Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: The official Post Atheism Movement starts now started by BWE
Posted by: BWE on 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.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Cubist on 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.
Posted by: BWE on 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.
:)
Posted by: BWE on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Cubist on 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."
Posted by: BWE on 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.
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: BWE on Nov. 23 2011,23:10
Ok. That made me chuckle.
Posted by: fnxtr on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(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.
Posted by: Louis on 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!
Posted by: Cubist on 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?
Posted by: Louis on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Louis on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor was < the reaction >.
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor was < the reaction >. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: fnxtr on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Wolfhound on 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.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 24 2011,09:49
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,14:26) | [SNIP Horseshit] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 24 2011,10:15
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,09:49) | Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,14:26) | [SNIP Horseshit] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've left plenty of clues there for anyone not invested in reading it literally to understand my point.
A thousand flowers? Indeed.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 24 2011,10:23
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2011,14:26) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Louis on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: fnxtr on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
?
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.
Posted by: Louis on 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] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've left plenty of clues there for anyone not invested in reading it literally to understand my point.
A thousand flowers? Indeed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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?
Posted by: BWE on 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. :)
Posted by: BWE on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: fnxtr on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. :-)
Posted by: Kattarina98 on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on 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...
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Cubist on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: BWE on 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.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think that I agree with that, unless you think that atheism is a movement with thought leaders/designators.
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...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". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...... 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Louis on 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. :) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. :-) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I've sailed that ship!
Louis
Posted by: Louis on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Kristine on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...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". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...... 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: midwifetoad on 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.
Posted by: George on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: BWE on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. :-) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I've sailed that ship!
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Raevmo on Nov. 25 2011,01:28
For a moment I thought Kairosfocus had hijacked this thread, but a search for Lewontin came up empty...
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on 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.
Posted by: rhmc on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
POTD!
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on 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?
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Louis on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
POTD! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{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
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. :-) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I've sailed that ship!
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: rhmc on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
POTD! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{Golf clap}
Well done. Here's a cookie.
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
thank you.
you may now return to posting your GEMs.
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: George on 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.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey now! Too fucking far!!!
Posted by: Louis on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on 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.
Posted by: Louis on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2011,07:08
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 25 2011,11:51) | If it was about YOU, nobody would care much. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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.
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- People who whatever happens continually apologise for the wrongs of others and try to avoid confrontation. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Raevmo on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
POTD! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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>
Posted by: BWE on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. :-) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I've sailed that ship!
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Muslima...
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
POTD! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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> ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comparing/equating Louis to KairosFuckwhit is bloody ridiculous IMO.
Posted by: BWE on Nov. 25 2011,19:06
Perhaps it is. But the idea that it is us against them is too.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That would depend on the definition of "us" wouldn't it?
KairosFocus is a fucking idiot, Louis is not.
Posted by: BWE on Nov. 25 2011,20:52
True. No argument there.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on 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!
Posted by: carlsonjok on 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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 26 2011,07:29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|