Hey, that’s how I feel about him all the time!
I hope more people are beginning to see through Pope Francis’s superficial pretense to being the friendly pope — he’s actually the same old front for a deeply evil organization.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This seriously made my day, if not my weekend. Thank you.
I’m with all of this, but yeah, it does seem odd sometimes when certain truly reprehensible speech (neo nazi rallies) results on some calling for their arrest. I mean, I guess what I’m saying is I can’t mentally handle inconsistencies in my own moral code, and will abandon a moral system that demands them, because I can’t help but feel that even if I can’t see where the problem is, it’s GOT to have one, I mean, it’s inconsistent! Being internally consistent is apparently more important to me than actual harm.
What I’m saying is, I “get” all of this, way too much, and it paralyzes me when the opposite of this particular case rolls around in a few months and everyone’s demanding legal action against some truly reprehensible speech. I do have to seriously consider that maybe moral codes are the problem, and all that matters is if, at the time, someone’s being hurt, and never to come up with ad hoc reasons. Maybe concepts like “freedom of speech” shouldn’t exist, and instead just an instance-by-instance analysis of who’s hurting who, case by case, is the ONLY logical course of action, something like that MIGHT just work out, deciding that killing an artist is bad because an artist got killed, and that’s it.
Or maybe not, maybe we really do need a concept like freedom of speech, but if that’s the case, we can’t be selective about it. Demands for Youtube to take down videos, for example. Everyone I knew was upset when Youtube took down videos promoting atheism, and at the time I thought rightly so. Then, months later, everyone was demanding Youtube take down a video filled with some incredibly hateful misogynistic language. On the one hand, there’s a qualifying difference between the two (one was mere commentary and not really hateful, the other was directly targetting an entire gender), but on the other hand, not a single person was using that reasoning when they were defending the atheist video. At the time, it was entirely about free speech, and how Youtube is such a critical place that taking a video down from there constituted removing outright one’s ability to reach a wide audience with certain ideas. The second video, with it’s hateful message, it was argued that “taking it down from Youtube is NOT censorship, because no one deserves a platform, and it’s a company, not the government, and companies can censor all they want”.
Do you see how it can conflict me? Sure, their hatred and misogyny in general is a decidedly more important issue, but it’s possible to be outraged at more than one thing at a time, and, to me, it is ALWAYS worth making sure we are being internally consistent no matter the cause. Then again, I could be wrong about that. Logic isn’t really necessary, when you consider nothing about natural law actually FORCES us to be internally consistent, and isn’t logic really just a tool to accomplish goals, so that if logic gets in the way of justice, sometimes you have to throw it out? Rereading that, I sound sarcastic, but I’ve actually seriously considered whether or not logic is actually all that important when it comes to moral decisions, and that maybe internal inconsistency is the ONLY way for a moral system to actually function, because morality might just be inherently irrational.
Though, in this case, the answer is clear. Don’t kill people just because they annoy you. Heck, don’t punch someone just because they said something about your mother.
On a lighter note, don’t bring anyone’s mother into this. She ain’t here, and when you insult someone else’s mother, you insult mothers all over the world. ~ Mr. T
Seriously though, the temptation is to attack the pope with the very insult he said he would respond violently with (his mother), except, well, his mother’s got nothing to do with what he said, and she’s very likely dead at this point. Just do what this guy did, insult him directly. Maybe insult the holy Mother instead as a substitute. Fictional characters are fair game.
No, thank you.
Even though I will confess to it being a curse I still use on a semi-regular basis, his use of “Son of a Bitch” really jarred me and felt off from the rest of the flow of a rant.
I think it’s that I tend to use that phrase as something closer to “oh shit” rather than aimed *at* someone, and thus their mother. And of course the fact that it’s a femme-specific derogatory phrase/useage which you folks have (mostly) broken me of.
Dark Jaguar – agreed. Freedom of Speech is a problematical idea. Freedom of not-inciting-violence speech is problematical too, since clearly Nazis and KKK and so on would be covered, but arguably Charlie Hebdo would be caught in such a definition.
Freedom of not-inciting-hate is also problematical, since I’m sure Popie-baby-Francis hates it when Catholics are mocked, or Jebus, or whatever. I suspect he’d be claiming that mocking his spiritual beliefs are hate-speech.
So I don’t know. I completely agree with you that the moral standards are wishy-washy and seem to change with who’s on what side, rather than holding to some constant truth. i.e. “Hate in the eye of the beholder.”
As far as I’m concerned, Mr Dalton, as a rape apologist, is on the same side with the Pope. So yeah, no thanks.
I was going to ask whether the presenter of this video had walked back the rape apologetics yet. Any news?
‘Freedom of Speech’ is simple.
One can say, or say in print, anything they wish. Supporting or criticizing any idea (True or False) is fair.
But there may be legal consequences:
It is illegal to threaten to harm, restrict or kill someone. Doing that should send you to jail.
Not even the pope should get a pass threatening to punch someone.
If you yell FIRE in a crowded theater you risk the civil lawsuits of those hurt or killed in the stampede.
Morality may suggest it is better to be nice than mean.
As you have no control over how someone feels, you are not responsible for how they feel. They can’t restrict your speech because it makes them feel bad, or offends them.
Anyone could feel bad for anything and thus control speech.
Since Religions are ideas, there are no restrictions on criticizing their ideas (dogmas).
what
Oh, there is a way out of this problem. It’s why National Socialist activities are illegal in Germany and Austria. Here goes:
If Nazis took over, the very first thing they’d do is to abolish the very freedom of speech they so hypocritically invoke. Outlawing Nazi propaganda, including but not limited to lies about the Holocaust, is therefore a defense of the freedom of speech.
Of course, how much sense this makes depends on how dangerous the ideology in question really is. If Maoists took over in the US, they’d of course abolish freedom of speech, but they’re simply not going to take over in anything remotely like the foreseeable future. Outlawing Maoist propaganda would be rather useless, and a case can be made that useless laws should not exist because they’re just cumbersome.
@Dark Jaguar
If we are talking about free speech in the context of speech the government can control I think that the least harm option is to err on the side of more free speech. Incitement to violence should be off the table and there should be remedies for slander and libel, but much beyond that ends up making bigger problems than it solves. Keep in mind, someone in government is going to be deciding which speech is unacceptable. Can you think of any extant government that you feel comfortable giving that power to? I certainly wouldn’t want to give that power to my current government. That leaves us with a lot of distasteful speech and even harmful speech, but the best answer to that is more speech, not less. It requires a lot more work, but to paraphrase Churchill (I think), It’s the worst option out there, except all of the others.
So, maybe we need to get the pope and Jian Ghomeshi together, and Jian can say to the pope, “I’d like to hate fuck your mother”, and the pope can punch him in the head (he likes it rough). So Win! Win!
Pretty good rant about the popes stupid comments. I’ll continue to mock religion at every opportunity.
congenital cynic, ugh!
That ‘joke’ is cringe inducing.
Like others on the thread, I am unimpressed by the moral outrage of a rape apologist. In that regard at least, Dalton has much more in common with the Catholic church than he might care to admit.
Instead, I feel that Tim Minchin has already expressed how I feel about the papacy extremely well, though now it looks like he could add a few lyrics about terrorism apologia if he ever decides to revisit the tune.
If Mr Dalton is a rape apologist then fuck him along with the pope. That being said, it’s a great video and I hope he comes to his senses.
What, are there like only five fucking atheists in the goddamn world that we have to keep promoting the same fucking dinguses over and over again? Christ on a fucking crutch, PZ.
So according to this Mormon-in-everything-but-belief-in-God-only, if you’re afraid you might be taken advantage of by a serial sexual assaulter who uses liquor to ply his victims, it’s up to you to exercise restraint in drinking, but if you’re afraid you might get physically assaulted by someone for what you say, well, that’s all on them.
I mean, he’s the pope, he’s supposed to say stuff like that, it goes with the job description (but yes… when he says it, it demands to be called out). Anyway, the catholic church isn’t going away anytime soon (not in the next 100 years). It *is* possible to rail against the church for its bad ideas and actions, while also acknowledging that, luckily for everyone, the pontif this time around happens to be a descent human being. Perhaps it’ll lead to a bunch of fluff that only serves as cover. But, I shall be more optimistic than that.
(Also… I hate using the word “evil” in any context that doesn’t include a queen in a disney movie. When applied to real people/groups of people (not fictional ones), it’s dehumanizing. Always.)
Why not? Freedom of speech is an important principle, but it’s not the only important principle. Sometimes important principles clash, because life is complicated. It would be nice to have a general meta-principle that would decide for us what the right order of priorities is in all cases. Unfortunately, there isn’t one.
Also, fuck the Pope and Mr. Deity
I love how, just a few seconds after calling the pope a “mouth-breathing provocateur”, he takes in an audible breath through his nose.
Yeah, I know. It’s a guy who made excuses for a serial sexual abuser, and I do hold that against him. But the video did reflect my feelings about the pope, so I went with it for that reason only.
Oh, well then, that’s clearly okay, then.
I mean, I think me and some of the other commenters were confused, but now that you’ve made it clear that you’re posting the video because it reflected your feelings about the pope and for that reason only, we’re all on board. We’re not mind readers, PZ, so it was a complete goddamn fucking mystery as to why you posted this video (although if one reads the OP several times, they’ll note you left a few subtle clues, like “Hey, that’s how I feel about [the Pope] all the time!”, but that’s Martin Gardner-level puzzle shit right there), but I’m super duper glad you took this extra time to clarify.
Hey, why don’t you post one of Dawkins’ video on evolution, with which you agree about evolution but for that reason only, while you’re at it?
You Must Be Pure!
Is that what you think I’m saying, chigau?
Anthony K
Yup.
I’m having a flashback to some sg versus SC battles.
Well, that’s just fucking stupid then.
しょうがない
Sometimes I get confused between you and chascpeterson, chigau. Which one of you is it that favours oblique and content-free one-liners as a method of discourse, again?
Fuck off.
So…it’s okay to tell women (not to mention a specific woman who was actually raped) that if they get raped, it’s their own fault as long as you can also say something bad about the pope that a million other critics of the pope have? Does the respect of rape victims mean so little? Is the promotion of this video so important?
Brownian
one-liners are all I have
bless your heart
(the comparison to chas was not an insult)
PZ: the video did reflect my feelings about the pope
Exactly. Agreeing with one statement does not mean you agree with everything the speaker has ever said and done. This is a statement that could be made by anybody, and can stand on it’s own regardless of the speaker.
FUCK THE POPE!
…And @shermertron has inserted himself into the conversation via the twitter. Berk. We weren’t even talking about him, Dalton’s sins are his own. And I don’t even know what the Oggvorbis thing is about, anyway, so I don’t see how that makes me an apologist for anything. Way to go, Shermer, that will really win back some of my respect for you.
Gah, fluffed the link, sorry. hope that hasn’t effed up all the comments.
Erlend Meyer
Nobody has said it means PZ agrees with Mr.Diety on everything. But who you endorse matters and does say something about you. Considering this message could have come from anywhere, why pick this asshole? Also, PZ didn’t even add a disclaimer about him being a rape apologist who he doesn’t agree with. Given Mr.Deity’s popularity and PZ’s past appearance on it, it’s even more important to reiterate his stance on this side of the rift. Not doing so makes it seem like it’s no big deal and can be ignored. That is a sign of privilege and bringing up the issue being so ignored isn’t purity, it’s consistency.
It can’t be ignored if social justice is your cause and you support rape victims. It’s not like we can forget what happened to us and Mr.Deity’s victim blaming defence of a prominent old boy atheist. I was around when it happened, but what about those you were gone that week? It could easily be missed by people and since his viewers trust him, why wouldn’t they assume Mr.Deity isn’t an asshole when PZ regularly calls out and refuses that ilk all the time?
Fuck Mr. Deity. I haven’t and won’t watch another video or promote him after his bullshit. And frankly, I’m disappointed in those who are.
Anthony K
Or Thunderfoot’s creationist videos.
I get how the personal connection makes it harder for people to stick to their morals on stances like this (“But I know him!” and “He’s not all bad!”), but doesn’t that sound familiar? Instead of just letting a friend slide on a rape joke in private, PZ’s doing it publicly with an audience who trusts him and found sanctuary from shit like that at his blog.
Mh I hope this comes out right as I am slightly intoxicated.
I really enjoyed the video. The profuse profanity was very refreshing considering what that other asshole (the pope) said. However, I was not aware of the issue about Dalton – now that I read it, I vaguely recall that there was something, but my memory just did not serve at the point. So yeah, fuck him too, provisionally. Doesn’t detract from the message (“Fuck you, Francis”), but I agree it’s a poor choice of messenger.
Will educate myself tomorrow what exactly happened.
A very satisfying rant overall, but the highlight for me was “God knows, you never really cared for the whole ‘freedom of speech’ thing in the first place – what evil empire would?” Fucking zing.
Agreed, it is okay. I choose to ignore the sarcasm you intended.
P.S. angry rejoinders make my day.
For those enquiring about the rape-apology. It should start at the right place, but if not the relevant part is from 5:24 onwards.
Of course, this isn’t the first time PZ has done this with Mr. Deity after his rape apologia. Check comment #3 though to find chigau saying “No thanks” to Mr. Deity yet no “purity” comments from them when the entire thread is people say “Fuck that asshole and you for posting this”.
I didn’t go digging for that, I found it while trying to get to the original rape apologia video, which was linked in the comments.
Holms
Would you say that for any other rape apologist? Why does this asshole get a pass?
@Erlend Meyer
How about Bill Cosby? You think people should just ignore that he’s a rapist and go to his stand-up shows? Maybe the CBC shouldn’t have fired Jian Ghomeshi? After all, he was a great interviewer. Perhaps the Catholic Church was right to protect all those child rapists and we ought not to be angry at the coverup because surely when those priests weren’t raping kids, they were doing all the proper priestly things. The people who did the covering up just didn’t want to give them up to authorities just because of some bad shit they did over in some other convenient compartment of their lives. Punishing them? Reporting them? Hell no, that would be calling for “purity” would it not?
Explain to me how the logic isn’t exactly the same. You people who see nothing wrong with giving Dalton a platform, giving him the respect of promoting what he has to say and amplifying his profile? You’re doing the same thing as the people who invite Shermer to conferences to speak on scepticism. The very least that we can do for victims is to show our contempt for rapists and rape apologists, not pat them on the back for happening to say something funny or clever.
JAL #38
My “No thanks” was about Mr.Deity’s position on drink and rape.
—
My “Purity” was about some long-dead in-fighting pharyngula bullshit.
It didn’t belong here.
I’m sorry.
Posting a video from such a dastardly character, without strong condemnation, may create the impression that you support him or at least that you have no problem or concern with him as a person, which is obviously problematic. In a world that is already way to fucking rape friendly, the last thing we need is to lend even a scintilla of support or credence (be it real or merely apparent) to those who perpetuate rather than fight the prevailing rape culture.
Also, lending your good name and reputation to this kind of person, on any level, is giving him a gift he just does not deserve. Save your endorsement for those who are worthy, else the value of that currency may begin to decline over time.
While I understand PZ’s position, that he doesn’t support that guy’s apologia for rape and he just agrees with him for this specific point, I have to go with the others here. Posting the video despite knowing that, well, is kind of problematic.
chigau (違う)
Yeah, I know, that’s why I mentioned it. You said the same thing here yet appeared to have a problem with calling PZ out while you didn’t have a problem with people doing the same thing on the previous thread. I didn’t want it to seem like you’re watching/supporting Mr.Deity personally and your position on that part has been consistent.
Ah, okay (that sailed way over my head then) and thank you.
Ever since Mr. Deity and the Woman and how he’s doubled down on the sexism, I’ve stopped watching Mr. Dalton altogether. It’s such a shame because I used to enjoy his work quite a bit. I gave him money, and I bought the DVDs. No more. Every time I see him now I wonder what stupid shit is going to come out of his mouth. Sort of ruins the enjoyment. Also, while I have no problems buying things from people who have opinions I disagree with, I couldn’t in good conscience help fund the platform he was using to spread his ignorance.
If you do enjoy the video, do us all a favor. If you watch it again, at least skip the ads.
Ibis: Could you please stop making such a good case for your position?
You’re right, I’m having trouble finding Cosby funny these days, and I certainly wouldn’t go to any shows featuring him. So why should I find Dalton any funnier? While one could argue that he “merely” stood up for a friend he believes to be innocent, fact is that this kind of willful ignorance is a major obstacle for rape victims.
I find myself wanting to ignore this for two reasons. First off I hate it when people try to change the topic. This was about the fucking pope, not rape. Seems like there’s always someone who has to try to make every discussion about their pet cause, insisting that nothing else matters until that problem is dealt with.
Secondly I’ve always found Dalton to be really funny, and I don’t want anybody to kill the fun. But you just did.
So you’re right, we shouldn’t ignore this. Rape is such a vile act that we should have zero tolerance for apologetic and dismissive attitudes. The world is full of people who get this, no need to hang on to Dalton if he doesn’t. He might be funny, but nobody is THAT funny.
ibis3 came really close in comment 28.
Oh, I didn’t notice comment 39 was from the same person. In the context of comment 39, comment 28 doesn’t do that.
It’s not even clever….
There was an opinion piece in the Guardian in the past couple of days that summed up the pope’s statement as “the wife-beater defense”. In other words:
“She said things that made her husband angry so she should expect to get beaten up”
or
“You insulted my mother so you should expect a punch in the nose”
or
“They made fun of someone’s religion so they should expect to get killed”
(And Mr. Dalton should note that it’s the same self-entitled reasoning that gives you “She had a few drinks so she should expect to be raped”.)
As far as my feelings for the pope, this guy has it. When people talk about how moderm he is over one sentence, he proves them wrong by taking a step back and speaking the same old judgemental and hateful garbage.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/pope_francis_says_gay_marriage_threatens_to_disfigure_god_s_plan
The pope is just a religious mouthpiece. I have no respect for this pope.
I’m with the anti-Dalton crowd. His rape apologetic wasn’t an “off-color” remark, or a belief that his personal friend could not be a rapist, it was much worse. He dedicated two minutes to full support of rape everywhere (as long as it isn’t a rapist-in-a-dark-alley situation) and blamed the billions of rape victims for the crimes that were perpetrated against them. Aside of personally getting on his knees to pin the Congressional Medal of Honor to Shermer’s bellend he has done everything he could to make his position on rape clear.
Furthermore, I disagree with people saying that his previous words don’t change his message. They do. They show that there is no real moral difference between the violent Pope and his violent opposition. It allows to color Pope’s as a mere difference of opinion, and not as an immoral stance. But worse of all it shows rape victims that they have no hope – they will be victimized in the name of the church and in the name of atheism.
I ask PZ to reconsider your approach to Dalton’s videos.
You remember, Anthony – they were right before that big Giliell vs. pteryxx blow-up about abortion rights and just before heddle took everyone here to task for cheering on the pitters.
(Hope I got that in before the end of Substanceless Smear Week! It’s always over before you know it!)
Its kind of the fire in a crowded theater type situation, I think. Freedom to criticize has to be back up by at least the plausibility that your ideas have real social value, and are, at worst, causing some people a bit of aggravation, or discomfort. Hate speech doesn’t just aggravate, or make uncomfortable, it tends to a) cause extreme distress, b) incite actions that cause real harm, and, often, c) hold no value to society, beyond maintaining an existing, and non-justifiable, prejudice. They are, in a word, not justifiable, without accepting the premise that they are correct in the first place **while** using such speech to disadvantage, deny, silence, or harass, others. To me, that is the line you shouldn’t be able to cross. It is **literally** identical to screaming fire, in a crowded theater, how ever much those doing it might otherwise deny their culpability in the result.
But, yes, its otherwise, a bloody complicated thing to deal with.
Oh, and as to Dalton… He hasn’t been that funny in a while, but.. if I stopped dealing with people, even casually, who piss me off with some stupid ideas, I would have to quit work, live in a cave, and disown half my family. In short – don’t give him one single bloody micrometer with respect to his defense of rape, and attempt to place blame on the victims, but, at the same time, most of us would rapidly run out of people we where willing to deal with, at all, ever, if we couldn’t, in context, hold our noses, and say, “Well, except for **certain** cases, this person is fairly on the ball.”
I am, however, still waiting for dear Dalton to remove his head from his ass on the important issue that everyone has brought up. Just… not going to necessarily expect it.
sirbedevere #49:
Quoting this for emphasis.
Kagehi
Because being stuck with meatspace people in order to survive is totes the same as choosing to spend your time online and fucking post on your blog for everyone else to “enjoy” and support as well.
So can blasphemy.
So does blasphemy. Charlie Hebdo anyone?
So does blasphemy according to many believers. For example, look over any of the Christian news, and see how they claim that they’re under so much persecution.
Now, still want those hate speech laws? Who do you think is going to be in charge of enforcing them? As soon as you realize that the biggest spreaders of hate are also the biggest benefactors of hate speech laws, you should realize the error of your ways. (Paraphrasing Hitchens.)
>Hitchens – free speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM
PS: And no, I don’t agree with Hitchens on everything he’s ever said. Further, I consider it slightly unreasonable that I even have to post this disclaimer when posting this video – I’m not even sure offhand what you might object to. I surely don’t have citations. However, I have little doubt that you could find something horrible which he has said, and I in no way defend it by merely linking to this video. Rather, I merely defend the contents of the video.
@EL While I generally consider Hitchens an ass he does sometimes nail an issue to the floor. In this case his words are especially relevant not just to the heinous attack on CH but even more to the arrests of over 50 French citizens on charges of “condoning terrorism” because they dared to express anything but complete agreement with the mainstream narrative.
EnlightenmentLiberal #57
No, it doesn’t. At no point did anyone at CH call for the killing of Muslims. On the other hand, hate speech does that all the time. That’s the “tiny” difference between freedom and crime – I can say anything as long as it doesn’t cause actual harm or can, in high likelihood, cause harm to others (for example, see military secrets, financial information, medical info, etc).
Since you are an Enlightenment liberal you probably haven’t caught up with recent thought about human rights, but we in the real world have had several centuries to flesh out the details. Apparently, rights clash, and some right are more important than others. So in an effort to ensure that the right to live is not endangered some other rights get slightly restricted (another example: you don’t have a right to run in the middle of a road. Your freedom of movement is severely reduced. Write a letter to your representative). Furthermore, it was discovered that some types of speech can cause immediate danger to a person’s life and some not immediate, but still is certain to be dangerous eventually. Nazi germany was a big eye-opener in that regard. Go figure.
tl;dr – you’re wrong about blasphemy, you’re wrong about hate speech and you’re wrong about human rights.
_________________________________
Kagehi #54
Good thing we aren’t married to Dalton! Here is a thought exercise: would you go to your local Klan club to talk about your favorite music? Would you invite them to your home? No? Then stop preaching this juvenile half-assed “wisdom” about accepting scumbags. There was nothing essential in this post by PZ, and even if there was, then there was no need to post that specific video out of the many available on the subject. There was no need to post a video at all, PZ could have linked to an article about the Pope and wrote a paragraph or two. He didn’t do that. That was a lazy and foolish decision and it’s being called out as lazy and foolish.
Furthermore, you should reread again and again JAL #56‘s comment – people are being raped. Rapers keep getting away with their crimes. It happens again, and again, and again, and again. When you treat someone’s clear rape apologetic as a tolerable imperfection then you proclaim rape to tolerable if not acceptable. You take a side of a guy playing dress-ups in front of a camera over that of rape victims who are trying to survive.
In other words: You won’t watch a video from someone excusing murder (like, say, the Pope), then why are being so lenient on someone who excuses rape? What does that say about you and your approach to rape?
@AlexanderZ
Are you saying it’s only hate speech if it’s incitement to violence or a true threat? That’s not an honest and accurate depiction of the usual notion of “hate speech”. It doesn’t capture calling someone a fag, or teaching that the holocaust didn’t happen, or advocating white supremacy, etc. I think it generally conceded that “hate speech” is a term which refers to something above and beyond speech which is already outlawed by incitement and true threats.
Charlie Hebdo’s contents are hate speech. I believe the arguments in favor of outlawing hate speech are identical to the arguments against rape jokes as per rape culture. In other words, intent is not magic. I was here a few threads ago where many people said that Charlie Hebdo’s contents were horribly racist, and which contributed to a culture of racism, which then led to more violence against racial minorities – just like rape jokes can normalize rape which contributes to a culture of rape which leads to more rape. I fail to see how an honest person can say that Charlie Hebdo’s contents are racist and perpetuate race culture (which is a position I assume you hold) but are somehow not hate speech.
Finally, we probably both agree that humanism is the right answer, but most people in society do not agree with us. Consider the third prong of Kagehi, “hold no value to society, beyond maintaining an existing, and non-justifiable, prejudice”. The people who are going to be enforcing this law are going to hold that legitimate criticism of their religion holds no value to society, and that it only maintains an existing and non-justifiable prejudice against religious people. For example, I often say that the Roman Catholic Church is an international child rape organization and that any self-identified Catholic is a moral aider and abetter of child rape. Under hate speech laws enforced by religious people, I can reasonably expect to be charged and convicted for hate speech for what I just wrote.
Yes, some cultures have moved away from people like Mill and Voltaire. In the case of hate speech laws, they’re moving in the wrong direction. You are the one who has some studying to do.
PS: Perhaps you meant to say that Charlie Hebdo’s hate speech which contributed to a culture of racism against Arabs et al was not related to the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and in that sense the hate speech of Charlie Hebdo was not responsible for the violence against them. Ok. I can grant you that difference. However, Charlie Hebdo is response for other violence, and Charlie Hebdo is still hate speech.
Of course, I still think this represents an interesting case where you are still appealing to “intent is not magic”. I believe that you would hold Charlie Hebdo responsible for any violence committed against Arabs et al in France, but you wouldn’t hold Charlie Hebdo responsible for the violence against Charlie Hebdo. Why? Charlie Hebdo presumably does not intend for any violence against Arabs et al. Charlie Hebdo presumably did not intend for violence against itself. A reasonable person should expect that making racist jokes will normalize racism in the culture which leads to more violence against racial minorities, and a reasonable person should expect that criticizing Islam will lead to mass protests and riots which cause violence. A reasonable person would remember the many cases of violence at various Danish embassies around the world after their cartoon debacle.
I’m not seeing a clear-cut distinction here that doesn’t rely on “intent is magic” or some special pleading. If we’re going to start outlawing speech because of the harms it has, I don’t see why race culture or rape culture should get special privilege compared to the reasonably expected harms that come from blasphemy.
Unless you’re saying that judges now need to determine on a case by case basis whether some particular speech has enough (positive) value to society that the value to society outweighs the expected harms that will come from saying it. I hope you can recognize how this position is absurd.
All of your examples are indirect but obvious incitements to violence; and depending on how much power the people who utter them have, they can be true threats as well.
I don’t know about the US, but if you’ve gone to school over here, it’s just not possible to honestly believe the Holocaust didn’t happen. It logically follows that the deniers are Neonazis who want to abolish freedom of speech along with many other freedoms – and empirically I’m not aware of a counterexample.
And “fag” means “should not be treated as a person”.
As far as I understand this American term, the reason the following death threat isn’t hate speech
“Hello. My name is Iñigo Montoya (strangely enough not Íñigo). You killed my father. Prepare to die.”
is that it isn’t directed at a group.
Some of them probably are.
What the F.. I don’t tolerate rape, or the people that support it. My point wasn’t that anyone should, in the context of their position on that subject, at all, ever. Stop putting F-ing words in my mouth I didn’t say. He needs to, as I said, get his head out of his ass, and yes, it does color my opinion of his videos.
re “Hate Speech”:
source of cite below.
cite
Kagehi (et al.)
I was going to fix this for you and swap out Dalton for Mr. Rapist Priest and show how your “holding your nose” but supporting the promotion of his videos anyway is the same as the bishop “holding his nose” and supporting the priest anyway–but I got to the emphasised phrase and had to quit the attempt. This is, I think where the disagreement between us lies. I don’t see rape apology as an unpleasant idea. I see it as an act. The rape apologist is an active accomplice to the act of rape. They load the gun, hand it to the perpetrator and bury the body afterwards. Without them, rape would be so much more difficult and rape culture–you know, that thing that makes rape torture to report and nigh on impossible to get redress for in our justice system–would be much weaker and less pervasive. Dalton specifically is causing further trauma to rape victims who were assaulted when they’d been drinking by reinforcing the cultural narrative that a woman who imbibes alcohol has only herself to blame for whatever happens to her. He is helping Michael Shermer to get away with the rape of his past victims and setting up the future victims as targets. Just like the bishop who transfers Mr Rapist Priest to a new parish full of unsuspecting children.
By supporting and promoting Dalton in any capacity, *you* are assisting the accomplice of rape. Just like the people who pay their tithes to the Catholic Church and kiss the bishop’s ring when they know he’s protected Mr Rapist Priest.
Kagehi
Uh, you’re the one defending PZ’s posting of a rape apologists video so in this case, not only are you tolerating PZ but you’re supporting him and the rape apologist with such stellar logic of “Well, We can’t all live in a cave so it’s okay!” You literally fucking said that sometimes “we have to hold our noses and say, “Well, except for **certain** cases, this person is fairly on the ball.” Are you playing Humpty-Dumpty with definitions now?
If you buy something from an author you can’t just say “This money goes to that author’s non-racist side (this fucking duelist-like bullshit again) so I’m not supporting a racist, I never would tolerate or support them!” When someone watches his videos (ads/views) you’re funding a fucking rape apologist. That’s the fucking definition of supporting them. And here you are, defending PZ after promoting a video without even a token disclaimer for other people to watch and support Dalton.
Ibis3
(Continuing the thought…)
Even IF rape apologia is view as “just” an idea, Dalton crossed that line when he made a video in direct support of a rapist and blamed the victims and fucking released it. That’s undeniably an action. He is part of the atheist community and a huge part of the problem, since rape apologists outnumber and shield the rapists. Shermer doesn’t have to do dirty work of smearing his victims when assholes like this do it for him.
Further, if you’re viewing it as just an idea, how do you know someone holds such a view? They fucking express it since we’re not fucking mind readers and can’t tell what’s in someone’s “heart of hearts”. Expressing it is a fucking action that has consequences, one of which should be pushback ideally. But we’re not talking about co-workers and family and risking your safety net and meatspace security, we’re talking about voluntary online interactions and promoting them publically online.
In addition to what people have already said:
EnlightenmentLiberal #60-61
When it comes to crimes, intent really is magical. That’s why the word “manslaughter” exists. An evidence of intent is important in any criminal inquiry. That’s why CH can be both racist and not hate speech – if their target audience is likely to perceive their cartoons as a critic of racism (as some have argued in the CH thread) then it won’t amount to hate speech.
I don’t know French and all of my knowledge on CH is second hand. If you disagree with me on the specific case of CH that’s fine, I’m willing to concede this point. It’s not important at the moment (and even if it was it still wouldn’t justify the attack against them because you are only responsible for violence from your audience, not from the people opposed to it).
What is important is that Dalton’s video was a perfect example of hate speech. It was intentionally released when the strongest allegation against Shermer were aired. It intentionally mocked the rape victims’ claims. It was intentionally addressed to the crowd that was defending Shermer and the people most likely to come to the conventions where Shermer perpetrated his crimes. Under a better judicial system Dalton would have been arrested for his crimes.
(Then again, in a better world Shermer would have been imprisoned for life)
If evil people are enforcing laws then you can only expect bad results and no amount of legal jargon is going to stop them. For example, USSR had a fairly advanced constitution, which was completely ignored.
_______________________
Kagehi #63
Oh, I see. You just happened to come by this thread, completely ignored the dozens comments about whether posting videos from rape apologists is acceptable or not, and decided to talk about the importance of accepting people with different opinion for no reason what so ever. Because, apparently in your world every day is random head theatre day.
Context matters. When you talk about we’re going to assume that for you rape apology is just another “stupid idea”. When you lecture us about the need to , we’re going to assume that for you rape apology is something to be over looked when dealing with others so that we won’t . Am I still your or am I quoting you word for word?
Also, don’t think I didn’t notice that you decided to ignore a rape survivor’s comment, and instead decided to reply only to my words.
@David Marjanović
@twas brillig (stevem)
If I understand your reasoning correctly, that would mean that many church sermons would qualify as hate speech, such as the passage from John’s gospel about how the Jews demanded that the blood of Christ be upon them, or the passage from the old testament saying that gay male sex is an abomination. By our humanist standards, both examples serve no positive purpose to society. I think it’s a slam dunk case that these are hate speech. Are you seriously suggesting that we should make this illegal? For US law at least, are you suggesting that we repeal the “religious freedom” clause of first amendment? Because that is what it would take AFAIK in order to criminalize that speech.
As far as I can tell, there are several important tests for the particular hate speech laws being promoted in this thread. 1- You need to show intent of … hate? 2- You need to show the incitement or true threat, but under a much weaker standard than is normal. 3- The speech must have no redeeming value to society.
Let’s talk about the example upthread, where I and at least one other accused Catholics of being aiders and abettors to child rapists. I very much mean to spread loathing and contempt of Catholics (in order that Catholics stop feeling acceptance from society, in order that they stop being Catholics). I don’t see a meaningful difference between that and “hate”. Prong 1 down. Now, if calling someone a fag is incitement, calling someone an aider and abettor of child rape is incitement too. I think this standard is fantastic, but I’m running with what I’ve been given. Prong 2 down.
That leaves prong 3. Perhaps this tactic is ineffective. Perhaps there are other more effective tactics for reducing or eliminating the child rape ways of the Catholic church. Currently, the determination of whether my speech regarding Catholics is hate speech or not rests on a question of the efficacy of tactics, which IMHO no one here is currently situated to answer with any authority. If this tactic is ineffective, then it has no value to society, and thus prong 3 is satisfied, thus making it hate speech. You want individual judges to make this determination now? You want individual judges to start deciding when certain political polemic goes too far and is ineffective, and thus qualifies as hate speech?
(Alternatively, “intent is magic” could be applied here. What if you had to show intent of doing harm? But you could never show that. I know I intend my hate speech against Catholics to be a net positive to society, including Catholics themselves. Similarly, I’m sure you can find many white supremacists who will say the same thing about their polemic and how it helps blacks too. Under this standard, the law could never be applied.)
I think you are all living in a fantasy where you trust the government way way too much. You’re so concerned about this one topic that you have become blinded to how it will be turned on you in a moment’s notice. Again, as Hitchens rightly noted, these laws will not be applied to the main source of hatred in this world, religion. We will not outlaw reading various passages of the Bible or Koran which spread hate of gays, Jews, blacks, etc. However, these laws will be used, and they will be used on us. They will be used to silence legitimate criticism of religion. I’m not an anarchist. However, we have to recognize that judges are human, and what can and cannot be done with realistic jurisprudence. The real facts of the matter are that this policy will backfire spectacularly. You will not help the people you want to help. Instead, you will further injure them by giving additional protections to the very groups which are the sources of hatred against them.
….. Bloody hell. I don’t support any of this crap you keep claiming I support. I despise Dalton’s actions, and every act like them. But what I despise even more is the presumption that you can change someone’s position, or call them on it, or have a hope in hell of ever making them see any different, by circling wagons, dragging yourself into some self apposed exile, which only removes you from their influence, not theirs from anyone else’s, then pat yourself on the back, because you took some sort of stand. You can’t engage someone you won’t talk to, or about, save to curse them. Worse, you run the risk, should they actually change their opinion at some point, of victimizing them for a position they no longer hold, because you didn’t give a damn whether or not they realized their mistake. This not terribly unlike the same BS we rightly accuse **everyone else of** – picking on thing, which they insists makes X person, or group, irredeemable, them damning them completely for it, and refusing to listen to anything at all that person, or group, says. In contrast to calling them on what the @#!@#%$@ they actually did wrong, and not painting them as a complete monster, with no other opinions or ideas.
We have an obligation to call people on irrational and immoral acts.
We have an obligation to strive to make them see why they are irrational and immoral.
We have an obligation to not cross the line, and become like some asshole priest, who condemns people, or whole communities, purely because of one sin, real, in this case, or merely imagined.
We have **no** right to be judge, jury, and executioner, nor to bury our heads in the sand and presume that what is true today will remain so, just because we hate what someone said or did.
We sure as hell don’t make ourselves better people by declaring, “This person has nothing to say, about anything, we are shunning them, for their sins.”
Who the F do we think we are, if we lower our selves to that level?
Fuck Dalton for what he said. But don’t you dare claim that there isn’t one of us, no matter how high or noble we think we are, who doesn’t, or hasn’t, or won’t, ever hold to some idea equally stupid, or abhorent, especially about some friend we can’t imagine did wrong, or not make excuses for them, or that, for doing so, we deserve to condemn anyone how even suggests they have something else to say, or, horror of horrors, posts it, through some trite guilt by association.
Get as sanctimonious as you like. Put what ever words you want in my mouth. Misinterpret/misunderstand everything I say. I don’t give a damn at this point, if you don’t get it. This isn’t a church, and we don’t do inquisitions, burnings, shunning, or any other similar crap. Or, so I thought…
Kagehi
Who the fuck are you talking to? No one’s said anything about Dalton being irredeemable or a monster. Nor has anyone said he’s wrong on other issues because he’s wrong about rape. He also hasn’t changed his position at this time either. There’s been no talk of execution, burnings or shunning either. We aren’t calling for everyone in his meatspace life to turn their back on him and stop speaking to him forever. Nor has there been calls to act as if he doesn’t exist online and not engage with him. If that were true, no one objecting to supporting his views would be speaking about it. There’s also been no claim that we’re pure or free from bias and have never held views that we campaign against now either.
Are you really fucking stupid enough to twist speaking to a friend a work after making a rape joke with posting a video supporting a rape apologist without warning to a very popular blog?
Just…what the fuck? I’m glad you’re done because there’s no point when you’re having a completely different conversation than the one going on in this thread. Go enough your straw somewhere else.
Kagehi, you’re thoroughly ridiculous. And stupid, if you think this line of argumentation is at all meaningful. And you forgot the obligatory 1984, too.
Unless you have a picture of Brian Keith Dalton being burned at the stake, of course. Or am I his Inquisitor? Is he unable to buy bread for his pantry because everyone in the community is refusing to speak to him?
Fucking idiot.
Kind of off topic already, but I wanted to note that this is rather extreme. Retributive theories of justice are not justice, nor moral. Saying we should lock someone away forever is a childish notion based on revenge, not a concern for well-being. There are better ways to police our population. Locking someone away forever for anything but the most psychopathic person is complete overkill. Our prison sentences are way too long, especially in the US, and serve no purpose except to bankrupt us, and provide a convenient wedge issue so Republicans can claim to be “tough on crime”.
In an ideal world, Shermer would be given the best possible life he could want, except for not being allowed to hurt other people. If you haven’t thought about alternative physics and other ways the world might have been, I suggest you think on it for a while. I like Richard Carrier’s world where the more righteous and just you are, the more impervious to harm and illness. And that’s just a start. No, in an ideal world there would be no punishment at all – not for the sake of vengeance which seems to be your stick. Punishment is acceptable as a parental corrective measure (and perhaps a similar role of society over its members), for deterrence, and for confinement for the safety of others. Confining almost anyone for life serves none of those purposes.
PS: I want to plug a great movie, and my favorite example of an alternative physics where we (almost?) don’t have the usual need for punishment: the afterlife of the film What Dreams May Come. In other words, idealism with an extreme amount of mental control over our environments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
Most crimes simply become impossible by the physics of the situation. And again, this is just a start if you let your imagination run wild.
EnlightenmentLiberal
1.) Why are you so sure it’s about vengeance?
2.) I’m guessing you’re fucking ignorant about rapists. Confining them for life is for the safety of others. If recidivism and getting away with rape wasn’t the status quo in a world where at least 1 in 6 women are raped in their lifetime, you’d have a point.
3.) What the fuck are you blathering on about an ideal world and alternative physics for? Her wording was simply a better world, which I read as our world without rape culture. Of course, I could be wrong but that’s usually the way that phrase is used i.e. our world plus or minus [thing].
4.) Why the fuck are you so keen on focusing on everything but the topic of the thread? Seriously, not even a token mention except this snide remark:
For starters why don’t you become an educated consumer. He was sexist, racist especially warmongering hatred of Muslims. Fucking google it FFS. There’s no excuse for you to be ignorant. And yes, being lazy and okay with promoting people and things without giving a fuck about social justice issues certainly does say something about you.
Of course, I’ve also linked favorably to his article on Mother Teresa but I do put notice on it. That’s how to like and discuss problematic things without perpetuating and sustaining the status quo.
Then you’re a vile bigot. I’m not surprised, but I am disgusted.
Lol what? Pardon me? I think your position to be ridiculous.
Sorry if double post. It ate my earlier one.
@Nick Gotts
I don’t get that at all. Let me ask this – would it be wrong to spread loathing and contempt of members of a hypothetical Nazi N.A.M.B.L.A. merger? Of axe murderers? In other words, is it ever right to create a climate of intolerance against a particular group? If “yes”, then the difference between a “bigot” vs not is whether you agree that the contempt is justified or not. I happen to think that providing support to an international child rape organization is worthy of condemnation and contempt, and we as society should not coddle people who do so. Rather, we should openly and plainly express our disdain and contempt of such behavior.
And last post for a while – sorry. Thought of this while driving into work.
@Nick Gotts
How would you describe the general atmosphere and climate here w.r.t. slymepitters? I would describe it as contempt and general intolerance. That is how it should be. Do you think we’re all bigots for creating a culture of contempt and loathing for slymepitters?
@JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
I responded to a quote which said “in a better world” something something life in prison. I noted that this would not be a better world. What’s the recidivism rate of rapists after 40 years confinement? I’ll assume about zero. From my other background knowledge, I assume we’re not losing anything noticeable in terms of deterrence either. The only fact-based reason to imprison someone for life is if the criminal is out of a horror movie like Silence Of The Lambs, or the person who wants life in prison is acting on vengeance instead of concern over well-being which is morally unacceptable.
… I definitely need to appologize to everyone here. Not to make excuses, but just as explanation, in the last 3-4 days I have had a weeks pay vanish from my account due to an error on the part of a company that made me jump through hoops to correct a problem, which I had assumed was resolved with cancellation of the order, been harassed at work with the usual, “No one can do any damn thing right, so we will tell all of you again, and again, micromanagement style, what it is you are supposed to be doing.”, had to put up with cleaning, and other issues, including the persistent inability of people to throw out old food in the break room (which was volunteered to fix, a week **after** someone else was told to deal with it, on top of the usual endless mess of idiots (excuse me.. customers) who can’t a) find their ass with a map, or b) tell you are already helping two other people, who also ignored the fact that you where busy with something, and that is just the shit I can remember….
My first post came out wrong. The responses I misread, from lack of sleep, and I just flat out went bloody postal, for no valid reason, based on lack of sleep, stress, and, probably, the fact that half the people I deal with ever day **would** have done one or more of the things I ranted about (or had, to my face, at work).
I am not one to insist I haven’t been a total idiot, when it is obvious I have been. So, again, I apologize for what I posted.
And, yeah, for nubies, who wouldn’t have known, from frame #1, or from the video title, that this was a Mr. Deity video, or known why pretty much everyone here has issues with him… maybe it should have been below the fold, at least. But, for the rest of us… Its not like anyone looked and went, “Gosh, looks like my uncle!” :p Now.. the guy with the silly beer commercials, which claim he is the most interesting man in the world… that looks like my recently deceased uncle, so.. I suppose, it could happen. So, specific to the *actual* complaint that had been made, rather than the one my sleep deprive brain insisted on manufacturing…
Sorry you’ve had such a terrible week, kagehi. I can’t say stress has never caused me to half-read things and go on a tear here.
I hope things turn around for you soon.
Drawing an equivalence between a tiny self-selected group whose main purpose is harassment of those they hate, with a complex, worldwide religious culture into which most of those belonging to it were born, is so ridiculous that if it came from anyone less fuckwitted than you, I’d assume it was a feeble attempt at a joke.
Enlightenment Liberal@78,
And comparisons with Nazis and NAMBLA are equally absurd – and that you think the comparison an pt one simply confirms that you are indeed a vile bigot. Both have as their central purpose the promotion of a specific evil: exterminating Jews and the sexual abuse of children respectively.
There is much that is toxic about the Catholic Church, and any decision to leave it is certainly to be welcomed, but to imply that child rape is its purpose proves your dishonesty.
Kagehi
I’m sorry about your recent troubles and hope that everything will improve for you.
EnlightenmentLiberal
Off topic discussions belong in the Thunderdome.
EnlightenmentLiberal
Really? Fucking worthless.
Yeah, well.. Its day 6 on one of those, “Its not the same business week, so we have a loophole that keeps us from paying your for working 48 hours in a row.”, so.. at least I have tomorrow off, and can sleep in, instead of groaning at having to be go through all the BS again, while only getting two 13 minute breaks, and having to hoover my food. lol If they didn’t have decent insurance… I would have told these people F-U ages ago. But, heh, at least we where not the one in town sold to Haggen. If we had been slated to become a Whole Foods, I think I would have had a probiotic, ‘health food’, organic, non-GMO meltdown and ran screaming from the store. I already get hives watching people go through the line with 3-4 different “cold aides” all of them with 1,000mg of vitamin C, and thinking, “Hmm.. So, what exactly is the lowest amount of this you can take, before it start promoting cancer, given that there is jack all evidence it does anything else?” :p I so love my job…. lol