Projects
I have a new project. My new project is to convince people on the left that they must work together with Tea Partiers.
This may seem like a difficult thing to do, but I like a challenge. There are many urgent problems in the world, such as countless people who still have the wrong kind of light bulbs, and the only way those problems can be solved is if I – yes I, I alone, I personally, I bravely yet gently yet determinedly yet lovingly – build a bridge between the left and the Tea Party. The division between the left and the Tea Party is divisive, and when there is divisiveness, problems don’t get solved, because people don’t work together, so it is urgent and vital and very important to heal this tragic divide by telling the left to forget about all the things they disagree with the Tea Party about. It would be pointless to tell the Tea Party to reciprocate, of course, and besides, the left is…well you know. So the work is to tell the left how to heal the divide, while not telling the Tea Party anything, because it already.
This is my healing work that I plan to do. I believe in love and reaching out and bridges and unity. I hope you all wish me luck and every success with my work, which I will be working on in many ways for many weeks to come, and which I will be reporting on via Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, the Washington Post, People, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Tikkun, First Things, Christianity Today, my seven blogs, some of my friends’ blogs which I haven’t counted yet, and CBS News. In spite of all this fame and exposure I remain impressively humble and kind of bashfully surprised by all the success and approval I report daily via Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, the Washington Post, People, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Tikkun, First Things, Christianity Today, my seven blogs, and some of my friends’ blogs which I haven’t counted yet.
Once I’ve got the left and the Tea Party squared away, I’ll get to work on getting feminists and sexists to work together, then unions and the governor of Wisconsin, then the Taliban and the women of Afghanistan. As I mentioned, I like a challenge. Thank you, god bless you, and god bless the United States of America.
I can’t imagine a better woman for the job. :)
Spoken like a true Faitheist? Just like them, you claim to want to build a bridge between your values and people who oppose your values, and you’ll be willing to compromise your values every step of the way. They don’t have to make any compromises because… ummmm… because… yeah, well, stop being a naysayer!! They don’t have to compromise because we need to build bridges!
You’re an effective satirist, and an utterly unsuccessful Poe, because we don’t need any cue to know you’re taking the piss.
I wasn’t even attempting a Poe. That would be hopeless. :- )
But what on earth are you going to do about all those pesky lefties that insist on criticising and ridiculing the Tea Party? How on earth are you going to make them understand that they must get along with Sarah P and her friends?
Gosh, it is good to be home!
Now, if only the actual ‘Faitheists’ could look at this and see how they look to us, and HONESTLY address our complaints, we might get somewhere.
FresnoBob –
Persistence. I’m just going to keep at it, day in and day out – bravely yet gently, passionately yet lovingly, determinedly yet empathetically, famously yet modestly, hiply yet tediously. When they crit and rid I will just say they are marginalizing me, and since I’ll be able to say it via Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, the Washington Post, People, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Tikkun, First Things, Christianity Today, my seven blogs, some of my friends’ blogs which I haven’t counted yet, and CBS News, it will make them look pretty bad.
And don’t forget to point out how angry they are.
You’re so brave Ophilia… I may swoon.
If you could just kind of murmur “shrill”. . .
You forgot the part about the polemics. Those darn pesky leftists are so polemicky.
You are so right. I confess: When I write about rights activists, journalists, and poor farmers being attacked and murdered in Honduras, I’m working more to, as Scheitle says, “fuel the debates than attenuate them.” I should be talking to the rights activists, journalists, and poor farmers about building bridges – and I mean literally building bridges (or dams,…) for the wealthy businessmen, with low wages, no benefits, no unions or protections, and being treated like dirt, because it’s all about finding ways to work together, really.
UNITY. RECONCILIATION. RUHNAMA.
Yes, we need to be more dialecticky. You know, like Stalin.
There are so many divisions to be bridged/healed/swept under something/papered over. Dog people and cat people? Cats and dogs? Star Trek vs. Star Wars? How about the divide between matter and antimatter? Baking soda and vinegar? Matches and gasoline?
This is kinda fun.
Christians and Muslims are already engaged in missions to convert the whole world to their ways of thinking; maybe this is where he gets his inspiration from.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I was despairing. Wither atheism, I thought. Lots of withering. Time has passed us by. The portents were not good. Professor Myers being confronted by Muslims, and looking tired. The good man Coyne stuggling wearily from conference to conference. Dawkins starting to swear. Oh, see how our movement crumbles! Not even fresh hot sweet tea seems enough to revive it.
But now, Ophelia has shown us her graciousness, and her respect for tea. I feel revived, and I want to cast off the intellectual shackles of strident atheism and socialism join with the Right-Wing Radicals in support of the Great Colbert and his politics of true emotion. We need to forget our search for truth, and instead celebrate truthiness. I expect great things!
bwah ha ha ha.
Hey, Ophelia. Long time listener, first time caller.
Thank you for showing us all how to be brave (and gentle) by crossing that bridge and turning our backs on what we believe so that others will not have to. I would applaud you, but my hands are busy, so busy, paving that bridge with my dreams.
“Caving – it’s not just for spelunkers anymore.”
Only half of your time need be spent building bridges, which frees up 2/3 of your time for castigating the shrill, unsophisticated, angry and genuinely unhelpful rants by the likes of the counter-productive Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, and Bernie Sanders.
LEFT-TEA-IST: How one Leftist learned to overcome the Leftist-Tea Party divide, and why Leftists and the Tea Party must work together.
Forthcoming from Beacon Press.
With love and gratitude,
Chris Stedman
EveryONE STOP being so RUDE and UNCRItical AND dogmatic aginst SBUTLE!! She ALWAYS tries TO HELP you and yet still you still yet MAKE such NASTY UNTHINKING comments ON her BLOG you DONT HAVE to come HERE AND provoking her!!!
Finally! I was so concerned that you were becoming too militant, too dogmatic, and above all, too shrill in your dedication to what ought properly be quite flexible and negotiable principles like women’s rights, human rights, basic civil liberties, and truth. I’m so glad you’ve seen the light!
And don’t forget, Ophelia — you’re doing it not for publicity or personal gain, but because you love them. Despite having never met most of them, and keeping physically as far away from the fanatical ones as possible. just keep on assuring us that you love them deeply, and personally, with a full heart.
Even the smelly ones.
I’ll give up my light bulbs when you pry them out of my cold, dead hands
Ophelia, you have chosen a vast and difficult project and your path will be strewn with those hateful and shrill leftists who will attack you at every turn in an effort to leave you lying broken and bloodied at the side of the road. Whenever you are discouraged, whenever you have doubts, whenever progress seems impossible and the road stretches out ahead of you, climbing to an infinitely high mountain peak, remember that you can succeed, remember the Truth of your goal, remember that those hateful leftists will thank you in the long run. Remember the success of the Catholic Church in its project to get paedophiles and children to work together, and be inspired.
I will keep you in my prayers during your journey.
I would like you to heal the rift between foxes and my chikkins as a matter of urgency. Thank you. That’s all.
[…] Go read why the left and the Tea Party must work together: This is my healing work that I plan to do. I believe in love and reaching out and bridges and unity. I hope you all wish me luck and every success with my work, which I will be working on in many ways for many weeks to come, and which I will be reporting on via Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, the Washington Post, People, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Tikkun, First Things, Christianity Today, my seven blogs, some of my friends’ blogs which I haven’t counted yet, and CBS News. In spite of all this fame and exposure I remain impressively humble and kind of bashfully surprised by all the success and approval I report daily via Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, the Washington Post, People, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Tikkun, First Things, Christianity Today, my seven blogs, and some of my friends’ blogs which I haven’t counted yet. […]
Ok.
So let’s start with an example: one of the biggest problems facing the world today is the threat of climate change. Tea partiers refuse to believe it exists, and the nonacademic (and even some of the academic) left refuses to acknowledge what the actual solution to the problem is (hint: renewable energy will not bridge the fossil gap, and natural gas is not actually helping).
How can people who are actually wrong on both sides work together to get things done?
Drink came out my nose!
The healing has begun.
You should be proud of your modesty.
I feel nourished.
Dog bless you, Ophelia.
Brilliant, Ophelia. Let us all immediately vow to live by the true lightbulb of commonsense and DDT all those fruit flies, thus forcing scientists to do something useful…your humility is so truly impressive! Just — wow!
I think you forgot a word or two there.
(Whisper whisper…)
Does it need saying?
(Whisper whisper…)
Okay, I don’t know who you are or how you took over Ophelia’s blog, but we want her back – you hear?
Ophelia – if you’re reading this, sit tight. Search parties and prayer groups are being organized.
:D
Ahhhhhhh – one good one after another. You guys make me proud. Humble, of course, but proud.
No no it’s all right Caudimordax – I have had a conversion. I am new-washed in the blood of the whatsit – the mule, was it? The prairie hen? The King Charles spaniel? I forget. Anyway I’m washed in it.
Proudly humble.
Get a grip, Caudimordax, it’s humbly proud!!!
I’m having trouble letting go of my gut-wrenching despair.
Accommodationist in all thing. Doing your enemies bidding in the name of “can’t we all just get along”. How profound, how humble. This can only lead to one thing … our own extinction, the ultimate denial of self.
Wait. If one washes or is washed in blood, does not one then need to wash again to get the blood off? Or is that bad form? Does one let it clot and congeal or what? Ew. Unless it’s one of those metaphor things. Ah shit. What am I gonna do with this tub full of…
Nothing. Never mind. Just hope nobody misses that spaniel. And the mule.
(D @ 32 – no – that was intentional. The Tea Party already, as any fule kno.)
Your ceremonial committee here. It was harmless food dye. Organic too. We tried for moose blood to satisfy the Palin supporters but being liberals we could not get visas to enter Alaska in time.
I would like to express an objection.
However, because I can only express it in the most militant and strident terms, my objection is clearly null and void.
I have redacted my objection, and I expect all my further comments here to be deleted. It’s the only reasonable position you could take, and I respect you for your honesty.
@ Your Name’s not Bruce?
No no no. This is the blood of the mule (or prairie hen or King Charles spaniel, as available). And it’s a symbol of, well, lambs and stuff, you know; of course you do, so it’s a symbol of lambs, which are so completely innocent that they have no idea what is going to happen to them… But never mind, it’s a symbol of, well, lambs and stuff, you know…So if one is washed in the blood of the — you know, lamb , then one is whiter than, you know, white, and this is a very good thing, because the lamb is, well, you know, it’s a lamb for fuck’s sake, I mean, so it’s, well, pure, and…Oh for God’s sake sort it out for yourself you stupid pillock!
Hello, Pogsurf. By all means express as many objections as you like. You are entirely free to couch it in the most or least militant terms…I mean, for God’s sake just say what you want to say. The rules here are: “Say what you want to say”. End of story. So it’s up to you. Speak out and be torn to shreds, or speak out and be listened to. Which would you rather?
Hilarious! Loved it! Never commented before but this one deserves a first time ;)
do you think fighting each other with tire irons is a better approach? it seems to me that you’re uncomfortable with success of others trying something productive. you should have used his name, your page would have blown up with hits.
It seems to me you’re obtuse. You haven’t read much around these parts before, have ya?
But can you heal the deep, deep rifts between the Charlie Chaplin aficionados and the Buster Keaton devotees? That is the most pressing issue of the day.
joey, what are you talking about?
Incomprehension, bafflement. Better approach than what? To what? What are we approaching, and what approach had we better adopt? Whose name? And what have tyre irons to do with any of it?
Rubbish – the Big-endians must reconcile and make common cause with the Little-endians.
Yeah…. Good luck with that… :)
But how can one Go West with City Lights shinning in our eyes?
Joey, we’re building bridges here so I’m not sure that you’re helping. Tire Irons? Why are you so angry?
And the users of Vim will lie down with the lovers of Emacs.
No great accomplishment there. I’m Vim and my husband is Emacs. He sighs whenever he hears my computer beeping because I am in the wrong Vi mode, and I say “you press WHAT keys to save a file?”.
No, we need something even more unlikely for Ophelia to be humble about. I think a first step would be to get rid of the word acccommmoddationism, which is hard enough to spell anyway. May I suggest ‘lovey huggyness’? It’s much nice and will surely warm the hearts of even the most strident atheist.
I think bridgeyness would be more better.
Just to take joey seriously for one tiny second – no it’s not about success of others trying something productive – it’s about telling others what to do.
“Bridgitudinalismist”?
Oh all right, if you want something more impressive – how about pontifexalist?
Taking joey seriously for a moment? OK…
What’s “productive” in sucking up to theists by/while scolding atheists for choosing to take a different approach? Productive for the theists, who have a pet atheist to hide their bigotry behind. Productive for Stedman, who gets to feed his ego and sense of entitlement by being paraded around as the theists’ pet atheist. Not so productive for anything having to do with positive progress as far as the goals most atheists consider important. Occasionally Stedman and his ilk are actively counterproductive, as was the case when Stedman decided it was important to defend Jim Wallis against criticism from LGBTQ organizations when Wallis refused to run the Believe Out Loud ads in Sojourners.
Pontitudinarianism? Oh all right, bridgeyness, then.
Pseudometapontifexologisticator.
I have a Ph.D. in Englishification from George W. Bush College at Don King University… and that ain’t no trickeration!
I can’t wait until the Left criticizes you so you can tell them all about their tone! :)
I don’t know, man. This seems to be putting the conciliation before the affirmation. I just don’t think that’s how it’s done.
That was an eleven.
I don’t understand why you think it’ll be any challenge at all to getting leftists and the Tea Party to work together, Ophelia. Haven’t you been paying attention to the Accommodationists at all? Here, I’ll show you how it’s done.Ahem. “Leftists be nicer to Tea Partiers! Leftists be nicer to Tea Partiers! Leftists be nicer to Tea Partiers!”There. Any other great divides you need bridging?
Now that you mention it….
The issues raised by Tea Party spokespeople include complaints about the power of Wall Street, and corporations generally. This is contrary to the desires of the corporate hacks who sponsor the “movement”, but it still comes out pretty regularly. Pew Research shows that it is fairly common among Tea Party supporters to be pissed off about these issues.
And these are of course also key concerns for those of us on the left.
Leftists and Tea Partiers differ on a lot of things, but I think it’s absolutely true that can and should come together around this, which is a pretty fundamental issue on either account. And, yes, there are people on the left working on this.
Watch out for the anti-pontifimakers!
Ophelia, your views intrigue me. Do you have a pamphlet I can read?
The best way to combat hard-right extremism, I’ve always found, is to buckle completely, tell them they’re right and let them have their way. It just works out best for everyone if you don’t resist.Sincerely,Neville Chamberlain
Please, please tell me he’s pissing and moaning somewhere very public?
wow I am inspired to undertake my own project.. I am gonna try to make the lamb lie down with the lion.. I will head over to the Bronx zoo tomorrow and see what I can do, I am sure the authorities will cooperate once they see this new book.
Brian – no pamphlet, sorry, but I have a 200,000 word memoir I wrote when I was 13. Would that do instead?
Hi GordonWillis. My objection is that I believe the pontifabricators should be able to provide evidence that their way is best, before telling everybody else exactly what to do. I feel ashamed that I can only express my objection in such a hateful and destructive manner. I know I’m not helping, but I just can’t stop myself.
200,000 word memoir at age 13? Is that an allusion to a certain someone? I think I might have said ‘duh?’ 200,000 times at age 13. Not sure it would’ve made much of a memoir however. Where can I read this tome to precociousness?
Josh – well there’s a little grumbling about PZ’s post (plus a lot of pissing and moaning from fans) at Facebook, but nothing (that I’ve seen) about this one.
Plus his mother is joining in.
His mother? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL
(breathe)
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
I just can’t get myself to produce a good enough parody.
ROFL. I’m not going to point to the comment counts and who they were created by at his blog. Did joey pull a Poe? I don’t know.
I only have people I know IRL on Facebook, otherwise I’d be inclined to friend him in order to see the pissing and moaning. Nah, it’s not worth it, I’ve got way to may feeds in my reader anyway.
I wonder, did he react in any way to the kerfuffle happening at his blog in a meaningful way? (Besides writing strange intros to guest posts.)
A boy’s best friend is his mother. Besides, if Mommy says it’s true then we know it’s true.
Our fates as leftists and tea partiers are deeply intertwined as we build new paradigmatic bridges through respectful dialogue.
So we should definitely form an “Interfate Alliance” to promote our common goals….
Ophelia,
It’s very funny. And reading the comments,i can see that you’re making fun of those “faitheists”. But me, when I read the post the first time, I thought …. “She’s channelling Barack Obama!” MUHAHAHHAAHHAA
And Ophelia is also a comedienne!
Josh — tell me about it. I have a hard time respecting any man whose mother gets concerned when her son is criticized. What a loser.
Michael, come on. It is extraordinarily silly and kinda embarrassing for Mom to jump in. Chris is a great big grown up man with a voice on the national stage. My lack of respect for Chris has nothing to do with what his Mom does (yes, I know mothers are concerned). It has everything to do with his incoherent and offensive ideas. I merely laughed at how funny it was that Mom was riding to the rescue.
Sheesh. And do sarcasm better.
[Etc. OT.]
Why are you so violent and extreme, Patrick Elliott? You sound like a corporate shill yourself.
Just because there are corporate shills in a large number of the positions of power within Tea Partyism, doesn’t mean that Tea Partiers support corporate shillingness. It’s corporate shillingness that’s the problem, and the nasty anti-corporate shillingness leftists like yourself are actually JUST AS corporate shillingy as corporate shills in the Tea Party.
@ Pogsurf.
:-)
Shook is pissing and moaning over at the CFI blog. Being quite pedantic about it. Gets all unintentionally ironic with his first line.
It gives me great pleasure to see the progress that has been made on this project already. You announcement here has already been read, I am sure, far and wide. The message has gone out! You should feel so proud. But there are now things to do. Soon, you need to set up new website with pastel colours. That’s very important. The background should be full of calming words in a large font: “Loving”, “harmony”, “together”, “future”, “peace” and so on. You can then fill the first page with meaningless quotes from people no-one has heard of, and pictures which should include a grey-haired old lady smiling and two children holding hands. These are compulsory for such sites.
Your an fukcing monster I ahte you Why do you always have to destroy evrytihng. We never say mean word to you?
If you don’t captalize a rant, you loose half the effect.
Here:
You’ll note I removed the superfluous punctuation for that extra bit of ranty goodness.
And with this, Ophelia reveals herself to be the Raven-headed Phoe, Goddess of parody and clever riposte… ;-))
Great stuff, Ophelia.
@57 Steve: good lord are there people still using Vi? – talk about masochism!!
A new light from the distant shores of the Pacific Northwest, a movement that has struck a chord within the depths of my thoughts. I can finally be agnostic on everything in my life and no longer be a non-Phil. Ain’t America Great?
I love it! Stedman’s a clown.
Satire becomes you.
:D
Michael – seriously? Come on. Do you know anyone else whose mother or father intervenes in heated Facebook discussions? Because I don’t. I think there’s a reason for that: I think the reason is that it has an obvious inhibiting effect, and sensible people realize that that’s not a good thing, not even for them, or in fact especially not for them. Would you want a parent helping you out in a heated Facebook discussion? Wouldn’t such help make you feel (and look) like a child?
His mother is friends with him on Facebook. She saw what was going on and commented. My mother has done the same. It’s not surprising, and I don’t see what is funny about it unless we’re going for low-blow humor. Let’s focus on the arguments and not silly stuff like that.
By the way, can we all agree this is a deplorable post?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/im_sure_it_will_be_popular_wit.php#comment-4173158
@Ophelia, no, I wouldn’t want my mother posting on my wall in the midst of a heated debate, but she’s done that before. I know you can block specific people from seeing things you post but I never do that with my mom. She’s my mom and should see what I post (unless she was a fundamentalist).
It is a little surprising. It’s not the norm – not the “custom”; not the way things are done. It’s awkward. She should realize that on her own…and I was going to say if she doesn’t, he should gently point it out to her, but on second thought, maybe that would just be too hard to do, so scratch that. Maybe it’s to his credit that he doesn’t. Maybe he just doesn’t want to hurt her feelings or make her feel silly.
I of course don’t think he should block her! That would be very harsh.
No, I don’t like that comment (it’s a comment, not a post). I don’t like (or endorse or whatever) every comment at Pharyngula, but I don’t expect to, either.
Oh and another thing –
But Stedman doesn’t really have much in the way of arguments, and he has a lot of other stuff instead. That’s why I say he does a lot of manipulating. He does effects far more than he does arguments. Making a Facebook argument a family affair looks like more of the same (unless it’s just that he can’t do anything about it). His effects are part of the subject, so that’s why I mention them.
No, I’m not going to agree. Because by “deplorable” I think you want us to agree that foul language is horrible-horrible-bad-bad-must be seen to be publicly deplored. That is, unless you have an actual disagreement with the content of the comment. Do you have any idea what the commenter is taking issue with? Because it seems to me you need to contemplate the context before you decide whether the (obviously aggressively over the top, of course) comment is “deplorable.”
Why do I suspect you haven’t given that any thought, or that if you have, you’d say “Nothing justifies that”? Why do I suspect you are more disturbed by the formalities of language than you are about the actual issues?
Why?
@Michael De Dora(#103)
No, we damned well can’t agree on that. Oh no, dirty words! What kind of magical thinking are you engaged in here, that ‘foul’ language in defense of valid principles is someone much worse than more polite (and usually passive agressive) language in defense of things like bigotry and ignorance? Tone trolling is some nasty stuff there, hoss… you should aim a little higher.
My only criticism is that “fuckface” was used far too many times. A little bit of variety goes a long way, so Aquaria should have made a few substitutions like “douche-nozzle” or “shit-stick” or even done a little ‘borrowing’ of some classics like “donkey raping shit eater.”
Other than that I’m fine with an over-the-top defense of principles. On the other hand, I’m sick up to my ears with people who seem stand for nothing beyond civility, who defend no value besides not rocking boats or challenging the people who hold power and authority, and who appear to want to be liked by people they disagree with more than they care about the substance of the disagreement. If someone is willing to bend their principles in order to avoid seeming too confrontational, then I say that they have no principles at all. Principles are things you’re willing to defend even when it makes people uncomfortable, and it seems to me that the accommodationists have NO PRINCIPLES besides sucking up to theists.
That’s just pathetic, and offensive. There isn’t a string of profanity long enough to be as offensive as someone who holds “go along to get along” as the only principle of any real value.
I don’t know the exact nature of what Stedman’s mother posted, but this derision for her getting involved bothers me. If it seems humorous, awkward and norm-defying for her to defend him, perhaps that’s because we’re too quick to expect a woman’s primary motivations become mommyish ones once she has children. Stedman is a fatuous ninny and perhaps his mother is as well, but mothers are people, too. And they can be supportive of what their adult children do and say on the basis of a shared set of beliefs and values. (Even if they’re stupid beliefs and values.) It’s a bit demeaning to mothers in general to ignore that.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Michael De Dora (#103)
What’s deplorable is the comment that provoked it. I mean, really, steverino63 deserved that for being a smarmy little troll.
A – no, it was as a parent, not as a woman, that I think she shouldn’t intervene. Comment in general, sure, but intervene in arguments, no. It’s just…
Well it’s a bit like showing up at an adult child’s job to challenge the boss – which I saw people actually doing on some tv show about overprotected children recently – I think on CBC. That was definitely not considered ok! By anyone except the parent doing it.
@26 Bryan Elliott:
Oooh, this one’s easy, I didn’t even need your hint: Immediately redirect existing massive subsidies for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries into further developing even cheaper and more efficient clean renewable sources while encouraging conservation! (What do I win?)
I once knew a graduate student who failed his exams for advancement to candidacy for a Ph.D. His mother stormed into the biology department the next day and railed ferociously at the committee for daring to not pass her son.
She did him no favor at all. Really, it was disastrous and embarrassing and only convinced the committee that her little boy needed to do some serious growing up before he qualified for big boy work.
The dreaded comment…I don’t much like the word “deplore”; it’s kind of prissy. But I also don’t think the comment is just fine. It’s no accident (she said meaningfully) that you don’t see comments like that here. It’s sort of self-perpetuating – you don’t see them here, so you don’t make them here, so you go on not seeing them here, so you go on not making them here, und so weiter. A little of that kind of thing goes a long way. I use a little of it, and others here use a little of it, but that’s all. More would be too much. It’s not a big huge crime worth making tragic faces over, but it’s not attractive, either. It’s overkill. I have an editor’s aversion to overkill – or maybe it’s a writer’s. Or maybe it’s both. (There are people who think the purple passage at the end of Does God Hate Women? was overkill. There are other people who don’t, and who quote it admiringly. We thought about it carefully at the time…and disputed a bit about whether the list [the warthog in a party dress and so on] was overkill. JS thought it was, a little, but I couldn’t single out an item I was willing to give up, so he acquiesced.) It just isn’t the case that steverino’s comment was so outrageous that it earned that much overkill. Come on – develop an ear! This is an aesthetic question as well as a moral one – aesthetically, that comment sucks.
Yikes! About the PhD candidate. Cringe cringe cringe.
Really Ophelia, “aesthetically sucks”? Well, I mean besides the lazy repetition I mentioned earlier… but I think it is certainly more a matter of personal taste than any sort of even remotely objective that you can say is negative.
Some folks like a wheat beer, some folks like an IPA, shot of tequila, or a Glenfiddich on the rocks. You might not like tequila, but you can be fairly sure that a shot of Patron is probably a better example of the form than Pepe Lopez in a plastic jug. You might not dig the over-the-top style of posting, but that wasn’t a terrible example of it. I’d have maybe gone further, maybe a “someone needs to slap some sense into you with a shit-dipped sea bass” or a “sweet crispy chocolate-covered caramel Christ on a Popsicle stick” or something along those lines.
Just for flavor, mind you… :)
Ophelia,
Of course it’s aesthetic overkill. But that’s not what Michael’s on about, and I’m not going to legitmize his prissiness by conceding. He’s playing the shopworn two-part game of clutching his pearls about words and then elevating one over the top comment into some grand commentary on how awful everyone is to Stedman. It’s classic tone-trolling. Frankly, I think you give Michael a little too much here, because he didn’t have anywhere near the rational justification you gave for his own distaste.
Aside from that, there is context (yes, really). Steverino has been trolling Pharyngula a lot lately. He’s duplicitous and he lies. There’s a reason why some commenters are on a hair trigger with him.
Notice how nobody commented on Steverino’s characterization of Pharyngula commenters as a “brainwashed cadre?” Nope. No comment there. But plenty of hand wringing over the excessive use of “fuck.” That really pisses me off.
So, here we are, having successfully been sidetracked and tone-trolled by De Dora.
This is totally going to drive me to drink… and then I’m going to come back and post the MOST OBSCENE COMMENT EVER!!! It is going to make ‘The Aristocrats’ look like a Jay Leno joke. It is going to make Breakin’ look like Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Damn youse De Dora… damn youse all to Hell!!!!!!
…
…
… what were we talking about?
It’s not Aquaria’s finest work, but sometimes it’s just not feasible to worry about aesthetics when trying to kill a troll by fire.
And ones who yelp ‘echo chamber’ at every opportunity do not deserve well-written replies. Feel free to compose and post them if you like, but be aware a troll like steverino has no more ability to appreciate it than a stray dog the sonnet you’ve just composed and read to him.
I’m still trying to get my head around “(self-?)brainwashed “cadre””
Please, Joe, just don’t say “Englishification” again. I don’t think I could stand it a third time.
Oh I see, I didn’t know he had form as a troller. I don’t read the comments regularly…there are so many, you know!
Yes, true, it’s taste, it’s not objective. I get very quickly bored by rounds of Competitive Porcupine Threats, but not everyone does. But then some people love Stedman’s style, and we don’t want to give them too much leeway, now do we?!
:- )
Well anyway now you know about troll steverino that he’s a friend and fan of Stedman’s, which could help explain the trollery.
Agreed, and I’ve seen it picked up as such elsewhere in the pearlosphere – omigollies look what the new atheists blah blah – so you undeniably have a point.
Tut, Michael. Tut, I say.
I’ve been drinking almost nonstop for the last 10 days… and people are mocking my dictionicity? Jeez.
Anyways, to the larger point about bridge-building and language and the rest. I’m interested in advancing certain ideas and behaviors, like civil rights and critical thinking, and people not killing each other over religion or sex/gender issues or really anything at all. Where atheists and theists agree on those issues, ‘bridges’ will form naturally and I have no problem working with anybody who’s working towards the same goals. Where those ideas do not overlap, for instance when theists claim that there is scientific evidence for their beliefs where it simply just isn’t so, or where certain religious sects are uncomfortable or worse with regards to non-heterosexual people, there is by necessity going to be conflict of some sort. That conflict is natural and should not be swept under the rug or ignored for the sake of going along to get along.
And where the conflict involves theists holding bigoted beliefs and acting on them, or seeking to water down or even corrupt science education to cater to Bronze Age myths, then we cannot for a single solitary second pretend that we should create bridges where none are warranted. If the language gets a little harsh towards bigots and people who we see as doing real harm, it is fatuous to pretend that the ‘harm’ of hurt feelings cause by harsh language is somehow worse than the real harm being done.
For instance, calling the Pope and his supporters a bunch of baby-raping assholes and worthless enablers of baby rape is a thousand orders of magnitude less bad than the actual sexual crimes and cover ups. Calling out people who defend homophobes and the enablers of homophobia, like Jim Wallis and Chris Stedman is in no way of a similar offense to the homophobia and its defenders. If you see something that constitutes real harm to real people, and you see people attacking the ones doing the harm and/or trying to give voice to the victims, the LAST THING YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS TONE AND BRIDGE-BUILDING!
I’m happy to be on the side of the river where my values and principles are respected and put into action. I don’t see anything ethical about compromising one inch of my principles in order to get along with people… and people worth building bridges with wouldn’t ask you to compromise. The rest of them deserve the harsh words, and probably more than that.
Ophelia @123
Plus ca change.
They’ve been doing it with Aquaria’s comments since at least 2009.
IIRC, Aquaria’s in Texas. An atheist woman in friggin’ Texas, and not in some cozy academic bubble. If she wants to come to these blogs and tell off the trolls and people who attack outspoken atheists, more power to her. This has really become ridiculous.
Hey SC, I don’t know about you, but I often get the feeling that there’s some class warfare going on here. It really does often seem to come down to “snooty intellectual snobs vs. regular folks.” That attitude certainly feeds the nonsensical scolding that Gnus get over not “engaging with sophisticated theological positions,” and I wonder if that’s not the real source of the tone trolling as well. Maybe it isn’t about anything more than trying to make sure that us low-class undesirables are excluded from the debate… not to mention the fancy meetings and tea parties and black tie affairs and faculty club wank-fests.
An interesting twist is that Mooney presents her comment with this “analysis”:
Aquaria’s talked about what she does for a living, and no one would classify her as an intellectual snob. For Mooney – who wants people to think of scientists like “rock stars” – to present himself as protector and champion of the “public” as opposed to Aquaria, about whom he knows nothing, is really just too much. It’s snooty faux-intellectualism also trying to present itself as a defense of the poor, stupid public, who need to be talked down to and manipulated. And it’s Aquaria’s fault she’s surrounded by religious nuts. Sure.
So Chris Mooney is both our intellectual superior AND ‘the voice of the people’? He strikes me as a privileged person of barely average intelligence and barely any insight beyond the scope of his entitlement. Just my opinion, which doesn’t count since I’m one of the unwashed masses and all.
For anyone that is interested:my comment on Chris’s post was just that “a comment”. Actually, it was “a comment on someone else’s comment”. It was not “an intervention” or even “a defense”. I am suprised no one here has quoted this “great defense by Chris’s Mommy”. That being said, the comment was made not as “Chris’s Mom” , but as a person with an opinion. For that, as well as the adult friendship I have with all four of my adult children ~ I make no apologies.
Toni Stedman? Really? I’m actually honest to Satan speechless at this point. Nope, I’ve got NOTHING.
Anyone have a good tempura recipe? I’ve had issues with getting the batter to be crispy, rather than almost donut-like.
But Toni – since you are Chris’s mother, that really doesn’t work.
I certainly don’t expect you to apologize; but saying it was just the comment of a person with an opinion doesn’t work.
Graeme – ohhhhh right the MBurnett thing.
God I’m bored just thinking about it.
Well, it works for me. Clearly Ophelia, you and I live by an entirely different set of “rules”.
Wow… I’m not speechless anymore!!
But should I? Should I really? Nah… OK, maybe later, but not yet.
Well I already knew it worked for you, Toni! That’s hardly the point. It doesn’t work in the sense that it isn’t true – a comment by Chris’s mother can’t be taken as a comment by just any random person with no stake in the disagreement. It obviously is by a person with a particular kind of stake in the disagreement, so it is bound to inhibit all the other participants. Maybe that’s what you want – but if so, I would say you have no business doing that. Chris has a public platform, indeed several of them, so his mother shouldn’t be inhibiting people who disagree with him on a public forum.
You’re right that it’s not a “rule.” It’s more like a custom. But, you know, when adults have quarrels with other adults, they don’t usually ask their parents to intervene. That too is a custom, but it seems like a fairly sensible one. There are reasons we think adults should fight their own battles.
Hi Mrs Stedman
A facebook comment’s one thing I guess (not that I’d encourage my own ma to get involved in my public work, but different strokes and all that), but following it up over here in response to a post clearly lampooning Chris is something that could be easily misconstrued; especially since (as I write this) the target of the satire hasn’t shown up here to mount his own defence.
Chris has enough image problems within the ranks of nonbelievers, thanks to his somewhat obtuse way of communicating (and more-than-somewhat blatant way of insulting and patronising fellow atheists who disagree with him); the last thing he needs is a reputation for not fighting his own fights.
m.
[…] including Jen McCreight and James Croft, and meanwhile back at the ranch, meaning here…Chris’s mother has explained why it’s perfectly fine for her to defend him in Facebook disagreements. This is a new move […]
Toni it is time to let the boy grow up or he’ll always be a boy.
Don’t seive the flour, use ice-cold sparkling water (or lager; it works, really) and when you mix the batter DON’T make it perfectly smooth. If you leave it a little lumpy, the lumpy bits will ‘explode’ in the hot oil leaving a sharp, crispy texture. Make the batter quite thin and use as soon as possible, dip the food to be ‘tempura’d into flour, then beaten egg and then flour again before coating with batter. Don’t over-coat the food and make sure your oil is very hot; thin batter and quick cooking makes for a better crunch.
I’m sure that others may have their preferred method but hey, can’t we all just get along?…….and anyway, mine is best!
@Acolyte of Sagan:
I tried the lumpy, and the hot oil… and it helped. Ice-cold sparkling water is the next step, probably day after tomorrow since I have to avoid repeating myself in the kitchen. I also haven’t tried pre-coating the food in flour before dipping in the batter, which works well for my country-fried chicken recipe.
Went ahead and read that post by Aquaria. It could have used a bit more editing and there was some over use of, “fuckface,” specifically, but other than that, what’s the problem?
I have a real problem with soggy batter, and my attempts to avoid it lead to me over-cooking both tempura and pakora. I’ve now got an air-fryer. I’m going to try using that at highest temperature.
I usually avoid batter and use a breading that is guaranteed to to crispy like panko. I’m also considering creating hybrid batters of tempura dipped in panko or other breading. In the meanwhile, I would suggest using things that cook quickly like shrimp and zucchini, because they are foods that are cooked when the breading/batter is done, no matter how fast that is.
Excuse me, why is a mother supposed to shut up about about anything her son says? When did she lose her right to joining in a conversation with an opinion? Is it part of the 21st birthday ceremonies or is it a puberty ritual or what?
She may be saying dumb shit, but this looks to me like some pretty damn ugly sexism. Moms should be seen and not heard? Moms can contribute nothing, and anything they do say will be ignored as just meaning “my baybeeee rite or rong!”? Haha just a Mom, she can’t say anything meaningful! She can have no opinions of her own, hahaha, she has to agree with her son! (Let’s hope she doesn’t have 2 sons who disagree, her little ladybrane might asplode.)
I don’t like this twist of the conversation at all. Argue what she says, not who she is.
Ach. Sheesh. No. I’d say the same thing about dads. It has nothing to do with sex. It’s about the fact that it’s not the done thing for parents, friends, and family members to jump up and down and defend you when you’re a public figure. Didn’t I just illustrate how this was not a sexist argument with my story about prohibiting my brother from doing the same thing?
It’s deplorable. I think we can all agree on that, as we fan oursleves and collapse into our chaise longues.
Whoops, I’m in the wrong thread. Mea culpa! My last should have been in the “Helicopter Parents” thread.
Hey Cath? Claims of sexism here look rather foolish and self-serving.
One, because this site is rather heavily focused on issues regarding bigotry against women. Two, because the comments here often go on long tangents about what constitutes more casual sexism, where the regular posters attack sexist bigotry and also correct themselves when they say sexist things themselves. Three, it is a lazy and silly thing you’re claiming because the issue has nothing to do with sex/gender, and everything to do with inherent bias. A parent is inherently biased towards their child. It is disingenuous for a parent to claim that they are commenting from an unbiased perspective when their child is the subject. The gender of the parent or child is irrelevant to the issue of bias, and it is disgusting that you would suggest otherwise.
I know that Ophelia’s blog is usually very anti-sexist, Joe, which is why I’m surprised and saddened to see this here. We all make slip-ups when we are not thinking, since we live in a society that is suffused by sexism. I assume that Ophelia would prefer to be called on it.
Telling a woman to shut up simply because of her relationship to a man is OK? Yeah, shut up bitch, when I want your opinion I’ll ask your owner for it. (Father, then husband, then son is the customary transfer of ownership in most patriarchal systems.)
And oh yes, our history and our current cultural memes about Moms have no influence on anyone’s thinking; swapping genders would lead to an exactly identical situation; and recognising sexism is ever so much worse than actually doing it… Please.
We have political dynasties where whole families go into politics, one generation after another. But of course nobody would ever pay attention to anything Bobby Kennedy said because he was just John F’s brother, right? Surely it must be totally inappropriate to argue in support of your relatives in public! It’s just not done! (See also the Bushes, or several Australian examples that I could list that aren’t even in wikipedia’s rather long list of relatives scandalously supporting each others’ views in public – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_families .)
Actually, right now in Australia Rupert Murdoch’s Mum is in the press for *disagreeing* publicly with her son on climate change. Should she just shut up, too?
All I’m saying is play the argument, not the person. Her argument’s shitty enough anyway.
Oh for goodness sake. It was nothing like that. Come off it.
It’s generally not a great idea, when the matter under discussion isn’t to do with the fact of your relationship, and if you aren’t a recognised expert on that matter. One reason why it’s not a good idea is it usually makes the person you are trying to support look pretty useless. It does the opposite of what you intend. Anyone who thinks that they are actually helping their offspring by trying to assist in this way seems pretty naive. Well-intentioned, but naive.
@Josh
Why not care about both?
@Cath the Canberra Cook,
You’re being blatantly dishonest with your claims of sexism. Just stop it already. Gender has nothing to do with it. I’m 100% sure that the arguments would be the same if it were mom or dad defending son or daughter. It is nonsense to pretend that the gender of parent or child has anything to do with it.
If Ophelia’s dad showed up to tell you that you’re off base, it would be the same issue. Or my dad, or my mom, or either of your parents, or a half-dozen parents of every possible gender in a more modern blended family. The point is that parents shouldn’t be drafted to protect their adult children from online criticism.
Why not answer a reasonable question?
Really, Michael De Dora? You came back to post that completely irrelevant and useless defense of your earlier tone trolling? Can’t do any better? Won’t bother?
I only really ever see you show up to whine about tone, while you ignore real issues. Why is that? I guess it is easier to be a scold than to present a real case… I guess. Crap, I’m so disgusted with you that I have a hard time dealing with even the tiny little snarky nothing you bothered to post.
In fact, that was not my intention. My intention was to highlight what I thought was an atrocious comment and ask commenters here if we could agree that it was indeed atrocious. Apparently we cannot. Oh well. Now I know.
I couldn’t care less about people criticizing Stedman, or anyone else for that matter, so long as they don’t use language like “You mealy-mouthed simpering arrogant fuckface.” If someone said this at a public event (part of my job at CFI), I would most likely ask them to leave, whether or not they had a point. I don’t see why this sort of language should be respected in any corner of the world, outside a war zone. I know we’re angry about all sorts of things (or, at least, I am), but that doesn’t mean anything goes.
I thought it came through, but the answer is that I care about both. And there is no reason to assume that Acquaria could not have made her case without resorting to such language.
Care to substantiate the claim that I ignore real issues? I rarely post here. Do you know what I do for a living? Ever read my blog posts? Ever hear me talk?
So you’re literally getting weak in the knees over foul language in 2011? What organization do you run, Mrs. Grundy’s Knitting Circle and Temperance League? Oh no!! You object to “foul language”!
Yeah. In a war zone. Or used by 99% of the armed forces who defend America… are you ready to spit on them? Or language used on HBO, and all the other cable channels, and watched by most people. Language used in most books, and in every R-rated movie and most PG-13 movies. Language used by Pulitzer Prize winners, and likely by many or most Nobel Prize winners. Used by the people who grow your food, run the power plants that provide you with electricity, the folks who built your car and the computer you’re posting on.
HOW DARE YOU! Your prissy little complaint about the word “fuck” in order to avoid dealing with the content surrounding it is more offensive than the word itself could ever be.
You don’t respect freedom of speech? WTF?!
De Dora needs to watch more George Carlin.
And wow, De Dora, I thought you were a pompous, egotistical narcissist before. You totally didn’t have to pull out the “do you know who I am?” card in order to convert my assumption into a fact.
@Wonderist:
Carlin used at least seven words that would cause De Dora to fall over and die. If he were a cat, he’s only have two lives left over, which he would promptly lose the second he watched an Emmy -winning cable show or read any modern fiction.
Apologies for my bad form. The following should have been set off typographically:
This can’t be the ACTUAL Michael De Dora, can it? The one who is the executive director of CFI in NYC? The one with degrees from schools in New York? Surely it can’t be the same person, unless he has lived his whole life being chauffeured from his home to class, and then chauffeured from home to CFI headquarters, and never once in his life encountered one of the millions of New Yorkers who use dirty language on a regular basis. Somehow he must have also made it through school with heavily bowdlerized books throughout, in order to avoid any harsh language.
… and never ordered a pizza, not once.
The more I hear that, the more I like it, in fact.
Too bad you can’t ask people to leave the internet!
Why do you think it should be respected in a war zone?
So? (And she didn’t “resort” to it; it’s the way she writes.)
You know…
… a semi-regular theme around here is “privilege” and all the nastiness that springs from it. Usually it takes the form of male privilege that leads to rampant rape and sexism. Sometimes it takes the form of white privilege that perpetuates racial bigotry, or heterosexual privilege that allows people to ignore the second-class citizenship of the LGBT community. And sometimes it is just the ivory tower entitlement of some “do you know who I am?!?!” type who is so grossly disconnected from the real world of regular people that he is incapable of maintaining a normal level of reading comprehension the very moment that he stumbles across a bit of language that he considers to be coarse. I guess it is important for some people to be shielded for dirty words, since they hold magical powers over them…
… although I’m not sure why someone who is so weak-minded that the word “fuck” holds magical powers over his mind should consider himself capable of leading a skeptical organization. Maybe because his magical power of college degrees gives him supernatural immunity in most cases, and his connections in the community cover the other cases.
Oh, and maybe some folks would be happier if Aquaria used baby-talk? Maybe if she had called that one troll a “mealy-mouthed simpering arrogant poopyface,” they could STFU with the tone trolling and deal with the overall substance?
Cath, this is a carte-blanche argument which effectively allows the user to discount any argument she doesn’t like. You cannot use it and at the same time tell other people to “play the argument”. You must, in courtesy, assume that people are saying what is the case, at least until your suspicions are confirmed or disproved, otherwise you will just stop hearing people and deny any possibility of progress.
Michael, I suppose that in your deep concern for the survival of polite language, regardless of the “atrocity” of the sentiments expressed, you forgot to read Ophelia’s post. Or at least missed something rather important. Dear dear.
.
PS By the way, do sometime consider what things are more accurately described as “atrocious”. It might bring a sense of perspective.
I don’t care about “deplorable” language, but it’s obvious when it interferes with the author’s point. It’s like putting salt on food — a little bit can make it better; a lot can make it much worse.
Some people are accustomed to extremely salty food. They enthusiastically create and eat it. When a person comes along and winces at its saltiness, they reprimand him for complaining about the salt and not addressing the food itself. “Well if you really cared about the food then you wouldn’t smother it in salt,” he replies. But to the mega-salt lovers this response is just evidence that he didn’t care about the food in the first place. He’s just a salt-troller.
@Amanda:
That’s all well and good with the salty food… except in your analogy, why are whining anti-salt scolds taking bites of food out of other people’s plates and complaining, instead of making and eating their own food?
Joe… When you write a blog comment, do you intend for others to read it?
That “do you know who I am” thing looks relevant to me. I think it might be a continuation of the “Care to substantiate the claim that I ignore real issues? I rarely post here.”
In short, I think it’s supposed to be a You’re Wrong About Me / You Don’t Know Me / You Assume Too Much.
Ack, now I ended up making a serious post. Didn’t mean to do that.
I apologise if this side-track may seem off-topic, but I’m simply trying, in the spirit of the OP, to close the gap between crispy/soggy batter, and to a smaller extent between batter/crumb, and this comment is intended to show that larger pieces of food (eg. southern fried chicken) can indeed be served in a delicious crispy batter without compromising the cooking of the chicken, therefore not risking losing this blog’s regular contributors to salmonella due to under-cooked nosh.
So, if you want serve chicken legs in batter, here’s how. Get some of those self-sealing or zip-top plastic food bags (preferably one bag for every 2 portions of chicken), pop in your chicken, with a little seasoning if desired, and seal the bag. Make sure that you expel all of the air before sealing (or just buy a very expensive vac-pack machine which does pretty much the same but for a thousand quid more!), then put into a pan of hot, but NOT boiling water (70-80 deg C’s about right) for around 10-15 mins or so. The chicken will now be fully cooked without losing moisture, so you can now coat with batter and fry as quickly as you wish and the result will be perfectly cooked, moist and tasty chicken with a delightfully crispy, golden batter.
Now, @ Cath the Canberra Cook; wouldn’t your time have been better spent giving advice like mine, rather than by inventing your own complaint (sexism!Where the hell did THAT come from?) and making yourself look foolish by then acting on that imaginary insult to your gender?
Cath – nooooo this is not sexism – see comment # 111. It’s about a parent, not a mother – but Toni is in fact a mother.
And no it’s not about losing a “right” ffs – obviously it’s not a crime and there is no penalty. It’s about etiquette and tact and common sense and stuff like that there. It is, as the saying goes, not “appropriate.”
Yikes. That was a reply to # 145 – I hadn’t seen # 150 yet. Jeezis, Cath…
@Acolyte of Sagan: Sort of a quick sous-vide? Zip-lock makes bags for that, a dozen cost about $4 and it comes with a little hand-vacuum. Coolest thing ever!
@scottab: I like for people to read my comments, I’d like people to read my blog (fat chance of THAT!)… but if you think I’m too salty for your taste, you can stop reading. Feel free to pick your own reading material, right? I’m going to continue to be a little bit concerned about adults in 2011 who are mortified more by the word “fuck” than the sort of actual nastiness that tends to provoke that language.
Oops, just to clarify my final paragraph in comment #177 lest CtCC accuses me of sexism; my suggestion that she should maybe stick to matters of a culinary nature stems from the ‘Canberra Cook’ part of her pseudonym.
Though on reflection, as the original ‘sexism’ claim was based on nothing in the OP, I dread to thing what kind of ‘ism’ my comment could be linked to?
Right; Cath @ # 150 –
It wasn’t a slip-up; I was thinking; I wouldn’t much prefer to be called on a non-existent slip-up. See comment # 111 where I said (astonished that it needed saying) it was about the parent, not the specifically female parent.
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you seriously think that’s what I was saying?
Please what? Yes of course it fucking would. If the protagonist had been a woman (say Karen Armstrong or Madeleine Bunting or Cristina Odone) and her father dropped those comments – yes of course it damn well would. “Recognizing” sexism that is not in fact there is not a virtue. Given the amount of real sexism-recognizing I’ve done here I think it takes a considerable nerve to attribute mindless dumb sexism of the “shut up bitch” type to me.
I know that, and I despise it. I was opposed to Hillary Clinton’s campaign for that very reason – I thought it was anti-feminist to parlay her wifehood that way. (This despite the fact that my own maternal grandmother did the same thing – my grandfather was Dem. candidate for governor of Iowa in 1926; he lost, and died of pneumonia shortly afterwards; my grandmother got elected Secretary of State in the Dem. avalanche of 1932. But that was then.)
I’ve seen them! Guess what – I don’t approve!
[takes deep calming breath]
Joe… Remember I was responding to your question in #174. Are you now suggesting that blog comments should not be criticized?
Whoa now. I’m not saying we should outlaw language like “mealy-mouthed simpering arrogant fuckface.” I’m as ardent a defender of free speech as they come. I’m just saying we shouldn’t necessarily respect such language.
I love George Carlin, which proves my “only in a warzone” thing was an overstatement. But comparing his style to that blog comment seems a big stretch.
Thanks Josh. You continue to know more about me than I do myself.
That’s precisely what I meant.
Content and style are two different issues. There’s no reason to assume that caring about content = not caring about style, and vice versa. I might agree with the content of that blog comment, but I certainly don’t agree with the way it was stated.
Listen, I know what you all here run into everyday, and I’m not making another empty claim to civil discourse. I’m only saying the commenter could have made her case just as well, if not better, without using language that most people find deplorable. Imagine I used that language in a public event. How do you think it would go over?
Context is important.
What sort of “public event”? If you’re giving a speech as part of your job, maybe calling someone a lying shit-weasel is a bad idea. If you’re at a public event as a guest in a non-professional capacity and you lit into someone or something that deserved it with a couple of profanities, I doubt most normal non-ivory-tower folks would really notice. If you’re at a biker bar, you’d fit right in. I guess at your country club’s formal tea hour or whatever it is you rich people do that keeps you far away from real people who use real language, you have to keep your pinky in the air and all… do you put on a fake British accent, just to be safe and especially non-deplorable?
I’m only half-kidding here. I don’t know what you consider to be “most people” but you sound outrageously out of touch with the way the rest of the world lives.
@188: you cannot “agree with the way it was stated”. You can agree or disagree with the content, and you can approve or disapprove of the style, and we know you disaproved of the style, thank you, would you like to move on with your life now?
You are contributing to a pernicious culture of false politeness, in which people can routinely make horrifyingly bigoted statements but are considered polite because they avoid profanity, while good forceful factually based accurate commentary is considered impolite because it contains the word “fuck”. This is the wrong way round.
In my book there’s no such thing as ‘bad language.’ Strong language? Yes. Inappropriate language? Of course. The comment upon which you’re seeking agreement was certainly strong but not in the least bit inappropriate. It’s a regular person immersed in the to and fro’ of an internet forum, not a public speaker at an engagement.
So, assuming you can see the difference, what do you mean by ‘we shouldn’t necessarily respect such language?’
Well, when you put it like that, without so much exaggeration, I am more inclined to agree; but the fact is that she didn’t do what she “could have” done. Sometimes one just has to shrug one’s shoulders. Why come over here to ask other people if they agree with you about it? Some people are like this, sometimes someone goes off the rails. Is it so important? There are millions of internet users. They aren’t all trained in deportment, they don’t always stop to think, sometimes the indignation gets the better of someone, sometimes a good rant probably feels like just what one needs. Apart from making a fool of herself what harm has she actually done?
@Gordon:
Are you saying that Aquaria made a fool of herself, or are you just saying that’s really the most possible harm done by not following Mrs. Crabapples Comportment Manual?
Yes. I do think that all that foul language is plain silly. On the other hand, I’m sure it did her a lot of good, and why should that not be important? And I cannot for the life of me find out what Michael is really going on about.
Joe said it, but I want to say it too – it depends on what kind of public event, Michael. (Which isn’t what I said yesterday, but I’ve changed my mind a little.) Suppose it’s a public event where Jon Stewart was doing his thing? Or suppose it was the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson? Effing and blinding can be just funny.
I think live is different from written, so I still prefer to keep it minimal here; and then there’s the issue of calling someone a fuckwhatever as opposed to just effing and blinding in general; but overall…well as others have mentioned, I’m not sure why you felt a need to get a position statement here. I don’t see what one comment at Pharyngula has to do with me or why I have to have a View about it.
Michael
Something to note as well… the comment was over at Pharyngula, which is sort of the biker bar of online atheist blog comments. That’s the way The Peez likes it, that’s how he runs his blog, and so why anyone would carry a comment from there over to here to complain about it makes really no sense at all. Clearly PZ doesn’t find dirty words particularly deplorable, and really his opinion is the most important when it comes to his blog. So even if there’s a case to be made that there’s something wrong with language that makes someone uncomfortable, convincing anyone here is a waste of time. Take it up with Aquaria and Myers, and let us know how that works for you.
I’m not sure that this isn’t just prissy whining about language that is only fit for ridicule though. Especially since you got your ass handed to you here pretty harshly and you didn’t complain about the rudeness a bit, since no one used a string of dirty words in your direction. You really don’t seem to care about content, so long as the language doesn’t upset your delicate sensibilities. That’s just… wow. Bizarre.
If the priss-police have finally finished, can we get back to the topic in question please?
I was thinking that it would be nice to bring the left and the Tea Partiers (they sound so much fun, is the Mad Hatter still Chairman?) together over a good old-fashioned English cuppa, but for some reason that I can’t quite put my finger on, I sort of get the feeling that this was how the problem started in the first place!
Well, and for the record – I don’t want there to be any doubt about this – I don’t find dirty words particularly deplorable either. In fact that puts it too mildly: I find them life-enhancing and invigorating. I always have; I used to get in trouble for it (mostly from my brother) when I was growing up. (My brother is 7 years my senior and was a little sanctimonious then but he’s gotten over it. Totally.) I use them freely in real life unless I inadvertently find myself among churchy people or something.
But I think they come across differently in writing; that’s why I use them sparingly here. I also think impersonal swearing is different from personal swearing (but then so does everyone, pretty much). I am leery of epithets, I guess.
There. I’m sure you all wanted to know that.
Acolyte – well besides it’s summer. Who wants a nice cup of tea in summer? Not I.
There’s your ‘frame’. If you want to build bridges Ophelia, you should focus less on the ‘Tea’ aspect and more on the ‘Party’.
All I can say Ophelia, is that you’ve obviously never experienced a British summer; we need the tea to keep us warm!
By the way, I have heard tell that, on your side of the pond, some sacriligious souls serve tea cold with ice and lemon. It sounds to me like the Tea Partiers biggest faux pas was to send culture packing alongside King George!
Joe, you are basically saying that Pharyngula is meant to be a circle jerk. That is in fact a good explanation, and it resolves the issue entirely. It also adds another level to the aforementioned analogy regarding salty food.
scottab, that is not remotely what I said. Are you being dishonest, or do you need some help with reading comprehension?
Don’t bother to answer, because I’m going to give you a demonstration of my earlier point. I’ll no longer be reading anything you write, let alone responding to you. That’s the easiest way to deal with the situation, and I’ll go ahead and lead by example.
Well, if the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was possible, why couldn’t this be?
And looking at the example of religions vs irreligion, the notoriously non-accomodationist National Secular Society has been working with the notoriously Christian Baroness Cox on Sharia courts, so there is hope all around.
Actually, I can think of more examples of declared opponents working together on particular issues than I can declared accommodationists.
What does this mean?
Dan
If someone is a mealy-mouthed simpering arrogant fuckface, it’s fine to call them a mealy-mouthed simpering arrogant fuckface.
I actually love the phrase “mealy-mouthed simpering arrogant fuckface”. It’s strong and potent and uncompromising. If that’s what the speaker feels, they should say it — it was certainly effective in getting everyone’s attention, and no one has any doubts about Aquaria’s feelings.
Actually, what I do find extremely offensive is the comment that such words don’t belong anywhere “outside a war zone”. That is an odious comparison that tries to lump strong language together with maiming and death and destruction, and is entirely inappropriate.
Oh, De Dora, De Dora, De Dora. If only this weren’t the internet where everything you say is so entirely quotable, you might have been able to succeed at this dodge of yours… As it is, I’m just going to throw the truth back in your face:
No, you were not ‘only saying’ that it would have been ‘better’ not to use ‘deplorable language’. You were saying the post itself was deplorable. No qualification, no constructive critique, no suggestions at all, just outright condemnation of the entire comment. That’s what ‘deplorable post’ means:
de·plor·a·ble (d-plôr-bl, -plr-)
adj.
1. Worthy of severe condemnation or reproach: a deplorable act of violence.
2. Lamentable; woeful: My finances were in a deplorable state of neglect.
3. Wretched; bad: deplorable housing conditions in the inner city.
deplorable [dɪˈplɔːrəbəl]adj
1. lamentable a deplorable lack of taste
2. worthy of censure or reproach; very bad deplorable behaviour
See?
This is the time where you take a little step back. Maybe take a moment to breathe. Realize the boundary you crossed. Admit the mistake. And then move on.
If it was genuinely a mistake in communication, no big deal. Correct yourself, and no one will hold it against you. But if you continue to appear to weasel out of saying what you actually said, reputation goes bye bye very quickly. cf. Chris Mooney.
Oh, De Dora, De etc.
Please catch up on Carlin’s oeuvre: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM
Michael De Dora,
I don’t believe you.
First off, suppose for the sake of argument that somebody at a frequent recurring CFI event really was a mealy-mouthed simpering arrogant fuckface, pretty consistently, many times, over an extended period, frequently flipping many of the regulars unfair, inflammatory, condescending, self-congratulatory shit, while refusing to address their actual positions, strategies, arguments, and evidence.
I’m not talking about Chris Stedman, for the moment, but some hypothetical really annoying divisive shit-stirrer that you would clearly recognize as such.
Now suppose that eventually, somebody at one of those events came out and read that annoying shit-stirrer the riot act, and obviously accurately called her a mealy-mouthed, simpering, and arrogant, and a fuckface in the bargain. Note that the substantive accusation is mealy-mouthed simpering arrogance, and “fuckface” just makes clear a strongly negative but justified and appropriate attitude about such things.
Are you really saying that in that situation, you’d tell that person to leave.
I don’t think you would. (But perhaps I’m overestimating you.)
I don’t think it’d get to that point, because I think you’d tell the simpering mealy-mouthed arrogant fuckface to leave before it got to the point of her being explicitly and justifiably called that. Wouldn’t you?
Now consider the actual Chris Stedman. In my opinion, he’s been persistently behaving in ways that would not or should not generally be allowed at CFI events. But you can’t make him stop it, or make him leave, because he’s doing it on his own damned blog and in the national media such as the PuffHo, the Washington Post, etc.
Given that you’re not stopping him from actually being such a simpering, mealy-mouthed arrogant fuckface, as I hope you would at CFI events, it’s really not appropriate for you to tell us not to call him on it in no uncertain terms, making it clear exactly what we think of him and why.
Is your claim that Chris Stedman is not a simpering, mealy-mouthed, arrogant person engaged in a systematic and unfair divisive smear campaign? If so, say so.
Is your claim that even if he’s actually a simpering, mealy-mouthed, arrogant person engaged in a systematic and unfair divisive smear campaign, it’s somehow unfair to call him a “fuckface” for it? If so, say so.
Or is your claim only that even if it’s actually fair to call him a “fuckface” for being a simpering mealy-mouthed arrogant person engaged in a systematic and unfair divisive smear campaign, using “foul language” like “fuckface” about it is somehow beyond the pale? If so, exactly how is it beyond the pale? Exactly whose delicate sensibilities are you worried about, and exactly why?
Personally, I think such derision is a two-edged sword. On one hand, it can sometimes just inflame and polarize, because some people really are way too hung up on superficial issues like whether it’s naughty to call a fuckface a “fuckface.”
On the other hand, it’s sometimes salutary to call a spade a spade. Let’s not kid anyone that we’re not talking about Stedman doing things that justify calling him a mealy-mouthed simpering arrogant fuckface. Chris is not our friend, and not our ally; more importantly, is not someone we respect.
He does not behave civilly toward us. Not even close. True civility isn’t much about naughty words. It’s more centrally about things like defamation, and Chris has repeatedly defamed us; if you’re more worried about the former than the latter, you seriously need to rethink your priorities.
IMO, Stedman’s a smarmy pretentious asshole who has knowingly chosen to unfairly vilify us, over and over, and we have zero obligation not to make clear exactly how we honestly feel about that. We are only obliged to make clear why we think that attitude is justified, rather than simply calling him names for the sake of calling him names.
Oh lookie. Chris has a new guest post at his blog. Guess what it’s about? That’s right, Things Atheists Are Wrong About.
Oh gawd and it’s from Tikkun. I hate Tikkun.
[summons the will to read it…]
Haaaaaaa! It includes a bit that says there are a few good atheists of the right kind who do good atheism. The second one
[chokes with laughter]
well you know who it is, but there’s even
[chokes some more]
a link…to the very site the article is sitting on, with the name and everything, just in case anyone gets lost.
Oh god it’s hilarious.
Smarmy sanctimonious finger-pointing, from
All of which just confirms what his critics have been saying, which is that he calls himself an atheist but he never stops throwing ordure at them (in a carefully passive-aggressive way) while Reaching Out and Building Bridges to every spiritual justice and just spirituality activist he can find.
So, Stedman holds the popular idea that the ‘right’ kind of atheists are miserable, sniveling affairs who’d realise, if they’d just open their hearts, that faith has so much to teach them.
Just http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodAtheist.
Buh’oh. I meant to write,
Oh, I hadn’t read it that carefully, O. Bwhahahahahahah! What a load of sanctimonious new age hippie bullshit. About what you’d expect from someone who uses “Be” for a first name. Pssst. . . AbFab was parody.
That’s certainly how it appears. He appears to be the kind of “atheist” who dislikes most atheists and most atheism and loves loves loves the Scofield type, and who gets pissy with atheists who point this out. Other than that…no problem.
I keep imagining what it would be like if a well-known queer activist put up blog posts and guest entries about how misguided most gays were, why it would really behoove them to be quiet about “moderate” churches who aren’t directly inciting gay-bashing, and how most gays weren’t “militant.” It would be unthinkable, and such a person would be loudly and universally scorned by the queer community. How can the New Faitheists (thanks Melody from another context) not see this?
Eeeewwwww. . I had no idea such a thing as Tikkun existed. I could have lived my whole life without looking at that site. Bleeccch.
Oh I know, I know. [shudder]
Anybody else remember when Nisbet claimed he’d start conversations with people with, “I’m an atheist… but a friendly atheist”?
‘Can not’ or ‘don’t want to’? I’m not sure. Some of them are just oblivious in their self-righteousness (like those religious people who say they’re in no way anti-gay, they just consider gay acts immoral), some of them are maliciously positioning themselves to capitalise on anti-atheist sentiment, and then there are the Wally Smiths…
Brownian, comment #213, said;
I would have to agree with the final words there, in as much as if more people really learnt what faith has to teach them, there’d be a damn sight more atheists around.
Clearly, I didn’t drink enough Scotch. I’m going to have to switch to ale and try again tomorrow.
As the great Classical philosopher Homer once said, “Beer, the cause of, and solution to, all of life’s little problems”.
I’m teetotal, but have one for me.
Take some facts, combine with misunderstandings, add a few confusions of thought, sprinkle liberally with emotional opportunism, allow to stagnate, finally bake lightly till nearly lukewarm. Serve with saccharine or non-brewed condiment, to taste. Don’t mind me. I’m supposed to be asleep. Keep having these disturbing dreams, though…By the way, ale doesn’t work, either. Large hammer, perhaps…
Hee!
Well, but that’s just being accommodating.
Let’s play I Spy. OB wins that one, SC. What about “inappropriate analogies”? I spy Myth 5 (why is myth 5 the first one?) paragraph 4.
I spy recycled inappropriate analogies!
Hah. Well, I can’t compete against an old hand! But thanks for the link. I wonder if Schofield realises that his myths are myths. I suspect he invented them all by himself, just to have something to talk about.
You know what the strategy is, right? You make up lies about atheists, you get The Peez to comment on it, someone calls you a ‘fuckface’, and you use that to ‘prove’ that Gnus are deplorable.
You know, I think that’s literally true. (Maybe you meant it literally anyway.) I was thinking that the other day about Stedman. I think he does deliberately set out an atheist-irritation magnet, and then collect the irritations to complain about them at Facebook so that a good percentage of his 2000 fans can tell him what a Hero of Compassion he is. (They say things like that. For reals.)
Well, what do you expect them to do? Actually change peoples minds about science, racism or homosexuality?
I think you people either don’t have teenagers, or don’t remember what it was like to be one.
“Aw, Mom, but I can’t mow the lawn right now. I have to finish my homework first.”
“Man, I’d so be solving all the world’s problems, if I didn’t have to spend all my time writing about how those Gnu Atheists aren’t helping!”
In fact, Mooney’s dithering earned him a cushy Templeton position. Now he doesn’t have to do shit.
Brownian, I’m convinced I’m still a teenager, two decades past it and all. How do you think I zero in on the psychology so well??
With the Templeton folks around, there’s a clear profit motive for being assholes to the Gnus. There’s also the obvious fact that I’ve pointed out regularly that Chris Stedman is a rich privileged wanker who lives in a world elevated from the rest of us real people, and he’s conditioned to kiss up and kick down. The face that he’s a gay atheist means little when he’s also a rich white guy who can get his way no matter what he does.
My goal then will be to bridge the gap between people that think they matter all too much and those who think their existence would not be missed at all. The proud braggart and the meek rock kicker will unite, but how? Maybe with sarcasm? That sounds like a great tool to use to help people understand the common thread that all ties us together. When people realize that the details are irrelevant and the common purpose is ALWAYS the same, then we can start talking. Until people stop taking sides and stop having to be right, there will be no bridge because there will be no trust.
I see what you’re saying, but I think your approach is a little hopeless, as if to say there’s no use trying anymore and we should just give up on the emotional/intellectual/spiritual evolution that is at a very pivotal turn right now. It’s going somewhere, but the direction is up to us. People are used to help other people understand. The difference between a left person and a tea party candidate or an atheist and somebody who has been “saved” is a couple of words that have been uttered over the course of their life that has obviously had a tremendous impact on them.
Where are the next couple of words coming from and what will they be?