chigau, that is an unfair comment. The posters are over the top, to be sure, but cracking about their looks is something we should avoid. After all, we don’t like it when people do it to women, and I think the ad hominems are out of place here. There are plenty of things we can say about the behaviors of these men without dismissing them because they are not HB10s.
It used to be that I hesitated to call myself an atheist for fear of backlash from religious family and friends. Nowadays, I hesitate out of fear of being associated with this “movement” (and, more particularly, the sexist assholes who “lead” it).
I may be wrong, but I took chigau’s “mirror” comment to mean something like “Don’t they see the hypocrisy of (supposedly) being opposed hero worship/deference to authority, while encouraging such a cult of personality around themselves?”
I thought the mirror comment was more of the ‘hype’ for which these individuals do not need in order to promote an idea.
Dan Dennett once came to my organization. He was announced via an email for a typical seminar. No hype. Nothing special. It was standing room only. The message, rather than the messenger. That’s how it is in science…in the trenches.
Blech. It seems far too easy for men of a certain generation (probably all generations, on reflection) to take any praise to heart and for their egos to become inflated to airship proportions.
I must say that I interpreted Chigau’s comment to be referring to their inability to see themselves as others see them, in a character sense, not a looks one. ‘Hold up a mirror to yourself’; ‘Self reflect’; that kind of thing – not a literal mirror for their looks.
Grant the peasants a boon, O lordly Lords, such that they might understand your Majesty.
Do none of them have mirrors?
(Jeeeezis Kerrrrrist !) x 4
Or should that be (Jeeeezis Kerrrrrist !)^4 ?
So many top lobsters in one place! Better stock up on melted butter.
chigau, that is an unfair comment. The posters are over the top, to be sure, but cracking about their looks is something we should avoid. After all, we don’t like it when people do it to women, and I think the ad hominems are out of place here. There are plenty of things we can say about the behaviors of these men without dismissing them because they are not HB10s.
Promoting Headline Leaders who are more important than…anything they’re supposed to be standing for is a terrible idea.
It used to be that I hesitated to call myself an atheist for fear of backlash from religious family and friends. Nowadays, I hesitate out of fear of being associated with this “movement” (and, more particularly, the sexist assholes who “lead” it).
I may be wrong, but I took chigau’s “mirror” comment to mean something like “Don’t they see the hypocrisy of (supposedly) being opposed hero worship/deference to authority, while encouraging such a cult of personality around themselves?”
I thought the mirror comment was more of the ‘hype’ for which these individuals do not need in order to promote an idea.
Dan Dennett once came to my organization. He was announced via an email for a typical seminar. No hype. Nothing special. It was standing room only. The message, rather than the messenger. That’s how it is in science…in the trenches.
Blech. It seems far too easy for men of a certain generation (probably all generations, on reflection) to take any praise to heart and for their egos to become inflated to airship proportions.
I must say that I interpreted Chigau’s comment to be referring to their inability to see themselves as others see them, in a character sense, not a looks one. ‘Hold up a mirror to yourself’; ‘Self reflect’; that kind of thing – not a literal mirror for their looks.
Maybe they don’t have reflections in mirrors?