Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to complain about the fact that Katie Kish doesn’t like my kind. I am quite certain that the universe has a law that requires that everyone find me likable, and I am surprised that the internets allow disagreement. I would appreciate your attention on this matter as I consider this deeply offensive.
(OK, yeah, atheist meetings need much more diversity, and more spokespeople would be great so everyone doesn’t have to look at the same faces all the time. But we have to respect “spirituality”? Yuck. Bleh. Empty noise.)
It’s okay, PZ. I’m sure there are a FEW other people who like you.
In fact if you’re not careful, you may eventually find yourself being unexpectedly hugged after speaking events by matronly atheist women who will insist on finding you “cuddly.” I understand Isaac Asimov had the same problem.
Hm,PZ,that link above has my Firefox having a nervous breakdown and babble about malicious code and dangerous content and all…..
Oh,and this snippet,(after ignoring the content warnings):
//A good example is something going on at a blog I was reading where people just can’t wrap their head around the fact that people can be spiritual, and not be religious//
reminds one of The Brenda doesnt it LOL
One thing that’s interesting is the blatant nationalistic overtones that some people have. They carry their nationalism as though it were religion. I know a few atheists who are so proudly nationalistic, they can’t see anything beyond it. What’s interesting however is that there are real grounds for a decent discussion. Unlike spirituality, which perhaps gives some people comfort but is grounded in bullshit, nationalism also substitutes comfort to people in some ways, but the grounds for debate as far as its usefulness are wide open. It’s difficult to have an intelligent discussion when someone starts mentioning their spirituality. But the fact that philosophical ideas are ripe for rigorous discussion is exciting. The fact that you can have a group of people whose ideas are grounded in reality, yet, their differences regarding philosophy are so varied shows just how lively atheists can debate certain topics. I often find myself defending my omnivorousness to militant vegetarian atheists and lets just say these debates tend to be far more intelligent and interesting then the ones based on faith and imaginary fantasies.
@No 4:
//I often find myself defending my omnivorousness to militant vegetarian atheists//
Please tell me theyre lesbians mate….
It should be retitled “Why Scientific Fundamentalists Annoy Me”
“I really don’t want Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens to be the voice of my atheism. Because it’s not the voice of many people’s atheism, and it gives people a dangerous path to follow in their atheism. It makes them intolerant, gives them a reason not even try to understand and makes it impossible to have conversations with them. It’s like a hardcore theist – their theism leads them to dangerous places (mentally and physically), their beliefs give them reason to not listen to anyone else and they’re almost always impossible to talk to.
Indeed. She makes a rational case for her argument but you won’t see anything like that from here. Hmmm, intolerence, close mindedness, militancy, arrogance. What do these things sound like? Ideology.
Dammit Hank Fox, I wanted to tell PZ he looks cuddly.
This just went on to my list:
– Lists people compile of things that bother them. Especially when they’re self-contradictory and rambling.
*looks at The Brenda’s post above,considers his post above that,and has a good chuckle…..*
Finding yourself defending your omnivorousness to militant vegetarian atheists,150 dollars…..Having the twisted dissonant deluded mind of The Brenda,priceless…..
Yes, Brenda, talk about missing the point.
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are not the voice of Katie Kish’s atheism, nor are they the voice of yours. They have their own voice and are expressing their own opinions.
What I find more dangerous are the people who take such offense at people speaking their minds.
Of course, agnostics just smile serenely while atheists snap and snarl at each other because we’re much nicer…
I don’t see your name mentioned in the article? :)
Oh noes! Someone is questioning the movement! We need more MTV generation!
Bah… atheism exists independent of any blogs, books, spokesmodels, podcasts, spaghetti dinners or reverse baptisms.
Azombism on the other hand…
This is the one thing that people decrying Dawkins and atheism constantly miss, which in turn makes me think that even though she is a self-proclaimed atheist, she still falls victim to the group-think mentality of religion or nationalism, or any other worldview that demands you allow others to speak authoritatively on your behalf.
And am I the only one that finds it funny that she brushes Dawkins aside for his intolerance, but lists Feminism – without qualification – as something she likes?
Hmm, perceived closed-mindedness, militancy and arrogance where they don’t truly exist? Sounds like a persecution complex to me.
I wish to make it clear Katie Kish is not a spokesperson for my form of atheism, and this using her logic I wish her to shut up.
Anyone think she will ?
Anytime I see someone call Dawkins intolerant or militant, I have to question their judgment. Dawkins is vocal and keenly critical of religion, but I’ve never heard him advocate violence or discrimination against religious people. Sometimes I wish a real extremist would come along to show how hysterically inaccurate such mischaracterizations of Dawkins actually are.
pcarni,
Our Brenda certainly does seem to have a persecution complex.
She complains that someone used a well known catchphrase from a US comedy program which called her a slut. She finds that sexist. However she feels she has the right to insult people, use sexist and racist language and generally act like a total hypocrite and gets upset when people point this out to her.
Apologizing for thoughts becoming slightly incoherent at 0437am….
//And am I the only one that finds it funny that she brushes Dawkins aside for his intolerance, but lists Feminism – without qualification – as something she likes?//
No BrokenSoldier,you are not the only one to find that funny,but where to start listing The Brenda’s logical and argumentative fallacies,shes a feel-good person after all…a spiritual atheist feel-good person,cant have all this rationalism creeping in and taking the feel-good mystic stuff away…..
And thats exactly why people will call Dawkins or Hitch militant as well,they dissect and apply logic and science without paying attention to anyones feel-good needs…
Kish’s destructive violence towards the English language annoys me!
The Hare With Many Friends
A Hare was very popular with the other beasts who all claimed
to be her friends. But one day she heard the hounds approaching
and hoped to escape them by the aid of her many Friends. So, she
went to the horse, and asked him to carry her away from the hounds
on his back. But he declined, stating that he had important work
to do for his master. “He felt sure,” he said, “that all her
other friends would come to her assistance.” She then applied to
the bull, and hoped that he would repel the hounds with his horns.
The bull replied: “I am very sorry, but I have an appointment with
a lady; but I feel sure that our friend the goat will do what you
want.” The goat, however, feared that his back might do her some
harm if he took her upon it. The ram, he felt sure, was the
proper friend to apply to. So she went to the ram and told him
the case. The ram replied: “Another time, my dear friend. I do
not like to interfere on the present occasion, as hounds have been
known to eat sheep as well as hares.” The Hare then applied, as a
last hope, to the calf, who regretted that he was unable to help
her, as he did not like to take the responsibility upon himself,
as so many older persons than himself had declined the task. By
this time the hounds were quite near, and the Hare took to her
heels and luckily escaped.
He that has many friends, has no friends.
Old, but I think this bit of pedestrian philosophy captures a lemma for discussing human nature. I can argue that you should follow a middle path PZ, cultivating a moderate number of friends…. But Minions, I think you should accept all you want.
http://aesopfables.com/
Matt Penfold @17
Ah, another bright star! We just lost Kenny, and they say nature abhors a vacuum — I’m starting to think that Walton and Brenda would be almost exactly equal to Kenny if someone were to do the math.
Katie said:
The person I want to speak for my atheism is willing to listen, understands if you choose to be religious (and respects that) and attempts to have conversations (where they’re not shoving things down the other person’s throat).
That doesn’t describe anyone here.
PZ
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are not the voice of Katie Kish’s atheism, nor are they the voice of yours. They have their own voice and are expressing their own opinions.
That isn’t how things work in the real world. Dawkins et al are the voice of atheism whether you like it or not.
What I find more dangerous are the people who take such offense at people speaking their minds.
Missing the point. What does she actually say”
it’s not the voice of many people’s atheism, and it gives people a dangerous path to follow in their atheism. It makes them intolerant, gives them a reason not even try to understand and makes it impossible to have conversations with them.
She is talking about behavior, how some atheists behave and not what they believe or don’t believe. You are putting words into her mouth.
…”Some like – Matt Penfold – just fall apart into a stream of obscenities.”
Hey Matt! Welcome to my swimmin’ hole. ;)
The one that really gets my goat on this list is the “respect” for spirituality. When someone has an actual definition for this that makes sense, then I’ll respect it. Most of the time it’s just WOO. This sort of thing is why I don’t stop at the label atheist, and I don’t think other atheist should either. What most of us are, are materialists and skeptics. We should embrace those things, as atheist is a single position on a single question.
Yes, I would really like to see how Kish “exacerbates” her energy. Sounds tricky. Maybe even illegal in some states.
I am pretty sure you can get cream that will soothe any exacerbated energies. She should consult her pharmacist.
Is
Jiminy CricketBrenda *still* going on and on about our perceived character flaws?Dear Sir or Madame,
I wish to complain…
That isn’t how things work in the real world. Dawkins et al are the voice of atheism whether you like it or not.
Sadly, the mass media are about as far from “the real world” as it is possible to get.
Where’s this bar at where you can meet these atheist guys who talk about books and science?
How can anyone who wants to be taken seriously accuse Dawkins of not listening ?
Anyone who watched him in “The Root of All Evil” will know he did a lot of listening, often to some very disturbed people. He even managed to talk to Ted Haggard face to face without either laughing or smacking him in the face. Of course Dawkins was just allowing them enough rope, but to argue he does not listen is pathetic. Also Dawkins is well of aware of the supposed “sophisticated” arguments for god. He just finds them unconvincing and all too often assuming that the thing they argue for exists a priori.
My brain still hurts from all those “exacerbated energies”. Reminds me of a “sensei” I had years ago, who used to say “exhilarate some effort”. Many years later, I still get that “WTF?” frisson.
#2
Yeah, it triggers the anti-malware alert in Firefox 3, but after giving the site a cursory look-over I can’t say why. Maybe it’s a false positive?
http://www.stopbadware.org/reports/container?reportname=http://liberal-debutante.com/uncategorized/why-atheists-annoy-me.html
Anyway, you’re not missing much. The post is full of drivel like this:
Sorry, but if you actually believe that there is “something” out there connecting us all — whatever you think it may or may not be — then that’s still a religion. A nebulous, poorly-defined religion, but a religion all the same. The unsubstantiated metaphysics clinches it.
Now I can go out into the woods, hike up a small mountain, sit at the summit and feel awe at the beauty and wonder of the world, and that’s not religion; I myself wouldn’t even define it as spiritualism, though others might. But the moment you start making claims of unfounded dogma like “‘something’ out there” (yes, regardless of how loosely it’s be defined, it is still dogma) then you can fairly be called religious.
I’ve exacerbated my energy toward many things…
Well, if she uses a word without knowing its meaning, and gets it completely wrong, then I don’t think that her writing is likely to be worth reading.
PZ
What I find more dangerous are the people who take such offense at people speaking their minds.
Let’s look at that more closely. You take offense at those who object to how atheism is defended in the larger culture. In other words, you find “dangerous” those who speak their own minds and possess a different conception of what atheism means to them than you do. Where have we heard this before?
This is militancy at it’s core and is no different than religious militancy. It’s the authoritarian impulse to stamp out all dissent. We’ve seen how the political expression of this impulse plays out. It gets real ugly, real fast. Kinda like here.
Wow, Brenda (@34). In two sentences you’ve proved that you possess the remarkable ability to read a plainly worded statement and understand it to mean the opposite of what is says.
How exactly do you infer this from PZ’s quote, which you included directly above your nutjobbery?
Brenda,
You cannot read can you ?
PZ did not say that he wants to stop people taking offence at people speaking their minds. You have just decided that said it. You are lying. Why do you feel the need to make up crap like this ? Come to that, why have you not yet apologised for your sexist and racist language used on another thread ? Do you not think the normal rules of discourse apply to you ? Have you been given some special dispensation to make racist and sexist comments, whilst being allowed to complain if you think people are being nasty to you ?
I do not know how much psychology you have studied, but there is saying that if you find yourself in disagreement with one person, it may be them but if you find yourself in disagreement with everyone then it is probably you. No one here has offered you any support at all. Not even those who I have seen go out of their way to support those they think are being unfairly picked on. Not one person thinks your complaints have the slightest merit, and you persist in saying it is all our fault.
Tell me, do you have a big front door ? Only I wonder how you fit your head through it if it is the standard size.
Brenda’s idea of “taking a closer look” means making shit up projecting false motives onto others. It’s clear she’s going to continue to insist that militant Pharyngulites are keen on stamping out all dissent until she gets what she wants and earns herself a ban. Being as obnoxious as she can is her only way to save face at this point. I recommend that we all collectively ignore her histrionics the same as we would any mental patient screaming from a street corner.
“I’ve exacerbated my energy toward many things and am focusing on more central ones.”
I do not think that word means, what chu think it means…
so, Brenda – do you feel a breeze when points go whooshing over your head, or what?
Dawkins, Hitchens et al are not THE voice for atheism, any more than PZ or CanadianChick are THE voice for atheism. A voice, yes, THE voice? No.
Just as I don’t agree that Falwell is THE voice for christianity, or that bin Laden is THE voice of Islam.
Anyone who can’t figure that out for themselves is a drooling idiot.
PZ is not objecting to the the objection – he’s objecting to the idea that someone who doesn’t like his way is suggesting that he should just shut up because it offends them. PZ doesn’t really like that very much. But who does?
I submitted my thoughts on her blog. I suspect she’s just following a trend that has availed itself to her through the hard work of the very people she finds annoying.
“Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are not the voice of Katie Kish’s atheism, nor are they the voice of yours. They have their own voice and are expressing their own opinions.”
That isn’t how things work in the real world. Dawkins et al are the voice of atheism whether you like it or not.”
Yes, Brenda, it’s likely that a lot of people take what Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. say and assume that it is representative of all athiests. But then you know what they say about assumptions…
Well, it serves PZ and Dawkins and Hitchens right for all those times they have proclaimed themselves as spokespeople for all atheists. Like… for instance… uh, I’ll have to get back to you on that.
Let’s see:
reference to “militant” atheism: check
comparison of atheists the author doesn’t like to religion: check
describing atheists whose ideas you dislike as “dangerous”: check
… and “intolerant”: check
Unfortunately, Katie neglected to refer to “fundamentalist atheists” or wring her hands over how they’re alienating the moderate theists who would otherwise be totally on our side, just like they were before those pesky New Fundamentalist Intolerant Militant Dangerous Atheists showed up to ruin everything, so we can only award her an 8 out of 10 on the Atheist Butter scale.
There is a Brenda who turned up on Katie Kish’s blog and left a comment.
In reply to this:
“Please bring to my attention the last dangerous person who was heavily influenced by someone like Dawkins who simply reasons (no matter how staunchly) in favor of evidence-based policy when it comes to things like religion…”
She has replied:
“Stalin”.
It really is a very tiny brain she has.
I saw the ‘Stalin’ reply, and thought I’d give someone else a crack at it. We’ll see how well Katie’s regular readers understand history…
Duncan,
Want to bet on not a lot ?
Another quick note: One can find a person dangerous without harboring any ill will toward them. People tend to avoid those they think of as dangerous, unless they feel their well being is at stake.
Taking offense at someone, however, always implies violence. It is, at most, one step removed from the violent act itself, and always speaks for a willingness to see violence visited upon the offending party, if not a desire to be the one inflicting the violence.
Oh Brenda, you slay me.
I often wonder how many of Dawkins’ detractors have ever read any of his books or listened to a discussion. Militant? Aggressive? Unreasonable?
Horseshit!
Hitchens is the only popular atheist writer who even approaches those qualities, and reasonable atheists regularly take him to task for it.
The worst thing one can truthfully say about Dawkins or P.Z. is that they are vocal and uncompromising. I have to wonder what Disney-esque fantasy land people are used to living in when being vocal and uncompromising in defense of reason are considered bad traits.
If you really think you see silencing of dissent or militancy around here, I think it might be your own prejudices coloring your perceptions. Just because Dawkins, P.Z. and others don’t grant automatic respect to muddled thinking, malformed ideas, and warm & fuzzy spirituality, it doesn’t make them “militant” in any way. It makes them honest. And that’s a good thing, even if it tastes a little bitter to you at some points.
My parents must have missed a meeting or something. I was taught to respect people and their freedom to make their own choices. I was also taught to use my brain and make rational decisions for myself. I had no idea that we were all allowed to think up whatever silly ideas we like to make ourselves feel better, and then go around demanding respect for them. I was taught that respect for one’s ideas has to be earned.
Silly me.
See, this is why I don’t generally call myself an atheist (only when asked if I am one, to which I say “a theist would call me an atheist and he’d be right”). Sure, so-called “New Atheists” tend to think alike, but “atheists” in general are so diverse, and as most people, are as prone to BS as everyone who’s not an atheist.
Some of thses people will misunderstand willfully or not what “New Atheists” are about, as evidenced countless times. We are not the same.
Theists, because they don’t have firm logical or reality-based ground to stand on, will apologize for each other and avoid confrontation. Just look at the idiot pope who had to issue a semi-apology for perfectly reasonable and arguable comments (albeit hugely hypocritical) he made about Islam. I’d pay a hundred bucks to see two theists duke it out like PZ and Nisbet do. So called New Atheists are more about questioning and arguing, and evidence.
I know people who don’t believe in god and they are still prone to such supernatural beliefs, many of which are even more ridiculous than the sky-fairy. Yet, they’re still atheists, only more “open-minded” ones. I love the “not so open-minded that your brains fall out” quote.
CanadianChick
PZ is not objecting to the the objection – he’s objecting to the idea that someone who doesn’t like his way is suggesting that he should just shut up because it offends them.
Could you point out where anyone says that?
The ‘atheist’ label is an enduring dilemma, and one that many people from Dawkins to Harris to the Secular Humanist movement have grappled with over the years. So far no magic ‘marketing’ label has emerged that we can unite under. Harris even says that’s how it should ultimately be, but for now there has to be some common identity for ‘free thinkers’ (another cumbersome attempt) to use for the sake of organization. I’m curious if anyone has documented all the various attempts and respsonses put forth thus far in regards to coming up with such a label.
Neil
If you really think you see silencing of dissent or militancy around here, I think it might be your own prejudices coloring your perceptions. Just because Dawkins, P.Z. and others don’t grant automatic respect to muddled thinking, malformed ideas, and warm & fuzzy spirituality, it doesn’t make them “militant” in any way.
I have seen and directly experienced such militancy here so please don’t try to tell me what my perceptions are or are not.
The militancy and disrespect comes when you start to attack people personally. Then the other person may feel justified in responding in kind and you get the kind of food fight we’ve seen here for the last few days. Does that make sense to you?
P.Z. and others don’t grant automatic respect to muddled thinking
That’s the problem, everyone should be given respect regardless of whether they are guilty of “muddled thinking” or not. “We respect the person but not idea”. The hell you do. The last few days are a monument to your hate and your militancy.
Duncan,
Well part of the problem is that none of the terms that have been suggested as an alternative mean quite the same thing.
Free-Thinker embraces atheism, but it also suggests something more. It is possible to be an atheist and yet embrace all kinds of new-age woo that would not qualify a person as being a free-thinker.
#5, the fact is they are lesbians, but because of that fact, I get no play. What happened to lesbians claiming they’re lesbians just to see how you react, but in reality, they’re bisexual and leave it open for a special occasion to reveal that fact? What? That was a dream? Well, a man can dream…a man can dream…
The data does not support that hypothesis.
Duncan,
How about, “I’m a member of the rational minority.”
“That’s the problem, everyone should be given respect regardless of whether they are guilty of “muddled thinking” or not. “We respect the person but not idea”. The hell you do. The last few days are a monument to your hate and your militancy.”
I have found your problem Brenda. You are one of those people who thinks all ideas are equally valid, and all people deserving of equal respect.
Sorry, but that is crap. A religious leader spreading lies about science is not deserving of respect, except the barest minimum consistent with their human rights. Nor are their ideas deserving of respect. In fact both should be regarded with contempt, and in any decent society would be.
“I’m spiritual but not religious” is quite possibly the no. 1 phrase that makes me leave the party.
Oh well, moving on…
Being a sluttish old asshat, I can’t claim an over abundance of wit (!) – but doesn’t the *real* Our Brenda always sign – Brenda von Ahsen?
PZ were you cloning again?
Brenda @ #51
That may work for you, but don’t demand it of me. I consider my respect as something that’s earned, not assumed, and it definitely can’t be awarded without my participation.
Duncan, I’ve always thought rationalist was the best no question because reason is the great uniting characteristic that we reach our other conclusions by. However, I think rationalism is the best label because ‘reason’ is used to simply mean ordered thought whereas rationalism is unmistakably the logic and evidence based thought process we hold dear.
Are we are Brenda isn’t just Kenny?
Because damn, the similarities…
‘Respect’ was afforded the ID hypothesis at first, but after it was widely discredited, yet pushed again, then widely discredited, then pushed again with some of the words changed, then widely discredited, then pushed again to a different group, then widely discredited, then escalated to the courts, and then widely discredited again… respect kinda gets tossed out the window.
Sorry, respect can only go so far when it is systematically abused as ID/creationism/evidence-free religious arguments have done over the past 2000 years.
My hypothesis is this: There was a Kenny fission event, the byproducts of which are Brenda and Walton. If someone were to sum the two them, I think they would almost make a Kenny, minus perhaps some small amount of Kenny-matter which was converted to radioactive stupidity.
Suppose Brenda/Kenny looks like Stephen Fry as a cross dresser? ;)
How does she feel about Pat Condell? (Now that George Carlin is mellowing in his old age.)
Damm you Patricia, now I will go to bed with that image in my head. If I have nightmares it will all be your fault!
WTFWJD,
Now there is a an idea. Maybe we can get Brenda to watch some of Pat Condell’s videos. With any luck she will explode thus ridding us of her.
Huzzah! The meme worked. If you’d like to tone it down a bit Matt, watch the You Tube clip of Fry & Laurie singing “Kickin’ Ass” – Fry is Kenny… ;)
Thanks Patricia, That has fixed it.
Although I did have to go to Amazon any buy a DVD box set of Fry and Laurie
The last few days are a monument to your hate and your militancy.
And the world’s tiniest violin plays on.
“Militancy.” That word again. For all the words you’ve typed I would think you might have stumbled across a dictionary at some point, but I guess not.
No one here disrespects you as a human being. There are no extermination plans. There is no battle forthcoming. No one wishes you harm or even wants to shut you up(which is different than simply wishing you would.) You are free to vent your whiny pleas and put forth bullshit claims anywhere and anytime you please.
But the respect ends there. No “militancy” required. If you want extra respect for your ideas, thoughts, feelings, religion, whatever, I need some reasons. By your logic I should “respect” every idea, which is only possible in
an extremely confused or empty mind. Should I freely give my respect to ideas or ideals that promote ritual sacrifice? Cannibalism? Torture? Snake handling? By your standards, I should respect a liar when I know I’m being lied to. I can tolerate the existance of these ideas all day long, but respect? Not likely.
If you want something for free, perhaps you should lower your standards. My tolerance is free. But based on what I’ve read, I don’t think your ideas have the intellectual currency to be able to afford my respect.
Your word for the day: Militant.
My word for the day: Horseshit.
If you have any actual points to make, or perspectives to share, please stop your pathetic whining about non-existent militancy and GET ON WITH IT!
Brenda:
You are obviously not working with the true definition of the word militant – actively aggressive and advocating or participating in violence and combat. Whether this mistake is deliberate or unintentional is irrelevant, because this militancy you speak of simply isn’t there.
Withholding intellectual respect for someone who espouses a view that I find ridiculous and intellectually deficient is completely my prerogative, and is in no way an uncommon or unjustified reaction. If you want the respect, all you have to do is make sure you are consistent in your actions and statements. (i.e., if you want to complain about sexist and/ or insulting comment, simply refrain from using sexist or insulting comments in reference to other commenters.)
What you won’t find here (at least from the regular, quite rational commenters that frequent this board) are threats or any other inexcusable form of discourse directed at you in response to your posts. Verbal insults, especially ones made in reference to comedic popular culture, are in no way harmful or inexcusable, and if you persist with your style of discourse, I imagine you’ll open yourself up for more of the same.
The real way to flush the old trout Brenda von A., is to use an obscenity.
Wow, are we talking about this five (or so) days later? LOL Her post pissed me off too…but wow, we are giving her WAY more “press” than she deserves. I simply retaliated with 10 things I LOVED about atheism (see: http://dayandnite.livejournal.com/7124.html)
FYI: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Myers…are my atheist HEROES!!!!
I see atheism is the freeing of the mind from the shackles of godfear. Without the god(s) that serve as its base, religion collapses in on itself like a house of cards. Anything that leads to freedom of thought is a good, not a bad, thing, and it doesn’t matter how one is led to such freedom, as long as the method is effective. I have been reading for some time now all of the hand-wringing over the supposed stridency and confrontational outspokeness of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and the like; and I can’t help drawing the comparison to other figures in history who took it upon themselves to try to make positive change in the world, but who likewise were castigated for their “stridency”.
Not to inflate Prof. Myers’ ego, no matter how much I enjoy his writing, but was not Jefferson strident? After all, the patriotic cause was championed by no more than 1/3 of the colonial population. Was Martin Luther King not confrontational? After all, were not middle-class whites sure of the slow evolution of black rights, and unsure about King’s tactics being the best way to advance the cause of racial equality? Were Galileo’s observations not offensive in the extreme? After all, he was just one of many who made the Emperor’s subjects uncomfortable with the stripping away of yet another piece of his “clothing”.
Let the voices be raised against error. While I consider it merely good manners to respect others, I do not necessarily continue to respect others when they hold on to irrational beliefs in the face of no supporting evidence in support of them, or in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. Holding a particular belief is not necessarily stupid; holding a belief when all evidence contradicts that belief is stupid, and is deserving of correction – and after that, derision.
Well, all right then. I know that Brownian would step up admirably if he were here, but I’ll have a go:
As a card-carrying (though currently happily retired) SLUT, I hereby declare that I am sick to fucking death of Brenda’s pearl-clutching, finger-waggling, reason-challenged, drivel-steeped petulance. I thank you in earnest for the “I wish to complain…” meme, Brenda dear, but aside from that, you are a crashing bore.
*cups ear hopefully in anticipation of the flushing sound*
Oh, Patricia C. did I read on another thread that you are an Oregonian? I am writing from sunny Eugene. Cheers!
I find it telling that Brenda demands respect from others, while giving none herself.
Dawkins, Dennett, and Meyers are my favorites. Hitchens used to be, but I simply cannot stomach his stance on the war. Sam Harris seems to be melting into a pool of woo-woo. The guy I miss seeing more of is Richard Carrier.
My vote for man-like being I most want to make cry: Dinesh D’sousa.
“Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are not the voice of Katie Kish’s atheism, nor are they the voice of yours. They have their own voice and are expressing their own opinions.
What I find more dangerous are the people who take such offense at people speaking their minds.”
PZ – I don’t take offense to their writing. It just annoys me sometimes.
IT WAS A RANT FOLKS. Sometimes early 20 year old women like to give a nice good rant. I also think you should know that I’m not some sort of sit by the road and do nothing atheist. I work for many many many atheist/secular/skeptical/freethought organizations. It is because I am within this atmosphere ALL the time that sometimes it gets on my nerves.
And to those who are taking punches at my english – IT’S MY SECOND LANGUAGE. I apologize if I don’t spell everything right – use terms incorrectly – can’t find the right word to express what I’m going through – or don’t write good enough for your standards. But I think I am doing DAMN good considering english is the fourth language I’ve learned and I haven’t been speaking it for very long.
I speak for my atheism.
Which does not mean I don’t enjoy hearing a much more eloquent person express pretty much my own views, with more patience.
Spiritualism sucks. It’s the refuge for those that want to be all hip and deny big sky daddy, but “there has to be something!!!11 because {insert sky daddy arguments}”. Wussies. :)
I find it telling that Brenda demands respect from others, while giving none herself.
I extend respect to everyone I encounter; the problem is, it so often gets snatched from my hand by people who demand it, rather than command it.
PZ is not objecting to the the objection – he’s objecting to the idea that someone who doesn’t like his way is suggesting that he should just shut up because it offends them.
Brenda:
Could you point out where anyone says that?
Google “Matt Nisbet”.
Hot Damn! Another Orygunian! :) Fell out of my chair.
We must be the only two atheists in the state. Hey, wait a minute – you knew what asshat ment.. now I’m confused.
Er, the flush I ment was from cover, like a quail. *grin*
In August we’re going to the Norway Festival, thats as close to Eugene as I’ll get this year.
Thanks, you made my day! :)
Well, heck, you are doing a pretty damned good job. English is my second language, but I’ve been using it a very long time. I wish I could claim four.
Nice to see that Katie Kish stopped by. Your command of english is better than many who have had their whole lives to practice.
I went to your site and read the whole rant. I didn’t leave any comments, because the only thing I felt the need to comment on were the complaints about Dawkins etc. I just don’t see what the big deal is. I really don’t see where the “militant” image comes from. I can’t imagine where people get this feeling of aggressiveness from a polite professor.
Other than that, you just sound like a bored kid. If the skeptical scene is that stuffy, feel free to liven it up a bit! But if you’re too worried about offending the “spiritual” I can’t see how much fun will result.
I speak Hillbilly, Bulldog, Chicken and Guttersnipe.
I was astonished that he didn’t call Haggard out on this piece of supercilious idiocy:
When I heard that, two things happened: [1] I literally jumped out of my chair with a 130-decibel WHAT???!!![interrobang x 666], and [2] I had an awful lot of Pepsi and Chex Mix to clean up.
ROFLMAO! pcarini #63 is win dis thred!
I can think of few things that would not be improved with more disrespect.
It’s all about geography and relative exposure.
Katie’s in Canada, not the US. In the US the level of atheist reaction is proportional to the amount of theist bullshit. But I’m guessing that, as a result, those in Canada are seeing a lot more of the reactions to theism than they are the theism that inspired those reactions. Hence her perception of ‘militancy’.
I’m in Australia. Atheists aren’t that vocal here either. When I first read (well, listened; I have an audiobook version) The God Delusion I was a bit surprised at the tone. Why? Because I wasn’t used to atheism being that strident. But having spent the last few months reading about what those in the US have to put up with – pandering politicians, contemptible school boards, the most whorish media on the planet – I think I understand. They have to shout to be heard.
As for Brenda, well, I’m sure she’s a woo-flinger of some kind; I can’t say which because she’s far too cowardly to actually admit to anything. But the position she’s taking is ‘yes, atheists are great when they’re opposing the religion I don’t belong to, but don’t you dare bring your awful, nasty demands of (gasp) evidence near my beliefs – they’re special. It’s different.’
CButterb
Is his other name Katie Kish? Because it is her post we were talking about. Try to focus hun.
Matt
You are one of those people who thinks all ideas are equally valid, and all people deserving of equal respect.
No I do not. The discussion is about people vs the ideas they hold. You have every right to challenge the legitimacy of any idea. You have no right to mistreat people based of their beliefs. PZ claims that right. He is wrong.
pcarini
I consider my respect as something that’s earned, not assumed
Arrogant and elitist.
Neil
No one here disrespects you as a human being.
I beg to differ.
If you want extra respect for your ideas, thoughts, feelings, religion, whatever, I need some reasons. By your logic I should “respect” every idea…
You shouldn’t respect every idea, you should respect every person. Can you separate the idea from the person? It would seem by your reply you cannot and I see little evidence of that on this blog. Even the worst criminal should be afforded basic human dignity so no, you are not required to respect cannibalism or torture. What happens here though is that as soon as someone professes a belief you disapprove of you start in with the ad hominem attacks. Apparently with the approval of Dr. Myers.
All this will do is undermine your political objectives by negating the possibility of a compromise and alienating your allies. Hence, you may win a few battles but you’ll ultimately lose the war. But that’s your choice.
If you have any actual points to make … GET ON WITH IT!
My point is that while you have the right to reject any idea you please that does not give you the right to mistreat others simply because they hold beliefs or ideas you don’t approve of. I said that the first time and you don’t seem to understand it. Do you get it now?
brokenSoldier
Withholding intellectual respect for someone who espouses a view that I find ridiculous and intellectually deficient is completely my prerogative
You suffer the same misconceptions as Neil. I have no problem with you with holding your respect for ideas you consider abhorrent. You are right, it is your prerogative. But there is a line that one should not cross and the people here cross it frequently. Not just with me but with anyone you deem beneath you. The moment anyone espouses an idea you think deficient you all begin with the personal attacks. This will backfire on you badly.
Facehammer/Twain…shit, now I have to believe in reincarnation. ;)
Behead all those who say ATHEISM is militant and unreasonable.
“This will backfire on you badly.”
Is that a threat Brenda?
Patricia said:
I would like to second, third and fourth that. Carrier is one of those people that I make a genuine effort to read just about everything that he produces, and he is probably the atheist that I have the most respect for, as well. He really is very serious about maintaining epistemological and metaphysical clarity, which is something that I admire, as we should all at least attempt to practice what we preach.
I don’t know if you have been reading his blog posts of late, but he is in the process of writing a book about the historicity of Jesus, funded entirely by donations! He has also been imparting his knowledge about ancient science and the books to look out for. It’s terrific stuff.
It surprises me that he hasn’t been funded by anyone to essentially spend his life fighting the cause of naturalism, skepticism, atheism, and secularism. If there was a ‘face of atheism’, he would be my choice.
Brenda #90 blustered:
No-one started off disrespecting you as a person. But you didn’t give them a lot of choice. You came in armed with generalisations, ad hominems and added sexism, racism, threats and condescension and then (if that weren’t already enough) further undercut that with disingenuous non-arguments and a complete absence of intellectual honesty.
You think that makes you worthy of respect as a person? Considering you came here disrespecting the posters on this blog from almost the first second you were here I have to add hypocrisy to your list of character flaws.
I, for one, do not respect hypocrites as people.
@#49 Brenda —
It’s pretty funny that you asked “where anyone says that” and then got upset when Cbutterb used a non-Katie Kish example.
That said, here are two quotes from Katie’s own list:
(Emphases mine.)
Posted by: Brenda | June 7, 2008 7:49 PM
No they don’t. The actual line that should never be crossed is one of advocating adverse or violent action against someone, which doesn’t happen here – and if it did, the offender would certainly be banned from the site. Insults, when made in response to a perceived deficiency in someone’s offered statements, are entirely defensible, and (depending on the linguistic proficiency of the commenter) are sometimes quite funny. If you don’t want to be on the receiving end of them, all you have to do is be consistent, reasonable, and sensible. Malicious, inflammatory, unprovoked personal attacks, however, are an entirely different matter. The problem here is that you can’t distinguish an insult from an attack.
I’m suffering from no misconception in making that argument – the only thing I am suffering from – as are many on this board – is chronic exposure to idiotic statements such as yours.
(That was an insult, not an attack – just so you don’t confuse the two again.)
Kenny/Brenda – Are you a tight lacer, or just one of us regular girls? Inquiring minds want to know? Or are you a wetsuit fella with a double barrel bible? Inquiring minds…
Brenda @ #90
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
From a comment on Katie’s blog:
IMO it’s much more condescending and, in a way, disrespectful to tell someone that you “respect their beliefs” (usually with the clear tacit “…even though they’re wrong” appended) than to say, “Your beliefs are bullshit, and here’s why.” The latter statement may be a tad impolite, but the former is far worse in that it indicates you don’t even think it’s worthwhile to engage the person on the issue of their beliefs.
Actually, I went and searched for her name.
There are a few posts from last year, where she said nothing particularly controversial (and indeed, seemed generally positive). Then there were some comments in May, where, again, she seemed sane, and at least willing to disagree politely, and with an attempt at being reasonable.
Then, late in May/begin June, the bitterness, sarcasm, and frothing at the mouth began. Including the multiple outrageous ad hominems that lead to CortxVortx using the quote with the word that then lead to Brenda’s now-famous complaint.
One might well speculate that a diagnosis of personality disorder is almost certainly correct. Perhaps with some hormonal cycles affecting emotional state as well…
Hm.
Brenda, have you asked a doctor about these angry emotional outbursts? Or do you distrust and avoid psychologists with materialistic paradigms?
brokenSoldier
The problem here is that you can’t distinguish an insult from an attack.
So how many angels can dance on the head of that pin? An insult is a personal attack. No amount of semantic BS will change that.
Insult
1. A rude expression intended to offend or hurt
2. A deliberately offensive act or something producing the effect of deliberate disrespect
Synonyms: abuse, affront, contumely, dis, diss, revilement, vilification.
Type of: bruise, discourtesy, disrespect, hurt, injure, offense, offend, spite, wound.
When you attack someone because you don’t like their beliefs you are engaged in a personal attack. What you also fail to do is to realize that knife cuts both ways. If you get to indulge in insults “in response to a perceived deficiency” then so does everyone else. But when that happens you all here cry foul. Your hypocrisy is something I’ve highlighted for some time. Your failure to acknowledge it is telling. It speaks to your arrogance and sense of superiority which Katie and many others feel does not represent them.
Owlmirror #101 wrote:
My mistake. I’ve only been here a few months; I’d never seen her post anything or heard her name mentioned until recently.
She seems to be making up for it now, though.
“When you attack someone because you don’t like their beliefs” Should be “When you insult someone…”
That’s great Brenda. Somehow, I think engaging in the very behaviour of which you disapprove is not going to encourage “us” to change “our” behaviour. Why not truly take the high moral ground here and set an example?
I don’t remember anyone here claiming to represent anyone besides themselves. I promise not to speak for you, as long as you don’t speak for me, ok?
Feh, I kinda agree with her. I get tired of the simple cheerleading and slapping ourselves on the back and making fun of the sky-fairy and simple platitudes, and would like to get on to more serious and “meaningful” stuff.
But then, so what? The dumb creationists *keep* popping up so it’s nearly impossible to resist our snide bubble popping at such stupidity. And folks *keep* wanting to marginalize that atheism is a “negative” philosophy, or a “non-belief”, or inherently bad and ignorable and we *have* to keep making noises that “hey, we’re here”.
If I get tired of self-righteous and simplistic kook-bashing I can always go and associate myself elsewhere.
pssst?! Hey wOO+ – got a visual for a sixer?
Oh Brenda, conflating insults to physical abuse.
Just because I say, Fuck You, Brenda, does not mean that I have any desire to actually fuck you.
BTW, Brenda, you have shown your true colors. On the other sire, you claim that scientific atheism inspired Stalin. Congratulations! You are using a Ben Stein talking point, science leads people to killing people.
Monde doux!!! (That’s hillbilly french) Just where the foux are all the other French soldiers? I can only taunt the Kenny/Brenda for so long by myself.
hahahaha. bored kid. pretty much hit the nail on the head. i dont post on my blog to get a rise out of people or change the world. i post on it because i get bored… and i know my family reads it – so it gives them something to do too.
Monde doux!!! (That’s hillbilly french)
Shit, I was thinking mon dieu.
I hope no one here has missed Lady Brenda’s School for Teenage Dance…
http://chrisleavins.typepad.com/chrisleavins/
reuben
I think engaging in the very behaviour of which you disapprove is not going to encourage “us” to change “our” behaviour.
You’re absolutely right. However Walton was the very epitome of taking the high road. His “example” got him nowhere. Anyway, ever been in a flame war and lost your cool? Shit happens. But as has been said “You have no right to be offended on the internet”.
Janine
conflating insults to physical abuse.
Nope. You’re deliberately misreading it. “Abuse” can also mean verbal abuse. You are the one conflating abuse to mean “physical abuse”. The verbal diarrhea part you’ve mastered quite well.
woozy
If I get tired of self-righteous and simplistic kook-bashing I can always go and associate myself elsewhere.
Thank you for confirming that this is exactly what is done here and elsewhere.
#111 – Oh, holy shite – it may take me days to get over that!
entre nous – three tissues!
it may take me days to get over that!
blame Sweden
Kenny/Planet Killer/Brenda, Fuck off you slut. Cripes, it gets old after awhile. <:(
Brenda, beyond whining, bitching, moaning, and concern trolling, why the fuck are you actually here? Just curious.
Brenda:
No, an insult can be a personal attack, or it can be a commentary on your ideas. If you want to claim someone is manipulating semantics, try not to split the same hair yourself in your statements. If you can’t handle the responses that your inconsistent, unfounded, and intellectually deficient posts draw from the people on this blog, just make sure you don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Until someone actually says or does something to you that would violate the rules of this site, your protests are little more than petulant whining.
Brenda, maybe I missed it, but I am curious, why are you here? The real reason. Simple question, why are you here? Second part, same question, considering the awful persecution and abuse of you, why are you still here?
Did you actually read the information on Dialectical Behavioral Therapy and Borderline Personality Disorder that you touted on another blog? Do you still hold the opinion about that other blog that runs, “What a hate filled reception. My first thought was “Wow, interesting blog, maybe I’ll stick around.” But you put an end to that pretty quickly. I’ll never come to this fucking blog ever again. Thanks folks. ” or have the people on this blog equaled or exceeded that experience? Do you still have difficulty seeing that closing your first post on that blog with, “I don’t think you know what you think you do” was confrontational and possibly insulting. Do you have trouble seeing a potential pattern here?
Finally, do you think more than a few people on this blog care what you think at this point? You had the same chance on this blog I or any other poster has, i.e., make sense and people will respond. Most will respond well, some will insult no matter what, pull your grownup clothes on and deal with it. No, you do not deserve respect on this blog nor do I. If I am childish and stupid, people will surely point it out. Respect is earned by arguing well and making basic sense. I have the option to leave or stay, I do not see that I have the option to whine about people being mean to me. In real life, you deserve basic human respect and rights. (However, where you to talk to me as you have talked to others on this blog, say if we were at a party together, I would pretty quickly tell you to fuck yourself, apologize to the host/hostess, and depart.) This is not real life, it is a blog, it is words, mostly anonymous or semi-anonymous words. There is not threat here that is not imaginary. You have only become a figure of fun and abuse at this point, except by the people who are ignoring you because they hold you in contempt. Those of us responding to you have many reasons. Personally I do it to watch you froth at the mouth – as I said on another thread, I am not that nice of a person. The difference is I recognize when I am being an asshole. Want to borrow my mirror?
I’ve been lurking for a few months and haven’t posted until now because I was learning who the main commenters (pro and con) are. ‘Brenda’ reminds me of someone I knew (or knew of, to be precise) on an unmoderated message board 8 or 9 years ago – same creative reading skills, over-reactions, etc.
No shit MAJeff, that is a howler! I was laughing and hooting so much, the husband & the Bulldog came in to see what the hell was up.
I rate it three tissues and a Depends.
No shit MAJeff, that is a howler!
Twas a hit back in the early 90s when I first started going to gay bars. Still love that song…mon dieu! mon dieu!
MAJeff, On a slightly more serious tone, with only snark lite – I would love to see Boy George lead a parade up Pennsylvania Avenue singing ‘War Is Stupid’. *sigh*
Course maybe on the other hand he’s not as pretty as he used to be & has lost his voice. I haven’t seen him in many years.
Actually, a cursory search of other recent threads suggests that he is still being engaged in civil discussion.
Yes. I got over it.
Course maybe on the other hand he’s not as pretty as he used to be & has lost his voice. I haven’t seen him in many years.
Not so much. Besides, we need an American to lead that parade, and RuPaul is available (and still looking as fabulous as ever)!
brokenSoldier
No, an insult can be a personal attack, or it can be a commentary on your ideas.
“Fuck off you slut.” Now, would that be an example of a commentary on my ideas or is that a personal attack? Just trying to discern the angels dancing on the pin here.
Until someone actually says or does something to you that would violate the rules of this site, your protests are little more than petulant whining.
This isn’t about the rules of this site. Which are nonexistent as far as I can tell. This particular post is about how some atheists and other non-believers object to the stridency of certain other atheists. Dawkins and others, including PZ from his response. And talk about petulant whining! “Katie Kish doesn’t like my kind.” Wow.
The further argument is that this is a losing game. Militancy on the part of atheists will only undermine any goals that you wish to achieve in the public sphere. You do not have sufficient numbers to dictate what you want, you never will. The only rational strategy then is to gather allies and agree to compromise. That is the very essence of politics. Refusing to compromise is political suicide.
radical flank effect
I do believe PZ’s post was a little tongue-in-cheek. And From Katie’s posts here it seems that at least she has a sense of humour about it.
Brenda, I did no misreading. You are conflating verbal insults to physical abuse.
I also notice you have nothing to say about my comparing you to Ben Stein.
Dismissed. There is nothing more to say to you.
JeffreyD – That was at Making Light. I apologized and we all got over it. The stench here though is truly appalling.
considering the awful persecution and abuse of you, why are you still here?
Silly me, I thought at first it was possible to have a discussion. But thanks for the confirmation that Pharyngula is little more than a gang of thugs.
How do you propose we compromise? According to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and no doubt most other religions, we will spend eternity in Hell for not believing exactly what they believe. We can’t offer a compromise to people who cannot reciprocate.
Another TONE troll. Get the fuck over it. You’re wrong. Religion is stupid. It deserves no respect. Only tolerance. We don’t care if you don’t like our tone or attitude. Frankly I’m tired of YOUR whining.
I’ve debated plenty of godbots with unwavering disdain for their foolishness without making it a personal issue. I’ve pointed at where they were showing ignorance and lack of thought… sometimes I’ve even been complimented on the strength of my debate. Other times their so caught up in their delusion they made Kenny look rational.
I don’t, and most here don’t give a shit about your opinion. It holds no water. It’s boring and sad. We thankfully don’t think like you. Chalk that up to having a little fortitude. We don’t wilt under the glare or the assumed offense. People take their Religuous beliefs way to seriously. I don’t take them seriously at all. And I refuse to respect those beliefs anymore than NDE’s or supply side economics.
Ok… if you are right, and “Pharyngula is little more than a gang of thugs”, then it should be asked again… why are you still here?
Either we can have a discussion (in which case I suggest you stop calling me a “thug” – I don’t respond well to unfounded insults), or we can’t, in which case, perhaps you should leave. What do you want?
I “respect” other peoples religion in so far as I am more than happy tro let them alone in their beliefs up to the point it begins to interfere with MY life. When zealots pack pharmacies and try to keep citizens from getting acces to birth control they are interering with my life. When they pack the courts with activist reactionary judges who attempt to jerk us backward to the times of witch trials they are interfering with my life. I could go on for HOURS like this…
But I won’t. Suffice it to say that I am more than happy to leave you alone with your delusion if you would just be an adult and leave me alone with mine. Unfortunately the “live and let live” mindset does not seem to exist among thse who demand my respect for their delusions.
“And talk about petulant whining! “Katie Kish doesn’t like my kind.” Wow.”
More inability to detect sarcasm and/or irony. Surely you’ve picked up on the “Dear Sir/Madam” in-joke that’s cropped up lately? And we’re to take you as some sort of expert on interpersonal relationships?
“Militancy on the part of atheists will only undermine any goals that you wish to achieve in the public sphere.”
Funny. As far as I can tell, it’s only such “militancy” that has gotten people even talking about atheism and otherwise abandoning religion lately. Not that I really believe that you are at all concerned about how we as atheists or freethinkers or whatever are perceived, or that you’re not just constantly sniping at us out of your own wounded pride.
“But thanks for the confirmation that Pharyngula is little more than a gang of thugs.”
*violins play louder*
Brenda/Kenny/Planet Killer – Fuck off you slut. I said that, I own up to it, and further thou slack jawed, nipwit, fucktard, I wag my titties at your Aunties.
Move em’ up Rawhide.
I would imagine that you’ve realized by now, Brenda, that the comment board here isn’t for the thin-skinned. Perhaps you might do better at Happy Fuzzy Bunny Time Atheist Discussion and Hug-Fest.
Here, concern trolling will get you thrown to the sharks. Make baseless blanket accusations and you get thrown to sharks with lasers on their heads. Hold an intellectually dishonest argument and the sharks have rabid ferrets in their mouths. I for one prefer this environment, the sharks keep the water free of chum.
Differing viewpoints are actually welcome, but you’d better be able to back them up. With proof, instead of increasingly shrill jabbering or endless repetition of the same bankrupt argument.
Brenda said:
Perhaps that is why so few atheists are actually being militant.
Good thing, that. Even if atheists were the majority, it would sicken me if we were dictatorial about our goals.
Why aren’t the militant fundamentalists committing political suicide? Sheer force of numbers?
Really, I would enjoy seeing the day when theism, spiritualism and other forms of “woo” are considered (by most people) to be quaint holdovers from a by-gone era. With that sort of goal, my only allies are others who have the same goal. The most liberal of theists will certainly not want to consider themselves “quaint,” and even many other atheists find that position to be too insulting to their liberal theist friends and family to hold.
So the only compromise possible would be to say that some forms of theism, spiritualism or “woo” are somehow acceptable, for the time being. This would, indeed, be political suicide as any such distinction would necessarily be arbitrary, and that fact would be pounced upon by those who didn’t make the cut as the shallow, irrational political expediency that it would be.
Holy CRAP, but my keyboard is fried. Apologies for the MANY errors in my previous entry.
#88 Facehammer:
And this Zen Baptist Existentialist Agnostic Heretic Preacher’s Kid says: A little irreverence – even a dash of blasphemy now and then – is good for the soul. It helps keep things in perspective.
#93 spurge:
Actually, I think it might be a prayer. :-)
Lighten up, Brenda. No one hates you. You set yourself up to be teased, then you get offended when people take you up on it, and things are off and running.
If you’re going to stick around, you need to learn not to take it personally when people say stuff you think is off the leash. Learn to let it bounce off, poke fun at yourself, or even =HORRORS!= dish it back once in a while. But for Ceiling Cat’s sake, don’t get your knickers in a knot over it. That only makes things worse.
Finally: You are not being attacked. You’re being razzed. If you were being attacked, you’d know it.
#98 Patricia:
AAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My eyes! They’ve melted!
#107 Patricia:
Here’s one to tide us all over until we get an official one:
(.)(.)
#111 MAJeff, OM: =fanning self vigorously= Mon dieu indeed! I had to double-check to make sure that wasn’t a drag video made over a real abominable Jeeboid song. But then I’m never sure – one of my bros writes abominable Jeeboid songs for real. OTOH, I really should have known, since this one actually has something to say. (What that is, I’m not sure. I think I need to watch it again. Dirty job, I know, but someone’s gotta do it……..)
The OM’s on the list have posted logical, well thought out replies to the questioners, and they still don’t get it. Brenda von Ahsen has been given huge sympathy as perhaps a person that is actually ill – but still the horseshit keeps pouring in.
So once again I will “fall apart into a stream of obscenities” – Brenda/Kenny/Planet Killer, you six titted sow, fuck off.
Oh come on – wOO+’s up to it.
After all the six titted isn’t the ribbon winner.
For whatever it’s worth, I am nearly certain that Brenda is not Kenny/Planet Killer. I mean, come on, it’s been days, and not a single word about NDEs or Christians being put in jail and then killed for hate speech against homosexuals? Or the OPINION that the ACLU wants to prevent Christians from praying in public (or whatever other OPINIONs Kenny dreamed up from his right-wing echo chamber)?
No, no.
Brenda is very much her own thing.
#137 Patricia:
ZOMGZ =gasp= ROFL =snort= MAO! I’m =wheeze= dying! Somebody =choke= gimme some =coff= oxygen! =turns blue, passes out=
FTW! Even better than “I fart in your general direction.”
{French accent} Now go away, Brenda, or she will taunt you again! {/French accent}
Spirituality is religion without rigor.
Most religious folk are at least willing to put they’re money where they’re mouth is and they’ll spend the time to argue their points of view. I’m not even sure what “I’m spiritual, but not religious” means.
In general, many of the atheists here can pull a convincing Poe, meaning they can fairly accurately parody creationists, fundies, and the religious.
In general, theists can’t parody atheists. When they try, they’re generally sniffed out within seconds.
Given that one needs to understand another fairly well to imitate or parody them, tell me: who actually is listening to whom?
That’s a little unfair, though. It’s much easier for most of us to spew some made-up ridiculous bullshit than for a ridiculous bullshitter to say something reality-based against their own beliefs.
I believe it translates as “I haven’t bothered to come up with some bullshit sky daddy rationale for it, but I’m still better than you.”
CanadianChick
“PZ is not objecting to the the objection – he’s
objecting to the idea that someone who doesn’t like his
way is suggesting that he should just shut up because it
offends them.”
Brenda Von Asshole
‘Could you point out where anyone says that?’
In point #3 she discusses disliking Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris for “being the voice” of atheism. Then she says the type of person she’d like to “be the voice” of atheism, implying she’d like the others to no longer be the voice. That’s a roundabout way of suggesting someone shut up.
Brenda Von Asshole
“My point is that while you have the right to reject any
idea you please that does not give you the right to
mistreat others simply because they hold beliefs or ideas
you don’t approve of. I said that the first time and you
don’t seem to understand it. Do you get it now?”
Who has been mistreated? At best, some language has been used with you; language that you promptly returned. But you continue talking about this abuse that you’ve faced and its getting bloody old. As far as Katie Kish is concerned, she’s been on the receiving end of some criticisim, but mistreatment? Far from it. I don’t see her rushing off to find the Oxford’s version of “abuse”. You’re now offended on the behalf of someone who is NOT offended. No wonder everyone thinks you’re an idiot.
Brenda Von Asshole
“The moment anyone espouses an idea you think deficient
you all begin with the personal attacks.”
Please tell me the irony is not lost on you…. I can’t even count the number of times you’ve questioned the intelligence of everyone who posts on this blog. Is that a personal attack or will you start splitting hairs about the points YOU make again? Well you know what? I’m not a “little boy”, nor am I a militant atheist. What I am, is pissed off at having to listen to a condescending shit accuse everyone else of being intolerant and mean. And I’m also one of the ‘brown’ people you’ve offended from the last posts. Stop being so hypocritical and start contributing.
BTW, Patricia #78, Richard Carrier has been holed away doing book learning… But he’s started a new book, so that should be good.
What’s with the bothering over this Brenda character: she’s a vain troll not worthy of any effort.
Of course if you are enjoying baiting this piece of worthlessness, it’s your time.
The results for a reader like me were pretty slim, though, with only a couple of funnies getting panned out of a load of gravel (not counting pouring away all of Brenda’s mouseturd comments along the way.)
Brenda, #130, thanks, you made it into the scorn, slight regard, and contempt section as both a fool and a liar,easing any lingering vestiges of treating you with any respect.
OK folks,time to sum this one up and move on to something of relevance,like,say,checking the temperature outside :
1.@ KK:
Sorry darl,bored teen or not,you still said:
//A good example is something going on at a blog I was reading where people just can’t wrap their head around the fact that people can be spiritual, and not be religious//
See warm-and fuzzy below->
2.@pcarini :
You win,dear Sir/Madam,with these golden words of advice to The Brenda :
//Perhaps you might do better at Happy Fuzzy Bunny Time Atheist Discussion and Hug-Fest.//
and :
//Differing viewpoints are actually welcome, but you’d better be able to back them up. With proof, instead of increasingly shrill jabbering or endless repetition of the same bankrupt argument.//
And lets move on.
Patricia @ 78 I feel the same way about that slime D’sousa. If this can be perceived or impugned as racist, then I wish that slime mold goes back to Bangladesh or India and resume eating cow shit and bathing in the Ganges with his sewer mouth wide open. We all have someone whom we detest with complete revulsion: he heads my list unequivocally.
And good stuff at 137! This is what I like to read and espouse: no holds bared against the phony atheists!
Brenda: Why don’t you be honest and avoid all the crap you are ranting about, save yourself the non-stop ridicule, and just admit that you are not an atheist as you claim. I wannt to deal with religious issues from an avowed insane religionist and not waste time over semantics or personality rantings.
pcarini #138: “Here, concern trolling will get you thrown to the sharks. Make baseless blanket accusations and you get thrown to sharks with lasers on their heads.”
I believe it’s supposed to be “”lasers””, not “lasers”. There’s a huge difference in terms of marvel and punctuation.
For further clarification, I think its actually “frikkin sharks with frikking lasers…” Or maybe that’s me getting muddled with something else?
Re: more spokespeople would be great so everyone doesn’t have to look at the same faces all the time. But we have to respect “spirituality”? Yuck. Bleh. Empty noise.
I agree completely on both counts. ;)
Constructive dialog with the Mormons is a big part of my blog’s niche, but I’m very big on division of labor — I think one of the blogosphere’s biggest strengths is that we’re not all doing/saying the same thing.
I understand that there are some atheists and agnostics who think that atheists should lighten up on criticizing religion, and such people don’t like P.Z. I don’t get that at all. I’m not interested in dictating strategy to other atheists. If P.Z. were advocating violence or oppression against religious people, I’d criticize that, but there’s nothing wrong with holding religion up to serious scrutiny. Actually, it’s kind of amusing to have P.Z. serve as the epitome of the atheist bad guy. That way when we compare our worst bad guy to their worst bad guy, and on the atheist team, name-calling is as bad as it gets (unlike some other groups whose leaders advocate violence, discrimination, etc.).
Some people seem to think that it’s not possible to have a friendly, constructive dialog with religious people without compromising your own position or thinking that belief in God is just as reasonable as atheism. My blog is proof that’s not true.
How do I do it? I just don’t debate them on the existence of God or the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Other blogs have those topics covered. I just tell the believers directly that I disagree with them on those points, then we agree to disagree, and discuss other subjects with them. And if you can’t imagine that it might be interesting to have a dialog with cultural Mormons across the belief spectrum, then that’s why I’m the one doing it and not you. ;)
I’ve explained directly that I find belief in God irrational in a couple of parables about belief, and that I consider sprituality to be “blech” in sexuality vs. spirituality. But by being consistently friendly, rational, and fair when discussing a range of non-God-related topics with believers, I’ve helped see to it that an atheist perspective gets positive exposure and a fair hearing in places where this perspective might otherwise have been absent. For example, my positioning and reputation allowed me to go to bat for Expelled Exposed — and get my points taken seriously — in places where the film was viewed as controversial.
I just stumbled upon the most eloquent comment on ‘militant atheists’ at another blog, and urge everyone here to read it:
http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1727#comment-25274
This brief quote doesn’t do it justice, but captures the essense of the problem:
“Atheists who say anything at all in opposition to having someone’s religion imposed on them will seem unreasonable to the religious people they’re protesting … people who live comfortably unaware of their own legacy of conquest and repression.”
A few days ago, a dozen of us congregated at a seafood restaurant on the Boston waterfront for an impromptu Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe fan meetup, and Rebecca Watson mentioned that the SGU podcast now has more subscribers than Skeptic magazine.
Just thought I’d mention that.
Brenda:
Considering the serious intellectual deficiency of the shit you’ve passed off as genuine thought on this board, I’d say it is a pretty accurate commentary on both your ideas and your capacity to generate them. (Hey, you asked…)
Posted by: Brenda
Hey, just for everyone else’s benefit – that is the sound of a joke going right over someone’s head…
I can sympathize with what Katie Kish has said, though I still like and agree with PZ and the Four Horsemen.
I myself prefer the hanging out at Zen Buddhists groups rather than atheist groups. Though there is substantial overlap between the two, atheist folk tend to be more focused on the negative aspects of things. That is not bad in itself, but as Katie says it can become somewhat of a downer.
At the center of Zen Buddhism is compassion, selflessness, and a drive to become more aware and less dogmatic. While Zen Buddhism is entirely compatible with atheism, these kinds of ideals are not “enshrined” into atheism in the same manner.
I regret the word “spirituality” is associated with things like Zen. It is a reflection of the Western mindset which in turn is reflected in the Western languages, which have no other word for it.
“Fuck off you slut” is aa accurate commentary on Brenda’s ability to think and express ideas?
If you can seriously defend this as *not* a personal attack, but a sincere criticism of her intellectual position, then congratulations: you have just shown yourself the equal of a Creationist “scientist” in your ability to pretzel logic to fit what you want to believe.
You’ve also demonstrated that to denigrate a woman’s sexuality is perfectly acceptable when debating with a woman. Never mind her arguments: calling her a “slut” or “bitch” is an apt response to whatever her whore mouth spits out, right?
And yet you claim she is deluded when she sees personal attacks and ad hominems. You sure you lot haven’t been taking debating lessons from Ken Hamm?
People like you are the reason my wife is leery of atheists in the US. The arrogance here, the unbelievable myopia, and the casual sexism: they’re not any more tolerable because they come from an atheist instaad of a fundie.
Ibn,
What it actually was – since it obviously went over your head, too – was a reference to a line from SNL, and not a slur addressing Brenda’s sexual habits. But I wouldn’t expect such rational analysis from someone so quick to raise the sexist flag in defense of a commenter that has herself used genuinely sexist barbs towards other commenters.
And the whole ‘atheism is just as bad as religion’ or ‘you’re equal to a creationist’ line is quite tired. Twisting logic is a task I’ll leave to you – you seem to be an authority in the field.
I think every now and then people have to dial things back a bit. I’ve read lots of brokenSoldier’s comments in the past and find no disagreement with them, but in the context of this waning thread any newcomer who only reads the last few pages of comments (not everyone has the time/endurance/interest to read every comment) is very likely to get the wrong impression. Yes, I know that we can’t recreate the entire argument from square one for everyone who comes along, but some of the long-running jokes or well-discussed memes CAN come off as flippant, cruel, arrogant, etc.
Telling a (presumed) newcomer that “oh, it’s actually a joke – we don’t really mean it that way” is entirely appropriate, if a bit deflating to the ongoing thread. But patience is, as they say, a virtue, and something we must embace lest some of the negative claims against atheists become true.
And no, I’m not trying to call anyone out here, but from where I’m sitting reading this thread development and the original topic it addresses, first impressions can be important and I think we need to look at it all with outsider’s eyes every now and then to get some grounding.
Ibn, I would highly suggest that you read this thread before you make accusations. Or you could go to the top of the page and enter:
Posted by: Brenda von Ahsen
and
Posted by: Brenda
Just so you know, you are guilty of one of the missteps as Brenda; you come in criticizing the the majority of us here with little knowledge of what is going on.
Shorter Janine – “The bitch deserved it.”
Heya Sweetie, I reserve the word “bitch” for woman I like. I never called you a bitch. More accurate would be this;
Shorter Janine-“The ignorant asshole deserved it.”
Still laughing at this one. To von Literal, I believe it does.
I know the SNL skit. Ackroyd never said, “Fuck off, you slut.” The skit, by the way, was precisely that: a comedic skit showing two debaters who hated each other and used vitriol instead of logical argument. That was an amusing bit, actually.
But it’s not funny in real life. Just sad.
It’s true that I am a newcomer, but honestly, if this is level of “debate” is par for the course, why would I want to come back? Even after reviewing the thread Janine linked to, how does one use “Oh, once someone used an obvious SNL line to mock someone” to include, “That means it’s okay to tell a women ‘Fuck off, slut!’ in any context?”
Did you know that Digby reported this? So nice to know we have some reason for speaking to each other.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Placebobloggers
by digby
From lambert at Correntewire, I find out that I’ve been self-medicating all these years:
Self-medication may be the reason the blogosphere has taken off. Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing produces many physiological benefits. Research shows that it improves memory and sleep, boosts immune cell activity and reduces viral load in AIDS patients, and even speeds healing after surgery. A study in the February issue of the Oncologist reports that cancer patients who engaged in expressive writing just before treatment felt markedly better, mentally and physically, as compared with patients who did not.
Scientists now hope to explore the neurological underpinnings at play, especially considering the explosion of blogs. According to Alice Flaherty, a neuroscientist at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, the placebo theory of suffering is one window through which to view blogging. As social creatures, humans have a range of pain-related behaviors, such as complaining, which acts as a “placebo for getting satisfied,” Flaherty says. Blogging about stressful experiences might work similarly.
Considering the cost of prescription drugs, this is a relatively cheap way to keep healthy. (It’s actually less satisfying and cathartic than throwing my Le Creuset dutch oven lids at Tim Russert’s face on TV, but considerably less alarming to friends and family.)
I’m not sure whether all this kvetching actually helps the body politic, but perhaps it has the same effect.
Ibn:
Ok – you are new – I suggest you have a look around, read some other posts, check how people behave here. We are a diverse group – don’t fall into the trap that Brenda did of lumping us all together and making a blanket judgement based on a few people’s comments.
I’ve been reading this blog for a couple of months and am relatively new and have never posted, but as someone who was turned off by the use of derogatory terms for women used in this thread I have question for Janine ID
How does PZ Meyer telling Brenda that she can’t complain about the SNL skit line because she started the vitriolic name calling become carte blanch to use the words “bitch” and “slut” whenever you feel like it? I’m not saying you are the one that is doing this, but you provided the link as a defense for the behavior. These are very derogatory words and link being female sexuality to prostitution and being an animal.
Rueben re post 173 – so ibn and I are new, his question is still pertinent and you don’t answer it. You just say “don’t think that we’re all the same.” Nowhere does he imply that he thinks you all are using derogatory words or tar you all with the same brush. He is addressing a specific defense that people give for using derogatory language about women to refer to Brenda.
Though he should have explicitly addressed his comment to Janine ID, it is clear from the context that this is who is he speaking to, but since you actually addressed his commentary, what are your thoughts on the use of these derogatory words in this commentary? I’m not trying to put you on the defensive, it’s just, to me you seem to be implying a stance, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
I also just want to address the group here and ask you to people think and consider before you use the words bitch and slut as they are words aimed at women as a category and specifically link being female to being less than human. Would you consider using gender neutral terms instead to express vitriol?
I want to point out that while I am new, my perspective might give you a sense of what someone who doesn’t know your history will see – I saw someone using the words bitch and slut to refer to a woman, and this behavior not being reprimanded or stopped. I saw someone complain about the use of the terms bitch and slut to refer to women, and I saw them reprimanded and an explanation give that this was perfectly ok. This made me question – as a woman would I be welcome here or as soon as I disagreed with someone would I also be called a bitch and slut as a way of devaluing my argument and reducing me to my sexuality? Is using these words acceptable and normative under this communities standards?
sorry, I had gmistakes in my last two paragraphs –
I also just want to address the group here and ask you to think and consider before you use the words bitch and slut as they are words aimed at women as a category and specifically link being female to being less than human. Would you consider using gender neutral terms instead to express vitriol?
I want to point out that while I am new, my perspective might give you a sense of what someone who doesn’t know your history will see – I saw someone using the words bitch and slut to refer to a woman, and this behavior not being reprimanded or stopped. I saw someone complain about the use of the terms bitch and slut to refer to women, and I saw them reprimanded and an explanation give that this was perfectly ok. This made me question – as a woman would I be welcome here or as soon as I disagreed with someone would I also be called a bitch and slut as a way of devaluing my argument and reducing me to my sexuality? Is using these words acceptable and normative under this community’s standards?
Hi evilbunnytoo,
I don’t have time right now to go through the entire history of the “slut” controversy, but I can assure you that this is not a place where women are denigrated, or anyone is reduced to their gender or sexuality. Welcome.
I don’t necessarily approve of the vitriol that is often spouted here. I don’t participate. But I can handle it – people get mad, people get angry… they are only words. Brenda called us (as a blanked insult to the percieved group) “willfully stupid” and “arrogant asshats”. She lost her cool. Someone lost their cool in return. She wrote a “letter” to seed to complain. Some thought this amusing (PZ included) and have been making a joke out of it ever since.
Sorry, buy I actually take offense at the use of the term you people. You say of ibn that “Nowhere does he imply that he thinks you all are using derogatory words”, yet your term you people is exactly implying this.
I actually use the words “bitch” and “slut” to refer to males as well. I’ve even been known to call my computer a “c*nt” when it doesn’t behave as expected. Maybe Australians have a higher tolerance for swearing. What’s wrong with using a “gender specific insult” when you know the person’s gender? If I call someone a “cock” or a “dick head” I am not insulting men, I am insulting the individual.
Would that make you feel better about things? They are still insults. I note that many of the people using terms like “slut” here are in fact women themselves.
No, as a person you may be insulted for presenting poor and already refuted arguments, concern trolling, being boring and repetitive, insulting others etc. In my experience here you are always reduced to your arguments, not your sexuality or anything else.
re: Nick Gotts @ #176 – ha ha, I guess should have signed my last post Summer Glau.
Nick Gotts
Thanks for the welcome. I did read the link to the history of the slut controversy (which ibn and I reference). I do think Brenda started the name calling. How does that make the repeated use of the word slut, which specifically references female sexuality as derogatory, ok? I guess this is my problem, everyone seem to be saying “it’s okay to call Brenda a slut because we have a history of calling her a slut.”
Here’s analogy to help you see where I’m coming from –
it’s like a hypothetical forum saying, its okay that we call anonymous123 a spic and wetback, because we have a history of calling them a spic and wetback.
They called someone an asshat, then someone responded with a put-down that was part of a SNL joke in which the word spic was used.
Anonymous123 complained about racism and didn’t recognize the SNL skit, and because anonymous123 started the fight no one was sanctioned.
We consider anonymous123 a troll and pain in the butt so we call them these derogatory names. All other Mexicans are welcome and we will respect their opinion. [I’m using my ethnicity as an example]
-end analogy-
The very fact that the hypothetical people thought using the word spic and wetback repeatedly, or in the case of woman a bitch or slut, is appropriate is the issue I have with purported community standard – if it is indeed the community’s standard.
evilbunnytoo @ 174,5:
I am also a new reader these past few months, and my impression differs from yours. On the one hand, I see a far more casual use of sexually explicit terms than is customary in my daily, in-person crowd. Hey, it’s their party and I wandered in – I figure I can take it or leave it. On the other hand, I have also seen that the regular commenters almost invariably put an immediate stop to any post that demeans women as women. For a hard-core science group, it is less overtly sexist than most. Yes, there’s some subconscious sexism – hard to avoid in this society, and I’d say a higher proportion here are aware of and on guard for the possibility, and willing to call – and be called – on it when it appears.
And then there are all us newbies, which really disrupts the socialization patterns, and makes it harder to maintain the group norms – especially with a spike in the trolls at the same time. Sometimes I feel like apologizing to the regulars for taking over their comfortable space – although mostly I just lurk and appreciate, or wince, as the case may be.
In a world that is profoundly anti-intellectual, anti- or suspicious of science, and paranoidly theist, it is really important that there be a place like this where people can let their hair down and say what’s on their minds, without having to worry, with every post, whether some newbie who hasn’t bothered to bone up on the context is going to be offended.
Re reuben@178. Sorry, don’t get it. I must have missed the original reference to Summer Glau on the blog, and I only just found out by googling who she is – until then I didn’t even know “Summer Glau” was a person’s name.
sorry Nick, my link didnt work – http://www.xkcd.com/406/
evilbunnytoo,
The term “slut” has become something of an in-joke between a few commenters: it’ll probably go away after a few days and people will return to calling each other morons, cretins, and imbeciles.
I’m personally all for sarcasm and self-deprecation, and ribbing among friends. But I have to agree that some of the terms thrown around a bit too loosely here are difficult to continue to defend. We now have a number of newcomers stepping up for the sole purpose of pointing this out, and yet not a single apology – even in the form of “Maybe that was an inappropriate thing to say, I’ll use better judgement next time” – has been even hinted at. Instead it’s a repeat of “You don’t understand the context when I call someone a slut”, SNL skits or otherwise.
The last thing I want to do is to drag this topic into a discussion on racism, but this reminds me of riding the bus and having a crowd of teenagers calling each other ‘nigga’, in very loud voices. Most were black, but a few were white, and to my white self it appeared as a completely misguided, or perhaps oblivious and insensitive attempt to appear cool. Granted, these were teenagers, after all, and not adults. But there were plenty of other people on the bus who had to listen to it get repeated at least 60 times during the 18 minutes that I was on the bus (I started counting after it was obvious that they were using it as a form of punctuation for every single sentence), and the discomfort among the other riders was very real. Could any of us address one of the teenagers as ‘nigga’ and get away with it? Was this a symetric form of address, or is it something that only the insiders can get away with, no matter how loudly and often they said it on the crowded bus?
More to the point; offensive terms thrown about in public make some people uncomfortable, especially if the rules of usage appear arbitrary or follow a double-standard. Make whatever arguments you want, but be aware that using certain loaded terms to make your point may in a few rare cases strengthen your argument but more likely will defeat it altogether if the people you wish to pusuade instead interpret those words in their more common meanings. And I think that’s what’s happening here.
reuben@#178m
And, for complete coverage of current topics, referred to the whole thing as “slutgate”.
:o)
That’s wrong. Read through the “Judge Myers Presiding” thread in its entirety.
reuben –
Yes, I do address “you people” *at the end of my letter* because I wanted to ask to forum to consider using gender neutral derogatory terms. I addressed specific people for specific items, then made a general appeal asking if the forum would consider how I saw the event play out and use gender neutral vitriol and I didn’t communicate it well enough, censure individuals who used these terms.
In this case, I’m not say “you all are ***** [something derogatory],” I’m asking would you-all consider doing this and enforcing a community standard that doesn’t accept these words because as a newcomer I interpreted it this way, and other could do the same.
By not censuring the use of the words, I was picking an implied endorsement of these terms.
I have to say just because women use the words slut and bitch doesn’t make it right. I also believe calling men cocks and dicks reduces men to their sexuality as well, and society has a history of viewing men as well as nothing but their anatomy and judging them on it as well.
I asked for the community standards re these words and you seem to be saying, the community endorses the use of these words. Ok, question answered.
SC, thanks again for the non-apology. I know full well about the origins of this issue. But is that the ongoing excuse from now on, even to, again, newcomers (we’re all one at some point) who haven’t read the hundreds of comments that have accumulated to date? If people really want to use the word SLUT over and over again like a three-year-old says ‘poop’, then that’s their prerogative. At some point the joke wears thin and people come across as simply looking mean and unoriginal.
Is it really that important to risk our reputation and rhetorical credibility to the bitter end just because the word ‘slut’ was once used successfully in a 1970’s skit? Aren’t there better (and more creative) ways to make the point without loading the conversation with unnecessarily inflamatory terms?
the community endorses the use of these words – evilbunnytoo
I think you’re over-interpreting. I’ve only been commenting here a short while myself, but the recent use of the terms you object to has arisen out of a specific set of circumstances. I didn’t see any use of such terms, as far as I recall, until Brenda von Ahsen came along. I’d be surprised if it continues in the same way. However, it is certainly not a place for the thin-skinned.
Yes, CortxVortx actually made a blanket apology — as unnecessary as that may have been — for using the word slut, (checks) in comment #472.
However, a certain degree of silliness and perhaps over-use of the word arose because Bride of Shrek actually demanded to be called a slut, in no uncertain terms. Don’t ask me why; she’s Australian.
[facetious tone]And we all know what they’re like[/facetious tone]
Oh come, now. Brenda is nothing like Kenny, and neither are anything like Walton.
Nick Gotts, you’re right, I did make to quick of a blanket judgment.
I apologize to those who I misinterpreted as endorsing the word.
Those who have posted after #177 have given me a more representative sample of view on this issue. Thank you.
damn it – meant too quick, damn grading fatigue
I can’t help but chuckle. I, a woman, am supposed to avoid the word “slut”? I can only think of a certain early moment in Ignazio Silone’s Bread and Wine. For the men who think that “slut” is an inexcusable insult, I’ll suggest to you that even were the word directed at me, I wouldn’t be offended in the least, because I don’t share the negative judgments concerning sexual openness. You’re perfectly welcome to do do, but I will think you are prudish, sexist idiots.
And getting the full backstory before you pass judgment is a good policy. Read all of the comments – it’s what we call research.
SC@#194,
I agree. I see no reason why one should necessarily be insulted by being called promiscuous since it entails a value judgment about private sexual conduct.
I don’t often use gender-specific epithets, but I think getting one’s knickers in a knot over “slut” is probably a pretty fair indication that one might be uncomfortable with some comments when things get heated. There is no Community Bureau of Invective Approval and, from what I’ve seen, you have to be a prize asshole to get plonked by PZ.
RC: “I can’t help but chuckle. I, a woman, am supposed to avoid the word “slut”?… I’ll suggest to you that even were the word directed at me, I wouldn’t be offended in the least”
In that case, can I also call you a cunt?
I’m not trying to single anyone out, but damn, there are certain words that are loaded with historically stinging meanings, and if they’re going to be used at all it should be obvious to third-party observers what the full context is. And I contend that if the context gets lost (in this case due to the sheer length of the thread as well as the jumping of topics from one blog entry to another), it would be safer to err on the side of choosing a different, non-inflamatory term. Would that really diminish the rest of the point to be made?
And no, I would never call anyone a ‘cunt’ (especially here in the US). If I have to resort to using that particular word I see it as a failure of my own vocabulary skills. That’s just me.
Often the point of using inflammatory or insulting language is to inflame and insult. Anyone who finds themselves offended by such language were probably meant to. It’s one thing to point out an offense to someone who didn’t mean to give it. But to complain that you were insulted when someone intended to insult you? That just makes you look stupid, too.
In that case, can I also call you a cunt?
Sure. Can I give you a good roundhouse kick to the face? I mean, fair’s fair, after all.
And I contend that if the context gets lost (in this case due to the sheer length of the thread as well as the jumping of topics from one blog entry to another), it would be safer to err on the side of choosing a different, non-inflamatory term.
If you can’t follow the discussion, that’s you’re problem.
Or “your problem,” as the case may be :).
How do you know I’m not a slut? I do take some time off from my punishing job of translating the Holy Scriptures into Chicken to attend the meetings of the Whipmasters & Fornicators Union, Local 666. *flashes card*
Well come on now. Is there, by some of the logic getting passed around here, *any* reason not to start calling people kikes, niggers, spics, cunts, faggots, cripples, chinks?
I’ve been following the thread from the very beginning. I know all about intended insults. I understand sarcasm, irony, nuance, entendres. Don’t worry about me (you fucking concern trolls [sarcasm]) :-|
Do you have any feelings for people just tuning in? Or is it entirely their problem if they don’t like the service around here? Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke, those whiny, know-nothing intruders.
Think I’m persisting here because I’m thin-skinned? I’ve been in far raunchier conversations than probably most people here (don’t test me). No, I’m worried that the stereotype of ‘arrogant, careless, self-centered atheists’ will be perceived as a reality, and there will be no evidence (remember that word?) in the preceding outpouring to counter that claim. All I have suggested so far is that people use a bit more judgement in their choice of words, since this blog/comment section is, you know, open to the public. Not censorship, just judgment. The word ‘slut’ must be REALLY important to you if you’ve put this much effort into defending it. I think it’s a stale joke, and really not serving anyone.
As a person who is just tuning in:
I say! Harumph! I had no idea this sort of shocking language was in common use here! I shall write a letter of complaint forthwith!
Dear Sir/Madam…
The service around here? The service around here? Where, precisely, do you think you are? Work in a service job for a few years. Then fling that word around so liberally. Jerk.
PS: You suck at slippery slope arguments.
Well come on now. Is there, by some of the logic getting passed around here, *any* reason not to start calling people kikes, niggers, spics, cunts, faggots, cripples, chinks?
If you’re going to complain about stale jokes, at least get the routine you’re half-remembering right. The bit is from How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When You’re Not Anywhere At All by The Firesign Theatre:
Babe: Mr. Policeman? What makes America great?
Joe & Eddie [singing]:
“It’s candied apples and ponies with dapples,
You can ride all day.
It’s girls with pimples and cripples with dimples
That just won’t go away!
It’s spicks and wops and niggers and kikes
with noses as long as your arm!
It’s micks and chinks and gooks and geeks
And honkies (Honk! Honk!) who never left the farm!
DC: That’s America, buddy! Just remember–Abraham Lincoln didn’t die in vain, he died in Washington D. C.!
After taking a trip into Seattle for the day, I can see this thread has suffered its share of trolling, along with the inevitable responses, both civil and not, in response since I have been gone – I just felt like doing a little catching up.
Posted by: Duncan | June 8, 2008 3:09 PM
And such a comment would be completely useless, because as soon as it was posted, some troll would begin decrying the use of such words, even in jokes. So your suggestion that such an equivocation would somehow lay to rest all the conflict surrounding the situation is simply ridiculous.
Posted by: Duncan | June 8, 2008 10:31 PM
And that’s fine – except that most of the regulars on this site have a thicker skin than you do, and could really care less what an anonymous poster says about him or her. When encountering an insult such as bitch or slut, they refrain from immediately launching into a diatribe on how people shouldn’t show such disrespect and instead take a look at what was said, and decide whether they think it was said in jest, was simply an off-hand shot at them, or if it was designed to be a malicious insult. In any case, they tend to recognize that it was nothing more than a word typed into a field on the internet, and if the moderator of the site decided not to take any action against the commenter, they can live with it just fine. (And regardless of whatever knee-jerk, self-righteous opinions you might have of this site and its moderator, the genuinely malicious and/ or threatening insults and other such comments are always addressed accordingly by PZ.) But it’s not his problem if you don’t care for such talk – if the simple appearance of the word, regardless of intent or context, bothers you so much, you’re free to leave.
Posted by: Ibn | June 8, 2008 6:20 PM
Who’s stopping you from leaving?
Posted by: evilbunnytoo | June 8, 2008 9:26 PM
Only an idiot would equate the use of the word slut in that thread with racial slurs like you just gave in your “hypothetical analogy.” Whether you can recognize it or not, the reason you had to use a ‘hypothetical’ analogy with such inflammatory words was that the words bitch and slut are simply not on the same level as the words spic and wetback. So by inserting these substitutes in for the original words, you were trying to manufacture some connection between the two in an attempt to make the use of the word slut on that thread seem worse than it actually was.
But in the event that someone actually uses a racial slur such as spic or wetback in order to sincerely insult someone on this site, I have no doubt that such conduct would be handled differently, for the obvious reason that the situation itself would be quite different than the one we’re talking about here.
The main difference between the two sides of this argument is one of outlook. On one side, you have people who are quite used to conversing on this site, and thus have a good understanding of the fact that at the end of the day, words are simply words. They understand that what actually matters in discussion is the intent behind the speech – a concept well known to those who have even a cursory knowledge of linguistics and discourse. They realize that two different people in two different situations can utter the same thing, and it is perfectly possible for one to be excusable and the other not, and they can tell the difference between the two and act accordingly.
On the other side, you have people that take speech solely at face value, and demand that words that might be construed as offensive be stricken from the list of words that are permissible on the site, out of some need to impose a standard level of respect for everyone, regardless of whether or not it is deserved.
Either grow a thicker skin, or find a blog that better fits your delicate sensibilities. I like this one just the way it is, and if it somehow morphed into a haven for the thin-skinned, politically correct ‘respect nazis,’ I seriously doubt I’d be here anymore – a sentiment I know full well I’m not alone in.
Posted by: Duncan
You can say you understand them, but your statements show that you simply don’t.
I give up.
Tell you what – why don’t we skip the verbal insults altogether, escalate directly to death threats and get this thing started.
“In that case, can I also call you a cunt?
Sure. Can I give you a good roundhouse kick to the face? I mean, fair’s fair, after all.”
Absolutely, fair’s fair.
Let’s call back David Mabus so you can really hone those debating skills.
Oh, and SC, no, you’re a jerk!
Jerk.
Well said brokenSoldier.
Aha! I see: Duncan = Brenda.
Duncan:
Keep insinuating that simple insults will inevitably result in escalation to death threats without PZ actually stopping it before it gets to that point…All it accomplishes is that it makes you look like more and more of an idiot.
Does this mean you’re leaving?? (I won’t hold my breath, but I just might keep my fingers crossed…)
Use of the word ‘jerk’ is a direct insult to members of the Chicken Speakers Guild. I demand an apology, or a formal complaint will be lodged.
Cool! Here I am in my mean tank top and miniskirt. Am I a slutty thug or a thuggish slut?
Ha! Ken Cope, I beard you sir.
Evidence for “dapples on ponies” pales in comparison to Panza’s ass. Cervantes, 1608
“Am I a slutty thug or a thuggish slut?”
And try to say that ten times fast!
SC – I can’t say it ten times fast… er.. do you want me to bring it up at the Local 666 union meeting? Or I can try casting a spell for you. *huge bright grin*
Duncan, the social rules are really simple: just worry about yourself and don’t tell others how you think they should behave and speak, and certainly don’t push the issue after your advice has been rebuffed. As you can see, it never works. You just end up the one looking like an ass. You don’t like bad words? Great, point made. Now move on or move along.
Oh, words. So cute you guys attack with words. Where I come from, we dig a hole and bury the person up to the neck. Then sometimes we throw stones too! You guys are pussies. (Oops, I said “pussies.”)
Re #215 Dunno – but the thutty slugs have given us no end of trouble this spring! Especially with the lupins.
You know, I just wanna say, that I’m not taking this personally, and I hope that at the end of the day that there are no hard feelings and we can all meet in a future discussion. After all, this thread is already two days old and it’s probably just us dead-enders anyway squabbling over semantics and the meaning of words, and there are certainly more important things in the world than a protracted late-night flame war.
But I do want to address one exchange that I think flew over most people’s heads. It’s something SC said earlier that left me puzzled, especially in light of her later response.
#194 “For the men who think that “slut” is an inexcusable insult, I’ll suggest to you that even were the word directed at me, I wouldn’t be offended in the least…”
I replied (to make a point):
#196 “In that case, can I also call you a cunt?”
SC apparently weighed her options and decided upon:
#198 “Sure. Can I give you a good roundhouse kick to the face? I mean, fair’s fair, after all.”
——
So apparently the word ‘slut’ doesn’t even warrant a shrug, yet changing three letters to the word ‘cunt’ somehow jumps past “Well, I’d call you a prick” to a suggested assault that usually renders the recipient unconscious. But it would be a fair exchange.
So SC, if you’re still here, I’d like to ask you a favor. I know you don’t really mean you’d kick me like that (even if we were to somehow meet up in person). But if you did, I want you to do it right. I want my money’s worth.
I want your assurance that you have practiced this. No half-assed leg swing that I could easily deflect. I expect a lightning-fast Billy Jack-style kick. Set up a five-foot step ladder with a large block of ice on top. Place the kick so that it shatters the ice *before* it hits the ground. When you can do that consistently then come after me.
Put on some heavy Doc Martin boots with the metal heel cleats, and aim right for my mouth. The side of the head is ok but I want some serious dental damage. See if you can tear some of my lip off as well. A really good kick should shatter my jaw, knock out a half-dozen teeth, and leave me with a lisp for the rest of my life. Can you promise me that?
Now visualize all this, graphically, and remember that I called you a ‘cunt’. I want this association to stick with you. And then remember that these are simply words, and people shouldn’t let them affect their thoughts or emotions, even if changing three letters from one to the next somehow makes all the difference in the world.
Good night, all.
Some people seem to miss the point of calling someone a slut on this blog.
It’s funny, on this blog, because it’s something most of us here would never seriously do.
We’re mostly liberals here, who are not uptight about sex. Many of us have slept around a bit, at some point in our lives, and are not ashamed of that fact. Most of those who haven’t aren’t particularly judgmental about it.
So it’s roughly like black people calling each other “nigga”, or liberals calling each other “commie.” It’s assumed that it won’t be taken seriously.
A liberal might seriously call another liberal a communist in a derogatory way, but not a “commie”. “Commie” would obviously be a joke, because “commie” is what right-wingers call us, or used to; if you’re serious, you have to use the word “communist” to make that clear.
Similarly, if we call somebody whose sexual proclivities we don’t know a “slut,” it’s a fucking joke.
It’s a joke in much the same way as in the SNL skit, but not necessarily dependent on it. On SNL it was funny because it’s obviously an over-the-top character saying it, without any implication that the actor or writers agreed with the attitude. Rather the reverse.
For those who know the regulars here, that’s true here as well, whether you get the SNL reference or not. It’s just not something we’d say, so it must be a joke.
(It’s understandable if that’s not obvious to some non-regulars.)
Possibly Brenda von Ahsen really is a “slut,” likely she’s not; we fucking do not care. If we wanted to seriously call her a slut, in a derogatory way, we’d have to say something like “promiscuous due to pathetic needy insecurity” or something like that. That would show that we seriously mean to say that (a) she actually sleeps around, and that (b) in her particular case, it’s a bad thing.
That said, the “slut” thing is getting old, and we should probably tone it down.
Though I gotta say I’m disappointed that I said what I said in the sex-in-church thread and nobody called me a slut. (snif)
Duncan:
Be advised that the harsh responses you have drawn – as has been previously pointed out – are not based upon your person in any way. They have been based upon your deficiencies in logic and errant claims.
Example:
Whether it is a piece of polite advice or a direct order – telling people to mince words in order to avoid offending someone’s delicate ego is still censorship, especially when the term you’re trying to get rid of is something as broad and benign as the word slut. (Just so we’re clear, censorship is defined as the act of examining books, films, or other material and removing or suppressing what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable…Not just doing so by force, but any such action.) And when you continue to argue your point by equating the word in question with overtly specific and intentionally inflammatory racial slurs and even death threats, you not only miss the point, but you also defeat your own credibility by doing the very thing you’re supposedly so against other people doing.
It is exactly these types of inconsistencies in your reasoning – along with your refusal to acknowledge them – that draw the criticism. If you decide to discontinue those kinds of mistakes, then I’m sure no one will be averse to continuing to discuss topics on this board with you. If not, you’ll find that fewer and fewer people will take you seriously, along with your contributions to the discussion.
Posted by: Duncan | June 9, 2008 4:03 AM:
Here’s an idea – how about you stick to insulting peopleif and when they are deserving of such insults…
SC is not offended per-se by the use of the word “slut”. Do you think this is sufficient reason to then call her a “cunt”? If not, then you are simply being an asshole to make a point. Which maybe does deserve a kick to the face.
As for your whole kick-in-the-face porn description and your earlier “escalate directly to death threats” remark, I think maybe you need to calm down, get some fresh air, and stop conflating words with physical violence.
Hey, maybe the blogosphere could use more kung-fu?
yet changing three letters to the word ‘cunt’
These may well be the dumbest words ever uttered on the internet. Last I checked, changing the letters of a word could actually transform it into a completely different word. A few examples:
polite -> police
vegetarian -> veterinarian
liberal -> literal
Magic!
Seriously, Duncan – I hope (please note the difference from hop, hype, harp, pope, and rope) that you are in fact Brenda, Kenny,… Otherwise, there would seem to be an endless supply of humorless prigs here. Sure, you’re fun to taunt for a while, but eventually it gets old. If you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, anything at all, I for one would be thrilled to hear it.
Thanks to the people who came to my defense while I was asleep!
And to Paul W. in particular: If I ever see an “OM” after your name, well, I’ll know how you got it. You commies are all the same.
Posted by: SC | June 9, 2008 7:49 AM
Especially when you’re changing all but one single letter in the word! Its quite funny how if I only change three of the letters of the word for Pope, you come up with Evil.
Then again, for some of the popes through history, those two words are not far from actually being synonymous, anyway…
completely off-topic–
brokenSoldier, you’re in the Seattle area?
I would be very interested in bouncing an idea off of you, and seeing what you think of it. I’m being a little vague here, because it’s so off-topic that it’s not really Pharyngula material, but your experiences put you in the group of people in the Seattle region who I want to hear from, and so I’d be very interested in your impressions of what I am developing.
If you have the time and would be interested in letting me run something past you for a frank and honest assessment, I promise to take your feedback very seriously. Additionally, I promise your anonymity is safe with me.
you can reach me at the following address, replacing the anti-spam measures with the obvious replacements:
researching DOT massage AT gmail DOT com
thanks!
–thalarctos
Ha! Ken Cope, I beard you sir.
Sweet Aphrodite’s merkin, madam, this is not my den.
Evidence for “dapples on ponies” pales in comparison to Panza’s ass. Cervantes, 1608
By Desdemona’s handkerchief, ’tis true. Dapple is an ass with a paunch on it.
Ahh, Mr. Cope, Let it never be said that you do not know a fine sleek ass when you see one. :)
When did “militant” become a dirty word? If it weren’t for militants, racial segregation would still be legal in the US. If it weren’t for militants, many more tens of thousands of Americans would have died in an unnecessary war in Vietnam.
Militancy is sometimes necessary.
“I am the very model of a modern intellectual
I know all about epithets nuanced and effectual…”
The problem is that the word is ambiguous, and is systematically used as a slur.
In its original sense, it meant using or advocating the use of military force or other violence. That often is a bad thing, although it’s sometimes justified.
Many who insult people as “militants” would never use the word for the heroes of the American revolution, who were very clearly and literally militant. But they’ll happily call the Black Panthers “militant.”
In a somewhat weakened form, it came to be used to describe people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi, who were expressly not militant, in fact nonviolent, but uppity enough to organize and exert political power.
In a still more weakened form, it came to be used to describe anybody who puts their views forth more strongly than the commenter likes.
So basically, if you buy into some radical chic thing, you’ll like to be called “militant” even if you’re nonviolent, and even if you’re pretty mild, but reasonably open about your opinions.
For everybody else, “militant” means “uppity enough to insist on saying things I don’t want to hear.”
Yes, but the word has gotten all fucked up.
P.Z. and the Four Horsemen aren’t militant. They’re just uppity.
Ah, one of those irregular adjectives.
I am forthright.
You are disputatious.
He is militant.
I’d like to call Duncan a tightass, but I’m concerned that the Bureau of Invective Approval might object to “tightass”. Do any of you sluts know where I can find the necessary application form?
re: #235–
[Baron Munchausen] I have learned from experience that a modicum of lubricant can be most efficacious.[/Baron Munchausen]