Update: When this post was sent out by email, I mistakenly said that the author of the piece was Paula Kirby instead of Susan Jacoby. Blame it on lack of coffee and a similarity of names and views. My apologies.
___________
The other day I posted the video of the astounding Thanksgiving Family Forum in Iowa, in which six Republican presidential candidates vied with each other in professing their love of God and fealty to American superiority.
In yesterday’s Washington Post’s “On Faith” forum, Susan Jacoby takes up another prominent feature of this forum: the propensity of politicans, especially religious Republican ones, to use either their suffering or that of others as a reason to elect them. Here’s how she starts her piece, “Christian politicians exalt suffering in GOP campaign”:
Imagine that the year is 1932 and presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt, instead of addressing himself to the economic paralysis that has gripped the nation, talks endlessly about the polio-induced paralysis of his own legs as some sort of unique qualification for the presidency. He blathers on about his deep faith in God as the reason he should be elected, weeps at the memory not only of his struggle with polio but of his own sins, and generally talks to the Americans as if they were choosing a Confessor/Penitent-in-Chief instead of a president.
That was exactly the spectacle presented last Saturday by Republican presidential candidates at a forum stressing faith and family in Des Moines, Iowa. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rich Santorum and the pizza impresario Herman Cain broke down when they spoke, respectively, about the brain tumors of a friend’s son, the birth of a daughter with a severe genetically determined disability, and being diagnosed with cancer.
Boo-hoo, gentlemen. Having endured the ordinary vicissitudes or the extraordinary and unfathomable tragedies of life and having sought the help of whatever God in whom you believe has absolutely nothing to do with your suitability for the nation’s highest office. An atheist would face the same tragedies without invoking God’s help and that, too, would have nothing to do with his or her fitness for the presidency.
The Iowa forum was a triumph of the union of psychobabble and public religiosity that has come to dominate American politics. President Obama’s refusal to engage in this kind of faith-infused psychological exhibitionism is one of the main reasons why the media (and not only conservative media) have tagged him as a cool professorial type who does not know how to make a connection with ordinary people. . .
Suffering does not always ennoble but, on the contrary, can sometimes create a grandiose sense of entitlement. . . .
While I would never advocate a return to the days when photographers would, out of misplaced deference to the office of the presidency, agree not to take pictures of the president in a wheelchair, being in a wheelchair (metaphorically or literally) tells you nothing about whether a man is an effective leader. It reveals a good deal about the character of a candidates, however, when they think that they deserve votes because they’ve had cancer or a brain-damaged child. This use of personal faith and personal suffering in politics is nothing less than an obscenity.
Jacoby then contrasts this view of suffering as ennobling with Republicans’ own and vaunted unwillingness to alleviate the suffering of others through government intervention.
I think that the same problem afflicts part of the atheist movement, the part in which either real or ostensible offense—and that is about the mildest form of suffering—is seen not only as a badge of honor, but as a plea for approval or affirmation from others, a kind of affirmation that, I think, deflects us from the goals of our movement. How does it advance our agenda to heap tons of opprobrium on a misguided purveyor of gelato—especially one who immediately apologized—or to blame our personal failures on discrimination against atheists? Aren’t we, after all, the ones who always say, “Nobody has a right not to be offended?”
We know we’re a reviled minority, so let’s accept that, call it out when it seriously impedes our mission, and get on with the job.
h/t: Diane G.
Since the Republican candidates otherwise seem to think that enthusiasm for torture and capital punishment are necessary qualifications for higher office, it’s mildly reassuring to know that they acknowledge the existence of suffering at all.
Yup, people should definitely move on from GelatoGate.
The USA reminds me of the medieval Greenlanders who, when the climate was cooling and they were starving to death, instead of learning how to live in the cold as the Eskimos did, just kept building more churches expecting that to save them. It didn’t work. I wonder if there were people who tried to convince the others to eat fish when the cows died instead of praying to god for more robust cows. I guess we’ll never know, but if there were they didn’t succeed.
I don’t think the Greenlanders’ unwillingness to adapt was caused by religion. It may have been a factor, but certainly not the only one. They just kept thinking the cold weather was just a fluke and that the next year would be warmer. Also cultural food taboos played a major role. Another factor is the fact that the resiliency of the vegetation in Greenland differed greatly from what they were used to in Europe, and cows were definitely not the right choice of animal for such a climate. They didn’t know any better.
Jared Diamond explains it very well in his book Collapse.
That’s where I get my assessment of their difficulties from, mostly.
There’s also the possibility that the Inuit “helped”, by killing them. There’s a (sad, but often necessary) tradition that those which show signs of being crazy in an unreformable way are killed, because of the fear that whatever it is is contagious.
Has religion ever played such a significant role in a presidential election? Unfortunately yes. A candidate’s religion choice should not play a role in his/her electability. JFK’s election should have settled the matter. This year’s crop blatantly plays for evangelical votes. The rest of us must not allow those who pander to the strong religious influence to run our nation. Democracy must be secular to protect all religious and secular interests.
The gelato guy apologised and withdrew his remark. Isn’t that a victory for our side?
What the hell more do people want from him?
A Leica rangefinder?
Poor Kwok will never live that down.
(Self-inflicted wounds are the slowest to heal.)
He apologized for his action, but I feel he doesn’t understand why his action was wrong in the first place.
Last i checked, he was still placing the blame for his action on the offense he decided to receive from watching SS give his fake revival sermon.
I still don’t think he understands that discrimination is wrong, regardless of how offended one may become.
Sigmund – agreed. I believe that PZ is wrong and Jerry is right on this one. If one wants to engage a fundamentalist about the ‘shortcomings’ of religion, you won’t get out of the batters box if you begin with mocking.
Douglas E, it’s the mocking by the comedian ‘preacher’ with which I have a problem. No, it’s not going to convince the fundamentalist and will probably make him or her more angry. Mockery of untenable beliefs does, however, help create an environment where people are going to be more careful in their public statements of those beliefs (this is why religion has become much more private in places like the UK and Scandinavia.)
The initial reaction of the store owner was wrong because he, as a business owner, was showing discrimination towards potential customers based on their beliefs. His subsequent actions show that this was a mistake made in the heat of the moment and I think it is in our best interests to accept the apology and move on.
Ooops typo – I meant “it’s NOT the mocking”
(I can hardly complain about mocking – that’s all I do on sneer review!)
You nearly floored me there. Thank goodness I read on!
He should spend the time to study the Rules of Acquisition instead.
What if there had been a different outcome to all this? Say a Christian group had seen the sign and supported him, next he’s in the papers and Christian blogs as a local hero standing up to the nasty evil skeptic bullies (the Christians do love their persecution complex,) his business is booming and he is being interviewed on Fox ‘News.’ Do you really think we would have had an apology then. I’m no mind reader but I bet a pound to a penny we wouldn’t have. We just flexed our Internet muscle and got our digs in first. There is not right or wrong here is just different levels of intolerance for intolerance.
Not/no D’oh.
So we should permanently persecute the guy based on what MIGHT have happened?
Now it’s not actions, it’s POSSIBLE actions that are actionable?
Can anyone PLEASE explain how that’s not bad? Sanely?
Are you saying my scenario is unlikely? Here in the UK we have Christians claiming discrimination because they are not allowed to discriminate against gay couples from using their B&B’s.
No, i’m saying I don’t care what didn’t happen. I care what DID happen. That’s what I deal with. What ACTUALLY happened. What ACTUALLY happened was ten minutes of ACTUAL stupid generating an infinite amount of meaningless butthurt from a group that more and more lives for said butthurt.
Hey, are we talking about gay skeptics here? All this talk about butthurt is CLEARLY meant to oppress my special, provincial interests.
Hey, I can be a victim too if I look just hard enough!
Permanently persecute?
PZ said he didn’t accept his apology. That was all.
If somebody acts like a jerk, refusing to kiss and make up is not the same as persecuting them.
GelatoGuy did not come out with a reasoned essay explaining how he now understands what freedom of belief means; he just said he was sorry he had to pay a price for his violation of other people’s civil rights.
No, PZ will accept his apology, as soon as he “properly understands what he REALLY did” whatever the fuck that means.
translation: as soon as he grovels enough and says the right words, even without meaning them, then it’s all good. Andy’s big mistake was not properly groveling, and apologizing for what HE was thinking and what HE did. He should have enlisted a Professional Atheist to tell him how to properly write the apology.
Maybe if gelato-guy had given an actual apology instead of a reason laced not-pology this would have died out already.
As it stands, he apologized for his action but i do not think he understands why it was wrong, other than it would have cost him quite a bit of money.
In ten minutes? From a rather small event? in the middle of MISSOURI? Exactly how much pull do you really think Skepticon has to have significantly hurt his business in TEN MINUTES.
yeesh.
The guy is just sorry he’s getting bad publicy that’s all.
publicity! argh!!!
I think a number of atheists are indeed in the professional victim category. The ones that drone on and on about the presence of Bibles in hotel rooms, for example.
We should be LESS subject to offense. They have to worry about reading something that will weaken their faith or offend their god. We don’t have to worry about that.
My response to the over sensitive atheists is the same as to the religious… get over it.
It’s not about being offended, it’s about changing the default cultural expectations and acceptance of supernatural beliefs that impinge on public life and politics. I generally don’t care what one business person thinks, but I do care if someone discriminates against a large class of people unthinkingly, and gets away with it.
Offense is a way of shifting the Overton Window. And offense has been used quite effectively by the religious to do precisely that.
In what way, do you suppose, is GelatoGuy ‘get[ing] away with it’? He made a rash decision, and made a turn around within the space of a few minutes wherein he realized his actions were improper. He has paid an immediate price for that decision on the internet, the phone and no doubt in letters too, and perhaps in his income.
He’s one local yokel with an ice cream shop(pe) who made an emotional, ‘unthinking’ decision which he then fairly quickly thought better of and took some efforts to rectify. If your claim about changing the default cultural expectations and how those impinge on public life is in earnest, how is this not a prime example of at least one person’s default expectation being dramatically, and quickly changed?
Also, this claim about discrimination on his part is entirely vacuous. Note his sign read ‘skepticon’ not welcome in his Christian business; he didn’t say atheists, or non-christians not allowed. Members of a convention which included atheists, agnostics, theists, skeptics, whites, blacks, gays, straights, browns, others, transpeople, and a circus sideshow hula hooper cannot in any sensible way be ‘discrimination’ unless, of course, there’s a class known as ‘skepticon attendees’ whom we need to devote public resources to protect.
As it happens, ‘skepticon attendee’ is as of yet not a protected or suspected class because, despite the propaganda otherwise, there is nothing about ‘skepticism’ which entails atheism and nothing about atheism which entails ‘skepticism’, much less those who attend ‘skepticon’ implying either or any of the above. My evidence is sketchy, but there exist atheists who aren’t skeptics, and skeptics who aren’t atheists. In the narrower case of ‘spepticon’ and presumably he meant its attendees, then one again is compelled to note that said group contains atheists, theists (some of whom are even Christian!), gays, straights, whites, blacks, browns, yellows, and a carnie hula hoop fanatic.
Discrimination in the context it’s being bandied about hither and tither is a legal context. And in this case there is no merit whatever to it for the non-exhaustive reasons delineated above.
Clap clap clap!
That’s some good lawyerin’ boy.
True skeptics are generally less subject to offense. Unfortunately PZ Myers is playing to his gallery and is busy manufacturing a myth of rampant persecution of women by members of the atheist community. He seems to be trying to wed the organized skeptical movement to his pet ideologies, particularly radical gender feminism, and he’s outdoing creationists with the tactics he’s using. Contrived offense is the oxygen fueling his Jihad – read his Gelato rant in that context. Don’t believe me, try having a rational discussion with his horde on one of their pet subjects.
Sounds like somebody decided to whine here over a personal grudge.
I’m guessing the key is TFJ’s horrified invocation of “radical feminism”.
Thanks for the revealing look at where you’re coming from, you insulting liar.
Nice to see you too, Bunny. You forgot to slip in the words ‘MRA’, ‘misogynist’, and various permutations of ‘Uppity Women’ and ‘Look over There’. You haven’t a clue what my beliefs or opinions are because that would actually entail recognising that people are allowed to disagree with you and listening. There was a time when I would at least have tried to express my point of view and the reasons behind to the Pod People of the ironically named FreeThoughtBlogs, but the last few months have shown that they’ll compute ‘not one of us!’ and point and scream. I’d then be banned for ‘being boring’.
You really don’t have a clue about the contempt and disgust people have for PZ and co outside of his little circle, do you? Or how rapidly you are marginalising yourselves.
That’s some good well-poisonin’ boy.
Is that a naked girl bunny with a whip, or a naked boy bunny with a whip? Or, more to the point, is the naked bunny wearing a dress or pants?
I only ask so that I know whether or not to be offended in the right way, to the right extent, for the approved list of reasons.
After all, it’s hard to think that you’d have us view this naked bunny as androgynous or a eunuch, for we’d then have to contemplate whether it’s a transgendered bunny, intersexed bunny, or just a really ‘feminine’ looking boy bunny, or really ‘masculine’ looking girl bunny, or a victimized-bunny-turned-bunnyatrix. After all, you wouldn’t want to play into perpetuating gender stereotypes by marginalizing those who fit into ‘don’t mention gender with ‘it’ around’ category would you?
Hey, look! I can manufacture convoluted nonsense just as well as you. =^_^=
Justicar – the beauty of the NBWAW handle is that one can conjure a personalized image. I see a bunny of the Hwfner vaiety.
“radical gender feminism”
What’s that?
The opposite of equality feminism, where men and women are equal. From the writings of its adherents, it involves the suppositions that men are always wrong, that disagreeing with the ideologues of the movement is being an MRA, a rape-apologist, and (if female) a gender-traitor. It sees sexism in everything (look over at the ironically-named freethoughtblogs and read about Bunnygate for just one example). Apparently it is common in some academic circles and its supporters are very vocal, very vitriolic, and not opposed to censorship, editing comments, and using smear tactics to attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with them. That seems to be about it, although I’m sure there is more to it – this is just from watching recent events.
Taking Badger’s word on it is like asking Dembski for a precis of the principles of modern evolutionary biology. If you actually read the comments of self-identified (i.e. not labelled such by feminists, but out and proud “men’s rights activists”) it’s pretty obvious that moderating comments etc. is a completely legitimate tactic to defend readers from people making light or justifying rape and sexual assault.
Then folks like Badger play devil’s advocate on the side of the MRAs and wonder why the victims of sexual assault get so upset about it. Come’on, we’re just talkin’, right?
Not strictly true Dan L, I have found that the commentators on pharyngula shouting out men who claim to have been sexually molested/raped as young boys particularly nauseating.
The problem with representative democracy (nothing is perfect) is that representatives want majority votes and not what is good or right. And since the majority are not intellectuals, they can be easily persuaded and manipulated by nationalistic identification and by fulfilling their desires. It worked for Hitler right?
Hardly surprising then, that when the emphasis of a society is on desire rather than reason, that its political system begins to fall apart and contradict itself. This is the predictable result of American politics.
And, to add insult to injury, the very worst kind of narcissistic personality and manipulator is more likely to gain power by manipulating the masses in such a way.
‘Intellectuals’ are hardly immune from pursuing irrational or damaging agendas. Plenty of intellectuals were on board with Hitler.
No, they were violently anti-intellectual. By definition, intellectual pursuits demand knowledgeable, critical thinking and questioning of all assumptions and ideologies.
All power-driven/fascist ideologies and belief systems attack critical thinking of any kind.
That’s why America hates intellectuals and is so anti-intellectual.
However, anyone using critical thinking is subject to the basic mistakes all human brains make and the serious limitations on our perceptual and cognitive abilities.
We are, after all, just a twig on the bush of monkey species.
That depends on whether the definition of intellectual is ‘well educated, intelligent individual’ or ‘someone whose core beliefs affirm mine’
There have been some studies which suggest that, statistically, highly educated, intelligent people don’t hava any better grasp of moral issues than the average person in the street.
Knowledge is not about individuals it is about processes between individuals for arriving at proof and facts.
Critical thinking is testing ideas and propositions among others. The opposite of solipsism.
Yes, “expert” predictions are effectively useless and a diverse group of people seems to make optimal decisions.
However, if you believe the man on the street is as wise as an expert, have them do medical procedures on your child when next sick and fly the airplanes you fly.
Sleeprunning,
I’m afraid you’re just wrong about the intellectuals under Hitler. The universities purged themselves of their Jewish professors; teachers (if you can call them intellectuala) were in the mass prepared to follow the Nazi curriculum.
From memory, Kershaw in ‘Nemesis’ is the source.
That should be ‘Hubris’.
No, the Nazis drove pretty much all intellectuals out of the country, at least those who mattered.
Look at the reversal in US vs. German Nobel prizes during and after the war.
Q: Why did the US develop the Bomb before Germany?
A: “Because our Jewish scientists were smarter than there German scientists.”
The Nazis did not drive pretty much all intellectuals out of the country; they drove some. Here are some of those:
Albert Einstein
Max Born
Fritz Haber
Otto Fritz Meyerhof
Theodor W. Adorno
Martin Buber
Ernst Bloch
Max Horkheimer
Ernst Cassirer
Herbert Marcuse
As I appear to have donated “Hubris” to Oxfam, and therefore can not find the source, let us take a sample of mathematicians instead.
“Between 1933 and 1934, about 18 percent of all mathematics professors were expelled, among them some of the most eminent mathematicians of the time, such as Johann von Neumann, Richard Courant, and Richard von Mises.” – Fabian Waldinger – assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Warwick.
“Quality Matters: The Expulsion of Professors and the Consequences for PhD Student outcomes in Nazi Germany” -2009-10 and then due to be published in an upcoming edition of the Journal of Political Economy.
18 per cent is not “pretty much all”. I leave aside the peculiar notion of intellectuals “who mattered”.
It would salve our amour propre if intellectuals did indeed emigrate en masse, anticipating the nightmare of Hitler’s next 12 years, but it ain’t true.
No, fascist ideologies were deeply anti-intellectual and anti-science or any critical thinking. duh
Like all science deniers and anti-critical thinkers they created false people in these categories. See they fooled you.
If you study the Nazi hierarchy and power base Gualtiers, who had the real power, you see they we simple crooks and psychopaths who would say anything to get/keep power. Their tactics were basic mafia and warlord tactics.
It’s like saying the ID and anti-climate “scientists” are real intellectuals, scientists or critical thinkers.
Believe they borrowed much from Mussolini and the Russian did the same.
Sleeprunning,
Your scorn for the Nazis doesn’t render the facts as you would like them to be. I note that you have counter-posited no evidence about the proportion of intellectuals who left Hitler’s Germany.
I’m afraid you have used the logic fallacy of begging the question, by defining as intellectuals those who left the Third Reich. Therefore your thesis can not be falsified; it is a self-replicating loop. If you want to define intellectuals as those who engaged in critical thinking, I think you will find it very difficult to distinguish on an individual basis between critical thinkers and the others. You have to define intellectuals as a class.
Of course the Gauleiters placed henchmen into the Universities because of their opposition to Jewish intellectuals and degenerate learning, but those establishments were nowhere near 100 per cent empty. The corollary of your view is that the higher education establishments of the Weimar Republic were almost totally filled with those intellectuals who, to the Nazis, were beyond the pale. It would be gratifying, were it so; but it’s not reasonable.
I suggest, given that we have had the same number of arguments and rebuttals, that we finish the conversation there; unless you particularly want to add anything, but I think I’ve had my say.
Regards.
No, again, you make the ad hominem mistake.
Critical thinkers were killed by the Nazi. It was not a matter of a “class.” Critical thinkers are killed by all tyrannies. Think of the legend of Socrates, the Russian and Chinese purges, Pol Pot — “First kill all lawyers.”.
The terror imposed on any different ideas or thinking is at the core of fascist political ideology — and many theologies, like modern extremeist Islam.
Your argument takes the Nazi propaganda at face value — as they intended.
If the argument is that critical, evidence-based, peer-reviewed thinking is a trait of fascism, that is disingenuous at best and likely delusional.
You are confusing wisdom with knowledge. Deepak Chopra is a medical doctor. I’d say that is a profession that requires knowledge. Would you say he is wise? There’s a reason we use two words that are not interchangeable. From recent events on the internet, I’ve seen some academics (the experts) act as if they lack the common sense and wisdom that many of those “man on the street” types possess. Look at what happens when experts go beyond their field (vitamin C anyone? etc) – while not mutually exclusive, there are enough differences to recognize that fact.
We don’t confuse anything. Call it vanilla fudge — all that matters is predictability.
Deepak was trained as a MD – he is a charlatan making millions playing on the fears of, mainly, sick and dying women, it appears.
The idea of folk/ancient/individual wisdom is silly pap — but always popular thus a money maker for charlatans.
OK, Sleeprunning, one last go.
I quote from “Education in Nazi Germany” by Lisa Pine. P. 34.
“The Rectors that ran the Universities were checked for reliability and compliance with the dictates of the régime. Those that were not deemed suitable were replaced. Jewish and ‘liberal’ professors were forced out of their posts. Martin Heidegger, Professor of Philosophy, was elected Rector at the University of Freiburg in April 1933…Academic autonomy in teaching and research was subordinated to the interests of The Nazi state. By 1934, approximately 1,600 out of 5,000 university teachers had been dismissed. Many German academics emigrated. The sciences were particularly hard hit…Still, most university professors remained in their posts and many of them were supportive of the National Socialist government.”
Over and out.
PZ writes on Twitter:
Others may accept his apology. I don’t. Until he accepts that non-Christians can freely mock Christianity, it’s a not-pology.
If Andy’s apology does not imply that non-Christians can mock Christians freely, then what does?
He didn’t kiss PZ’s ass enough. He didn’t properly prostrate himself and beg forgiveness for the sins of every religious person that ever has lived, is living and will live.
He will NEVER apologize enough for PZ.
+1
What if the sign said ‘No coloureds, Irish or gays, would you be of the same mind? The fact that you seem to be on an anti-P Z Myers campaign doesn’t negate the discrimination here. Are we forever to hold out a one way olive branch? They get their authority from god, an authority that cannot be questioned, only subdued or marginalized for the rest of us to live in peace. I have little time for P Z Myers and his gender feminist clones at FTB’s but I’m comfortable with the fact that he is inside the tent pissing outside of the tent.
Sorry, but the guy apologized and took the sign down and seems to have realized the error of his ways. But he’s still not given the slightest benefit of the doubt: see this Twitter post.
I’m not on an anti-PZ campaign either; where does THAT come from? But we’ve differed on some stuff from time to time (e.g. can there be proof of God?) and his treatment of “Gelato Guy” after the latter’s apology is one of them. I think there’s enough evidence to extend the olive branch to GG.
The guy apologized after he had a pain in the wallet my scenario above is still feasible. We atheists are still the devil for existing. You live in the USA imagine living in some backwater part of it where this culture and mindset is still the norm, it’s no wonder some atheists are still in the closet. Their beliefs don’t change only the fight back against them stops the expression of them from being so open. I’m never going to visit that part of the USA and I wouldn’t eat such a sickly product even if I did, so his apology doesn’t matter to me either way.
Though I’m glad the atheist community flexed its Internet muscle and just because I don’t want this guy ground into the dust, as we have seen that it works so we should concentrate it on the theists with more power and influence. Accept his apology by all means but let him know it is because we consider him of little consequence and we have bigger fish to fry.
Flexed our internet muscle? Is now a bad time to note that the decision on his part to remove the sign preceded the said internet muscle flexing business?
Or do you suppose we marshaled together enough our heavylifters? in the space of 10 minutes, mounted a campaign that made him recognize the egregiousness of his crimes against conventioneers the world over?
But yeah, you run (with scissors) with that we made him change him ways thing by applying pressure to him after he’d on his own volition already remedied the situation.
What I want to know is what these “internet muscles” did in person? Did anyone of these vocal chair-warriors do anything other than whine and complain? Which of these internet writers who were at Skepticon actually go up to the guy and talk to him?
What I see in this whole issue is the complete lack of perspective in some people. That and the culture of victimhood that some people seem determined to promote – it’s much easier to mobilize the base when you keep them stirred up and angry, whether it is justified or not. Do we have to have a “tea party of atheism”?
What “pain in the wallet”? Was skepticon accidently a significant chunk of this guy’s income?
Doubtful, and unless you’ve proof, don’t say it is.
Is Springfield MO a hotbed of sekret atheist activity? Having lived for a few years in MO, again, doubtful. In KC or St.L, sure. SPRINGFIELD? Again, doubtful. Heck, YOU’LL never go there anyway, so your opinion has exactly zero weight to the guy.
You’re saying in the space of ten minutes the sign was up, plus MAYBE a day or so of internet kvetching, NONE OF WHICH was done in person mind you, the “mighty internet muscles of the atheist community” flexed and caused this guy actual fiscal pain?
(It’d have to be internet muscle. Evidently, no one attending skepticon was feeling particularly muscle-y while they were there. I guess they were out of spinach, fortitude and courage in springfield.)
Could you be ANY more delusional about how much pull you think you have? Oy Gevault.
Of course now, PZ’s calling for a not-boycott, wherein he’ll never eat there, (did he ever? If not, this again, will affect the guy exactly zero. a non-customer continuing to be a non-customer is a non-problem. There’s zero money to lose), and any right thinking atheists will ALSO never eat there. Really, from the bearded one himself:
So now, to be “any kind of atheist” you have to not buy gelato from a shop the VAST majority of you will never be near. (Unless you go to Missouri State University, i’m highly doubtful this is anything but theoretical to you. the vast majority of non k-12 .edu in Springfield is religious, as are the majority of high schools for that matter. The atheist community in Springfield outside of MSU is, i think, kind of small.)
But it’s NOT A BOYCOTT. It’s just someone saying you shouldn’t be a customer there if you’re “any kind of atheist”. Which is completely different from a boycott. For reasons which DON’T BLOODY EXIST.
What if the sign had said “No smurfs or neckbeards”? What if the sign had said “your penis must be THIS BIG to buy my gelato, the teeny-peenied are not welcome”. What if, what if, what if.
I have no, none, zero interest in what if’ing this into the inquisition, which some folks in this “discussion” already had. In the space of ten-15 minutes a dude made a dumb decision, reversed it, and then in a little while longer apologized twice.
But now, it’s about him not recognizing SPECIFIC rights. Of course, how would he have to word his apology? I bet it would be awesome. That’s PZ. Some of you want him to write an essay on the persecution of the non-religious in america. Some want him to acknowledge the entire world.
Some of the prats on FTB want him to donate money first. That’s right, with how many of you saying “HE ONLY DID IT BECAUSE OF MONEY, NOT ACCEPTED” there’s a big chunk of that saying “BUT MONEY WILL MAKE IT BETTER”.
How.
Sincere.
So spare me the what ifs. I can what if a ladybug into global thermonuclear war given enough time. Doesn’t mean a ladybug’s the end of the world.
Let’s put this more aptly, since, alas, ‘skepticon’ isn’t a category like coloreds, Irish or gays. Imagine if he’d written, “STAR TREK CONVENTION NOT ALLOWED IN MY CHRISTIAN STORE”.
What then?
C’mon, get that outrage primed and deal with things that are close analogues, not some distant, possibly related predicate like “PEOPLE NAMED STEVEN, WITH A ‘PH’ NOT ALLOWED IN MY CHRISTIAN STORE’, or some such.
I wish you would keep the ERVist vs FTB’s wars elsewhere can’t someone comment on a subject without being dragged into a shit storm of stupidity.
1. No one is required to accept an apology. PZ is allowed to think the guy is a jerk. It’s still a free country.
2. When GelataGuy indicates he actually understands what freedom of belief means, then PZ will probably change his mind. That has not happened yet. The only thing GG understands is that atheists are a group that can’t be freely abused.
Which, in itself, is a fantastic improvement. So kudos to PZ and crew for getting us respect, even if means we can’t all be kissy-kissy.
I was forced to accept an apology once. A classmate was crying and brought a faculty member to harrass me during class, in public.
Of course leaving it suitably vague so that the impression given was that I had wronged her in some way, in order to shame me into compliance quickly.
The irony being that I had instantly forgiven her the very minor slight, but without enough grovel and fanfare to be convincing.
In the end, her apology was what I couldn’t forgive.
Well, when you perfect that mind-reading device, let us know. Until then, I guess we just have to take people at their words and actions to approximate what they understand. You’re right about the apology, though, and if anyone doesn’t want to accept it…so what? Why have a big hissy fit over it and let all the world know that IT IS NOT ENOUGH!
Seriously, if someone wants to be that childish, go for it. Just don’t expect adults to treat it seriously.
If you think that GG doesn’t understand freedom of belief, but he understands that atheists can’t be pushed around…how is that respect? Sounds more like fear. But if that’s what you really want – you can keep it. I’ll work on the real respect if it comes down to it. Fear helps no one in the long run, as any teacher worth their salt should know.
PZ wrote (in response to a suggestion) something about a hypothetical ice-cream party thrown by Andy at skepticon V where it might be sufficient if PZ, Ophelia, and a few others could say nasty things to Andy’s face about his god.
Of course, one notes that they had this option available while at Skepticon IV, but like the cowardly internet hero PZ is, he managed to miss that roughly 18 hour window to say it in person. No, that kind of in-your-face brutality is best left for one’s blog days later, you see.
But it does bring in the ad revenue at FreeFromThoughtBlogs, which is dash cunning if you ask me.
Or, could it possibly be that PZ didn’t think of that until days later? Hmm?
You are so quick to hitch your horse to the anti-PZ bandwagon that your thoughts are hopelessly clouded when it comes to anything related to his posts.
Well, what did PZ and the rest of the internet tough crew do in person? I assume they must have gone down there in person, demanded they speak to GG, explain their position, gave reasons, maybe helped educate him? Or did they wait and write what they would have done when they were safely away, hidden behind a shield of the internet?
So let’s do the right thing – put together a way to get PZ to go to the store, and have a live broadcast of the meeting, where everything is recorded for posterity. That way we can actually work to resolve the situation instead of a lot of internet posturing. Put the money where the mouth is.
I think the initial response to GelatoGate was perfectly reasonable. It’s messed up that this guy’s knee jerk reaction was to illegally bar people from his establishment. But he apologized multiple times to multiple people. I think he’s done more than enough to atone. PZ’s “you can’t ever make this right” stance seems incredibly unreasonable. There should be real benefits for people realizing their mistakes and growing better for them. If it’s clear that the atheist community never lets go of past mistakes, then it gives our opponents less incentive to admit their mistakes and try amend past grievances.
Keep in mind that the only continued ‘punishment’ PZ is specifically going to inflict on the gelato shop owner is that he, PZ, will not go into that gelato shop to buy gelato. No other campaign or call to arms. That’s not exactly persecution.
As I understand it, PZ’s concern is that a despised minority which is too quick to accept apologies from a majority in power grants that majority less incentive to stop making “mistakes” in the first place. Maybe. On a personal basis, I’d accept the apology — but I’m not sure the larger perspective is wrong.
No, no, that’s not what PZ wants. PZ wants NO ONE to accept this guy’s apology. If it was just PZ, why say things like “No, fuck this guy into the ground” on twitter?
(of course, it’s only over the internet that PZ says such things)
I can understand the “you shouldn’t ever have done it” part of the equation, but “nothing you could say or do could ever make it right” really goes out into the stratosphere. Yes, Big Picture, but not Big Picture über alles.
At long last, what do people want from him, anyhow?
I could never sincerely apologize to anyone who would do nothing more than throw my apology back in my face – at least, not more than once.
Ho! Boo hoo. The rebuttal they used to use (and still would if they could get away with it) was burning at the stake and the inquisition. So forgive me if I don’t care if GG goes out of business as he has made his bed so let him lie on it. If you think for a moment he was sincere then that is very nice of you but until the god virus is removed from his brain then it is not very helpful.
What people want from him is recognition of why we have freedom of belief in the first place.
That is conspicuously missing from his apology. Yes, he said he was sorry; but only because it was “wrong” (i.e. he was punished for it). GG did not reveal the sudden illumination of “Hey, I don’t want people to boycott my shop because they don’t like my religious views, so maybe I shouldn’t boycott their business because I don’t like their reviews!”
Seriously, there is a difference between an apology and an education. PZ has no interest in an apology. He wants the guy to get an education. Once the guy has an education, no apology is necessary.
+1
What I’m hearing that’s disturbing me is a fair amount of:
* Impugning his motives as only malicious and self-serving
* Implying he’s “only thinking of his business”
* Vengeful salivation at the thought that he might go out of business
* Fantasies of someone suing him
* He’s “lucky we don’t do worse”
* He hasn’t been “taught enough of a lesson”
For Ken Ham, I’m completely on board. For Gelato Guy, I’m not going to participate in “Who Can Hold the Biggest Grudge”
It really feels like folks are dehumanizing him in order to prove a point. There are important take-aways from the story without railroading him into the role of The Other.
Offence-mongering is a very slippery slope.
As one of my friends said when Glenn Hoddle was sacked, if someone says something which you think is offensive then the correct response is to think less of them. That’s it.
Absolutely. As rationalists, we’re very fond of saying “no-one has the right not to be offended”. We should practice what we preach (as it were)
That’s correct, but the key word there is right, not “offended”. No one is saying that the religious aren’t allowed to get offended — the issue is whether there should be some state prohibition against others offending them. Likewise, no one is saying that the religious should not be allowed to say and do stupid things that offend atheists, just that they should be called out when they do stupid offensive things.
Rights are (in part) about the state allowing and preventing certain kinds of behaviours from others that impinge on you. That’s orthogonal to the issue of whether you can take offence.
It’s not orthogonal, it’s parallel. No-one is discussing state intervention, but rather that Xians (and other religious groups) often ACT as though they have the right not to be offended, and I’m stating that rationalists should not fall into the same trap.
OK, but I don’t see where anyone really has actually done so, even in GelatoGate.
My comment was a response to TJR’s, not a comment on the issue as a whole.
Which in turn was a semi-reaction to some of the comments above, which seem to be a semi-reaction to this gelatogate thing.
I’ve no idea what gelatogate is. Or indeed what gelato is.
When you don’t know what something is, the only correct response is, “Is it tasty?”
And the answer would be, “Yes, gelato is tasty.”
TJR.
Poor analogy as when Glenn Hoddle included his faith healer in the England team set up, one of the players (Paul Merson) said short back and sides please:-) Then he was never picked again. Woolly thinking should never have a impact on reality but it does if the believer in woo lets it impact on their decision making.
Fair enough, although I thought it was Ray Parlour?
On the other hand, the stated reason for his sacking wasn’t the interference, it was the “offensiveness”.
On the third hand, the stated reason may not be the real reason, as with Mike Gatting and the waitress.
Excellent article.
The reasons this is done are much more mundane:
– Focus group research
– Show that sob stories
– Trigger immediate empathy and warm fuzzy feelings in the audience. Think Oprah and Jerry Springer.
– They also trigger fear, the BEST motivator, especially among conservatives and religious
– Likely the hyper-religious have had tragic lives (based on genetic illnesses likely) and so are active in magical beliefs to relieve psychic pain.
Political marketing and sales 101. Ho hum. Just a variation on “Crying wolf.”
Everyone has an opportunity to learn. The Gelato guy MUST be given the benefit of the doubt. I have done and said things in my life that I realized was wrong. In these cases I tried to do my best to apologize and change my behavior in the future.
I am afraid PZ is going off the rails these days and this kind of angry vengeful behavior is not acceptable. He is not helping.
Either you’re using that final sentence ironically, or you have no idea about its history in the Accommodationist Wars (see the “Tom Johnson Affair”).
There is a big difference between accommodation and accepting an apology. Gelatoguy apologized. Continuing to attack him is lame and shows how much PZ enjoys his trading on perpetual victim-hood. (and he must really enjoy seeking vengeance… not a good trait inn my book)
Camels with Hammers has a measured explanation of why he doesn’t think gelato-guy ought to be forgiven, I found it convincing. I live in Australia so it’s hardly a big issue for me but there you go.
So what do you suggest? Gelatoguy now must buy us all free Gelato? PZ would throw it back in the guy’s face. Nice try. PZ is acting like a school yard bully, which I think he enjoys.
A schoolyard bully? Did he go beat up the store owner? PZ gave his opinion on a blog, which was that the apology was insincere. Big deal. Think you might be overreacting just a bit?
We can disagree on this. I am okay with that. I have said my peace and I stick by it.
Oh joy, you are okay with that. Your peace [sic] is nonsense.
A classy ending… pick on my spelling. haha. Had to get in your last little bash. Good for you.
We suggest that GelatoGuy suffers from discrimination for being a member of a class until he _understands_ why discriminating against classes is wrong.
GelatoGuy will, himself, decide when that moment comes. When he does, he will no longer be terribly concerned about whether or not PZ accepts his apology, because he’ll _understand_ the issues at stake.
What Marella suggests, for the illiterate, is that “Gelatoguy” shouldn’t be forgiven. What this would mean in practice is that nobody would commit the verb of forgiving him.
It doesn’t mean that Gelatoguy must do anything. There is no relevance.
It doesn’t mean that Gelatoguy will become the prince of Preussen. There is no relevance.
It doesn’t mean that a horde of hellmonkeys cause his kitchen to fail a health-inspection, putting him out of business. There is no relevance.
It’s a simple plan without fanciful trapdoors.
1) Gelatoguy is not forgiven.
2) See 1).
3) ????
4) See 1).
5) Nothing!
“commit the gerund of forgiving him.”
A pedant’s work is never done!
😀
I guess you must be a visitor from opposite land where white is black and up is down.
Let me help you out.
PZ said he is not out to persecute this man nor does he want anyone else to do so in his behalf. He clearly stated that it was not a big deal but he wasn’t inclined to forgive him.
But why do you feel that it’s important to forgive someone if they offer an apology? The concept of apologies and forgiveness has been contaminated by Christianity. Jesus said turn the other cheek. Fucking stupid. The Catholics make a practice of sinning then casually confessing only to repeat the cycle as it suits them. Fucking meaningless. How many times have you been insulted in some way only to hear “I was only kidding” or “I said I was sorry” in that kind of tone that implies that you are somehow at fault for complaining in the first place.
Our culture has made the quick apology the get out of jail free card. Notice Newt Gingrich, the hypocrite weasel who makes a point of honor of divorcing 2 wives, one in the hospital, just because he followed those actions with asking God for forgiveness (supposedly) and telling us how all this was hard on him and that he really learned from it. I wonder what his sick ex-wife learned and how hard it was for her that Newt had to endure all that.
I think, and maybe PZ does too, that this forgiveness thing is just a little too knee-jerk. It seems like lip service. This is not something that those of you that are making up shit about vengeance & vilification need to concern yourselves with. It’s not that big of deal. Unless you choose to unthinkingly value the shallow morals of the religious majority.
This was supposed to be a response to John D.
From the apology:
I don’t think that – and the rest of the apology – are comparable to the “I was only kidding” scenario. We’ve seen plenty enough of the latter out of pundits, candidates, shock jocks and even accommodationists over the past many years – skeptics’ pages have such stories plastered all over them.
Wow trou – you don’t believe in forgiveness? really? okay…. your choice I guess. Just cause Jesus talked about forgiveness doesn’t mean it is a bad idea. I am pretty sure Jesus also thought greed was a bad thing too. Do you disagree with this (because Jesus said it).
I am no fan of the sermon on the mount. Most of it is crap in my opinion, but claiming the concept of forgiveness is crap because it is part of the sermon on the mount is really odd.
and also, I am not saying we should forgive every offense. I am saying we should forgive some offenses. Especially when someone makes a plea that they were wrong and have learned and will not repeat the offensive behavior.
Wow John D, you really don’t have much of a handle on reading comprehension do you. My point was that in our Christian contaminated society the apology is seen as a magic button that when pushed magically gets to undue whatever was done and one has to accept the apology or be considered the one with bad form. I said nothing of not believing in forgiveness. I simply pointed out that falling in line with the Christian perversion of the concept without thinking was causing you to bellow about persecution, vengeance and bullying when this was not true. The apology button was pushed and you acted the fool.
Think instead and resist the urge to fall in line with the religious. PZ was not personally wronged in the affair. He just pointed it out on his blog as an example of common thinking among goddists who think their beliefs more privileged than others.
The fact that GG read his post and offered another apology doesn’t mean that PZ now has been drawn into the affair and now must accept the apology.
Why don’t you think about what an apology means, what it would accomplish and why it would be important. You just seem unhinged by the thought that the apology button has been pushed and it must be attended to.
Haven’t you ever ignored the door bell when you were in no mood to deal with the JW’s or fund raisers?
You are correct trou. You did not claim that forgiveness does not exist. I wrongly stretched this point. Rather, you actually think Christianity has polluted the idea of forgiveness. Hmmmm. Not sure about that. When the Buddhist Tiger Woods asks for forgiveness and then seeks a secular solution (sex addiction and therapy) are we to blame this all on “those Christians?” Most of my Christian friends would blame this on Americans who are spoon fed stories from the media and an over-use of pop-psychology.
Of course, it is up to PZ to decide how to react. He has choices and I respect that. I just disagree with him as I have stated before. I think he enjoys playing the victim card too much and is vengeful. I guess it is my choice to decide if I should judge PZ’s behavior just as PZ believes he will judge Gelatoguy. We all judge each other… that’s how the system works.
I do disagree with Jeff Spaceman on greed, insofar as the word is used as something neutral. If the word is used as “bad thing”, the resoning that it is bad makes a nice, tight circle.
Better than excellent. This piece is fantasimo. Thanks for posting it.
I particularly like your concluding remarks. You’ve got nice-sized ones!
~Rev. El
Thank you for this post, and particularly for those last two paragraphs. I don’t want to be a part of any atheist identity politics, and would rather spend my time and money at Gelato Mio than listening to that unfunny mock-preacher. As a (loosely defined) humanist, I
prefer to try to see the good in people.
Awww aren’t you (Rik G) and revelmundo so nice and inoffensive. Lucky you are both not women (assumptions don’t you just love them) and where not born into middle age Christianity (or now if you live in the good old USA) or present day Middle east. I wouldn’t want you two watching my back. Still carry on mocking the ebil, libral atheists as that will solve all the worlds problems.
There are plenty of times when a combative
attitude is appropriate, but I don’t happen
to think this is one of them. Sorry if my
attitude isn’t macho enough for you; I guess
you’ll have to solve all the worlds problems
without me. Carry on!
I disagree because we are dealing with a particulate mindset here so every battle has to be fought to the bitter end. Thought I do apologize for the aggressive nature of my last post as that was unnecessary.
jay wrote:
My response to the over sensitive atheists is the same as to the religious… get over it.
I think it’s rather naive for anyone to think that it’s even possible for atheists to be overly sensitive, or feel unjustifiably victimized, in the US. In a country that includes privileges for religion in every area of the law and in just about every law that is written, a country where organized religions spend $400 million dollars a year lobbying Congress in order to preserve their privileges, all of which is exempt from reporting rules that apply to everyone else, and a country where national politicians routinely trash nonbelievers, how is it possible to be overly sensitive? Separation of church and state has long since disappeared in the US and it’s only natural that nonbelievers feel victimized. Because they are.
I think it’s rather naive for anyone to think that it’s even possible for atheists to be overly sensitive, or feel unjustifiably victimized, in the US.
Sounds like a recipe for abandoning critical thinking. Why wouldn’t it be possible for US atheists to feel unduly victimized in a particular situation, unlike other, fallible human beings?
For example, if someone were to argue that US atheists are as victimized as this guy, would that be justified?
http://www.iheu.org/iheu-calls-asylum-pakistani-atheist
I’m not sure I understand you. My point was that atheists are far more victimized than this guy ever was, victimized by suffering under the uncountable religious privileges that are codified in US laws. Atheists should feel victimized because they are.
You didn’t simply say “atheists are victimised”, you implied that it’s not possible for atheists to feel unjustifiably victimised in the US. I’m not sure how you get from the first to the second.
I guess I wasn’t clear. I meant it wasn’t possible for atheists to feel *unjustifiably* victimized. They are justified in feeling victimized.
It was perfectly clear. Some people are just looking for any reason to misunderstand, so they can tell you off.
Yet another accommodationist telling you to interpret other’s words generously while interpreting yours narrowly.
I would issue an irony alert but it’s just par for the course these days.
“Accommodationist”? LOL. No, I honestly didn’t understand why tomh had to bring “not even possible” into it.
Looks like you’re yet another false dichotomy pusher – ‘if you disagree you must be one of those other guys that we don’t like!’ Now, THAT is a recipe for abandoning critical thinking.
Wow tomh – you must walk sideways with that gigantic chip on your shoulder. How do we make progress with being accepted if we don’t accept someone who gives us an apology? You leave no way out for them. I used to think gays shouldn’t marry. I was wrong and I admit it. Does this mean my gay nephew should never forgive me?
Well, just don’t try to solve it via a heartfelt, loving episode of ‘Touched By An Uncle’, and I think we can call it good.
you also said, and I quote:
Yeah. That’s rational. That right there says “no matter how over the top our reactions, THEY’RE OKAY”.
Rock.
On.
John C. Welch wrote:
That’s rational. That right there says “no matter how over the top our reactions, THEY’RE OKAY”.
After a string of meaningless comments mostly bashing PZ, you finally say something sensible (by accident, of course). In the US, religion is privileged beyond belief. Perhaps you’re from somewhere else, so I’ll explain. Virtually all our laws and government regulations are written with exemptions and privileges for organized religion. Taxes, zoning, copyrights, child abuse laws, health and safety laws, immigration; this barely scratches the surface, there is no area of law that doesn’t privilge religion. The effect on secularists is to greatly increase their tax burdens, to disadvantage them trying to compete with church-run businesses, to subsidize things like faith healing paid for by our taxes through Medicare, and much more. So yes, no matter what the reaction of secularists to persecution is, it can’t compete with the actual facts of religious privilege in the US.
Tomh, did you really just say, “So yes, no matter what the reaction of secularists to persecution is, it can’t compete with the actual facts of religious privilege in the US.”?
‘Behead those who insult The Prophet’ ring a bell? That one must contend with unpleasant situations is no license whatever to excuse any and all behavior on their part. Your line of thinking is precisely analogous to that of the most wing-nut religious fanatic one could care to avoid meeting.
You have just argued that the ends justify the means. Actually, you’ve been arguing that for a while now and when called on it you, in short, say, “NO I DIDN’T MEANT THAT. I ONLY MEANT THAT THE ENDS DO JUSTIFY THE MEANS, SEE?”
windy wrote:
No, I honestly didn’t understand …
I know, it was poorly expressed.
In Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials: the Rise of Irrationalism and the Perils of Piety — which came out in the late 90’s — Wendy Kaminer bemoans the incredible emphasis placed on personal experience over more objective evidence by a growing tendency to co-mingle religion and individualistic pop psychology. Science and reason are inferior “ways of knowing” because they’re not personal enough. You need to believe in whatever is deeply felt to be true.
It’s a very good book, and just as relevant today.
Thanks for the suggestion Sastra – It think this “ways of knowing” thinking is one of the reasons I can’t stand Oprah. She makes my skin crawl. Her entire style of storytelling has no reliance on fact or analysis. It is simply a form of “truth” because the storyteller claims it is so.
I find myself less than impressed with the freethoughtblogs crew. PZ is prone to take unusual stances, which is fine in itself but he gratuitously demonizes dissenters.
The same is true of the odd Almost Diamonds person, who seems to claim that Dawkins advocates sexual assault, or something.
It’s a weird group which does not represent my idea “free thought” blogging.
Yeah – PZ has a thread that is 300 posts long where everyone is fighting about a bunny cartoon and the fact that it was the “female” bunny that was the foolish character. Yep… 300 post arguing about how this may or may not be misogyny. Yikes! It makes my brain hurt. It looks out of control to me.
So PZ is “off the rails,” “he is not helping,” he’s a “schoolyard bully,” and now he has the nerve to allow comments (300 of them, no less!) about misogyny. One wonders what the source is of this strange obsession you have with PZ.
Equally, one is curious why you come to his rescue and defense as quickly as any Christian does his inept god. It’s okay if you have a hero-crush on PZ; you just needn’t boast about it quite so often. =^_^=
Woohoo! Tu quoque is fun fun fun!
+1
also, one is curious as to why those critiquing PZ failed to notice he himself was not happy with the sidetracking regarding the bunny cartoon, or subsequent issues, and made a mention of it several times.
why, one might almost think you pay no attention to what the man says at all.
oh, that’s right, you don’t.
move that one level up; it’s directed at JohnD not Tomh.
I”m sure I’ve mentioned how much I hate nested comments.
“he has the nerve to allow comments (300 of them, no less!) about misogyny.”
Misogyny? No it was about a reaction to perceived sexism by hysterical ideologues concerning a cartoon about bunnies. A reaction that even Myers seems to be embarrassed about.
“One wonders what the source is of this strange obsession you have with PZ.”
Given your posts here your complaints about an “obsession with PZ” is clearly an example of projection..
While I don’t agree with PZ about his unforgiveness, I do like that he stepped in and told folks to calm the heck down about reading misogyny into the cartoon.
Cripes – these days, you can drop a single choice sentence over at PZ’s place and expect 150 comments on it. Some people deserve their lugs be scudded, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own and devolves into an offense-taking contest to the point where you might as well skip everything past the article save for the Sastra and Cuttlefish comments. It’s going to make for prime hunting grounds for trolls very shortly if it hasn’t already.
I don’t remember it being that crazy last year… what happened?
If you’re anything like me, you simply didn’t notice it because the bad arguments were being made against those with whom you also happened to disagree, and so you subconsciously gave them a pass. If you go back and read some older threads with fresh, critical eyes, I think you’ll find that the rot started loooong ago.
Wait what? It looks like you’re wondering whether trolls will eventually visit Pharyngula. Tell me I misinterpret.
Aaah, naivete. He reminds me of me before the weight of the world (and one too many linkings to Goatse) crushed my spirit.
The root of the obsessive PZ bashing from John D might come from the fact that John D is banned at Pharyngula, with the apt description of “One of those obtuse MRA types; too stupid to tolerate.”
tomh – I am indeed banned. I was kicked out because I was disagreeing with the hoard of abusive bloggers on his site. I was called a “rapist, misogynist, wife abuser”. The worst I called anyone was “nitwit”. Since I was arguing with the hoard PZ banned me. What he is left with is a bunch of protected abusers on his blog. Just watch it yourself. Don’t take my word for it. He has hundreds of comments on a post about the “misogyny” of a bunny cartoon. I tried to warn him as have many others. He has a moronic monster on his hands now.
It’s not easy to get banned at Pharyngula. Out of thousands of commenters less than 50 are banned, yet you managed it. Now you are reduced to trolling other blogs in order to bash PZ. Sad.
You call be a troll? Based on what evidence? You have stalked my background but have done no work to determine if my story is true. If you want to accuse me of something you should do the research. I have done no trolling here. I simply state my honest opinion. This is not trolling. Perhaps you should look up the definition of trolling before you accuse me… please start there.
Actually, it doesn’t take anything to be banned now. People who have been posting on other websites have been banned – look for ERVs “Kyles mom” thread, read the 5000+ comments – go around 5k for the latest bannings, read the comments there, then go to PZ and see what comments are there. It doesn’t take anything to be banned, but it really is just disagreeing with people there that will do it. The echo chamber effect is sad.
Hell, for all I know I’ve been labeled with the same names (MRA, etc), and probably banned as well, although since PZ started his obnoxious log in system at SB I haven’t posted anything in a long, long time.
Rationality and critical thinking should suggest looking for evidence before accepting someone’s take on things. It seems that a lot of the vocal part of the “freethought” community forget this.
“Actually, it doesn’t take anything to be banned now. People who have been posting on other websites have been banned”
This is true and there is plenty of evidence for it.
Myers use of “freethought” for part of his domain name is *exactly* like the Discovery Institute’s use of “discovery” or Christian Science’s use of “science”.
False advertising.
Their actual beliefs are the opposite of what those respected terms mean.
*sigh*
This sentiment has been proven wrong every time it is trotted out. Face it, you may not like the reasons why some people were banned, but there were reasons.
Badger3k wrote:
Rationality and critical thinking should suggest looking for evidence before accepting someone’s take on things.
Anyone can look in the dungeon on Pharyngula and see a list of who is banned. Less than 50 out of many thousands, and some of them date back for years. That is evidence. Perhaps it is not as easy to get banned as you think.
Uhhh… tomh: if you think the “dungeon” is anything close to a comprehensive list of those who are banned there, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Tristan wrote:
if you think the “dungeon” is anything close to a comprehensive list of those who are banned …
Really? Are you one that is banned but not in the dungeon? Because it seems like you should do your complaining about PZ on Pharyngula, if you could, but I guess you had to find another blog to troll so you could whine about PZ and Pharyngula.
To anyone still following along, note how quickly and easily tomh’s argument changes. From:
immediately to (paraphrasing) “aww, are your poor widdle feelings hurt from being banned?”
This is not an honest way to conduct an argument.
… also, thousands? Hah. Thousands of comments, sure. The vast bulk are contributed by the same few dozen in-group members.
tomh, prepare to laugh and check this out.
hehe, good find. — Why am I not surprised?
So… tomh – it has just been proven to you that PZ, rather than banning people, filters their posts so all the vowels are removed.
This proves that people are effectively banned (and also mocked) without going to the “dungeon”.
At the same time PZ claims that everyone that is banned goes to the “dungeon”.
And rather than calling PZ deceptive, you think it is funny. and this is all in the name of “freethought”.
Well, we know you are banned, for being, “too stupid to tolerate.” Whine on.
What you know is that PZ banned me and called me an “MRA” and “too stupid to tolerate”. What you have also done is decided to have “faith” in PZ’s criticism (personal criticism I must add) and not decide for yourself if I am rightfully judged. You should count yourself as one of the members of the PZ cult of personality. Congratulations on being such a fine example of modern “freethought.”
Ooooh, I see. I wan’t banned, I was just disemvowelled and warned that if I kept posting I would be banned. Wll, tht mks ll th dffrnc, dsn’t t?
All for the horrendous crime of a) posting at ERV, and b) very mildly poking fun.
I shall now reproduce the offending comment here. Avert your eyes, lest you be overcome by the vapours!
ahem
“PZ’s right, you know. This thread is at least on a par with GelatoGate, and is rapidly approaching ElevatorGate levels of ridiculousness.”
I know, I know. Horrible, right?
Oh, and PZ: don’t worry about little old me. My feelings aren’t hurt, and I’m not prone to whining. I am, however, prone to pointing out stupidity, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty where I see it. Perhaps one day you’ll understand that again.
I’m not prone to whining
your many whinges over many blogs suggests otherwise.
Ichthyic, dude… your crew have just spent the better part of a year agonising over an inept proposition in an elevator, a pissed-off gelato store manager and now a freaking cartoon bunny in a dress. Glass houses? Stones?
your crew have just spent the better part of a year agonising over an inept proposition in an elevator
one, there is no “crew”.
two, I myself had little to say on the subject
three, if you really think it was about an inept proposition in an elevator, you’re even more clueless than I had previously gathered.
Heh – you can bring Pavlov’s dogs to the bell, and you can make them salivate.
No, elevatorgate was not just about a proposition in an elevator. Just like gelatogate and bunnygate, it was also about escalation, demonisation, wilful misinterpretation, dogmatic thinking and plain old bone-headed idiocy.
Look, I get it. I lurked on Pharyngula for many, many years. To my shame, it wasn’t until the argument shifted to something that I wasn’t invested in that I realised what was going on: if someone disagrees with the Horde, they are the enemy. The enemy deserves no mercy.
Go to Pharyngula today and you’ll see blatantly bad/dishonest arguments against “MRA’s” going without comment or correction. Go back a year or three, and you’ll see blatantly bad/dishonest arguments against theists going without comment or correction.
No matter what the opponent,if you can’t argue honestly you’re doing yourself a disservice.
Heh – you can bring Pavlov’s dogs to the bell, and you can make them salivate.
translation:
“I can troll this blog all day long and still amuse myself!”
uh huh.
good job making sure nobody will ever pay attention to what you say ever again.
No, not this blog. Just you, it seems.
Tristan wrote:
Go to Pharyngula today and you’ll see … blah, blah, blah.
And yet you still go there. And then go on other blogs to whine about it. Amazing.
(subscribing)
Just reproducing PZ’s “warning” here in the interests of full clarity:
Apparently that’s not a banning. Well, who woulda thunk it?
No, it’s a “No Trespassing” sign, not a constraining order. I’m not sure how it’s hard to tell the difference.
Heh – well, glad we’ve got that cleared up, then.
dude…
SHUT. UP.
you are so damn boring. The only one who really puts up with your nonsense apparently is ERV, and it’s really only for the fact that you whinge so ubiquitously, it extends her post counts significantly.
Look, can we stop the insults like this here? Really, comments like this add nothing to the discussion.
Freedom of speech until someone says something you dislike. Then they must be quiet and go away.
This is why I like the ACLU more than most groups. They defend freedom of speech for EVERYONE, including groups they normally disagree with.
It’s a good standard, one you might consider following.
Request to management and administration:
Is there as way we could just have all the comments fighting (including this one) over who has and who hasn’t the right to post at Pharyngula tucked away in a separate thread somewhere? Frankly, it does not seem to be up to the usual edifying standards of this weblog, and seems to be very quickly degenerating in the kind of fistfight not usually seen here.
I’m out of the country and can reply only briefly. All I can say is yes, this thread has degenerated into discussion that seems to be unproductive, and yes, it’s not up to our usual standards. I’d ask people to cease the argument or take it offline.
Thanks,
mgmt.
Weblog? Now them’s some fighting words!
I’ve said my piece. Sorry if it was unwelcome here.
liar.
I said, STOP THIS KIND OF TALK. We don’t call each other liars on this site! I’m serious. I haven’t been around to monitor comments much, but I won’t put up with this.
Jerry – thanks for ‘stepping in.’ One of the reasons that I, and no doubt many others, read the comments on your site and not PZ’s is that they are generally thoughtful, sometimes informative, and even witty and humorous now and then. I believe that it is possible and proper to show that someone is wrong without name-calling and verbal intimidation.
+ 1