I liked Chris Pratt in Parks & Rec. He was good in Guardians of the Galaxy. I’m probably not going to enjoy Jurassic World when I see it this week, but I wouldn’t blame that on Pratt.
Unfortunately, I just learned that in real life he’s a Jebus loving conservative who quotes the Bible on his facebook page. It’s kind of the reverse of Adam Baldwin; I was appalled when I discovered that his character on Firefly wasn’t acting, but that he really was smug dim-brained dope in reality. Now Pratt, who seems like a normal and secular person in his films, is a Jebusite in reality.
Hey, at least that means Pratt is a better actor!
Hey, at least that means Pratt is a better actor!
To him, it means he’s just a god-puppet and all his actions originate from his puppet-master who created him to be a little action doll. That has to suck. How can he feel credit for his accomplishments, believing that?
Because he feels credit for being wonderful enough that his god **wanted** to give those accomplishments just to him. He did accomplish them, really, by being so damn lovable to his god. And so the money, the fame, the talent is all his: by divine right.
It’s better than just working hard to achieve something. How awesome do you need to be to be singled out by the creator of the universe? Whoa!
I didn’t have much for the guy one way or the other, but my impression turned from neutral to negative after he was praised for teaching his little son (2) the Pledge of Allegiance.
He’s also a hunter.
Meh.
Wow, I didn’t know he was married to Anna Faris. And yes, he is religious. He is also “patriotic”, as the article puts it. But they claim he is “conservative” but none of the quotes show that. I know the article might conclude that, based on the fact that he hunts, he is a family man, he is religious, and he is patriotic….but no, that doesn’t follow logically. I trust the quotes from facebook, maybe. I don’t trust the article or its writers. Why? Well just look at a sample of the most recent five “latest political articles” from Qpolitical:
“Obama just tried to ban guns again, but the NRA shut him down in the most brutal way”
“When Obama said border control was a problem, Texas responded in the most EPIC way”
“This Teacher just exposed Obama’s lies, you won’t believe where she is now”
“George W. Bush just released some shocking news, I did not expect this”
“Al Sharpton just tried to cause chaos in Texas, when they respond? So awesome”
It reeks credibility, doesn’t it?
From the link in the OP:
What exactly is a conservative work ethic?
Tony,
Conservative work ethic = having a job that pays well
Liberal work ethic = having a job that pays poorly, having to have >1 job to live, living on some sort of state help
That entire article linked in the OP is just one long argument that Chris Pratt is a MAN MAN MAN MANLY MAN NOT GIRLY MANLY MAN MAN STRONG MASCULINE MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN.
“Conservative work ethic” pretty much describes the entire strategy of that article. It is a very common conservative strategy. It is the strategy of the child who licks every cookie on the tray and then yells out “mine!”.
anteprepro
You don’t even have to look at other articles:
Apparently so forbidden that it is no problem the highest grossing actor (as stated in the same article!) does it without any backlash.
What ‘liberal’ Hollywood are they talking about? They ‘liberal’ Hollywood which actually made that movie? The ‘liberal’ Hollywood that gave the same movie Oscars?
I see nothing but an article written by right-wing hacks, trying to claim someone famous as one of their own. So he is a christian. Big whoop, the majority of Democratic voters are also christians. I see nothing to indicate he is a conservative, or a liberal in that article. I don’t really care either way.
Conveniently left off that fluff piece is the fact that both Chris Pratt and Anna Faris were married to other people when they first got together. I thought looking with lust at another woman meant you had committed Adultery I’m your heart, and that adultery was one of those big ten no nos you could not do? No criticism intended of two now happily married people, but could the writers at least be consistent in their judgement against all the supposed rules of Christianity?
I just did an IMDB search for him and didn”t find any Firefly connection. What am I missing here?
Re nothere #11
That was Adam ?Baldwin who was in Firefly
Sorry about #11. I reread it and realized what you were saying.
Conservative work ethic: working and slaving yourself to death under the delusion that you’re going to end up rich. If you make it, it only proves the moral and economic superiority of American capitalism. If not, you haven’t been working hard enough!
Ummmm, weren’t the Jebusites at war with the Hebrews? And wasn’t Jesus a Hebrew?
I can fully believe Chris Pratt is a good guy, but it burns my britches how working hard, caring for your family, and contributing to the community are described as conservative values. I was once told by a friend/coworker that because I was a polite, thoughtful guy that I’m a Christian, I just don’t know it yet. These are the same kind of people who think Jesus invented the golden rule.
andrewbrown@10, I don’t follow hollywood gossip, so I used the power of google. It looks like his wife was previously married, but he wasn’t.
To be fair, none of his quotes seem to indicate him to be other than simply Christian and a a little naively patriotic – but in interviews and when you hear him speak it’s not like he’s some frothing right-winger – He’s fine with gay guys, he can walk in high-heels, and I think it’s fairly obvious he must be in agreement with feminists given that his character wasn’t even supposed to be a regular in Parks and Rec until Poehler requested he stay.
I just don’t think he belongs in the same camp as Adam Baldwin.
I stand corrected, it was a scarlet woman leading our manly square jawed hero astray!
rael @19:
You know what? Thanks for reminding me of this. I reacted with quite the knee-jerk after reading the article in the OP. I’d forgotten that Pratt doesn’t fit the model of conservative Christian I’m so accustomed to hearing about.
Your comment reminded me of Chris Evan and Chris Pratt’s Super Bowl bet earlier this year. I remember thinking it would be cool if they both visited the respective charities/hospitals, regardless of who’s team won. And then they did just that.
I have serious difficulty believing he’s a committed fundie ding-dong because of his strange segment in Movie 43. (His co-star is Anna Faris.)
It sounds like the fundies are trying to portray him as a member of the group just because he’s a popular actor right now.
Microraptor #21
Agreed. Reading that hagiography it’s not Chris Pratt that raises my ire, but the past who wrote the fellating “he’s one of us” script. He seems to be a victim of almost Reaganesque projection, where myth is far more important than reality. Of course this could just be the begging for money using Reagan’s waxwork dummy which popped up when I clicked on the link!
I can’t even.
Instead America gets Jim Bob Duggar.
And you wonder why people think atheists are sanctimonious pricks.
I wonder what guns he has that are forbidden in California? Plenty of people own tons of guns in Cali just fine.
Yeah, it sounds like Pratt is a Christian, but most of the conservative stuff looks like hopeful projection on the part of the site.
Matrim, here’s what Wikipedia has to say about California’s gun law, and what’s considered a legal firearm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California
Can you expand? I see a number of people expressing different opinions, up to and including chastising PZ Myers (the blog owner) for mischaracterizing Pratt as a conservative. I also see people (quite rightly) expressing irritation that the Christian right attempts to co-opt every famous person who is a Christian as “one of their own”, even when that’s not the case.
Yeah, this is a whooooole lot of projection. He wants to make a bunch of money and then stop working to hang out with his family. That’s not a conservative work ethic. That’s not even a Midwestern work ethic. The vast majority of Midwestern dads I’ve known basically expect to work in one capacity or another until they die. It’d be awfully nice if everybody could have a realistic goal of spending more time doing what they really care about, but that’s definitely not what conservatives are shooting for.
On his time living in a van in Hawaii–“We just drank and smoked weed and worked minimal hours, 15-20 hours per week, just enough to cover gas, food and fishing supplies. You know, it was charming time.”
@ The Mellow Monkey:
Well, conservatives set very realistic goals when it comes to badmouthing everyone they consider inferior to them. And it’s what they really care about! :)
Or, as I like to think about it, the conservative dream has two paths to do what they really care about:
Option A: To
earnluck into enough money so they can spend the rest of their lives badmouthing the poors/blahs/gheyz/everyone.Option B: To bemoan how the poors/blahs/gheyz/everyone are preventing them from achieving Option A.
It’s certainly internally consistent, have to give them that.
kentreniche @ 25:
Please refrain from using gendered insults here (frinst., use assholes instead.) So…expressing disappointment makes someone a sanctimonious asshole? I think perhaps that sanctimonious is altogether the wrong word for what you meant, but I’m not altogether clear on that. What, in your view, is best? Silence? Praise? Positive response only?
Today I learned PZ is the type of guy who thinks you can take qpolitical/upworthy/ onion headlines seriously.
@Caine: I think trying to smear someone based on the idiotic ramblings of a trashy conservative viral-content-generator is a decent example of being a sanctimonious douche.
And you know what? I’m a progressive atheist, and I think the idea that just because someone quotes the Bible on their Facebook page, they deserve to have a blog post written about how much they suck, is fucking repugnant. Yeah, religion is irrational and harmful. But a milquetoast post about ‘loving your brother’ or whatever doesn’t qualify you for this type of character assassination.
amblington @34:
That strikes me as hyperoblic. PZ didn’t engage in character assassination. At best he implied that he was less interested in Chris Pratt for his religious views.
amblingon @ 34:
I don’t think PZ smeared Pratt, I think he was expressing his disappointment, a la the disappointment many of us felt over Firefly and Baldwin. As for the idiotic ramblings, yes, I think that was wrong to bring up at all, and if you’ve read the thread, you’d find most people saying as much.
That said, kentreniche’s comment was about PZ / commentariat wondering why people think atheists are sanctimonious assholes, which I think requires a bit of clarification. I hadn’t seen anyone wondering about that, and I’m pretty sure people have had deep problems with atheists for centuries, so the comment struck me as being a bit hyperbolic.
I… can’t think of any reason to remotely care. He’s not a “reverse Adam Baldwin.” Most everything in that piece was pretty banal and, except for maybe the hunting and gun-toting, not really indicative of political belief.
I wouldn’t go as far as to condemn PZ like amblingon but I was also gonna mention the problematic source:
1) It’s obviously click-bait.
2) It’s right-wing click-bait.
And for all it says, I also can’t condemn the goofy actor.
Sanctimonious: making a show of being morally superior to other people.
“what happened to all the sanctimonious talk about putting his family first?”
synonyms: self-righteous, holier-than-thou, pious, pietistic, churchy, moralizing, preachy, smug, superior, priggish, hypocritical, insincere; informalgoody-goody
“no one wants to hear your sanctimonious hot air”
It goes both ways.
So does clutching ones pearls. It helps to get the whole story before you suddenly scream, “I’m offended!”
Then there are the semantic arguments. If “prick” is too gender specific, then why is “douche” acceptable?
FWIW, my partner knows a few nurses at Seattle Children’s Hospital, and they say he drops by regularly and is nicer and more attentive to the kids than almost any other visiting celebrity. (His only rival in that regard is Russell Wilson from the Seahawks, who is also a devout Christian.) So there’s that.
@ kentreniche:
Just a fair warning. the prick/douche conversation is one that has been had here many, many times. In short, “prick” refers to an essential part of a person, while “douche” refers to a almost-universally unnecessary product claimed to clean an essential part of a person. The difference should be obvious.
/themoreyouknow
kentreniche @ 41:
From here. Douching is an unnecessary and harmful practice, pushed on women so that they wouldn’t offend the delicate sensibilities of a man. Many people feel that makes it particularly appropriate to use. This has been discussed more times than I can count before, but you must not have been around at any of those times, so I’m answering. Also, not using gendered insults or slurs has been practice here for years, and as you seemed to be unaware of that, I pointed it out.
/OT
Thanks, PatrickG.
Clear and to the point.
and also what Caine said
(fucking timing)
@ chigau: Timing is always a fucking issue. Just ask CERN! :)
Did you guys know that HILLARY CLINTON GOT BRUTALLY CALLED OUT BY A CNN REPORTER? Because if not, YOU WON’T BELIEVE HOW BADLY SHE REACTS!
@Tony: He called him abnormal, which is objectively false (religious belief may be *irrational,* but it’s absolutely *normal*). He called him a conservative, too, which is character assassination in my book.
@amblingon:
Well, even world-famous bloggers who have the ability to assassinate character get it wrong every now and again. As several people have pointed out in this very thread.
“FWIW, my partner knows a few nurses at Seattle Children’s Hospital, and they say he drops by regularly and is nicer and more attentive to the kids than almost any other visiting celebrity.”
Please add a warning for badthink to your subsequent posts.
@Patrick: my problem is it points to a deeper issue, which is an intense tribalism coupled with a willingness to overlook even basic facts (for example, the reliability of your source) in service of that bias. PZ is willing to support bad parties if they identify as the right type of progressive/atheist, and condemn good actors (or at least unknown/neutral parties) at the merest hint of a rumor they might be the wrong type of conservative/religious. That makes a lot of his other advocacy, which I find generally useful and engaging (in particular his efforts to push back against the MRA types in atheist culture) much harder to swallow than it should be.
amblingon @ 51:
To quote someone, use <blockquote>Paste Text Here</blockquote>
This type of comment is completely unnecessary, as well as being non-helpful. You’re doing the very things that you’re complaining about in others.
It’s probably true that a mild joke about countervailing narratives is probably not *necessary* in the strict sense of the word, any more than any other post here is. And it’s probably also true that jokes are, by their very nature, typically unhelpful.
That said, making such a joke is certainly *not* the same thing as baseless knee-jerk tribalism.
@amblingon:
I’m sure you’ll forgive me for noting that you’ve made several rather questionable assertions. Notably, we have the assertions:
Bolding and not particularly useful numbering mine. For both assertions, I must ask for some evidence. I’ve already said — several people have already said! — PZ fucks up sometimes (man, that dude fucks up sometimes!).
You, however, are displaying category error, in that because PZ fucked up this time, we can call into question all of PZ’s record. Which makes your assertions that in particular his efforts to push back against the MRA types in atheist culture questionable at best. I’d characterize your comments as a smear-by-evidence-of-casually-researched-post. I could be wrong, of course. Show me that I’m wrong!
In short: I’m not willing to discount years of advocacy on the basis of one post. Even one where I think PZ fucked up.
P.S. I absolutely repudiate the MRA types in atheist culture. If you’re one of them, well, I won’t have much to say to you beyond ‘fuck off’. If you’re not, please try to avoid looking like an atheist MRA. I typically make a point of not speaking for anybody else, but I’m fairly sure nobody here would object to me telling an atheist MRA to fuck off.
P.P.S. Three post rule. :)
Hey everyone, did you hear Einstein was a conservative Xian? MLK was too, and every one of the Founding Father, including Washington & Jefferson! And Ghandi! And Jesus!
Shit, Ghandi was a Christian too?! Who knew?
/off-to-bed
Excuse me? I *specifically* said I appreciate PZ’s work to push back against the MRA-types in atheist culture. What in the world are you on about? We’re now at the point where *any criticism of PZ at all* makes one “look like an atheist MRA,’ even if one *specifically* adds a disclaimer that that’s *not* what they’re referring to?
I’m not sure that bringing up specific examples of other times PZ has fucked up when it comes to defending bad actors because they identified as the right sort of progressive wouldn’t turn this comment thread into a massive stoush, but in my opinion it is a noticeable pattern.
Also, I tried to find the three post rule in the commenting guidelines, and couldn’t. Help me out?
I’m seriously trying to follow your logic here, and I can’t.
I wrote that I find this particular habit of PZs to be really irritating/problematic, which was *particularly* unfortunate because of how much I liked his *other* writings, in particular the advocacy he is doing on behalf of the anti-sexist (and also anti-racist, anti-homophobic, etc.) movement within atheism. In other words, if he *only* wrote nasty things about Chris Pratt, I’d just stop reading the blog without a second though, but because a ton of content here is really valuable that not a zero-cost option; thus, it’s worth putting in the effort to call those mistakes out.
And out of that you get “Amblingon is an MRA.”
Seriously, A+ work.
@ amblingon:
Uh, what? Let’s review your comments, shall we? Forgive me for summarizing. If I missed something, please do point it out. I’m quite willing to acknowledge that it’s late, and that I’m watching a tedious maintenance script complete before going to bed. However, I don’t think I messed up a simple ctrl-F on your name.l
#33: PZ takes clickbait seriously
#34: Claiming to be progressive atheist, comments about Bible quotes on Facebook page
#48: More clickbait commentary
#51: Badthink, re: Seattle Children’s Hospital
#52: First mention of MRA types in atheist culture, where PZ’s advocacy is suddenly harder to swallow.
Let me further quote your #52:
I’d say your subtext is hard to read, but it’s not subtext. Your explicit argument is that PZ’s anti-MRA stance is weakened by this post. When nobody at all had brought up MRAs (again, the power of ctrl-F!).
Out of all the
barsarguments in the world, you had towalk intobring up this one.You’ve got one point. The three-post rule isn’t actually in the rules. I’m surprised by that, actually.
@ amblingon:
I’ve detailed your entire activity in this thread. Can you point to where you said:
Now I’m an ornery bastard who’s grumpy from having to stay up late to watch a damn computer do its work. But I can’t find you saying any of those things in this thread. Actually, I can’t find anybody who’s used the word racist in this thread besides you. Which makes your claim of anti-racist appreciation … doubtful.
That damn ctrl-F must have failed me again!
Look, if I’m wrong, and you’ve got a history of calling out PZ in other threads, feel free to correct me. In the meantime, I’m still going to find your questioning of anti-MRA sentiment … questionable, thanks.
You seem confused. I didn’t bring up MRAs as a specific response to another commentator; I brought it up as a reason why I like reading PZ’s blog, and thus find this particular habit of his especially frustrating. In particular, I brought it up to forestall the objection “well, if you dislike him so much, why don’t you just not read Phyrangula?”
Does that help?
Not quote. My explicit argument is that his advocacy on multiple issues, including his anti-sexist advocacy (which I chose as an example largely because it’s the issue that first brought me to this blog), is *harder to read* as a result of frustrating habits that — while largely unrelated to that advocacy — occasionally overlap with it.
If 9/10 posts about a public figure saying something disappointing are because (for example) Tim Hunt said something wildly misogynistic, and 1/10 times it’s something like this, that 1/10 time affects how I read the other 9/10 times- for one thing, it makes me inherently less likely to trust PZ’s representation of his sources, and/or his actual judgement. Which is a shame, because I really do appreciate and enjoy most of what he writes.
Again, the whole reason I brought it up was to forestall the ‘so read a different blog’ objection.
PS. In before you decide I’m defending Tim Hunt.
@amblingon:
May I remind you that you started with this?
and ended with:
It’s amazing that one blog post — one single blog post — can make you question PZ’s advocacy over many years, not to mention your appreciation and enjoyment of most of what he writes. Truly amazing.
Why, it’s almost like you aren’t sincere. I’ll leave it to others to deal with the 9/10 of 1/10 of 1/10 of BETRAYAL OF TRUST. I’ll also leave it to others to let me know if my exhaustion in waiting for offsite work to be complte before I can run my last series of scripts has led me to a false positive. I mean, there’s got to be a 135/10000 chance of that, right?
Patrick, you may want to reflect on your bad habit of introducing ‘facts’ not in evidence, or perhaps substituting CTRL + F for actually reading. I’ve explicitly said that I see this as an issue that has arisen on multiple occasions here. Perhaps you’re confused because I only recently became irritated enough to actually write a post about it?
I suppose if you start from that premise, it does make it awfully difficult to have a productive conversation.
Just to make sure we’re on the same page, the joke is that my writing was so incomprehensible to you that you weren’t able to accurately summarize it, correct? If so, it certainly seems like a valuable addition to this conversation, and one likely to lead to greater mutual understanding.
I’m sorry, Patrick, but would you please point me to my post in which I was shouting about betrayal of trust? After all, I’m sure your superficially politeness isn’t just a smokescreen for a series of snide, baseless, intellectually dishonest attacks.
Oh no somebody called Chris Pratt a bit more conservative and religious than he may actually be (perhaps).
Think of the damage! Think of the horrid smearing.
How will I ever trust PZ again!? Oh woe.
I wanted to just take everything PZ said and internalize it without thinking about it or checking the sources myself! Now that 1/10 times PZ may possibly be wrong I now have to slightly use my brain and do a small amount of research about things to confirm! Oh noooooooo…
amblingon:
You’re right, I apparently misread some of your comments. In particular, your comments involving anti-racism and anti-homophobia read to me as if you’d claimed commenting on those in this thread. I apologize for misunderstanding and potentially misrepresenting you.
However, I do wish to reiterate: I seriously do not understand how advocacy becomes “harder to swallow” because of an offhand post that you don’t like. I also don’t understand why you think “badthink” and “character assassination” followed by randomly bringing up criticism of MRAs is useful.
However, Cthulhu knows I’m not always precise with words myself, and anything that implies sympathy with MRAs sets me off. Which does definitely include your imputation that this post makes you question PZ’s advocacy on such topics.
I’ll leave this thread for tonight, and let other people castigate both of us in the meantime. If an apology is owed, you’ll have it.
@ amblingon:
If you’re sincere, please acknowledge sarcasm and snark exist. My “BETRAYAL OF TRUST” comment was clearly referencing you saying this:
Why not just check the sources yourself? Why do you feel the need to impugn his “actual judgment”? And once again, why did this post cause you to in particular question PZ’s anti-MRA advocacy? Shaking my head here. I’m sure others will weigh in. I’m commenting while ridiculously tired, which surprises me, since I usually do my best to avoid that. I’ll re-evaluate in the morning.
G’nite.
@Island Adolescent: I’m not sure if you actually think that’s a fair summary of my post(s), or whether the tendency here to smug strawmanning is so strong you’re just going with the flow. In case it’s the former, however, allow me to clarify for you: I like most of PZ’s writing. I’d like it more if he ditched a couple lazy intellectual habits of his, in particular a reflexive tribalism that overrides care and consideration of any given story. I said so.
I brought up MRAs *solely* to give an example of something PZ did that I valued highly. That said, in retrospect, I suppose I should have chosen an example less likely to lead to alarm, like cephalopods. It’s also likely that my phrasing- specifically, ‘harder to swallow’- gave the unintended impression that I was ready to throw my lot in with the misogynists because of my frustration with PZ- which is an error I’m happy to own up to.
Badthink was a joke, and it wasn’t even related to this topic. Someone mentioned that a Christian did something nice. I teased them, and by extension the commentariat here, about it. It wasn’t intended seriously.
If someone called *me* a conservative Christian based on no evidence, I’d certainly feel like my character had been assassinated.
Of course sarcasm and snark exist. Whether they’re a useful method of resolving disagreements, especially disagreements over the sincerity of the conversants, I leave to your considered judgement.
In turn, please acknowledge that just because you’re being sarcastic about a strawman, doesn’t mean it’s not a strawman (though I admit it’s a nifty tactic for getting under peoples’ skin). Please also acknowledge that when you adopt an attitude of polite condescension, coupled with disingenuous sarcasm, many people- myself included- are likely to revert to a very matter-of-fact mode of communication, in the interests of cutting through the obfuscatory fog you’re throwing up.
ambligon:
The irony melted my eyeballs.
You remind me of people who learned what strawman means less than a week ago and are eager to throw it around as much as possible when they disagree with somebody. It’d be cute if it didn’t trigger my eyes to roll further back into their sockets than they should be allowed.
Your clarification has not changed what I still think is a fair summary of your post. Consider that perhaps you’re made of straw.
That article was fucking surreal…holy shit…
Luckily, it’s mostly fiction and projection, so that’s something to be mildly happy about. Unfortunately, some of the things are actually true, and that’s not so great….O_o
I happen to like the two of them, so i’m not thrilled to learn they are christians and that they think shooting coyotes is like a superfun, sunday, family activity…I did not see it coming for Ana, in particular….i can buy Chris Pratt being some kind of liberal christian who missguidedly thinks there’s some good stuff there, but generally doesn’t cause much trouble for the world. But Ana….?….did not see it coming…
By the way, if anyone needs any evidence that the article is full of goddamn shit, just watch Smiley Face…that’s not a conservative family folks….
from the article… Dopiness incarnated.
“He never seizes to amaze me!”
http://qpolitical.com/they-told-chris-pratt-keep-jesus-off-the-set-his-response-left-me-cheering/
Laughing my way to heaven…. yours in Christ almighty wtf….
the universe and stupidity are both infinite, but stupidity is more infinite….
A “real” Christian wouldn’t have been in the hospital in the first place as that shows a lack of faith in the healing nature of god and christ.
alas there’s no point in arguing about colors with the blind.
cheers.
My wife and I watched the Graham Norton show when he was a guest last week on BBC America. He is genuinely funny. The superstition thing never came up during the show. He probably wouldn’t be much fun in a bar.
I always try to separate the artist from their art. John Lennon but by all accounts he was pretty much a jerk to the mother of his first child and to the child as well. However, I still love the Beatles and lyrics like these:
Jerry Garcia was a heroine addict but “Ripple” still brings me close to tears no matter how many times I hear the Dead perform it.
It is a funny old world and all that you can do is laugh.
Cheers,
Oops, sorry about the above typo. The sentence should read – John Lennon by all accounts was pretty much a jerk to the mother of his first child and to the child as well.
Regards,
Some points:
I didn’t read amblingon as being a troll or MRA *at all*. And I think there may be a lack of charity in regard to what he’s saying. Not that I agree with him, necessarily, but he isn’t being absurd.
amblingon, your “badthink” joke didn’t read as you characterizing the “hivemind”, it read as you making a literal statement. That is what, I think, a couple of the responses were about. That interpretation was not a matter of lack of charity, your joke was poorly constructed and didn’t seem to be snark.
I think one of the issues I have with amblingon’s comments is they believe this post is an example of a bad habit that PZ has. Is it a bad habit of his?
I’m also having a hard time believing how PZ’s disappointment in Pratt equals character assassination. That strikes me as hyperbolic.
****
tkreacher @77:
I notice the use of masculine pronouns to refer to amblingon. Have they specified which pronoun to use or made their gender clear?
Tony! The Queer Shoop #78
Wow, no. Further, the first sentence I wrote when I started that comment contained “I don’t think xe”, but the sentence was muddled and I erased it and started over… and immediately, unconsciously started using “he” and “him”, evidently.
Thanks for pointing that out, and my apologies for my thoughtlessness.
I agree with you. I was just specifically talking about some of the flack he was taking – that perhaps he was an MRA apologist of any sort, and that there was some underlying motive for what he’s said here seems unfounded.
I think he genuinely feels his grievance is warranted, and that he does indeed frequent this blog because of the attention paid to feminism, racism and other social issues. And questing that, rather than logic of his actual complaint, is unfair.
Meanwhile it has been revealed that Rocket Raccoon is actually a coatimundi that illegally immigrated into the US from Guatamala.
Me #79
…
My pronoun gendering of someone without them giving me an indication of their gender runs so deep that, after I’ve done it – while first noting to myself not to do it – I do it again in the same post I’ve apologized for doing it.
That’s just… staggering.
Apologies again to amblingon.
Ah, shit! And here I was really starting to like this actor after watching the movie (which was OK) and i really loved him in GoG!
Wait… I just started to read the comments… There may still be hope!
I don’t understand the obsession over “liking” actors. You will (almost certainly) never be close friends with this person. You just watch their films. If their acting is good they can be called good actors. Why does it matter what their personal beliefs are, unless they are extremely vocal and garner up organized groups to vote in certain ways that are opposed to yours, which I doubt Pratt is doing.
The attitude towards actors and sportspeople seem like the ‘ol hero complex stuff.
paganeng @75,
If it makes you feel any better, the particular lyric you quoted was written by McCartney.
Island Adolescent @84:
You bring up some excellent points, and I find myself agreeing with you completely.
Thanks for the apology re: misgendering. I appreciate the carefulness.
That said, what a toxic dump this comment section is. Going back and reading the exchange, I can’t fucking believe I bothered to spend a dozen posts defending myself from charges of being a lying, disingenuous, misogynistic crypto-MRA troll based on one ambiguous-at-worst post that I quickly clarified. I don’t know if you just get so many trolls that you’ve lost all perspective, or you’re just genuinely hateful human beings for whom new commentators are a fun chance to sharpen your knives, but it’s disgusting. I regret making an account, and I won’t be back.
@ amblingon:
Yeah, well, most of that was me, I think…
So yeah, I was especially trigger happy. MRAs are a flash point for me, and I grossly overreacted. I will offer up the fact that I was sleep-deprived and kind of on edge in general — as explanatory, not exculpatory material. I apologize for misreading and attacking you, and I’ll try to take this exchange as a learning opportunity so I don’t engage in that type of behavior in future. Which makes me especially shamed, because I hate it when others behave as I did.
Um I had heard he’s a democrat