalize one right now. Think about that for a minute before you respond.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,01:28   

For a moment I thought Kairosfocus had hijacked this thread, but a search for Lewontin came up empty...

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,02:19   

Quick word (because fuck, I'm tired of reading text-walls):

This "adress the substance, not the form" is getting quite boring. It sound's like the IDiots, really. Most people who have complains about PZ have tried to adress the substance, in a polite way. The way their views and opinions have been received over there just destroyed all hope of a good debate.

So sure, let's adress the substance, just not there where it would count for something. Let's do it somewhere else where nobody concerned will give a fuck.

When PZ gets rid of Caine, Nerd of Redhead and all the other obnoxious sycophants, maybe we* can get back there and adress the substance.

*Obviously not me.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,05:19   

Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2011,02:28)
For a moment I thought Kairosfocus had hijacked this thread, but a search for Lewontin came up empty...

POTD!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,05:24   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 25 2011,07:19)
Quick word (because fuck, I'm tired of reading text-walls):

This "adress the substance, not the form" is getting quite boring. It sound's like the IDiots, really. Most people who have complains about PZ have tried to adress the substance, in a polite way. The way their views and opinions have been received over there just destroyed all hope of a good debate.

So sure, let's adress the substance, just not there where it would count for something. Let's do it somewhere else where nobody concerned will give a fuck.

When PZ gets rid of Caine, Nerd of Redhead and all the other obnoxious sycophants, maybe we* can get back there and adress the substance.

*Obviously not me.

You see this is my point, here you (and others) go again. Pharyngula is mean, PZ is nasty, commenter X is a shouty git. Great, how far does that get us?

The same goes for the comments section on Pharyngula. As I've said a few times now it's not the best place for a discussion, yes there are shouty people there who will stifle a discussion and this too is a bad thing. Fantastic, how far does that get us?

In neither case is anything achieved.

You can have your little fulminating pity parties about how mean PZ etc are, and they can have their fulminating self righteous parties about how dumb you all are and the merry go round and spins another turn. It's just so fucking free of any content. A plague on all your houses!

No one is stopping you addressing any substance. It doesn't have to happen at Pharyngula....

...and yet here we have a thread dedicated to the idea that PZ is mean and evil. Again. {eyeroll} It's every bit as pathetic as any sycophantic paean on Pharyngula. Don't any of you get this yet? WHO is saying something, and to a lesser extent HOW they are saying it is much less important than WHAT is being said.

So, let's all agree that PZ is a terrible person and every person on Pharyngula, myself included, is wicked in every possible way. Ok, happy? That's our base starting point. I concede totally the wickedness of all things Pharyngula. Job done. Now can I ask some questions? Good. On the current silly brouhaha:

1) What are the precise claims that PZ has made about the nature of discrimination against atheists in the USA? Could someone list them please.

2) Are any of these claims untrue and why?

3) What was PZ's response to the events (serious answers only please)?

4) Why, specifically, was PZ's reaction good, bad, indifferent, something else? Please give reasons.

5) What should be done to decrease the amount of discrimination against atheists (if, as per 2) this exists)?

There you go, 5 simple questions to get you started. All of them ignore the (to steal a phrase from Carlson) the pity party about being banned from/treated badly at Pharyngula or the endless whiny fucking butthurt about it.

Louis

P.S. Asking for people to address the substance not the tone makes me like an IDCist? Fuck me have you misread THAT debate. The IDCists are doing what YOU are doing, they complain about how mean the evil evolutionists are all the time and never produce any science etc. In other words, just like you they avoid the substance. Your example is 180 degrees out of whack.

If YOU think YOU are trying to address the substance on some issue and you cannot at Pharyngula then fine, there are many examples of that happening AS I'VE ALREADY SAID A DOZEN TIMES NOW. This is not one of them. This thread, the shit from Carlson, is one long tone troll. Substance free criticism of the tone, the people and not the issue. You see the two things are different. Isn't that amazing, why it's almost like nuance exists!

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,05:34   

Louis: I have no problems with PZ regarding GelatoGuy, although I think the courteous thing would have been to accept the apology, or at least adress the problem upfront and confront the guy (maybe he did, I haven't read this whole stuff yet). But we've already admitted that PZ is not courteous, so there's that.

Now, what is your point exactly? I just stated that it's neigh impossible to adress the substance at Pharyngula, and you agreed. I don't like the form over there, and you don't seem to be a big fan either. So?

What's your beef with me on this? Am I misreading you?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,05:48   

Quote (George @ Nov. 25 2011,05:51)
Quote
What the hairy fuck do you think PZ has done? He might have done it in a way you or I don't like, but he has highlighted the discrimination by confronting it, and his refusal to accept an apology is a precise illustration of the power imbalance of religious privilege. It drives the point home and, well he has a lot of support.


I really wonder how effective he and his tactics are in getting real change?  He has a big choir that he preaches to, but are his methods effective in highlighting discrimination to the right audience, the religious majority?  It strikes me that his approach might be counterproductive.  Yes, I'm going on about tone, shoot me.

No I won't shoot you because this is a good point.

Debating tactics is valid, it's fine not to like PZ's tactics. I don't like them as often as I do. This has been my whole point about pluralism in tactics. I think there is room for the PZs of this world just like I think there is room for the non-PZs of this world. Some people will find PZ's tactics valuable, some won't. All the little anecdotes about a specific tactic's value are little individual data points and they all add up to a non-zero effect.

Yes PZ preaches to a large choir, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Preaching to the choir serves a purpose, it can create unity and so on and so forth. Sure it can also be exclusionary to people not of the choir, and that IS a problem (admitted oooooh I don't know for the 30 millionth time now). That's the cost of any

Here's a non PZ example, because to be frank, I'm sick to the back teeth of talking about the man as if he were the only important bloody thing in the world.

The four "new atheist" best sellers of note were: Dawkins' coldly rational "God Delusion", Dennett's analytical bordering on academic "Breaking the Spell", Hitchens' florid rhetorical "god is not Great", and Sam Harris' polemical "The End of Faith".

Which book is the right one? The most effective? The least divisive? The best? The least counterproductive?

The answer is all of them and none of them. You'd have to be ignoring reality to claim that these books were each individually ineffective or counterproductive, they worked differently for different people. Which one do you think I prefer? Since I'm so mean it must be the Dawkins or the Hitchens right? The virulent ones?

Nope, it's none. If I really had to pick it's the Dennett. My flower, the one I like to let bloom, is the analytical one. I like to delve deep and understand and research. But that's me. I don't think that preference should be beholden on others. I'm happy to let others like the Dawkins or the Hitchens or the Harris books, or whatever. It's not significant.

When I read the "God Delusion" and started talking about it to friends who had read it and what not, the most common complaint I'd hear was how arrogant Dawkins was. How rude. How pompous. I tried to point out to them, like I'm trying to point out here, this is not a valid criticism of his work. It doesn't address the arguments. I even coined a mythical version of the author, Richard Strawkins, because the critiques in the press and in person were so far off the mark more often than not. In some cases the criticism was a more blatant silencing, how dare this man be talking about this stuff! A case of not what the dog was saying but that the dog was talking at all.

When the dog speaks, I listen to the damned dog before deciding the dog is an idiot!

But that might be because I've eaten the wrong sort of mushrooms. ;-)

All of this stuff focuses to the point that of course we should criticise PZ and Dawkins and Harris and me, and you, and every damned one. That is in my view as close to a universal good as possible. Is it really too much to ask that we focus our criticism on the SUBSTANCE? Really? That's too much?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,05:55   

Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 25 2011,10:19)
 
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2011,02:28)
For a moment I thought Kairosfocus had hijacked this thread, but a search for Lewontin came up empty...

POTD!

{Golf clap}

Well done. Here's a cookie. You've made a complaint about the length of someone's posts. You must be so proud.

Louis

Edited for more snark

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,06:08   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 25 2011,05:58)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,17:44)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,19:09)
[SNIP]

True, no-one flies airplanes into buildings in the name of godlessness. So far.

So far? Really? Tell me how you get from ATHEISM, a lack of belief in a deity, to flying planes into buildings. I can draw you a line from fundamentalist christianity, or extremist islam, or extreme revolutionary communism to an act like this (hell, a few hours on google and I could probably find you examples), but atheism. I don't see it. Not because I'm an atheist, but because there's nothing there to base such a decision on. You can get specific jihadist interpretations of the qu'ran, or violent interpretations of the bible, but atheism lacks anything remotely like this.

I can see how people who are also atheists could do nasty things, plenty of evidence for that, but nasty acts specifically derived from atheism? Nope. That reduces to the theist claims that atheists lack morals etc, which are rank nonsense.

 
Quote
Anyway, I'm not about to go frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar on this particular issue. :-)


I think I've sailed that ship!

Louis

Louis, i get to flying planes into buildings from thinking that i am right and the guy in the building is wrong. Has nothing to do with where the idea came from. Religion just has a history of well defined us and them delineations.

Seems to me that pz is using the very same playbook.

And, in terms of nasty acts in the name of atheism, you're working awefully hard to rationalize one right now. Think about that for a minute before you respond.

Ok then. I think you're wrong. Very wrong. Seriously wrong.

Look out your window. Keep looking until a plane appears with me at the controls.

I'd get some beers in, it could be a long wait.

The line from religious ideas and texts to things like planes crashing into buildings exists. It is documented, it is advocated by the ideas contained in those religions. People deliberately cherry pick specific religious ideas to make a case for their violence. I am saying it is impossible to do that with atheism. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity or deities. It may even go further in some cases and be active disbelief in a deity or deities. That's IT. Period. Full stop. The fat lady has sung. Elvis has left the building.

Religions have more to them than this, there are more things that make a Christian a Christian or a Muslim a Muslim. Their theism is insufficient. There is no "atheist religion", no text one must adhere to, no doctrine one must subscribe to. I vehemently disagree with your ludicrous claim that pressing CTRL P at Pharyngula with get me an atheist bible. Take for example the feminist content at Pharyngula. That's mostly from a specific school of feminism. Where's that contained in a lack of belief in deities? Do I have to subscribe to every aspect of that school of feminism in your Pharyngulite atheist bible? I hope not because I don't.

I chose that as an example because it is OBVIOUSLY ridiculous. You, and PZ, are attaching a whole slew of things to atheism that aren't there. I disagree with him and I disagree with you. The disagreement I have with him is pretty simple. He claims that there is more to being an atheist than being a "dictionary atheist". I disagree, that's the only requirement. Where I agree with him is that as people we should do more than merely assert our dictionary atheism. We should also stand up for positive rationality and values. But that's a different dance for a different partner. It's not encompassed in atheism.

Louis

P.S. If it seems this way to you, then perhaps you aren't looking hard enough. Ever consider that? Perhaps you're working awfully hard to rationalise your dislike of something. Think about it for a minute before you respond.

--------------
Bye.

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,06:15   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2011,06:55)
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 25 2011,10:19)
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2011,02:28)
For a moment I thought Kairosfocus had hijacked this thread, but a search for Lewontin came up empty...

POTD!

{Golf clap}

Well done. Here's a cookie.

Louis

thank you.  

you may now return to posting your GEMs.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,06:24   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 25 2011,04:26)
I more often than not agree with the content of PZ's posts, if not the style, but I don't visit any more. I once made the mistake of trying to open up a shade of gray on some topic and was creamed by 50 true believers.

So I stopped reading the comments and eventually stopped going to the site.

This may seem trite, but I blame it on the economy. People all over are just in a foul mood. It seems to cut across politics and religion.

I feel almost the same way. Shades of grey are difficult to discuss at Pharyngula, especially on some topics. No excuse can be made for that, it's not good. Ohhh I can understand it, but it's a pain in the arse.

But then am I really justified in demanding all things from just one blog? IDCists get a hard time when they come here. From their (wrong) perspective they are just trying to inject what they (wrongly) see as shades of grey. They're doing the same thing, at least in form. The problem is the substance isn't it though? The substance of your shade of grey was doubtlessly...erm...substantial! The IDCists do not have this luxury!

Perhaps the problem here is PZ's profile. It's big. BWE thinks atheist = PZ and atheism = Wot PZ sez. Otherwise why title a thread about whining about PZ and Pharyngula "The Official Post Atheism Movement starts now"? People are drawn to the damned blog like flies to shit (appropriateness of simile may vary depending on reader!) and seem to think they can demand it caters to them by virtue of.....what? The fact that it is big? Popular? High profile? Their own entitlement?

I don't get it. I really don't. I go there, I read stuff, I comment occasionally (vastly less than I do here for example) and I fuck off and read something else. Occasionally I might let myself get embroiled in an argument. More fool me! I would prefer it was a bit different over there, I'd like a lot of things in the world to be different. I want ponies to fart rainbows, I'm not going to get it.

When PZ or anyone says something that causes me to cringe inside and I feel the volcanic bubble of rage building, and it happens a lot, I read it, reread it, try to identify what and why it is pissing me off, and then I move on or not as I deem appropriate. It's my choice. I don't sit there like a dog in a manger and demand that whatever it is that pissed me off is evil simply by virtue of the fact that it pissed me off and that it must all go.

You can blame the economy if you like. I'm blaming the rugby.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,06:27   

I absolutely take your point on a plurality of tactics being a generally good and useful thing.  I think every movement needs a lunatic fringe to grab attention and drive their own middle ground forward.  However, when the lunatic fringe is or appear to be no longer the fringe, but the main body of the movement, I think you wind up with serious problems in getting your message across.  I think this has happened with environmentalism to some extent, where a large part of the public had (at least in the past, I think it's changing now) the impression that all environmentalists were EarthFirst ecoterrorists.  Whether that's the case with atheism now, I don't know, but the risk is there.

Sometimes it's hard to separate tone from substance, when they're part of the same thing.  I'm referring to the second and longer part of PZ's post where he berates other atheists for wanting him to impose "self-censorship" on his views on Christians and Christianity.  He wants complete freedom to ridicule religious beliefs and not to have them protected and privileged in a "walled garden".  In this case, the substance is whether or not he should use that tone.  

I reckon that attacks on religious belief (a la the "cracker"/communion wafer incident a while back) are foolishly counterproductive if you're trying to eliminate atheist discrimination or trying to argue against creationism.  (But personally, I think that PZ is more interested in ridiculing religion for an audience and so isn't too fussed about entrenching opinions.)  Does he have the right to ridicule religion?  Absolutely - he's doing it right now.  Is it a smart thing to do?  Depends on the context, I guess.  If he's preaching to the faithful, it might be useful and amusing.  If trying to persuade Christians to stop discriminating against atheists or to see the errors in their beliefs, maybe not.  

It might be argued that ridiculing religion is like civil rights movement confrontations - sit ins, occupying whites-only sections of restaurants and buses.  But it's not really.  It's not defense of rights, but pure offense.  That's where I think your MLK analogy breaks down.  When applied to attacking anti-atheism, yes it fits.  But when applied to publicly attacking religious belief itself, that approach is more like the Nation of Islam.  (Treading close to Godwin territory?)

Anyway, I hate to comment and run, but I'm off for the weekend here shortly and away from the machine, so I won't be able to respond to anything directly for a while.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,06:29   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2011,12:24)
[snip]

You can blame the economy if you like. I'm blaming the rugby.

Louis

Hey now! Too fucking far!!!  :angry:

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,06:33   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 25 2011,10:34)
Louis: I have no problems with PZ regarding GelatoGuy, although I think the courteous thing would have been to accept the apology, or at least adress the problem upfront and confront the guy (maybe he did, I haven't read this whole stuff yet). But we've already admitted that PZ is not courteous, so there's that.

Now, what is your point exactly? I just stated that it's neigh impossible to adress the substance at Pharyngula, and you agreed. I don't like the form over there, and you don't seem to be a big fan either. So?

What's your beef with me on this? Am I misreading you?

My beef with ANYONE, not just you, is very simple. PZ says something and the majority of the criticism is about HOW he says it, not WHAT he says.

Ignore the fact that it's PZ. If I say something and people focus on the HOW and not the WHAT they have fucked up. If YOU say something and people focus on the HOW and not the WHAT they have fucked up.

I'm seeing lots of HOW and very little WHAT.

A thread claiming to be about "Post Atheism" is actually about "WAH PZ Be MEAN". It's beyond pathetic. He's one guy and he certainly doesn't speak for atheists, especially not THIS atheist.

Louis

P.S. It would have been courteous to accept the guy's apology? Fair enough. I disagree, but then that's okay. We don't have to agree. Perhaps it's a translation thing. I think it might have been politically expedient to accept the apology and react a different way, but I'm not sure that's the right answer either. I'm not sure there IS a *right* answer. It rather depends on one's goals. I think PZ probably acted precisely in line with his goals.

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,06:51   

Louis: PZ is not "just one guy". I think that's the main problem here. He's a prominent atheist figure (although bugger knows why). If it was about YOU, nobody would care much. If some theist came around and proclaimed atheism to be corrupt because Louis said X shit on a forum, it would be like pissing in a violin. Now, if a theist came around and pointed to PZ's many slights and hypocrisies, there would be weight to that claim.

In other words, I concure with George.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,07:03   

Quote (George @ Nov. 25 2011,11:27)
I absolutely take your point on a plurality of tactics being a generally good and useful thing.  I think every movement needs a lunatic fringe to grab attention and drive their own middle ground forward.  However, when the lunatic fringe is or appear to be no longer the fringe, but the main body of the movement, I think you wind up with serious problems in getting your message across.  I think this has happened with environmentalism to some extent, where a large part of the public had (at least in the past, I think it's changing now) the impression that all environmentalists were EarthFirst ecoterrorists.  Whether that's the case with atheism now, I don't know, but the risk is there.

Sometimes it's hard to separate tone from substance, when they're part of the same thing.  I'm referring to the second and longer part of PZ's post where he berates other atheists for wanting him to impose "self-censorship" on his views on Christians and Christianity.  He wants complete freedom to ridicule religious beliefs and not to have them protected and privileged in a "walled garden".  In this case, the substance is whether or not he should use that tone.  

I reckon that attacks on religious belief (a la the "cracker"/communion wafer incident a while back) are foolishly counterproductive if you're trying to eliminate atheist discrimination or trying to argue against creationism.  (But personally, I think that PZ is more interested in ridiculing religion for an audience and so isn't too fussed about entrenching opinions.)  Does he have the right to ridicule religion?  Absolutely - he's doing it right now.  Is it a smart thing to do?  Depends on the context, I guess.  If he's preaching to the faithful, it might be useful and amusing.  If trying to persuade Christians to stop discriminating against atheists or to see the errors in their beliefs, maybe not.  

It might be argued that ridiculing religion is like civil rights movement confrontations - sit ins, occupying whites-only sections of restaurants and buses.  But it's not really.  It's not defense of rights, but pure offense.  That's where I think your MLK analogy breaks down.  When applied to attacking anti-atheism, yes it fits.  But when applied to publicly attacking religious belief itself, that approach is more like the Nation of Islam.  (Treading close to Godwin territory?)

Anyway, I hate to comment and run, but I'm off for the weekend here shortly and away from the machine, so I won't be able to respond to anything directly for a while.

That's a great post, and one with which I don't entirely disagree. However there are bits of it I do disagree with....shock horror!

First, I think describing PZ et al as a lunatic fringe is beyond the pale. Really, they are criticising IDEAS. Loudly, rudely and with ridicule it's true, but lunatic fringe? Analogy with ecoterrorists? Seriously? Nation of Islam (yes, awfully close to Godwin, abort abort, pull up!!!!)? Really?

Where in anything PZ has said is there an advocacy of violence? Actual violence not nasty words? Back away from the rhetoric! It's got outta hand! The two do not compare.

Second, ridicule, shock tactics like cracker thingy, work. They jolt, they jar, they draw the attention. It's not about preaching to the converted it's about challenging the status quo. Was Rosa Parks being purely offensive when she refused to get out of her seat? Doubtlessly it offended someone.

This is the kernel of our disagreement: you see what PZ is doing as purely designed to offend and that that is a bad thing. I don't. I think what he does by and large offends incidentally. Sure, occasionally he goes out of his way to offend, sometimes he gets that right and hits the mark. Sometimes he doesn't. I find it interesting that you are complaining about the cracker thing. He stuck a nail through a biscuit and stuck the biscuit in the bin. And people threatened to kill him because of it. In this, pick a side. The side of the people making the death threats is the wrong one.

You also seem to see ridiculing religion as an inherently bad thing, I don't. I think ridiculing poor ideas is good. More than that I think it is necessary. So indeed did Thomas Jefferson, so I'm in fairly decent company even though he owned slaves! If one wants to challenge religious privilege (good thing) then sorry but challenging the basis for that privilege is a necessary part of it. And yes it will offend.

However, that said, this is not the only way. MLK was quite outspoken, read that letter I linked, seriously. We accept such vehement ridicule and exchanges of views in science, politics, in every sphere of discourse except religion. Your comment is expressly trying to separate religion again, to make the ideas beyond examination. I'd argue that's precisely what got us into this mess in the first place. BUT if you have a nicer way to finesse your opposing religious privilege then great, I know these methods are out there and I am as strong an advocate for them as I am for the more PZ-esque methods. Really, go to it. I am very serious when I say let a thousand flowers bloom. I really do mean it.

Anyway, you're not the only one with things to do. Adios!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,07:08   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 25 2011,11:51)
If it was about YOU, nobody would care much.

Ok you have offended me. I am about to have a whinge. ;-)

And sorry, you're wrong. PZ really is just one guy. Nothing he says is binding on me or you. If some religious person says "Oh that naughty PZ, you must be like him", then CORRECT THEM.

Are all Frenchmen the Marquis de Sade, or worse, Sarkozy? ;-)

No! The condition of being French is not enveloped by being like Sarkozy, you are not beholden to agree with him.

Your dislike of PZ is making you think in a woolly fashion. In fact, until some evidence of non-woolly thinking is evident in this thread I'm done with it and you. I really do have better ways to waste my time.

Good bye. I hope you enjoy your hate party as much as the moron element at Pharyngula enjoy theirs. As I said, a plague on both your substance free houses.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,08:38   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,20:16)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 24 2011,23:18)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,09:49)
...

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. I'm not outraged at the gelato guy's sign (nice straw man), I'm outraged that any such thing is apologised for in a civil society. Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern?



Louis...

Sticking with just the sign thing, how do you consider this as part of a discriminatory status quo (if you do)?

Personally, I see it as a hot blooded reaction to a perceived personal attack. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Ok this is quite simple. The two (hot blooded response and expression of discrimination/greater status quo) are not mutually exclusive.

Imagine the analogous sign in a white majority country:

"No people from the Million Man March are welcome in my WHITE shop".

However that sign came about I hope we'd both agree that it's a pretty clear example of a discriminatory sign...
Snipped for brevity.

I am just not seeing the comparison Louis. From what I have read, the guy was running a business when a convention came to town, he went to see what was going on and saw/heard his religion being mocked. That got him angry and so he put a sign up saying conventioneers where not welcome in his Christian shop.

I can't conect that with something like the "no blacks or Irish" signs you mentioned. It is more like the Muslim reaction to Mohamed cartoons (but far less serious) IMO.

Add to that, he acted in an angry state of mind, calmed down, saw he was wrong, took the sign down. Then when it was pointed out to him he apologised. I just can't get worked up about that. Certainly I don't equate it to racist signs. Had he put up a sign saying "no atheists" before they even came to town, then I would agree.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,09:50   

Quote

Your dislike of PZ is making you think in a woolly fashion. In fact, until some evidence of non-woolly thinking is evident in this thread I'm done with it and you. I really do have better ways to waste my time.

Good bye. I hope you enjoy your hate party as much as the moron element at Pharyngula enjoy theirs. As I said, a plague on both your substance free houses.


Glad to know you have better things to do than waste your time with me or us. At least you are doing something constructive.

Bye bye, and just to expand on your generous apreciation: the only person I have hate for is my ex-guitarist. Everything else is just fun-stuff. And about substance: what have you adressed here except form?

No, don't answer that! I'm done playing.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,10:50   

With respect to the conduct of Gelato-whats-his name:

I do believe that people can raise their level of awareness about their own injurious conduct, and that at times remorse prompted by one's own impulsive behavior is the most potent stimulus of all for that kind of change. I have behaved impulsively in ways that betray prejudices of which I was only half-aware (considerable research shows that we all have them, our idealized conceptions of ourselves notwithstanding) only to become aware, typically with considerable chagrin and remorse, that I had behaved stupidly and hurtfully. Deep change sometimes follows such events. Consciousness raising, we used to call it, an apt term.

To some extent, this appears to have happened to his young man, and fairly quickly. His conduct arose somewhat situationally and emotionally - which is how prejudices of which we are only semi-aware, or haven't really thought through, are often elicited. I read his retraction of his conduct and his subsequent apology as completely sincere - as good as it gets, really (this from the guy who coined the term "notpology.") A major disanalogy between this man's conduct and that of other perpetrators of heinous forms of discrimination and exploitation mentioned above, such as directed against black Americans through much of U.S. history, is that the latter clung stubbornly and often violently to their conduct and privilege and had to be forcibly dislodged.

A major function of an apology in the context of an ongoing relationship is to repair a breach in that relationship caused by bad conduct. "I recognize my conduct was wrong and feel remorse as a result of that conduct. Please forgive me." Accepting an apology is a second step in the repair of that relationship. But some conduct is too egregious to forgive. Other conduct leaves the basis for continuing the relationship as before permanently damaged (most often at the level of trust) even given an apology and acceptance of same.

Of course, there really is no prior relationship to repair in the instance of these internet exchanges, so the impact of bad conduct and the function of apologies and acceptance of same typically has a more generalized, rhetorical and public purpose. Given that, PZ finds this young man's conduct too egregious to forgive. But in doing so PZ promotes (demotes?) Gelato to synecdoche  - he is not just a guy who displayed a moment of emotional conduct which he quickly retracted and regretted, but rather became Intolerant Religious Zealotry itself.

The problem with this, for me, is that individual people can experience the sort of remorse and consciousness raising I describe above, as did this person, but synedoches cannot. That's a distinction that has become lost in this flurry. Of course, it is PZ's prerogative to use the event to press a larger point - it is one of the axes he grinds - and there was certainly no prior relationship there to repair. Is this content, or tone? Whichever, I don't see his choice as particularly helpful or constructive or even apt, in this instance, as it dismisses out of hand the personal movement I see displayed in the apology. That's a shame, IMHO, as we need more such movement, not less.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,10:59   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,22:48)

1) Carlson, you don't read so good do you. I have repeatedly said *I* am sexist (etc). If there is a difference between us, then it is that I realise that I am sexist and you are working to ignore your own sexism (or whatever-ism). You repeatedly ignore this. You're in denial. Your posts scream it.

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 1000, Louis. What is it?  I mean you are such an expert on my thoughts and states of mind surely you must be clairvoyant.

     
Quote
I can't answer it for you, but I can say that you continually argue against the people trying to challenge discriminatory status quos. Why do you do that?


I don't Louis.  What I argue against is people doing so in a counterproductive manner.  And since I can already see the conclusion your fevered little mind is already jumping to, this is not a version of the "Don't be a dick" speech. I would more accurately describe it as the "Go ahead and be a dick, but ferchrissake understand that there are actually times when it is more appropriate to not be."

     
Quote
You're right, I know nothing about your life. I don't need to.


What I really appreciate about you, Louis, is your unfailing honesty.  This one line is a monument to that honesty. Of course you don't need to know anything about me. You already decided from the git-go exactly what kind of person I am. Why waste any more precious time that could be better spent on the stoning.

     
Quote
The problem I have is that your criticisms are FREE OF SUBSTANCE. Don't play silly games and claim your point is hidden and I'm being stupid, it's isn't, it's obvious and it's still substance free


I am not playing a silly game. I am saying exactly what I mean. That you are more interested in venting your spleen than expending one single calorie in trying to understand isn't my problem.  It's yours.

     
Quote
You are criticising PZ's form not the substance of his claims (and throughout your posts you do it again and again). THAT'S the issue.


And here is a perfect example of your willful efforts to misunderstand me. I have already agreed with you. Why do you keep coming back to this point like a broken record unless this is the core issue for you? I've disagreed with PZ.  Thus, I must be shouted down.

     
Quote
All your criticism is due to what you see as PZ sensationalising things for profit. I've said that it's tangential to the substance of the issue and all you do is repeat it.


No Louis, it isn't the totality of my complaint.  It never has been. First, I am not going to pretend to be able to read another persons mind and claim perfect knowledge of their intents.  I'll cede that ground to you.  I can only comment on how it looks to me. There are two points that I am trying to make. One of which you have partial, if incomplete, grasp of.  The other, however, has yet to pierce that lump of bone and fecal matter that sits atop your shoulders.

First, I have no problem at all with PZ earning some dinero off of his semi-celebrity status. Perhaps his refusal of the apology is sincere. I have no way of knowing. But, when you are compensated based on your ability to keep both your supporters and detractors in a state of agitation, silly things like reconciliation and trying to win people over to your side could start to look like a drag on the old cash flow.  

In the fight for equality, there comes a point where intractable absolutism is counterproductive.  Just as Martin Luther King and those that succeed him will never wipe out racism, PZ ain't going to change the minds of the 150 million Christians that apparently hate him.  I would have presumed that PZ would have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate that atheists are jus' plain folk worthy of as much respect and equality as anyone else.  How many people do you think were convinced of that by his petulant little foot stomp?  Meh, don't answer that. If you can't change 150 million minds, why bother with one?

You said earlier:
     
Quote
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.


So, reconciliation is less consistent with achieving equality? I'll bet to smug, sanctimonious pricks like you, Joe Lowery and James Hood were race traitors.

     
Quote
Tell me Carlson, do you tire of your dishonesty or is it something fun?


So, Louis, are you calling me a liar outright? Other than thinking you are full of shit, what was my lie, Louis? Or is this another one those times like when you kinda sorta tried to tag me with some label while maintaining plausible deniability?  

     
Quote
Just like every creationist moron the world has ever produced you are incapable of reading a simple document for comprehension and instead have to tweak it to make it say what you want by cutting out the inconvenient bits. Let's just say your tactics are not unfamiliar.


Pot. Meet Kettle.

       
Quote
He's asking for nothing more than equality with his comment about 150 million people. He's asking that the people who thoughtlessly contribute to a culture of discrimination (which demonstrably exists by the way) against atheists (not as a community per se but as individuals) to apologise. He's pointing out the inequality of the situation. He's not scapegoating this poor gelato bloke, he's using him as a teaching example (surely you're in favour of that...right?).


All worthy goals (see what I did there, Louis?).  All of that message stands on it's own merits.  Nothing is added by refusing an apology. But, I am trying to suggest, something is lost.

     
Quote
He's saying why should he, PZ, bear the burden of magnanimity? He's not the one doing the discriminating. What he is doing is illustrating the disparity in the situation here, the inequality.


The was the beauty of passive resistance.  It highlighted the  inequality, not by aping the violence and vitriol, but by letting it stand on it's own.



For me, from an artistic perspective, this photo is the essence of the civil rights struggle.  It isn't a bunch of librul agimatators mugging for the camera.  It is highlighting how the system reacts to people walking down the wrong side of the street. It holds up a mirror, not a magnifying glass.
     
Quote
5) Straw men? From me? Where? Find one.


Here:
     
Quote
People who whatever happens continually apologise for the wrongs of others and try to avoid confrontation.


I've done neither. All I have done is challenge PZ's and your response as the wrong thing in the situation.  But, that was apparently enough. Why won't you let my little flower bloom in your oh-so-big garden? (And, uh, I mean that in a strictly non-homo way*)

     
Quote
I said you are issuing apologetics for a discriminatory status quo, and you continue to do so. This is not the same thing as apologising for GG's actions. Are you smart enough to grasp that?


Yes, but apparently you aren't smart enough to read my literal words, no less interpret them.  But, it finally seems  clear now what your major maladjustment is.  It is perfectly encapsulated in the old saw "When the only tool you have is a hammer, all of your problems look a lot like nails" My whole point is that while a hammer is certainly a valuable tool, it isn't in all contexts. How you manage to twist that into me saying that the only tool you are allowed is an overcooked noodle is beyond me.

     
Quote
9) I'm done being nice to people who cannot do me the "nice" of actually engaging with what I am saying, and what they are criticising. You want manners? Fucking demonstrate them yourself.


Wait,what?  Are you suggesting my continued level of vitriol is not doing anything to get you to understand my point? Surely not!



       
Quote
I've wasted time and effort on many lines. One I wrote earlier sums it all up:

"You are consistently on the side of shutting people with legitimate complaints up, simply because you don't like how those complaints are expressed or over what specific incidents."

All the rest is gravy. Carlson, if you are not a bigot (and as I have said, you are probably no more a bigot on any specific thing than I am), you are an apologist for bigotry (and THIS is where we differ).  Read the "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" and try to understand why this is the case. Forgive me if I severely doubt you lack both the inclination or capacity to do so.


Here is the thing, Louis. Even apart from the prolix, you come across as the mirror image of Kairosfocus.  The willful ability to not understand what was laid in front of you.   The complete rejection of subtlety.  Vilification of those who question doctrine. The absolute, unwavering certainty of your own rightness and your opponents mental and moral degeneracy.  The reliance on overblown language while getting a case of the vapors when the same comes back. And, the cherry on top of the crap sundae is your apparent desire, despite my insignificance, to have the last word.  You are a thing of beauty, Louis.  I couldn't have argued my case any better than you argued it for me.  

And, unlike one of my favorite sockpuppets that tweeked KF but good, I have no interest in seeing how insistent you are to shout me down. My glorious work here is done.

* Are you going to make that evidence of my homophobia, Louis?  Or do you acknowledge that buttsecks jokes are part of the stock and trade around here.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:02   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2011,05:55)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 25 2011,10:19)
     
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2011,02:28)
For a moment I thought Kairosfocus had hijacked this thread, but a search for Lewontin came up empty...

POTD!

{Golf clap}

Well done. Here's a cookie. You've made a complaint about the length of someone's posts. You must be so proud.

Louis

Edited for more snark

Not just the length. Numbered lists of points; declarations of having "corrected"; dismissing as straw men. Above all the pompous sanctimoniousness, and the patronizing. Like this

"Everyone should read the Letter From a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King."

<pukes>

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,14:06   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2011,04:08)
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 25 2011,05:58)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,17:44)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,19:09)
[SNIP]

True, no-one flies airplanes into buildings in the name of godlessness. So far.

So far? Really? Tell me how you get from ATHEISM, a lack of belief in a deity, to flying planes into buildings. I can draw you a line from fundamentalist christianity, or extremist islam, or extreme revolutionary communism to an act like this (hell, a few hours on google and I could probably find you examples), but atheism. I don't see it. Not because I'm an atheist, but because there's nothing there to base such a decision on. You can get specific jihadist interpretations of the qu'ran, or violent interpretations of the bible, but atheism lacks anything remotely like this.

I can see how people who are also atheists could do nasty things, plenty of evidence for that, but nasty acts specifically derived from atheism? Nope. That reduces to the theist claims that atheists lack morals etc, which are rank nonsense.

   
Quote
Anyway, I'm not about to go frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar on this particular issue. :-)


I think I've sailed that ship!

Louis

Louis, i get to flying planes into buildings from thinking that i am right and the guy in the building is wrong. Has nothing to do with where the idea came from. Religion just has a history of well defined us and them delineations.

Seems to me that pz is using the very same playbook.

And, in terms of nasty acts in the name of atheism, you're working awefully hard to rationalize one right now. Think about that for a minute before you respond.

Ok then. I think you're wrong. Very wrong. Seriously wrong.

Look out your window. Keep looking until a plane appears with me at the controls.

I'd get some beers in, it could be a long wait.

The line from religious ideas and texts to things like planes crashing into buildings exists. It is documented, it is advocated by the ideas contained in those religions. People deliberately cherry pick specific religious ideas to make a case for their violence. I am saying it is impossible to do that with atheism. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity or deities. It may even go further in some cases and be active disbelief in a deity or deities. That's IT. Period. Full stop. The fat lady has sung. Elvis has left the building.

Religions have more to them than this, there are more things that make a Christian a Christian or a Muslim a Muslim. Their theism is insufficient. There is no "atheist religion", no text one must adhere to, no doctrine one must subscribe to. I vehemently disagree with your ludicrous claim that pressing CTRL P at Pharyngula with get me an atheist bible. Take for example the feminist content at Pharyngula. That's mostly from a specific school of feminism. Where's that contained in a lack of belief in deities? Do I have to subscribe to every aspect of that school of feminism in your Pharyngulite atheist bible? I hope not because I don't.

I chose that as an example because it is OBVIOUSLY ridiculous. You, and PZ, are attaching a whole slew of things to atheism that aren't there. I disagree with him and I disagree with you. The disagreement I have with him is pretty simple. He claims that there is more to being an atheist than being a "dictionary atheist". I disagree, that's the only requirement. Where I agree with him is that as people we should do more than merely assert our dictionary atheism. We should also stand up for positive rationality and values. But that's a different dance for a different partner. It's not encompassed in atheism.

Louis

P.S. If it seems this way to you, then perhaps you aren't looking hard enough. Ever consider that? Perhaps you're working awfully hard to rationalise your dislike of something. Think about it for a minute before you respond.

You forgot the step before the part where u post. Louis, i respect your thinking and your honesty in addressing your own arguments just as critically as those you are dissecting. This time you are not understanding your own arguments and the reason is that you are accepting the doctrines of atheism as truth and therefore not even seeing the possibility of criticizkng an element of your own arguments.

The argument that god or religion is what drives people to kill is false. There has to be someone who needs killing first.

The idea that there is someone who needs killing has nothing to do with religion except tangentially. It has to do with people who believe the wrong truths.

So, does gelato guy believe the wrong truth? Does pz?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10222
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,14:49   

Wow.

Okay, so I'm an atheist, but not really defined by my atheism. And I'm an Agnostic Atheist, so there is a chance for me converting one day.

For me, there is no atheism leadership, hierarchy, mandates (Yes Carslon, Man-Dates), etc. If someone who also purports to be atheist says something, I can agree with all, some or none of what they say, issue by issue. I don't think there is any leadership, structure, or schisms to be had. I'm only really interested in ideas in isolation. Of course if you have had good ideas (in my opinion), I'll read you more and be more receptive. The opposite for bad ideas.

With regard to Theists, I have no issue with the following caveats:

1) allow your young to choose their own path
2) Treat people the same, give everyone exactly the same rights (god and presumably punish them afterwards)
3) Don't expect me to respect your faith if you assert it.
4) If fine with you talking about your faith in the public square providing you're fine with criticism. Dialogue must be symmetrical, with no sacred cows.
5) Keep religion out of government. You have no right to impose your religion.

So PZ - he can be a bit extreme, some of it is I suspect for effect. Given the religious atrocities that exist in the world today, I'd personally focus on the worst, not the mundane. But I'm not a web celebrity.

This label 'atheism', don't get hung up on it as a social movement, learned friends.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,15:45   

Quote
So PZ - he can be a bit extreme, some of it is I suspect for effect. Given the religious atrocities that exist in the world today, I'd personally focus on the worst, not the mundane. But I'm not a web celebrity.


Dear Muslima...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,18:47   

Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2011,12:02)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2011,05:55)
     
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 25 2011,10:19)
       
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2011,02:28)
For a moment I thought Kairosfocus had hijacked this thread, but a search for Lewontin came up empty...

POTD!

{Golf clap}

Well done. Here's a cookie. You've made a complaint about the length of someone's posts. You must be so proud.

Louis

Edited for more snark

Not just the length. Numbered lists of points; declarations of having "corrected"; dismissing as straw men. Above all the pompous sanctimoniousness, and the patronizing. Like this

"Everyone should read the Letter From a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King."

<pukes>

Comparing/equating Louis to KairosFuckwhit is bloody ridiculous IMO.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,19:06   

Perhaps it is. But the idea that it is us against them is too.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,19:15   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 25 2011,19:06)
Perhaps it is. But the idea that it is us against them is too.

That would depend on the definition of "us" wouldn't it?

KairosFocus is a fucking idiot, Louis is not.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,20:52   

True. No argument there.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,06:43   

Louis is a brilliant scientist, a funny chap, and a great human being. Although the original statement gave me LuLz, it makes me feel ill at ease to have him bunched in any way with the likes of GEM.

We have our disagreements alright, but there's no need to drop the nuke.

Round of beer for everyone!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,07:23   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 26 2011,06:43)
Louis is a brilliant scientist, a funny chap, and a great human being. Although the original statement gave me LuLz, it makes me feel ill at ease to have him bunched in any way with the likes of GEM.

We have our disagreements alright, but there's no need to drop the nuke.

Round of beer for everyone!



;)

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,07:29   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 26 2011,14:23)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 26 2011,06:43)
Louis is a brilliant scientist, a funny chap, and a great human being. Although the original statement gave me LuLz, it makes me feel ill at ease to have him bunched in any way with the likes of GEM.

We have our disagreements alright, but there's no need to drop the nuke.

Round of beer for everyone!



;)

Touché, sir, touché...


ETA: French military victories



--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,07:39   

Although I'll admit we had quite a few losing streaks...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Kristine



Posts: 3044
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,15:14   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 26 2011,06:43)
Louis is a brilliant scientist, a funny chap, and a great human being. Although the original statement gave me LuLz, it makes me feel ill at ease to have him bunched in any way with the likes of GEM.

We have our disagreements alright, but there's no need to drop the nuke.

Round of beer for everyone!

I just invented some nummy shimmy ice cream for dessert, but we don't serve no agnostics! ;)

Seriously, though, I admit that PZ seems to be going through something. I just feel that all I can do is remain his friend. I'm not going to shake any fingers because I don't think it would do much good. Anyone who needs to talk about anything can come to me - I hope that people know this.

What gets me is that this kind of fighting doesn't seem to happen so much in African American community, despite the high level of religiosity there - they seem to talk more about God than Christianity, despite being Christian. I say this after 25 years of riding the bus and having lived in predominantly nonwhite communities. Now when white people say, "I'm a Christian," many times what I hear is, "Look at me." So, a counter "No, look at me!" can develop between them and atheists.

Atheists are largely white, as feminists have been. The question of a "Dear Muslima" moment is relevant - there are not enough diverse voices.

We keep saying that things take time to develop evolutionarily. I also think that this will sort itself out in time.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,16:28   

I understand where u are coming from kristine. I am sorry to run with this but i feel pretty strongly that when people choose a leader to follow uncritically, that leader has either the responsibility to respond with a statement of clarification or else that leader needs to be marginalized. At this point, pz is well into the landscape of preaching a party line which needs to be marginalized in my opinion.

Ridicule which justifies hate speech has no place in my world. The man you know is not my target. However, his behavior is. To publish an article which justifies absolutist thinking, which places ideology above compassion, is an act which should not go unchallenged.

And it should certainly not be legitimized. I would hope that if i were to go so far off the rails that people would challenge me and i also hope i would be able to find the humility to correct the mistake. If i could not find it in myself to correct my mistake, i would hope people would recognize that my legitimacy as a spokesman for a group was destroyed and would be able to marginalize me in that capacity.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,17:59   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 25 2011,16:45)
Dear Muslima...

and the entirety of twatsongate.

anyone who didn't witness the sheer douchebaggery of pz, laden and the coven couldn't possibly understand the hypocrisy of pz banning folks for stating a different world view and refusing to "convert".

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,12:18   

um.. circle the wagons? Keep digging? As ye mock, so shall ye be mocked? I'm torn.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....forgive

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,12:21   

Hey, where'd everyone go?

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to compare pz with ecoterrorists or any violence or anything violent.  The ecoterrorist thing was only about how some of the louder, less pleasant parts of a movement can set the whole movement back.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,12:38   

Quote (George @ Nov. 27 2011,10:21)
Hey, where'd everyone go?

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to compare pz with ecoterrorists or any violence or anything violent.  The ecoterrorist thing was only about how some of the louder, less pleasant parts of a movement can set the whole movement back.

Well, to be fair, the movement to marginalize religious bigotry seems to keep chugging along despite street-corner preachers and PZ. Right now, the unlikely hero is a christian.

Quote
However, Drennen’s response, concerning the street preacher telling us that atheist were going hell, was that was also wrong, believing that people on all sides, even Muslims, should try to co-exist in this world without mockery, judgment, or imposing their beliefs on others.


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,13:40   

Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 26 2011,17:59)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 25 2011,16:45)
Dear Muslima...

and the entirety of twatsongate.

anyone who didn't witness the sheer douchebaggery of pz, laden and the coven couldn't possibly understand the hypocrisy of pz banning folks for stating a different world view and refusing to "convert".

Or banning people for commenting on other threads.  Hmm...where have we heard that before? ???

eta - by other threads, I mean other websites.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,14:00   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 27 2011,12:38)
Quote (George @ Nov. 27 2011,10:21)
Hey, where'd everyone go?

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to compare pz with ecoterrorists or any violence or anything violent.  The ecoterrorist thing was only about how some of the louder, less pleasant parts of a movement can set the whole movement back.

Well, to be fair, the movement to marginalize religious bigotry seems to keep chugging along despite street-corner preachers and PZ. Right now, the unlikely hero is a christian.

Quote
However, Drennen’s response, concerning the street preacher telling us that atheist were going hell, was that was also wrong, believing that people on all sides, even Muslims, should try to co-exist in this world without mockery, judgment, or imposing their beliefs on others.

Well, I think mockery has it's place - but it depends on what you want to achieve (do you want to change someone's mind, "convert" them, or just do it for the lawlz).

PZ has to quote other parts of the interview, though.  
Quote
During the interview, Drennen said he felt people cannot reach others with such shows that mock others. He does not know how atheists expect to reach others by using mockery and ridicule.


That just expresses the common view that many have that if you want to reach people, mockery isn't the best.  Again, I don't entirely agree with that - a lot depends on the situation and individuals involved.  But PZ goes on that point to make it:
Quote
It seems to be an obligatory opinion of people who believe in mockable and ridiculous things that they will oppose mockery and ridicule. I’m afraid there is no magical exemption — there isn’t a set of stupid beliefs that you get to set on a pedestal and declare that no one can call them stupid. Go ahead and retaliate by mocking and ridiculing the stuff I consider important, like science and evolution and reason and empiricism. I will joyfully leap into that fray.


Not sure how he got one from the other.  It seems to me that he is missing (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not) the nuance of the comment.  Now, perhaps he did say more in the interview, but then why not quote it - why use that one line instead?  

I also question that he will "joyfully" leap into the fray, especially when his holy oxen are being gored with mockery - we've seen his reactions to the whole..what the heck is it...months?...of his cherished beliefs being mocked.  He responds with banning, threats, and promotion of hostility and a lack of open debate or discussion.  Practice what you preach.

Then you have this bit of childishness:
Quote
I’m also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennan’s delusions. It’s only going to work in reverse: I’m now feeling regret that I didn’t dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, I’ll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they aren’t relevant to the subject at hand.


Seriously?  A lot of this crap started with one lush acting unprofessionally, and now you have someone who should know better saying he'll deliberately insert shit where it doesn't belong.  No class, no professionalism.  It makes me wonder now if what he says about the way he talks in class is true.  Sorry, but if something is irrelevant to the presentation, just don't include it.  I hate when I go to hear somebody, or watch something, and have to put up with the speaker/presenter's pet peeves - that's not why I go there.  

And this is someone who (for reasons beyond me) is being held up as a spokesperson for atheism (ok, I can see that, despite his "dictionary atheist" claim as atheism-as-a-worldview) and skepticism (I have no idea why).  Are we (as a movement, which I also find funny) that desperate for Stars and Idols?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,17:39   

Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 27 2011,14:00)

Then you have this bit of childishness:
 
Quote
I’m also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennan’s delusions. It’s only going to work in reverse: I’m now feeling regret that I didn’t dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, I’ll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they aren’t relevant to the subject at hand.


Seriously?  A lot of this crap started with one lush acting unprofessionally, and now you have someone who should know better saying he'll deliberately insert shit where it doesn't belong.  No class, no professionalism.

FAIL in reading comprehension. PZ said he'd feel the urge to insert shit where it doesn't belong, not that he actually would insert shit where it doesn't belong. And his use of the word "resent" suggests that whatever PZ may think of that urge, it's not one he approves of nor is likely to act upon. But y' know, if you just want to dump on PZ for the heinous sins of not accepting an apology and publicly stating that he, PZ Myers, does not intend to patronize one particular business, do carry on.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,18:23   

Quote
I’m now feeling regret that I didn’t dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, I’ll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they aren’t relevant to the subject at hand.


Cubist has a valid point, atlhough I think the wording in Myers' statement is very porrly done. Or maybe it is deliberately so.

We could go on this shit endlessly.

Time to move on? (here, at least)...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,18:36   

the comments on the new thread there are sort of unbelievable.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,21:10   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,17:39)
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 27 2011,14:00)

Then you have this bit of childishness:
   
Quote
I’m also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennan’s delusions. It’s only going to work in reverse: I’m now feeling regret that I didn’t dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, I’ll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they aren’t relevant to the subject at hand.


Seriously?  A lot of this crap started with one lush acting unprofessionally, and now you have someone who should know better saying he'll deliberately insert shit where it doesn't belong.  No class, no professionalism.

FAIL in reading comprehension. PZ said he'd feel the urge to insert shit where it doesn't belong, not that he actually would insert shit where it doesn't belong. And his use of the word "resent" suggests that whatever PZ may think of that urge, it's not one he approves of nor is likely to act upon. But y' know, if you just want to dump on PZ for the heinous sins of not accepting an apology and publicly stating that he, PZ Myers, does not intend to patronize one particular business, do carry on.

Double FAIL, then, since PZ says he feels compelled by this nobodies actions to act in a certain way, and he resents that, since he isn't responsible for his reactions.  But maybe SD is right and this is written at a pre-high school level, but that fits with the childish narcissism displayed in the whole series of posts.  Instead of "what will the Kardashian's wear?", it's "will PZ accept the apology (that really only applies to those actually affected by his actions, not those who were offended)?".  

I was going to write more, but after playing with my dog for a while, I didn't see any point.  I do have more important things to do than comment about internet attention whoring.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,22:30   

There is no way I am letting this one go. Blind faith, fundamentalism and hate speech are always good targets for mockery.

Kristine, I'm sorry about your friend. His head got too big for his brain. Redemption requires apology and taking responsibility for the attitudes he created.

PZ is Dembski.

In before Louis' "No u."

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,03:40   

Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 27 2011,14:00)
Well, I think mockery has it's place - but it depends on what you want to achieve (do you want to change someone's mind, "convert" them, or just do it for the lawlz).

Absolutely, and that's what I've been trying to say.  Not that religion is special and shouldn't be subjected to teh mean.  I'm querying the usefulness of that approach in most situations.  In the post BWE refers to at the beginning, PZ spends a little time on the ice cream guy's apology, but much more berating other bloggers for suggesting honey be used rather than vinegar.  It seems mockery is more important for him than changing people's minds.  

The point isn't "PZ is teh mean" the point is "what are the results of teh meanness?"  He seems to be happy with a cheering choir at the expense of real engagement.

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,03:43   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 27 2011,22:30)
PZ is Dembski.

Not really.  Dembski is slippery and devious, never says what he means, and gets others to do his dirty work.  PZ is always up front with what he says.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,03:56   

Quote
He seems to be happy with a cheering choir at the expense of real engagement.


Not so much at the moment (cf Bunnygate)...


ETA: I think PZ has redeemed himself a bit in the Bunny Incident by directly challenging the most extreme views his sycophants try to champion. For this alone he's gone back up a bit in my opinion.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,08:44   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 27 2011,22:30)
There is no way I am letting this one go. Blind faith, fundamentalism and hate speech are always good targets for mockery.

Kristine, I'm sorry about your friend. His head got too big for his brain. Redemption requires apology and taking responsibility for the attitudes he created.

PZ is Dembski.

In before Louis' "No u."

I think that comparing PZ to Dembski is a tad off-the-mark. PZ forms his opinions on reality, I do not think he is deliberately misleading people.

While I accept that PZ has the right to formulate and express the opinions he has. IMO, the ice-cream guy seems like a fairly decent bloke who reacted in a way he genuinely regrets. Demanding an apology by >100 million Christians before accepting that individual's apology looks like a school-yard rant to me.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3044
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,09:17   

You're my friend too, BWE.

Well, if "PZ is Dembski," then Madalyn Murray-O'Hair definitely was, too. I stayed away from joining any atheist groups largely because of her. Now she's dead, but atheism is still alive. So, I do not know what "post atheism" means. This is not called the Post PZ thread.

Of course people can do stupid things in the name of atheism. The creation of abstract thought itself gave rise to the ability to fight over abstractions.

This is why I keep saying that being an atheist is the least important thing about me. It is not a worldview in the sense that being a believer in a certain religion is. There is no less than an infinite number of things that I don't believe in - and that is true for everyone, atheists and believers alike. I live with many uncertainties and "gaps" in my "worldview."

To be perfectly frank, I don't know why I or Lou cannot also be considered atheist spokespeople. Both of us went back to school for a mid-life career change, yes, so some of us are late bloomers but we both intend to make our mark.

Will Dembski's and Behe's followers (and followers they are) likewise strike out on their own, or just continue to wave Intelligent Design and Darwin's Black Box like tracts?

ID advocates who called me a "Dawkins follower" also made me laugh.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,09:25   

Quote
ID advocates who called me a "Dawkins follower" also made me laugh.


Oh, c'mon! You followed him [citation needed] all the way to Galapagos!

Murray-O'Hair was the one who sued the Apollo IX crew for reading Genesis 1:1 on Christmas day while orbiting the moon, right? Because I still think to this day it was a richard move on her part.


ETA: ok, it was Apollo VIII...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10222
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,09:31   



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,09:38   

In reading through this thread and the other one regarding feminism, it occurs to me that there has never, to my knowledge, been a significant social movement that wasn't created and to some extent sustained by "radicals."  Large-scale social change happens because of noisy people who refuse to shut up, and who invariably offend some people who might be sympathetic in general.

The current complaint about PZ is typical and predictable.  It's helpful in such cases to look at the cumulative effects of the hyperbole (which is what the gelato man business is), rather than getting excited about individual instances.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,09:48   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,09:38)
In reading through this thread and the other one regarding feminism, it occurs to me that there has never, to my knowledge, been a significant social movement that wasn't created and to some extent sustained by "radicals."  Large-scale social change happens because of noisy people who refuse to shut up, and who invariably offend some people who might be sympathetic in general.

The current complaint about PZ is typical and predictable.  It's helpful in such cases to look at the cumulative effects of the hyperbole (which is what the gelato man business is), rather than getting excited about individual instances.

Isn't that approaching an "end justifies the means" argument? Is it OK to vilify an individual for the greater good? It seems like a scapegoat/set-an-example thing to me and I am uncomfortable about that.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,09:49   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 28 2011,16:31)

This deserves at least a tip of the hat, if not a POtW...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,10:02   

Well, until PZ states otherwise, I see no reason to differentiate between the statements of his followers and those of him. And they have made it quite clear that it is unacceptable to accept anything less than changing the beliefs of {insert target of thoughtcrime},

PZ may not be dishonest like dembski yet, but as soon as being right takes precedence over being decent, the rest of the road is about the same. If he is willing to defend and rationalize one act of intolerance and bigotry, then as it gets more difficult to justify, he will use dishonest tactics.

Narcissism is well trodden territory. No one is strong enough to walk as far in as PZ has and not become dishonest if they decide to stay. If he finds a dose of humility, perhaps he can avoid the pitfall, but morton's demon is cruel to it's victims.

And, by the way, in terms of civil rights violations, you all know that there wasn't one, right? Also, in the unit where I use Letter From the Birmingham Jail, I also use this:
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-k....ech.php

It adds an important dimension to the concept.

ETA: Thank you Kristine. I don't see this as a black and white issue even though I am aware it looks that way. I am back at work today with a real computer and real internet access so I will attempt to compose something with a bit more nuance today.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,10:10   

Quote
Well, until PZ states otherwise, I see no reason to differentiate between the statements of his followers and those of him. And they have made it quite clear that it is unacceptable to accept anything less than changing the beliefs of {insert target of thoughtcrime},


I have to disagree with that statement. You cannot condemn PZ for the vileness of his comenntariat. Well, not directly. Non-refutal is not endorsment. Else, Abbie, for exemple, would be totaly guilty and accountable for every posts at her place (including Byron's!!!), and we, as rational beings, can't have that!

Oh, wait...

Ok, I guess I see your point.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,10:11   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,09:48)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,09:38)
In reading through this thread and the other one regarding feminism, it occurs to me that there has never, to my knowledge, been a significant social movement that wasn't created and to some extent sustained by "radicals."  Large-scale social change happens because of noisy people who refuse to shut up, and who invariably offend some people who might be sympathetic in general.

The current complaint about PZ is typical and predictable.  It's helpful in such cases to look at the cumulative effects of the hyperbole (which is what the gelato man business is), rather than getting excited about individual instances.

Isn't that approaching an "end justifies the means" argument? Is it OK to vilify an individual for the greater good? It seems like a scapegoat/set-an-example thing to me and I am uncomfortable about that.

I made an observation regarding the historical role of radical thinkers/speakers in social change. Such observation doesn't imply endorsement of any particular method or action.  In the present case I don't think that anyone has been harmed, or will be harmed, by PZ calling a bigot a bigot.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,10:55   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 28 2011,08:10)
Quote
Well, until PZ states otherwise, I see no reason to differentiate between the statements of his followers and those of him. And they have made it quite clear that it is unacceptable to accept anything less than changing the beliefs of {insert target of thoughtcrime},


I have to disagree with that statement. You cannot condemn PZ for the vileness of his comenntariat. Well, not directly. Non-refutal is not endorsment. Else, Abbie, for exemple, would be totaly guilty and accountable for every posts at her place (including Byron's!!!), and we, as rational beings, can't have that!

Oh, wait...

Ok, I guess I see your point.

I directly asked PZ to take responsibility for them or make it clear he would not. He chose the first in a direct reply to me.

ETA: among the sanctioned posts, janine wrote:
All I want for Andy is that he is so deeply shamed that he rethinks what he believes.

Um..

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,11:13   

I'm with Louis pretty much all the way on this one. If you want to show Pharyngula is a cult, cough up the evidence. So far, nothing. This is basically a tone troll argument.

And there is no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist. Reading that phrase used seriously makes me want to dismiss out of hand everything the writer says. The attempt to equate the dictionary to a religious text is beyond silly - almost as silly as comparing Pharyngula to Uncommon Descent.

I don't comment on Pharyngula much. I have no dog in this fight. But where there's a consensus there among the regular commentariat that's a pretty good sign there's something in it. No fanboyism here, no cult-worship - just standing back and examining substance rather than tone.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,11:16   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,20:16)
However that sign came about I hope we'd both agree that it's a pretty clear example of a discriminatory sign. The sign that this chap put up, for whatever reason, took the same form. The sentiments expressed in the sign are explicitly discriminatory however they came about.

Sure the guy reacted hotheadedly and poorly, and whatever reaction people have to that is theirs to have, let them have it, but it doesn't detract from the fact that his sign, his act was one of discrimination.

This act didn't occur in a vacuum, the greater social context genuinely matters. This guy felt perfectly entitled to exclude people from his business for their difference from him. He wasn't attacked IN his business, he wasn't attacked personally, he wasn't actually attacked at all. He simply exists in a society where the questioning of people's religion and the religious privilege (tax breaks etc, the standard stuff) that exists is frowned upon. It is socially awkward. Go and read the MLK quote I posted above, it's not like this is a new or unique problem. The form that every minority group challenging every majority group follows is roughly this one. None of this is a surprise.

Again, as mentioned above, there exists in the USA a culture where atheists are discriminated against. Granted that discrimination is usually not that serious and certainly not as serious as that that previous and current minority groups experience. Imagine if this guy had noticed the speaker that so offended him was black, or gay, or a woman, and put up a sign saying "black/gay/female Skepticon people are not welcome in my Christian shop". I don't think he'd have got away with THAT so lightly! And rightly so.

There were times when similar signs put in doors (no Blacks, no dogs, no Irish). This was socially accepted, part of normal society. People felt entitled to do this. As rash as this guy was, this guy felt entitled to do it. I doubt he would have felt entitled to make the analogous signs above that I mentioned (even if they had been relevant). The reason being is that those sorts of signs are now less socially acceptable. Sure, they're probably acceptable somewhere, but I'd guess an urban environment isn't one of them. Open discrimination against atheists is still tolerated in the USA (and elsewhere). It's socially acceptable by and large. This hotheaded act would have been vastly less likely in a society where such an act was beyond the pale.

Louis

I disagree with you on this one Louis. I see this incident completely different I guess.

My problem with PZ's (and other folks' for that matter) assessment is that I really don't see Gelatoguy's action as discriminatory. Given the facts, no one was actually discriminated against. Further, I don't even get the impression the guy knew Skepticon was specifically an atheistic event; rather it seems to me he reacted to a perception of personal rudeness and in a heat of passion wanted to prevent rude people from entering his shop. He even noted how appreciative he was of all the "polite" people from the conference who came by.

I'm in no position to read the man's heart and determine if the guy is actually a Christian bigot or anti-atheism or whathaveyou. All I can go on are the facts as presented. Nothing in the actual facts demonstrates any kind of actual discrimination to me from Gelatoguy. On the contrary, the only person I see engaging in discrimination is PZ by refusing to accept the guy's apology based PZ's perception of the guy's Christian Privilege. That just smacks of irony to me.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,11:24   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
I'm with Louis pretty much all the way on this one. If you want to show Pharyngula is a cult, cough up the evidence. So far, nothing. This is basically a tone troll argument.

And there is no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist. Reading that phrase used seriously makes me want to dismiss out of hand everything the writer says. The attempt to equate the dictionary to a religious text is beyond silly - almost as silly as comparing Pharyngula to Uncommon Descent.

I don't comment on Pharyngula much. I have no dog in this fight. But where there's a consensus there among the regular commentariat that's a pretty good sign there's something in it. No fanboyism here, no cult-worship - just standing back and examining substance rather than tone.

Roland: just go check what's going on at Bunnygate. See people first cheering PZ for his postion, then all of a sudden make a 180° turn because some regular points something they have missed that endangers the "dogma". Even PZ is getting tired of this, it seems...


ETA: this is, of course, not fundamentalist atheism, but fundamentalist/radical feminism, which IMO has nothing to do with skepticism or atheism. That's another battle. Read Marcotte, and then cry...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,11:52   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 28 2011,11:24)
Roland: just go check what's going on at Bunnygate. See people first cheering PZ for his postion, then all of a sudden make a 180° turn because some regular points something they have missed that endangers the "dogma". Even PZ is getting tired of this, it seems...


ETA: this is, of course, not fundamentalist atheism, but fundamentalist/radical feminism, which IMO has nothing to do with skepticism or atheism. That's another battle. Read Marcotte, and then cry...

I've read a fair bit of Bunnygate and I can't see cultish behaviour I'm afraid. Point something specific out and tell me why it's cultish. In so doing you will need to address the substance of what's being said, as I need hardly add that if what someone is saying is true and can be backed up by evidence, then this is a good defence against accusations of cultishness.

Fundamentalist feminism eh? Sorry, you'll need to back that one up too. Unless you can point to someone arguing furiously that X is true because Simone de Beauvoir said X and not providing any other justification - and furthermore being supported by the rest of the commentariat who try to silence everyone else -  then I'm afraid it's not going to fly.

Why do you dislike what you see as "fundamentalist feminism"? If you're interested in pursuing this line, give me some examples of what you mean and why you don't like it - from Pharyngula if you like. I'm curious as to your reasoning. Feel free to ignore me if you like though :-)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,12:01   

Roland: I will admit to being a bit tired to do the research work for you, but this small exemple by Tis'Himself should help you understand what I mean:

Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


Now, what do you think is wrong with this comment? Because, "Roland" you are having a very sexist attitude right now, what with you being named "Roland". This is not pro-women at all!

I do acknowledge that we have diferences in our views, I do acknoweldge that I'm wrong on many things, but one thing I'm not wrong about is the crazy dogmatic view of the FFTB regulars. Do your research!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Kristine



Posts: 3044
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,12:08   

"Fundamentalism" does not necessarily equal fanaticism. Fundamentalist Christianity referred to a presumed return to the "fundamentals" of that faith as set out by John Nelson Darby. Now, of course that set up a cognitive dissonance within the minds of believers as they confronted the scientific evidence for evolution, and that gave rise to their fanaticism.

When Stephen Jay Gould accused Dawkins of being a fundamentalist atheist, he was referring to fanaticism. I think that Gould was wrong, but I am not inclined to dismiss, given my definition above, the existence of a fundamentalist atheism - I'm just wondering what it would look like.

I write best when the discussion is grounded in concrete data/examples - the Bunnygate, Elevatorgate, and other blow-ups are abstract gobbledygook and excruciatingly pettifoggic quibbling to me. It reminds me of the discussion on morality that Rev. Barky and I tried to have with a humanist (although this was much more civil) - said humanist defined each abstraction in terms of other abstractions and I just could not follow him. I am an intelligent adult and yet I cannot get through Paul Kurtz's latest writings. I am not a philosopher, at least, not in the sense of having opinions in a vacuum. I try not to have opinions without evidence.

If the reliance upon concrete examples/data/case studies is a fundamental of atheism, then I am a "fundamentalist atheist." I need a discussion to be grounded in facts. When people ask me what I believe, I feel like pulling out my hair. I try not to have beliefs (but then you get the predictable, "You mean you don't believe in anything?" in a shocked voice - no, no, no, I am trying to be precise). What's the point of having an opinion? It's like screaming when you're scared - what good does it do? (I'm not a screamer.) :)

What is happening at Pharyngula is not so different than the unbelievably vociferous discussions that I have seen at Black Dahlia message boards or any online discussion involving Casey Anthony. It just enrages people when I say that, "Well, she could have killed her daughter, and she probably did, but she was acquitted so I must act as if she is [just as I presumed her to be] innocent." Rationality is a process, not an opinion. Dare I say that it is (or should be) a fundamental? (And of what?) ;)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,12:43   

Ok, "fanatic" then. Remember ---> english not first language. But the message is there, right?

Right?

Where's that bloody muso thread again? At least that's a place I can contribute without stepping on my own fingers...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Kristine



Posts: 3044
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,13:44   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 28 2011,12:43)
Ok, "fanatic" then. Remember ---> english not first language. But the message is there, right?

Right?

Where's that bloody muso thread again? At least that's a place I can contribute without stepping on my own fingers...

No, no, I'm not picking on you! :D Just thinking out loud. Forgivez-moi. ;)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,14:19   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 28 2011,20:44)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 28 2011,12:43)
Ok, "fanatic" then. Remember ---> english not first language. But the message is there, right?

Right?

Where's that bloody muso thread again? At least that's a place I can contribute without stepping on my own fingers...

No, no, I'm not picking on you! :D Just thinking out loud. Forgivez-moi. ;)

Sorry, have to lulz on the "forgivez moi".

There, it's done. One of the sweetest things I've seen on this thread so far.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,14:48   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 28 2011,12:01)
Roland: I will admit to being a bit tired to do the research work for you, but this small exemple by Tis'Himself should help you understand what I mean:

Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


Now, what do you think is wrong with this comment? Because, "Roland" you are having a very sexist attitude right now, what with you being named "Roland". This is not pro-women at all!

I do acknowledge that we have diferences in our views, I do acknoweldge that I'm wrong on many things, but one thing I'm not wrong about is the crazy dogmatic view of the FFTB regulars. Do your research!

You're the one who's asserting Pharyngula has been taken over by fundamentalist feminists - I was thinking you might have done the research yourself before making the assertion. And if that's the best evidence you can come up with even at a cursory glance then I'm sorry I'm not convinced.

I don't think your point that I have a man's name is terribly relevant.

Again, I didn't assert that the FTB regulars' view is crazy and dogmatic, you did. So you do the research. Convince me. I am perfectly ready to be convinced.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,15:00   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 28 2011,21:48)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 28 2011,12:01)
Roland: I will admit to being a bit tired to do the research work for you, but this small exemple by Tis'Himself should help you understand what I mean:

 
Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


Now, what do you think is wrong with this comment? Because, "Roland" you are having a very sexist attitude right now, what with you being named "Roland". This is not pro-women at all!

I do acknowledge that we have diferences in our views, I do acknoweldge that I'm wrong on many things, but one thing I'm not wrong about is the crazy dogmatic view of the FFTB regulars. Do your research!

You're the one who's asserting Pharyngula has been taken over by fundamentalist feminists - I was thinking you might have done the research yourself before making the assertion. And if that's the best evidence you can come up with even at a cursory glance then I'm sorry I'm not convinced.

I don't think your point that I have a man's name is terribly relevant.

Again, I didn't assert that the FTB regulars' view is crazy and dogmatic, you did. So you do the research. Convince me. I am perfectly ready to be convinced.

Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.

I DO assert that Pharyngula has been taken over by radical feminists. Yep, I totaly own up to that. Whatever PZ does about it is his own problem. Want to go check what Skeptifem (one of PZ and Watson's "allies") has to say about feminism?

Quote
"Q: Do you hate men?

A: Most of them, because of what most men do. Most men watch pornography (like ninety effing percent). Men are the vast majority of violent criminals (including rapists), johns, and world ruining politicians. Men are the vast majority of religious figures who teach things like male supremacy and obedience to husbands. Men are the vast majority of gropers, flashers, and cat callers. It isn't that I blame men who don't do this stuff for the actions of men who do, but most men don't seem to see anything wrong with it. The vast majority think that the milder behaviors in this list are totally acceptable and in effect endorse the shitty behavior of other men by not speaking up about it.

Almost all men are brought up to idealize violent masculine dudes (He-Man, Rambo, football players, the punisher, superman, etc). A rare man can stop listening to the cultural programming and act decent, but I assume a man is a sexist jerk until he proves otherwise. It is for my own personal safety and sanity. "


Or Marcotte (another of their allies)?

Quote
I've been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.


To note: the plaintif in the Lacrosse case was lying all along...

Shall we continue with PZ's allies?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,15:19   

And a quick one before this thread degenerates:

I don't care personaly who PZ teams up with. His choices. But if THAT's supposed to be "atheism", count me out!

Atheism is the lack of belief in a superior being, end of story. I might be left, you may be right, maybe the opposite, I don(t give a fuck!

Clear enough?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,15:51   

Quote
"Q: Do you hate men?

A: Most of them, because of what most men do. Most men watch pornography (like ninety effing percent). Men are the vast majority of violent criminals (including rapists), johns, and world ruining politicians. Men are the vast majority of religious figures who teach things like male supremacy and obedience to husbands. Men are the vast majority of gropers, flashers, and cat callers. It isn't that I blame men who don't do this stuff for the actions of men who do, but most men don't seem to see anything wrong with it. The vast majority think that the milder behaviors in this list are totally acceptable and in effect endorse the shitty behavior of other men by not speaking up about it.

Almost all men are brought up to idealize violent masculine dudes (He-Man, Rambo, football players, the punisher, superman, etc). A rare man can stop listening to the cultural programming and act decent, but I assume a man is a sexist jerk until he proves otherwise. It is for my own personal safety and sanity. "


Holy wow!  Hope that woman is a lesbian.  Gotta check out her blog...sheesh.  That's some crazy, right there.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,15:56   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 28 2011,22:51)
Quote
"Q: Do you hate men?

A: Most of them, because of what most men do. Most men watch pornography (like ninety effing percent). Men are the vast majority of violent criminals (including rapists), johns, and world ruining politicians. Men are the vast majority of religious figures who teach things like male supremacy and obedience to husbands. Men are the vast majority of gropers, flashers, and cat callers. It isn't that I blame men who don't do this stuff for the actions of men who do, but most men don't seem to see anything wrong with it. The vast majority think that the milder behaviors in this list are totally acceptable and in effect endorse the shitty behavior of other men by not speaking up about it.

Almost all men are brought up to idealize violent masculine dudes (He-Man, Rambo, football players, the punisher, superman, etc). A rare man can stop listening to the cultural programming and act decent, but I assume a man is a sexist jerk until he proves otherwise. It is for my own personal safety and sanity. "


Holy wow!  Hope that woman is a lesbian.  Gotta check out her blog...sheesh.  That's some crazy, right there.

Nope, seems she has a boyfriend...

And when FTK and I concure, there is quantum fuck up already!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,17:39   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,10:11)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,09:48)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,09:38)
In reading through this thread and the other one regarding feminism, it occurs to me that there has never, to my knowledge, been a significant social movement that wasn't created and to some extent sustained by "radicals."  Large-scale social change happens because of noisy people who refuse to shut up, and who invariably offend some people who might be sympathetic in general.

The current complaint about PZ is typical and predictable.  It's helpful in such cases to look at the cumulative effects of the hyperbole (which is what the gelato man business is), rather than getting excited about individual instances.

Isn't that approaching an "end justifies the means" argument? Is it OK to vilify an individual for the greater good? It seems like a scapegoat/set-an-example thing to me and I am uncomfortable about that.

I made an observation regarding the historical role of radical thinkers/speakers in social change. Such observation doesn't imply endorsement of any particular method or action.  In the present case I don't think that anyone has been harmed, or will be harmed, by PZ calling a bigot a bigot.

Gelato guy a bigot? Seriously, I do not see it that way. In what way (assuming you mean him) is he a bigot?

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,18:13   

So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,18:17   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,17:39)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,10:11)
   
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,09:48)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,09:38)
In reading through this thread and the other one regarding feminism, it occurs to me that there has never, to my knowledge, been a significant social movement that wasn't created and to some extent sustained by "radicals."  Large-scale social change happens because of noisy people who refuse to shut up, and who invariably offend some people who might be sympathetic in general.

The current complaint about PZ is typical and predictable.  It's helpful in such cases to look at the cumulative effects of the hyperbole (which is what the gelato man business is), rather than getting excited about individual instances.

Isn't that approaching an "end justifies the means" argument? Is it OK to vilify an individual for the greater good? It seems like a scapegoat/set-an-example thing to me and I am uncomfortable about that.

I made an observation regarding the historical role of radical thinkers/speakers in social change. Such observation doesn't imply endorsement of any particular method or action.  In the present case I don't think that anyone has been harmed, or will be harmed, by PZ calling a bigot a bigot.

Gelato guy a bigot? Seriously, I do not see it that way. In what way (assuming you mean him) is he a bigot?

And that's where the divide is, I guess. I say gelato man is a bigot because he hung out a sign saying that a certain class of people (meaning atheists, of course) weren't welcome in his Christian-owned business. If not bigotry, what is it? I don't think that a general well-meaning attitude gets anyone off the hook, and I agree with PZ when he complains that religion has gotten a free pass in this regard for far too long.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,18:42   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,18:17)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,17:39)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,10:11)
   
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,09:48)
     
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,09:38)
In reading through this thread and the other one regarding feminism, it occurs to me that there has never, to my knowledge, been a significant social movement that wasn't created and to some extent sustained by "radicals."  Large-scale social change happens because of noisy people who refuse to shut up, and who invariably offend some people who might be sympathetic in general.

The current complaint about PZ is typical and predictable.  It's helpful in such cases to look at the cumulative effects of the hyperbole (which is what the gelato man business is), rather than getting excited about individual instances.

Isn't that approaching an "end justifies the means" argument? Is it OK to vilify an individual for the greater good? It seems like a scapegoat/set-an-example thing to me and I am uncomfortable about that.

I made an observation regarding the historical role of radical thinkers/speakers in social change. Such observation doesn't imply endorsement of any particular method or action.  In the present case I don't think that anyone has been harmed, or will be harmed, by PZ calling a bigot a bigot.

Gelato guy a bigot? Seriously, I do not see it that way. In what way (assuming you mean him) is he a bigot?

And that's where the divide is, I guess. I say gelato man is a bigot because he hung out a sign saying that a certain class of people (meaning atheists, of course) weren't welcome in his Christian-owned business. If not bigotry, what is it? I don't think that a general well-meaning attitude gets anyone off the hook, and I agree with PZ when he complains that religion has gotten a free pass in this regard for far too long.

He hung that sign up as a reaction and took it down on his own volition. I can't equate that as bigotry.

It wasn't even a sign against atheists in general, just the ones he saw/heard mocking everything that he held as sacred.

Was he right? Hell no! That was something he worked out alone. How is he a bigot? IMO he is just a human who made a mistake, realised and tried to take corrective action.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10222
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,20:00   

Bigotry Bigotry Bigotry. Lest we all become too smug with our own superiority, who here isn't bigoted against Nazis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....Bigotry

We all have baggage (positive or not), and assert out opinions. There's a bunch of fallacies that share an apartment with 'bigotry'.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,20:16   

Quote
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says:
28 November 2011 at 7:40 pm

   It sucks when anyone is discriminated against based on what they believe and not what they do.

GG did something bigoted, therefore unforgivable. What part of that aren’t you understanding BWE? I don’t think you are listening at all, as that should have sunk in after all these posts. All you are doing is preaching your presuppositional idiocy.

note the use of the word 'therefore, rich.

Take that.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,03:36   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2011,03:00)
Bigotry Bigotry Bigotry. Lest we all become too smug with our own superiority, who here isn't bigoted against Nazis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Bigotry

We all have baggage (positive or not), and assert out opinions. There's a bunch of fallacies that share an apartment with 'bigotry'.

"Nazis! I hate nazis!"

-Indiana Jones

What a bigot!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,04:21   

Quote
Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.


You told me to do my research, as if I had asserted something. You made the assertions, you do the research to back them up. So far you haven't produced anything which fits the bill.

I wondered if you're interested in pursuing the question of what it is you don't like about the fundamentalist feminists you see on Pharyngula? I would be :-)

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,04:24   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
 
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,05:28   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
Quote
Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.


You told me to do my research, as if I had asserted something. You made the assertions, you do the research to back them up. So far you haven't produced anything which fits the bill.

I wondered if you're interested in pursuing the question of what it is you don't like about the fundamentalist feminists you see on Pharyngula? I would be :-)

What I don't like about them? Do you really want to go back to my post and read those quotes from Marcotte and Skeptifem? If you don't see anything wrong with that, you have a serious problem.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,05:29   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
 
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Louis Armstrong used to blow a lot too.

Again, your point?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,06:18   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,04:24)
Quote

 
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?

The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Maybe, maybe not.  It could be homoerotic.  Your hetero-normative bias is showing.

The issue, Roland, at least for me, isn't whether a cartoon with a stuffed bunny is a tool of gender oppression, but rather that there are people who spend entirely too much time looking at stuffed bunnies for things to be offended about.

I work in manufacturing, which, as you might expect, is a male dominated field.  However, throughout my career, I have seen many successful women. I've had the pleasure to work for some, and the honor of promoting the careers of others.  And what was their formula for success?  Well, they didn't spend their time complaining about the patriarchal subtext of the Successories prints that littered the corridor walls.  No, sir. They just put on their big girl pants and got shit done.  Who do you suppose is making a better case for equality?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,06:21   

Roland,

You're saying that most everyone here is engaged merely in tone trolling.  In the Sam Brownback post, PZ says:
Quote
While we’re all laughing at Governor Crybaby, you might also take a moment to write (politely!) to Principal Krawitz and let him know...

(Emphasis mine.)

Now why do you think he's asking for politeness?  Is it because PZ is a pearl-clutching tone policeman?  Of course not.  It's because PZ recognises (for a change) that in many situations (not all of course), being polite pays.  It gets people to listen to your points and not get turned off by ranting and insults.  

Tone sometimes matters.  And when you're a high profile atheist and evolutionary biologist and you frequently act like an asshole on your blog and happily associate with assholes, you run the risk of alienating people that you could either convert or make allies with to help forward your aims.  (That assumes that these aims are promoting equality for atheists and understanding of evolutionary science, and not just having fun with your gang.)

D'you see what I'm saying?

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,06:34   

Heh, went looking for a succinct definition of "tone trolling" and what did I find?


  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10222
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,08:47   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 28 2011,20:16)
Quote
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says:
28 November 2011 at 7:40 pm

   It sucks when anyone is discriminated against based on what they believe and not what they do.

GG did something bigoted, therefore unforgivable. What part of that aren’t you understanding BWE? I don’t think you are listening at all, as that should have sunk in after all these posts. All you are doing is preaching your presuppositional idiocy.

note the use of the word 'therefore, rich.

Take that.

I hears ya.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,09:39   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
 
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

Just for the record on this...my opinion (not that it matters).  I think the Brownback team should have just ignored this completely, or maybe Brownback could have talked to the girl himself privately without any public attention given.

But, if this had been my kid and he wrote something that rude, and it was brought to my attention as well as the whole country, I'd have suggested he get his fanny back on that tweet and offer an apology for the way it was stated.  Then he could politely voice his opinions as to why he didn't back Brownback.  I'd do that even if it were PZ he was slamming.  Children should be taught respect...we all turn into ass holes soon enough.  Gotta at least try to instill them with some kind of morals.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:08   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 29 2011,09:39)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
   
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

Just for the record on this...my opinion (not that it matters).  I think the Brownback team should have just ignored this completely, or maybe Brownback could have talked to the girl himself privately without any public attention given.

But, if this had been my kid and he wrote something that rude, and it was brought to my attention as well as the whole country, I'd have suggested he get his fanny back on that tweet and offer an apology for the way it was stated.  Then he could politely voice his opinions as to why he didn't back Brownback.  I'd do that even if it were PZ he was slamming.  Children should be taught respect...we all turn into ass holes soon enough.  Gotta at least try to instill them with some kind of morals.

When I read or hear declaration like, "children should be taught respect" my immediate reaction is, "why?" More precisely, who exactly is entitled to respect in the absence of behavior that earns respect.

I'll say here and now, I do NOT respect institutions or titles. I respect people who earn respect through their actions. Brownbeck is not worthy of any respect as far as I can tell, but I found the actions of Emma Sullivan more than admirable. I respect her (see what I did there?) for her critical thinking skills and for standing up for her actual rights. Brownbeck could actually learn a thing or two from Ms. Sullivan.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:23   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:28)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
Quote
Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.


You told me to do my research, as if I had asserted something. You made the assertions, you do the research to back them up. So far you haven't produced anything which fits the bill.

I wondered if you're interested in pursuing the question of what it is you don't like about the fundamentalist feminists you see on Pharyngula? I would be :-)

What I don't like about them? Do you really want to go back to my post and read those quotes from Marcotte and Skeptifem? If you don't see anything wrong with that, you have a serious problem.

Non-answer noted.

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:26   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:29)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
   
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Louis Armstrong used to blow a lot too.

Again, your point?

So the imagery isn't homophobic? I feel like I'm playing "20 questions" - give me something here! I want to know what it is you dislike about this.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:34   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,17:23)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:28)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
 
Quote
Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.


You told me to do my research, as if I had asserted something. You made the assertions, you do the research to back them up. So far you haven't produced anything which fits the bill.

I wondered if you're interested in pursuing the question of what it is you don't like about the fundamentalist feminists you see on Pharyngula? I would be :-)

What I don't like about them? Do you really want to go back to my post and read those quotes from Marcotte and Skeptifem? If you don't see anything wrong with that, you have a serious problem.

Non-answer noted.

Ok Roland, let's play: For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!

Pet peeve, maybe, but still my opinion.

Now, let's play silly fucker and look at that quote from Tis'Himself again, since you've given the best non-answer possible: not answering:



Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


See any problem there, "Roland"?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:35   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,17:26)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:29)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:24)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
   
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Louis Armstrong used to blow a lot too.

Again, your point?

So the imagery isn't homophobic? I feel like I'm playing "20 questions" - give me something here! I want to know what it is you dislike about this.

"Roland", please step away from the internet...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:38   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,06:18)
[

Quote
Quote
Quote

   
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?

The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Maybe, maybe not.  It could be homoerotic.  Your hetero-normative bias is showing.

The issue, Roland, at least for me, isn't whether a cartoon with a stuffed bunny is a tool of gender oppression, but rather that there are people who spend entirely too much time looking at stuffed bunnies for things to be offended about.


Or rather that when a piece of minor but nevertheless real belittling of women's abilities takes place and this is pointed out, the shouting down of the pointing out totally drowns out everything else?

I think you're getting rather close here to saying that the people pointing it out are just doing it to annoy you. That position has unfortunate implications in my opinion.

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:45   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:34)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,17:23)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:28)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
 
Quote
Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.


You told me to do my research, as if I had asserted something. You made the assertions, you do the research to back them up. So far you haven't produced anything which fits the bill.

I wondered if you're interested in pursuing the question of what it is you don't like about the fundamentalist feminists you see on Pharyngula? I would be :-)

What I don't like about them? Do you really want to go back to my post and read those quotes from Marcotte and Skeptifem? If you don't see anything wrong with that, you have a serious problem.

Non-answer noted.

Ok Roland, let's play: For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!

Pet peeve, maybe, but still my opinion.

Now, let's play silly fucker and look at that quote from Tis'Himself again, since you've given the best non-answer possible: not answering:



Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


See any problem there, "Roland"?

This is a derail. I asked you what *you* don't like about it, not what I do or don't like about it. You are consistently trying to dodge the question.

I am not saying everything on Pharyngula is wonderful, or that everyone there is right or wrong or anything. I am asking you to 1) back up your statement that fundamentalist feminists post there, and 2) whether or not there is any fundamentalist feminism going on there or anywhere, what it is you don't like about the posts you quote.

Also, please produce a quotation from someone on Pharyngula asserting that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent. Note that you will also need to show that these quotations, once you produce them, were generally approved of by the regular commentariat in order to ascribe these opinions to "Pharyngula" as a whole.

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:46   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:35)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,17:26)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:29)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:24)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
     
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Louis Armstrong used to blow a lot too.

Again, your point?

So the imagery isn't homophobic? I feel like I'm playing "20 questions" - give me something here! I want to know what it is you dislike about this.

"Roland", please step away from the internet...

Very happy to - got to get to the gym soon anyway :-)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:49   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,17:45)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:34)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,17:23)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,05:28)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
   
Quote
Reading comprehension much? I never said you asserted anything.


You told me to do my research, as if I had asserted something. You made the assertions, you do the research to back them up. So far you haven't produced anything which fits the bill.

I wondered if you're interested in pursuing the question of what it is you don't like about the fundamentalist feminists you see on Pharyngula? I would be :-)

What I don't like about them? Do you really want to go back to my post and read those quotes from Marcotte and Skeptifem? If you don't see anything wrong with that, you have a serious problem.

Non-answer noted.

Ok Roland, let's play: For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!

Pet peeve, maybe, but still my opinion.

Now, let's play silly fucker and look at that quote from Tis'Himself again, since you've given the best non-answer possible: not answering:



 
Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


See any problem there, "Roland"?

This is a derail. I asked you what *you* don't like about it, not what I do or don't like about it. You are consistently trying to dodge the question.

I am not saying everything on Pharyngula is wonderful, or that everyone there is right or wrong or anything. I am asking you to 1) back up your statement that fundamentalist feminists post there, and 2) whether or not there is any fundamentalist feminism going on there or anywhere, what it is you don't like about the posts you quote.

Also, please produce a quotation from someone on Pharyngula asserting that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent. Note that you will also need to show that these quotations, once you produce them, were generally approved of by the regular commentariat in order to ascribe these opinions to "Pharyngula" as a whole.

Ok, now you're just trolling, right?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
tsig



Posts: 322
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:49   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
 
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

If you don't like PZ, his blog or the denizens then don't go
there.

Spell edit

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,10:55   

Since I'm a very kind and patient man, I'll try to parse this.

Quote
This is a derail. I asked you what *you* don't like about it, not what I do or don't like about it. You are consistently trying to dodge the question.


I answered: "For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!"

Problem?



Quote
I am not saying everything on Pharyngula is wonderful, or that everyone there is right or wrong or anything. I am asking you to 1) back up your statement that fundamentalist feminists post there, and 2) whether or not there is any fundamentalist feminism going on there or anywhere, what it is you don't like about the posts you quote.


Again with the Tis'Himself quote, never challenged by any regulars.

Problem?

Quote
Also, please produce a quotation from someone on Pharyngula asserting that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent. Note that you will also need to show that these quotations, once you produce them, were generally approved of by the regular commentariat in order to ascribe these opinions to "Pharyngula" as a whole.


Have you ever been to Pharyngula before?!?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:01   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,10:38)
Or rather that when a piece of minor but nevertheless real belittling of women's abilities takes place and this is pointed out, the shouting down of the pointing out totally drowns out everything else?

What exactly are you after?  Every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture must necessarily be male?  Or would you rather that all cartoon characters be Shmoos?

 
Quote

I think you're getting rather close here to saying that the people pointing it out are just doing it to annoy you. That position has unfortunate implications in my opinion.

No.  What I am saying is perfectly encapsulated in the paragraph that you didn't quote. Equality won't be obtained by seeking out grievances to nurse, but through achievement.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:05   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:55)
Since I'm a very kind and patient man, I'll try to parse this.

 
Quote
This is a derail. I asked you what *you* don't like about it, not what I do or don't like about it. You are consistently trying to dodge the question.


I answered: "For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!"

Problem?



 
Quote
I am not saying everything on Pharyngula is wonderful, or that everyone there is right or wrong or anything. I am asking you to 1) back up your statement that fundamentalist feminists post there, and 2) whether or not there is any fundamentalist feminism going on there or anywhere, what it is you don't like about the posts you quote.


Again with the Tis'Himself quote, never challenged by any regulars.

Problem?

 
Quote
Also, please produce a quotation from someone on Pharyngula asserting that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent. Note that you will also need to show that these quotations, once you produce them, were generally approved of by the regular commentariat in order to ascribe these opinions to "Pharyngula" as a whole.


Have you ever been to Pharyngula before?!?

You're saying that the quote from 'Tis Himself, which I understand is this one:

Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


means "most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent"?

Please can you explain your reasoning?

Once again, I don't feel my question has been answered. It's because you said the thing you don't like about Pharygula is that people there say most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent, and that's wrong. Well saying that is wrong, so I'd like you to show me where the Pharyngulites say this and are supported in so doing.

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:08   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:01)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,10:38)
Or rather that when a piece of minor but nevertheless real belittling of women's abilities takes place and this is pointed out, the shouting down of the pointing out totally drowns out everything else?

What exactly are you after?  Every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture must necessarily be male?  Or would you rather that all cartoon characters be Shmoos?

   
Quote

I think you're getting rather close here to saying that the people pointing it out are just doing it to annoy you. That position has unfortunate implications in my opinion.

No.  What I am saying is perfectly encapsulated in the paragraph that you didn't quote. Equality won't be obtained by seeking out grievances to nurse, but through achievement.

Here's the paragraph I didn't quote:

Quote
I work in manufacturing, which, as you might expect, is a male dominated field.  However, throughout my career, I have seen many successful women. I've had the pleasure to work for some, and the honor of promoting the careers of others.  And what was their formula for success?  Well, they didn't spend their time complaining about the patriarchal subtext of the Successories prints that littered the corridor walls.  No, sir. They just put on their big girl pants and got shit done.  Who do you suppose is making a better case for equality?


Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:08   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,18:05)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:55)
Since I'm a very kind and patient man, I'll try to parse this.

 
Quote
This is a derail. I asked you what *you* don't like about it, not what I do or don't like about it. You are consistently trying to dodge the question.


I answered: "For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!"

Problem?



 
Quote
I am not saying everything on Pharyngula is wonderful, or that everyone there is right or wrong or anything. I am asking you to 1) back up your statement that fundamentalist feminists post there, and 2) whether or not there is any fundamentalist feminism going on there or anywhere, what it is you don't like about the posts you quote.


Again with the Tis'Himself quote, never challenged by any regulars.

Problem?

 
Quote
Also, please produce a quotation from someone on Pharyngula asserting that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent. Note that you will also need to show that these quotations, once you produce them, were generally approved of by the regular commentariat in order to ascribe these opinions to "Pharyngula" as a whole.


Have you ever been to Pharyngula before?!?

You're saying that the quote from 'Tis Himself, which I understand is this one:

 
Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


means "most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent"?

Please can you explain your reasoning?

Once again, I don't feel my question has been answered. It's because you said the thing you don't like about Pharygula is that people there say most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent, and that's wrong. Well saying that is wrong, so I'd like you to show me where the Pharyngulites say this and are supported in so doing.

Mmmmhhh... Where have I said that?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:15   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)
Here's the paragraph I didn't quote:

Quote
I work in manufacturing, which, as you might expect, is a male dominated field.  However, throughout my career, I have seen many successful women. I've had the pleasure to work for some, and the honor of promoting the careers of others.  And what was their formula for success?  Well, they didn't spend their time complaining about the patriarchal subtext of the Successories prints that littered the corridor walls.  No, sir. They just put on their big girl pants and got shit done.  Who do you suppose is making a better case for equality?


Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:16   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,18:05)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,10:55)
Since I'm a very kind and patient man, I'll try to parse this.

   
Quote
This is a derail. I asked you what *you* don't like about it, not what I do or don't like about it. You are consistently trying to dodge the question.


I answered: "For me, someone endorsing that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent is just, well, WRONG!"

Problem?



   
Quote
I am not saying everything on Pharyngula is wonderful, or that everyone there is right or wrong or anything. I am asking you to 1) back up your statement that fundamentalist feminists post there, and 2) whether or not there is any fundamentalist feminism going on there or anywhere, what it is you don't like about the posts you quote.


Again with the Tis'Himself quote, never challenged by any regulars.

Problem?

   
Quote
Also, please produce a quotation from someone on Pharyngula asserting that most men are rapist-wannabes or that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent. Note that you will also need to show that these quotations, once you produce them, were generally approved of by the regular commentariat in order to ascribe these opinions to "Pharyngula" as a whole.


Have you ever been to Pharyngula before?!?

You're saying that the quote from 'Tis Himself, which I understand is this one:

 
Quote
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?


means "most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent"?

Please can you explain your reasoning?

Once again, I don't feel my question has been answered. It's because you said the thing you don't like about Pharygula is that people there say most men are wannabe rapists and any male accused of rape is guilty till proven innocent, and that's wrong. Well saying that is wrong, so I'd like you to show me where the Pharyngulites say this and are supported in so doing.

Mmmmhhh... Where have I said that?

Ah OK sorry I misread you. You said that the 'Tis Himself quote was fundamentalist feminist - apologies.

Can you explain the reasoning there then? This is really what I'm trying to get at.

You still haven't come up with anything from Pharyngula saying men are mostly wannabe rapists, guilty till proven innocent etc

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:17   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)
Here's the paragraph I didn't quote:

 
Quote
I work in manufacturing, which, as you might expect, is a male dominated field.  However, throughout my career, I have seen many successful women. I've had the pleasure to work for some, and the honor of promoting the careers of others.  And what was their formula for success?  Well, they didn't spend their time complaining about the patriarchal subtext of the Successories prints that littered the corridor walls.  No, sir. They just put on their big girl pants and got shit done.  Who do you suppose is making a better case for equality?


Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:21   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:28   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:32   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,10:38)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,06:18)
[

 
Quote
 
Quote
 
Quote

     
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?

The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

OK, so is the imagery homophobic? What do you think? Substance, remember, substance.

Maybe, maybe not.  It could be homoerotic.  Your hetero-normative bias is showing.

The issue, Roland, at least for me, isn't whether a cartoon with a stuffed bunny is a tool of gender oppression, but rather that there are people who spend entirely too much time looking at stuffed bunnies for things to be offended about.


Or rather that when a piece of minor but nevertheless real belittling of women's abilities takes place and this is pointed out, the shouting down of the pointing out totally drowns out everything else?

I'm just curious why there are those people who assume the bunny in the dress is a women. I mean really...it could be a transgendered bunny or a transvestite bunny. I mean...how small-minded and arrogant of you to assume that the bunny in the dress isn't just a regular ol' masculine man who likes dresses! I'm just amazed that no one has pointed out that the figures are bunnies and thus obviously representative of objectified sex.

Seems to me that any speculation about the social-sexual implication of the bunny depiction is just plain inane as it just demonstrates that some people willfully look for ways to completely miss a point and get a chuckle.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:32   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:28)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

So, all women hold exactly the same opinion on this?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:35   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:32)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:28)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
   
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

So, all women hold exactly the same opinion on this?

Have you tried listening to them to find out?

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:36   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:35)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:32)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:28)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
   
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

So, all women hold exactly the same opinion on this?

Have you tried listening to them to find out?

Have you?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:37   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:01)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,10:38)
Or rather that when a piece of minor but nevertheless real belittling of women's abilities takes place and this is pointed out, the shouting down of the pointing out totally drowns out everything else?

What exactly are you after?  Every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture must necessarily be male?  Or would you rather that all cartoon characters be Shmoos?

   [quote]

Clearly not...a shmoo is just an anthropomorphized phallic symbol! Totally sexist and misogynistic! How dare you even post such a thing you sexist pig!


/sarcasm off

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:38   

Sorry, not playing anymore. "Roland" is boring.

FYI, "Roland", yes, we've listened to women. Ok, maybe women who have lost their vagina-card, but still women nontheless.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:41   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 29 2011,11:38)
Sorry, not playing anymore. "Roland" is boring.

FYI, "Roland", yes, we've listened to women. Ok, maybe women who have lost their vagina-card, but still women nontheless.

OK I'll draw my own conclusions.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:43   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 29 2011,11:37)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:01)
   
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,10:38)
Or rather that when a piece of minor but nevertheless real belittling of women's abilities takes place and this is pointed out, the shouting down of the pointing out totally drowns out everything else?

What exactly are you after?  Every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture must necessarily be male?  Or would you rather that all cartoon characters be Shmoos?

   
Quote

Clearly not...a shmoo is just an anthropomorphized phallic symbol! Totally sexist and misogynistic! How dare you even post such a thing you sexist pig!


/sarcasm off

Yes and no.  You obviously don't understand what a Shmoo is. I quote:
 
Quote
The Shmoo first appeared in the strip in August 1948. According to Shmoo legend, the lovable creature laid eggs, gave milk and died of sheer esctasy when looked at with hunger.

Clearly, the shmoo is female.
 
Quote
Ironically, the lovable and selfless Shmoos ultimately brought misery to humankind because people with a limitless supply of self-sacrificing Shmoos stopped working and society broke down. Seen at first as a boon to humankind, they were ultimately hunted down and exterminated to preserve the status quo.

But, you are correct that the Shmoo story is inherently misogynistic. Virulently so.

EDIT: Fixed a broken quote and a poorly worded sentence.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:44   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:36)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:35)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:32)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:28)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
   
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
     
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

So, all women hold exactly the same opinion on this?

Have you tried listening to them to find out?

Have you?

Yes, and some of them said that minor though this is, it's still sexist and it's still worth pointing out. I'm not the one making a big issue out of this! The big issue is the incredible amount of energy expended by people who want to deny that this sort of sexism is worth any attention at all.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:46   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:44)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:36)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:35)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:32)
   
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:28)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
     
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
       
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

So, all women hold exactly the same opinion on this?

Have you tried listening to them to find out?

Have you?

Yes, and some of them said that minor though this is, it's still sexist and it's still worth pointing out. I'm not the one making a big issue out of this! The big issue is the incredible amount of energy expended by people who want to deny that this sort of sexism is worth any attention at all.

What was your sample size? Never mind that.  

What then, would be an unsexist depiction of an unintelligent female cartoon character?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:49   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:28)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:21)
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:15)
 
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)

Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Must every depiction of an unsympathetic character in popular culture necessarily be male?

No. Should every instance of pointing out of minor sexism be shouted down?

So, how does one determine which cultural depiction of an unsympathetic female is sexist and which isn't?

Listen to women?

That's silly when you're talking about something subjective like a posed bunny cartoon. I mean really...no one - man or woman - actually knows the sex of either of those two bunnies. And you know what? It's because they are fake and aren't actually sexual beings at all!

Your argument is no different than that of the IDers who insist they see design "out there", but they have no way to measure it. Buying into the idea that one should listen to only those people who are sensitive to a given perception is no different than endorsing ESP and tarot card readings.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:53   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 29 2011,10:08)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 29 2011,09:39)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?
   
Quote

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?


The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

Just for the record on this...my opinion (not that it matters).  I think the Brownback team should have just ignored this completely, or maybe Brownback could have talked to the girl himself privately without any public attention given.

But, if this had been my kid and he wrote something that rude, and it was brought to my attention as well as the whole country, I'd have suggested he get his fanny back on that tweet and offer an apology for the way it was stated.  Then he could politely voice his opinions as to why he didn't back Brownback.  I'd do that even if it were PZ he was slamming.  Children should be taught respect...we all turn into ass holes soon enough.  Gotta at least try to instill them with some kind of morals.

When I read or hear declaration like, "children should be taught respect" my immediate reaction is, "why?" More precisely, who exactly is entitled to respect in the absence of behavior that earns respect.

I'll say here and now, I do NOT respect institutions or titles. I respect people who earn respect through their actions. Brownbeck is not worthy of any respect as far as I can tell, but I found the actions of Emma Sullivan more than admirable. I respect her (see what I did there?) for her critical thinking skills and for standing up for her actual rights. Brownbeck could actually learn a thing or two from Ms. Sullivan.

I believe children raised without learning respect will have a hard time in the work force as well as life in general unless they are being raised to be a shock jock or a PZ Myers.  I also think that Emma, her Mother and even you don't really think this is appropriate behavior if you stop for a minute and really analyze the situation.

I can't imagine her talking to Brownback like that in person, and if she did, she'd be looked down upon by even those who back her.  It's the disrespectful words she used...the tone in that tweet.  Lots of people don't agree with their bosses...may even dislike them, but you show respect.  You don't see the Presidential candidates using that tone/verbiage  when debating their opponents.  It doesn't work in the real world.  People must show respect even for those they completely disagree with.

Flip the card...if my son tweeted that to a liberal or shared his views on homosexuality, but used nasty adjectives, people would be appalled as well...even you.  

That's what is so interesting about this PZ issue you're all talking about.  PZ is blatantly disrespectfully, nasty and hateful to anyone who disagrees with him.  I have no idea what that shop owner heard at that meeting, but if it was anything even remotely similar to the stuff that is found on PZ's blog, I'm sure the man was probably shocked beyond belief.  

What's funny is that the shop owner was making a stand against what he thought was wrong. He obviously didn't want those type of people with their views and anger visiting his shop.  By closing shop to them, shouldn't PZ be applauding him?  ..showing blatant disrespect for a group of people he believes are WRONG.  That's the kind of thing PZ preaches daily.  This shop owner actually does it, but since the shoe is on the other foot, PZ demonizes him.  

Personally, I think there may be something mentally wrong with PZ that he can't see his horrific hypocrisy.

Interestingly, Brownback et. al apologized to Emma.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/28/emma-sullivan-receives-ap_n_1116945.html

Personally, like I said above, the whole thing was probably blown out of proportion, but still...we DO need to teach our children respect and how they should treat others regardless as to whether they agree with them or not.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:56   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 29 2011,11:08)
       
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:01)


   I work in manufacturing, which, as you might expect, is a male dominated field.  However, throughout my career, I have seen many successful women. I've had the pleasure to work for some, and the honor of promoting the careers of others.  And what was their formula for success?  Well, they didn't spend their time complaining about the patriarchal subtext of the Successories prints that littered the corridor walls.  No, sir. They just put on their big girl pants and got shit done.  Who do you suppose is making a better case for equality?


Can you explain why that means that pointing out when something is minorly sexist means you should be shouted down? Hint: it doesn't.

Are you certain that you haven't just made your opinion up and are only looking for evidence you think supports it? I think that may be the case.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out sexist comments. There would be something wrong if you exclusively did that while being paid to do something else.

BTW, who said anything about shouting down complainants?

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,11:56   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 29 2011,11:53)
Personally, like I said above, the whole thing was probably blown out of proportion, but still...we DO need to teach our children respect and how they should treat others regardless as to whether they agree with them or not.

Hey, FTK, as long as you are here, what do you think of the bunny cartoon?  I would guess it probably offends you as a religious person, but does it also offend you as a female?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,12:11   

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 28 2011,16:51)
Quote
"Q: Do you hate men?

A: Most of them, because of what most men do. Most men watch pornography (like ninety effing percent). Men are the vast majority of violent criminals (including rapists), johns, and world ruining politicians. Men are the vast majority of religious figures who teach things like male supremacy and obedience to husbands. Men are the vast majority of gropers, flashers, and cat callers. It isn't that I blame men who don't do this stuff for the actions of men who do, but most men don't seem to see anything wrong with it. The vast majority think that the milder behaviors in this list are totally acceptable and in effect endorse the shitty behavior of other men by not speaking up about it.

Almost all men are brought up to idealize violent masculine dudes (He-Man, Rambo, football players, the punisher, superman, etc). A rare man can stop listening to the cultural programming and act decent, but I assume a man is a sexist jerk until he proves otherwise. It is for my own personal safety and sanity. "


Holy wow!  Hope that woman is a lesbian.  Gotta check out her blog...sheesh.  That's some crazy, right there.

thou shalt not covet, trollop

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,12:12   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2011,11:56)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 29 2011,11:53)
Personally, like I said above, the whole thing was probably blown out of proportion, but still...we DO need to teach our children respect and how they should treat others regardless as to whether they agree with them or not.

Hey, FTK, as long as you are here, what do you think of the bunny cartoon?  I would guess it probably offends you as a religious person, but does it offend you as a female?

You're talking to the wrong person, Carlson.  There isn't a feminist bone in my body.  I think all that shit is so totally overblown.  Guys are guys..they think like guys (ie, everything comes back to sex).  Just the way life is.  Yes, of course, they should keep a handle on their comments, etc., but chicks should just take that crap with a grain of salt.

The bunnygate thing?  ridiculous, imho.  

As far as respect in the work place?  I think women get plenty of respect.  I've worked in many places, and have never seen any blatant disrespect for women.  I've seen some off color comments...have heard of some messed up affairs where women have been promoted after "sleeping with the boss"...course, that's a two way street.  

If a man is wanting "favors" for advancement, all you need to do is go to the top, tell them to put a stop to it.  Then go to the guy in question and tell him to "fuck off" and be done with it.  

My husband knew my boss (at one time) was attempting to "get cozy" with me (very subtly of course) before I even did.  He noticed it when we were all together, and the boss did have a history of that kind of thing.  I just ignored it completely...never became a problem.  Little did I know that my husband had gone to him once and told him to back the fuck off...lol.  Basically, women...just handle it.  It's not that big a deal, imho.

Course, otoh, I don't women taking over the world, either.  I prefer men be in charge.  Sue me.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,12:15   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 28 2011,10:17)
To be perfectly frank, I don't know why I or Lou cannot also be considered atheist spokespeople. Both of us went back to school for a mid-life career change, yes, so some of us are late bloomers but we both intend to make our mark.

Actually, by founding the UNCW affiliate of the Secular Student Alliance, I feel like I've already made my mark and can now go gentle into that good night.

I jest of course, but if I never do another thing worth mentioning, I will have left UNCW a better place than I found it. That alone was worth the (rather large) price of admission.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006