This new interview with the gelato guy gives me absolutely no reason to change my opinion.
During the interview, Drennen said he felt people cannot reach others with such shows that mock others. He does not know how atheists expect to reach others by using mockery and ridicule.
…
No human is perfect and we all make mistakes. Drennen, like many other Christians, believes he is not perfect, just forgiven. The question is by whom is this young businessman forgiven? In the Christian worldview, God forgives a person, but who forgives him in a secular society? Can people forgive the mistakes of others, which they might find deeply offensive and hurtful?
After Drennen’s statement, concerning mockery and ridicule, I asked him how he would feel if he walked in on PZ Meyer’s talk concerning Junk DNA, given that it deals with Evolution. He was not sure, especially after everything PZ said online. Part of it depended on how PZ talked about Christians, if at all, in his speech.
It seems to be an obligatory opinion of people who believe in mockable and ridiculous things that they will oppose mockery and ridicule. I’m afraid there is no magical exemption — there isn’t a set of stupid beliefs that you get to set on a pedestal and declare that no one can call them stupid. Go ahead and retaliate by mocking and ridiculing the stuff I consider important, like science and evolution and reason and empiricism. I will joyfully leap into that fray.
I know that in that absurd Christian worldview, their god is an instant forgiveness pump — say that you love him and believe in him and he dispenses an imaginary exculpation card automatically, until the final judgment when he might just decide to torture you forever because you didn’t love him enough — but I’m not going to work that way. You don’t get to recite a few rote regrets and expect me to echo back some banal formalities at you. But here’s the good news! I won’t set you on fire and stab you with a pitchfork no matter how idiotic you are!
I’m also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennan’s delusions. It’s only going to work in reverse: I’m now feeling regret that I didn’t dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, I’ll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they aren’t relevant to the subject at hand.
johnne the douchepickle drivels:
Right, because all of the atheists over reacted and put signs in their store windows saying xians weren’t welcome.
Oh wait….
RE: anri:
Wrong on both counts. “White,” as a racial group, is a protected class, in the same way that any other racial group is a protected class. It is just as illegal to discriminate against someone for being white as it is to discriminate against someone for being black, being Muslim, being an atheist, or whatever.
However, the KKK is not “White people.” The KKK is a specific group of people who claim to speak for a specific subset of “White people.” This means that the KKK does not have those same protections. Furthermore, the designation of the KKK as a terrorist group has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the KKK and their status with respect to social privilege. The KKK is a terrorist organization in the same manner as the JDL is a terrorist organization, in the same manner that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
My point is not that Skepticon is a terrorist organization, because it isn’t. My point is that Skepticon is not a protected class. If you skipped work to attend Skepticon, you could be fired and that wouldn’t be a violation of your civil rights. If a local business decided to ban Skepticon attendees for, say, perceived hygiene issues, that would not be a violation of your civil rights. Neither was this guy’s sign, so take a xanax and chill out.
RE: Janine:
Yes, I remember Robert Byrd being shamed out of public office for having been a member of the KKK and never holding a position like, say, Speaker of the House, and certainly not as a Democrat.
Oh wait.
Hahahaha! You can’t really be this dense, can you? Just because he didn’t explicitly write “atheists” doesn’t mean he didn’t target atheists. That was pretty clearly his intent with that sign. He also apologized to the atheist community, not just skepticon attendees. Wow, you really are thick.
Oh wait! Shit for brains is assuming I am a Democrat.
And, oh wait, Robert Byrd was shamed enough to disown his past.
Fuck you, TTT.
So then I assume that you think it would be a civil rights violation to put up a sign stating that the Westboro Baptist Church was not welcome at your place of work because they’re not a terrorist organization.
Shit for brains, there actually was a debate about that here months ago. The consensus was this, as long as you were not selling them something that would be used for an illegal action, you could not deny them service.
Damn but you ask all the challenging questions.
RE: Janine:
Point is that the more liberal of the two major parties thought that his prior participation in the KKK was forgivable enough that not only was he electable, but he was also an acceptable choice to be third in line for the presidency. And the Republicans really didn’t give a shit. So I guess there isn’t as much ostracism vis a vis the KKK as you think.
Hmm.
Yeah man, he was so shamed that he continued to use racial slurs on the public record, voted in favor of DOMA and other anti-LGBTQ legislation, voted in favor of various limitations on abortion, and in favor of Alito’s confirmation as a supreme court justice.
But hey, he was “shamed” and “recanted” and “changed his ways.” Not like Gelato Dude.
If you’re clearly doing it because of their religion, and not due to fear of violence, etc., then yes. Fuckwit. Do you not understand what “discrimination on the basis of religion” means? Do you not understand how the KKK being a terrorist organization is very relevant in determining whether it is okay to ban them, compared to any other organization? Because your posts say quite clearly that you do not. And that makes you an utter fucking moron.
I love how prior membership in the KKK is forgivable because someone has made a public apology, but that putting up a sign for 10 minutes is not forgivable even when someone makes a public apology AND offers 10% off gelato.
Shit for brains, you are a dishonest little troll. Byrd did a lot more then give a public apology.
You are also assuming that I forgave his past.
And I repeat myself, fuck you.
Fuckwit addressed me without answering my question: Is banning al-Qaida just as discriminatory/non-discriminatory as banning the local mosque? If not, then the KKK analogy doesn’t hold. If so, I would love to see the mental gymnastics involved.
Mrianabrison
Oh FFS! As a former Fundie, I absolutely HATE the argument that there is any such thing as “atheist fundamentalism.” Newsflash: WORDS MEAN THINGS. “Fundamentalism” is a word with a meaning and if you were a former fundy, you know damn well what it means (and, as a former fundy, you probably appreciate the idea that words have specific meanings, since you would have a been a Biblical literalist).
Atheism and xian fundamentalism are not analogous at all, not the least because atheists have no holy book and typically believe things based upon reason and accepted evidence, rather than authority and revealed truth. And while you might thing that “one has a belief in the supernatural and the other does not” is a small caveat but it’s actually a huge difference in worldview. That’s like saying that a Marxist is similar to a free-market capitalist except that one believes that capitalism is an opportunistic, inhumane system and the other does not. That’s kinda the whole motherfucking point of contention between the two views.
Christ on a crutch, you’re stupid.
Eeep, sorry for the bolding. Was supposed to just be Mriana’s name. O_o
You’re right, Janine. He went on to filibuster the 1964 civil rights act, and subsequently voted against a number of other progressive civil rights reforms. Oh man, all that shame he must have felt. All that additional work he did to make sure his prior misdeeds were made right.
Man, if only that Gelato Dude was as progressive and publicly shamed as Robert Byrd (D-WV). I mean, instead of apologizing publicly and then offering discounted gelato, he should have gone on to put up “gays not allowed” and “no english, no service” signs up too.
Someone should have told Gelato Dude. That way he could have saved everyone a lot of suffering.
In case you aren’t aware, Hemant posted that he basically agrees with PZ on this issue.
Also, your anti intellect and anti learning attitude deserves a special porcupine award.
You can take the person out of Indiana, but you can’t take the Indiana out of the person, eh?
(with apologies to the rational people from Indiana….both of them!) ;-)
RE: Anteprepro:
So you’re claiming Skepticon is actually a place of worship and not an advocacy group?
*throws more of TTT strawmen in the fire supression unit, turns on the fan and the smell supression system too*
julian @ 463:
Yes, but you see, we aren’t supposed to judge anyone unless we know exactly what they’re thinking.
Is it really too much to ask for the faitheists to have a tiny bit of consistency?
The atmosphere becomes more hostile toward their beliefs; side-liners and the misinformed start questioning their conclusions; their children believe a little less then they did a moment; listeners who were already hostile to racist beliefs and attitudes are better equipped to deal and confront them in the future…
Yeah… it isn’t easy. Which is why I generally don’t advocate a turn the cheek policy.
I’m not so sure that’s always the case or even usually the case. While the kind of bigot you describe is always there, they aren’t always alone and it’s sometimes that other person you’re trying to reach.
Or maybe I’m just to optimistic… :/
Anteprepro says:
28 November 2011 at 2:33 pm
Fuckwit addressed me without answering my question: Is banning al-Qaida just as discriminatory/non-discriminatory as banning the local mosque? If not, then the KKK analogy doesn’t hold. If so, I would love to see the mental gymnastics involved. Yes he did. And why do you call him fuckwit?
So, you are claiming that Skepticon is actually a racial supremacist organization with a history of violence? Dig deeper, fuckwit.
No, he didn’t. He brought up Westboro Baptist instead to the deflect the issue. Either learn to read and learn to troll better.
Oh, BWE, how little you contribute and yet how much you fail. I can’t even mock you properly because you utterly fail at blockquoting. Is it really so difficult? Do you need me to teach you, hun?
Fastlane
Yeah, that bothered me too. Former fundies especially should value education, since the ideology devalues it so heavily, leaving believers in ignorance and people who walk away to play catch up. It seems weird to me to hold onto the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalism, since it seems so at odds with…just about everything atheism and humanism are about. I know I spent years trying to rectify the anti-intellectualism of my childhood and I’m proud of my educational achievements because they were hard won. I can’t imagine being dismissive or derogatory about others’ education. Just seems so weird.
tchomp, I know that it seems like the only thing to do right now, but you don’t have to keep digging yourself deeper into that giant pile of shit. Just admit that you’re wrong, or at least admit that your arguments are bullshit, and you can leave with at least some dignity intact.
yes he did. post 502:
Wrong on both counts. “White,” as a racial group, is a protected class, in the same way that any other racial group is a protected class. It is just as illegal to discriminate against someone for being white as it is to discriminate against someone for being black, being Muslim, being an atheist, or whatever.
However, the KKK is not “White people.” The KKK is a specific group of people who claim to speak for a specific subset of “White people.” This means that the KKK does not have those same protections. Furthermore, the designation of the KKK as a terrorist group has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the KKK and their status with respect to social privilege. The KKK is a terrorist organization in the same manner as the JDL is a terrorist organization, in the same manner that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
My point is not that Skepticon is a terrorist organization, because it isn’t. My point is that Skepticon is not a protected class. If you skipped work to attend Skepticon, you could be fired and that wouldn’t be a violation of your civil rights. If a local business decided to ban Skepticon attendees for, say, perceived hygiene issues, that would not be a violation of your civil rights. Neither was this guy’s sign, so take a xanax and chill out.
Good thing I didn’t say anything about protected class, then.
You did read what I actually wrote, right?
Read it again, please.
If you think the KKK’s terrorism is unrelated to their ethnicity, you really need to do some basic research.
If you think their effectiveness as a terrorist group is unrelated to their level of social acceptance as a majority group, you’re dumber than you seem.
Regardless, assuming that your example had nothing to do with race is just as disingenuous as trying to claim that the gelato shop’s sign had nothing to do with religion.
My point is that in giving his reasoning for the ban, the shop owner made it a discussion involving religion.
He didn’t say: “I’m serious, you guys are goofy, don’t shop here.”
He didn’t say: “I’m clean, you guys are dirty, don’t shop here.”
He did say: “I’m Christian, don’t shop here.”
I’m not really sure how you seperate that information from an issue of religion. Let me ask you – based on the sign he put up, what do you think the shop owner was objecting to?
RE: julian:
No that’s really not what happens. What normally happens is that their “justifications” change but their social goals remain the same.
Yeah and if you get too uppity, that becomes more fuel for their hate.
My point is that you need to address the hate, not the half-assed justifications for that hate.
julian
OT: Antiracism studies is more interested in breaking down the apparatus of systemic racism and raising consciousness about unconscious racism than in trying to reach/convert hardcore supremacists. Most of those people live in a closed system of self-sustaining bigotry; there is no point. The justifications of racism that we are more interested in are the ones that are more common and commonly held by people that wouldn’t call themselves “racist”–those who support existing criminal justice statues that unfairly penalize POC, for instance.
It’s slow going, though. Getting people to accept that they are racist, that it’s unconscious and that many of the power structures they (we) support institutionalize and reify racism is difficult. I think the misunderstanding that you’re having with TTT is with the definition of “racism”–he seems to think of it as one-on-one acts of bigotry. It’s not.
RE: anri:
That can be taken several ways:
1. “I’m christian, I don’t serve your kind”
or
2. “I’m christian, and if your convention is about claiming that people like me are so horrible, I’m not going to welcome you to my store”
The latter is still kind of a dick move, but it’s a lot more understandable.
*throws even more of pointless TTTs strawmen into the strawmen fire supression unit*
BWE: blockquote, use it. It’s your friend. Or you could stop quoting other people and actually contribute something. But you’re probably not capable of it, so just learn how to use blockquote.
Do you understand what “answering my question” means? He can’t answer my specific, hypothetical question several comments before my first. Anyway, this is the point of the contention:
The terrorist designation is irrelevant to their ethnicity. But there ethnicity is irrelevant to the reason for why they can be excluded: The fact that they are a terrorist organization is the key reason why they could be banned from an establishment. Full stop. The fact that they are supposed to speak for “white people” is irrelevant to the fact that they are criminals. And to say that we can’t discriminate against a group that fails into the race/religion/nationality categorization, regardless of the criminal activities of that organization, is so farcically stupid of an opinion that I am shocked that anyone uttered it seriously. Let alone that anyone else was moronic enough to regurgitate it with a favorable tone.
So, is Skepticon a criminal organization? If not, then one should probably find a better analogy to illustrate why it is okay to ban them than one that is a criminal organization.
Designation as a terrorist organization is not the reason why the KKK can be discriminated against and does not allow wholesale discrimination. Members of the KKK still retain all their civil rights, for example.
And which of these cases do you think would not be discrimination based on religion? Which was, yanno, the actual question I was actually asking. Couple of times now.
Careful, Nerd, I think that suppression unit is running dangerously close to overload. There’s only so many strawmen it can take at a time.
Wow you’re dumb.
tchomp tchomp tchomp wrote:
you really truly believe this
Belief has nothing to do with it, facts are what matter. And the simple fact is that discrimination against nonbelievers is written into US laws for anyone to see. One of the most egregious examples of government sponsored discrimination, is the so-called faith based initiative. For the past nine years, billions of dollars of taxpayer money has been available to religious organizations for social services. Secular non-profit organizations, who provide exactly the same services, are not eligible for these funds, based strictly on their non-belief. A clearer example of discrimination based on religious belief would be hard to find.
And, by the way, Robert Byrd was never Speaker of the House, he was a US Senator.
I’m sorry, was this directed at me?
Or am I being a cat again?
tchomp^3 says:
Who are you even talking to? Did you just look at your own comments for the first time or something?
Starstuff, i am sorry about my poor ability regarding blockquoting. We all have our cross to bear i suppose.
BWE, you’re not that stupid. Learn.
*Brings in herds of goats, sheep, and llamas from the knitter’s group for clean-up*
You’re right, tomh. he was president pro tempore. A step back in line from Speaker.
I am trying to learn starstuff.
RE: Allie:
Aaaand you’d be wrong. We were specifically talking about supremacist groups, not the more pervasive low-grade issues that fuel privilege and various aspects of the kyriarchy or whatever you want to call the intersecting influences of various forms of privilege.
Apparently blockquoting has too many moving parts for BWE to comprehend. The very idea of <blockquote>Text to be quoted. </blockquote> is so difficult for him to understand.
Incidentally, I leave it as an exercise for the student to determine how I managed to type <blockquote> without it turning into a blockquote.
Can you also learn proper use of commas? There’s a difference between “I am trying to learn starstuff” and “I am trying to learn, starstuff”.
No BWE really is trying to learn you.
Dang im puntuating bad too. Im getting an ipad. Are atheists allowed to buy ipads?
No. True Atheists only buy Android tablets. But not Android phones. If you want a smart phone, it should be Windows. If you wanted a desktop computer, you could buy a Mac. But if you’re getting a laptop, it must be Lenovo or Asus. These are the strict rules of True Atheists gadget buying.
@Ichthyic @428, you didn’t say “without being CALLED hypocrites”. You said “without BEING hypocrites”. Yes, I made the inference, but it was a dead straight syllogism.
Also, I am not saying that you have to accept the apology. And I am absolutely not asking anyone to drop it, and I have no idea where you got that idea from. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. (There’s a lot of that in the thread, but it’s not my point, and I don’t agree.)
I am saying this: I can’t understand your explanation for not accepting the apology, unless you are conflating accepting an apology with forgiveness. In which case it all makes sense – but you say you’re not doing that.
Also I am saying: the Christian idea of confessing sins & forgiveness is probably the reason for muddling these concepts in this discussion.
The model of apology that I am using here is not Christian. It’s very roughly legal. If I were to publish something defamatory about you, the usual remedy is for me to publish an apology and a retraction. My apology and retraction don’t have to be heartfelt – as long as they happen, you have the victory. There may or may not be damages involved. And now the case is closed in the sense that judgement has been made and accepted – you have won, I have lost. It’s not closed in the “never speak of this again” sense, it’s on the public record and you can talk about it all you like.
At this point I don’t think it’s worth pursuing. Our differences seem to be basically semantic and the rest of the thread bores me. Of course we don’t have to forgive him. We’re not his god, or even fellow Xians.
*sends out llamas, goats and sheep with the longest and sniniest fur/woo, sends in the dung beetles*
You’re going to need A LOT of dung beetles…
tchomp tchomp tchomp wrote:
You’re right, tomh. he was president pro tempore.
If you could look that up, and possibly figure out that he was in the Senate and not the House, one would think you could look up other information and figure out why nonbelievers are the most discriminated against group in America. Discrimination that is written into the laws. Instead of foolishly dismissing it without knowing a thing about it.
It sucks when anyone is discriminated against based on what they believe and not what they do.
you still haven’t fucked off yet, eh?
I love how prior membership in the KKK is forgivable because someone has made a public apology, but that putting up a sign for 10 minutes is not forgivable even when someone makes a public apology AND offers 10% off gelato.
haven’t you figured it out yet, idiot?
it’s obvious all us haters just don’t like gelato.
*rolleyes*
It sucks when anyone is treated poorly based on anything besides how they treat other people (and animals).
For ten minutes (half an hour? an hour?) he let his real opinion show in a way that could be recorded and publicized.
Regarding starstuff post 560: i completely agree.
RE: tomh:
Well, this reply thread is a good exhibit A.
GG did something bigoted, therefore unforgivable. What part of that aren’t you understanding BWE? I don’t think you are listening at all, as that should have sunk in after all these posts. All you are doing is preaching your presuppositional idiocy.
Yeah, tomh, don’t you realize that its our fault when we can’t get elected to public office, lose friends and alienate family, receive death threats, are seen as untrustworthy and unworthy of marrying into religious families, and have business owners openly discriminate against us (whose actions are then defended and rationalized). Clearly we should just STFU about our atheism.
Honestly, tchomp, you’re just to dense to even learn. Just give up and go. You’ve made yourself look like a complete and utter fool.
Fine. Hate it all you want. I still think that, because this group shows all the same things of Fundamngelical Xians. The only difference is you all don’t believe in a god, but you still do the verbal abuse when people do not agree, insist others agree, demand others think as you do, etc etc. It’s not freethought if everyone must think the same way.
@ mrianabrinson
Why do you keep speaking? Every time you comment, you look more and more ignorant. Allie was saying that calling a group of atheist “fundamentalist atheists” is just incorrect. Do you even know what fundamentalism means?
Here, let me enlighten you:
For atheists to be fundamentalists, we would all have to first agree to a basic set of principles. We can’t even agree what to call ourselves for the most part! And even among the regulars here, we can’t all come to complete agreement about this topic alone.
You’ll also find that many people here are flexible and able to learn and change their minds (although I doubt I could say the same about you). This attitude, by definition, is NOT fundamentalist, as they’re not strictly and literally adhering to a set of principles.
Now, just because someone disagrees with you and calls you a mean name, does not mean that they’re a “fundamentalist”. And no one here said that everyone should think the same as them. They just don’t want to be told that their complaints and concerns are unimportant by a fuckwit like you.
Yes, I do and you certainly act like one, so why do you keep speaking? The reason why I keep speaking is because you act like one and I really hate seeing such things, which doesn’t make me look like anything except fighting stupid extremism that insists on forcing people into a certain way of thinking. Maybe if you stop acting so stupid then maybe people would not tell you what they are seeing and thinking.
mrianabrinson wrote:
You do realise the word ‘fundamentalist’ has a very specific meaning, don’t you? And that what you’re using it to mean isn’t that? Just because something has been associated with people who act a certain way doesn’t make it okay to misuse that word in other contexts.
If you think vocal atheists are aggressive, or assholes, or even agressive assholes you’re entitled to your opinion. but save everyone the effort of trying to parse the meaning and use those words.
@ mrianabrinson
Hm, last time I checked I don’t blow shit up or tell people they’re bad for being gay, or of a different religion, etc. I’m also capable of changing my opinion about things. So, no, I’m not acting like a fundamentalist.
Just because you haven’t presented a single convincing argument in this thread, doesn’t mean I’m a fundamentalist. It just means that you’re a shitty debater.
Please point out where I’ve tried to force anyone into a certain way of thinking. Or force anyone to do anything at all. And if you’re going to call me stupid, explain how I am so, like I’ve done for you.
Mriana, you need to be a little clearer, because you aren’t quite making sense.
Are you saying that atheists remind you of the fundamentalists that you know; that you feel bullied by the atheists?
Then call them bullies, not fundamentalists.
This is an international forum; not everyone will share the same background as you. Some places in the world are more plain-spoken than you are used to, others are possibly more circumspect. I don’t know your background particularly.
What I will say is that “fundamentalist” has a basic meaning that Starstuff described. The values that you are putting on top of that are not understood everywhere, certainly not by me, although I can make some shrewd guesses.
Ah, Wowbagger, both quicker and more erudite than I managed.
The only difference is you all don’t believe in a god, but you still do the verbal abuse when people do not agree, insist others agree, demand others think as you do, etc etc. It’s not freethought if everyone must think the same way.
I see a job in a large movie theater in your future.
Yes, I do and you certainly act like one, so why do you keep speaking? The reason why I keep speaking is because you act like one and I really hate seeing such things, which doesn’t make me look like anything except fighting stupid extremism that insists on forcing people into a certain way of thinking. Maybe if you stop acting so stupid then maybe people would not tell you what they are seeing and thinking.
I can’t hear you, can you project a little louder?
You don’t have to blow shit up to be a Fundamngelical. 1. You just have to force people to think as you do and if they don’t, call them names. 2. Tell them how horrible they are for not thinking the way you think is right. 3. Force them to conform or else. 3. Play follow the leader, which many of you are doing and if others don’t see #1 and #2. That is Fundamntalism in a nutshell, which many of you are doing. Oh and I forgot the shame factor for not believing and going with the group think, which again, does not need a deity to do. This is also extremism, which I hate with a passion, and there is plenty of it here.
Not to mention all of which is abusive, esp the verbal abuse and then you all talk about not being violent? Please! The verbal abuse around here is what I call violence in and of itself.
All of which is not freethought if people are not allowed to think for themselves, which seems to be the case here.
Fixed that for you unthinking idjit.
Oh please! It’s not making sense because you don’t want it to make sense. Like Fundamngelicals, you don’t want to see what you’re doing, but prefer to force others into your way of thinking, even if they don’t believe in a deity, they still have to think like you are you call them abusive names. That is the reality here- think with the group or we’ll become abusive with verbal abuse. Whatever! I really don’t care anymore. Force people to think with hatred and in a group style of thinking. I for one think for myself and think as I please, which you can see as wrong because it doesn’t agree with you, I really don’t care, but the verbal abuse is appalling.
Don’t fix what I say and I’m not a troll. That stuff just makes you look ignorant.
@ mrianabrinson
You’re just too stupid. I gave you an exact definition of fundamentalism, but you chose to continue to use your own meaning for it. By calling atheists “fundamentalists” in that way, you were implying that they’re on the same footing as religious fundamentalists (hence the “blow shit up” comment).
But continue to ignore everything I say about your inappropriate use of the term “fundamentalist”.
I honestly cannot wrap my mind around your level of stubbornness. You absolutely refuse to admit that your usage of that term, and the term “extremism” are incorrect. (Sounds like your behavior is more akin to fundamentalism than ours.) Just go read a dictionary.
Fundamngelical.
ah, I get it.
it’s not a misuse of the word “fundamentalist”, because she’s invented her own magical spelling of it.
make sure you trademark that, dearie.
I don’t demand that you agree with me. I do demand that you stop trying to intimidate us with your constant insinuations and stupidity. There is a difference you don’t grasp. You came into our clubhouse (Pharyngula) and demanded we agree with you. We didn’t come into yours. You are being aggressive because of that, but we are being very assertive in defending ourselves. Think about that next time you say we demand you believe like we do. You are just another lying and bullshitting tone troll.
Which you’re trying to cure via shaming us…into belieing what you do.
Ok look, you clearly haven’t thought out what are the essential elements of fundism.
Obviously people are not capable of changing their minds here and again, you don’t have to blow shit up or be Xian to be a Fundamngelical.
I wonder how long Marina will scream at us for being mean?
any bets?
Comment by mrianabrinson blocked. [unkill][show comment]
If only church’s had that option.
Of course now since I blocked out the person who was trying to shame me I guess I’m going to be called closed minded now.
I fixed that for you loser. You don’t tell me what to do. Show me your recent signed letter from your imaginary deity showing you have that authority, or shut the fuck up. That is aggressive, coming into our clubhouse and telling us what to do, and you need to lose the aggressive attitude. You don’t like your treatment here, you must be the one to leave…
Doesn’t everyone just love what mrianabrinson is doing? Isn’t it just so original.
Just kidding. It the same old, tired trick that we’ve all see before: losing an argument? Have nothing else to do? Ignore all real questions and call someone “close minded”, “extremists”, or “fundamentalists”.
It’s the same trick woo believers and goddists use when they realize that they’re losing an argument and have no evidence behind them. Pathetic really.
We are capable of changing our minds. You can’t do that with your aggressive attitude and inane opinions. You need evidence, but you can’t supply the said evidence to change our minds. Your insipid opinions and arguments won’t do it.
No I’m not trying to shame you. I really don’t care how you feel because you don’t care about anyone else, obviously nor do I want you to believe as I do. It’s the forcing of others to believe as you do or spew verbal abuse at them if they don’t that I think is lame and childish. Forcing others to believe as you do is not a belief nor is verbal abuse a belief, it is an abusive action that is very immature.
But whatever. I think I’m going to find a more mature and intellectual group that actually does allow for freethinking and has a rational discussion. Not that I won’t read PZ scientific stuff, I still will, but I rather talk to grown ups who don’t live in Wonderland and force others to do the same. Oh wait, I already do that. It’s called CFI. Much better and mature group, IMO.
Wrong fuckwitted idjit. Most of us care about people, being generally liberals. What we don’t do is respect religion and religious people for simply being religious. You want to change my mind, lose the attitude that you are right, and consider that you are wrong.
@ mrianabrinson
I’m no writer, but, fuck, learn to communicate better. I have to read your shit multiple times just to understand what you’re trying to get across. And (I’m not trying to brag ;D) I have fucking great reading comprehension (so much so that I got to skip English 1 at my uni, but, again, I’m not bragging).
Hey! i like those folks. They’re nifty.
More mature? Debatable. We’re a pretty mature group here. But they are nifty, no doubt about it.
Just make sure to tell them how mean we are. We like that.
So, what I’ve been able to decipher from mrianabrinson last post is: “Wh-why are you s-s-so m-mean t-to me?”
Of course now since I blocked out the person who was trying to shame me I guess I’m going to be called closed minded now.
Open your mind….
So, what I’ve been able to decipher from mrianabrinson last post is:
LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
no?
Translated you toddler temper tantrum for you loser. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Oh yes, atheists tend to be on the high side of the bell curve. You won’t find any smarter people, but you probably can find a group that agrees with your non-cogent thinking. I don’t recall a cogent post from you…
Well, you just trashed that site, as you are the well meaning idjit, that is asked a question, and one does the opposite of the answer as being the right thing to do…Yes, maybe your temper tantrums will be appreciated there…
mrianabrinson wrote:
It’s more than a little hilarious that you’re continually chanting that it’s wrong to force others to believe something yet at the same time you’re trying to force us to believe something, namely that it’s wrong to force others to believe something.
You’ve demonstrated you don’t know what the word ‘fundamentalist’ means; have you any idea what the word ‘hypocrisy’ means?
Bets on the flounce?
I really don’t care how you feel because you don’t care about anyone else, obviously nor do I want you to believe as I do.
wait…
you don’t care what we feel or think, but you want to berate us for what we feel and think.
you don’t want us to believe as you do, but you want us to believe you.
good thing I stopped carrying irony meters long ago.
I’m not sure it’ll stick the fist time. But maybe a second one will.
Right! Whatever. Call me when you grow up and that means when you are mature enough not to be verbally abusive to others.
I rather talk to grown ups who don’t live in Wonderland and force others to do the same.
too late! too late!
you’ve already been here.
obviously, we can’t let you leave.
quick! someone get the comfy chair!
I’m taking a guess at what the response was
“YOUR STUPID MINDS!”
Does that count as a first failed flounce? Because if it does, I totally have a shot at winning this.
Call me when you grow up
That sure looks like a landing to me.
did she stick it though?
Why? Will you be more interesting then?
Pot, kettle, black. Typical troll. Can’t stick the flounce, and keeps trying to call us out for their bad behavior. Like aggression. Who came into who’s clubhouse and demanded that they obey them? Aggressive be thy name troll.
No. I think in this case mature = agreeing with her. (As you can see up thread, she likes making up her own definitions.)
StarStuff:
Oh, I know. I was just hoping for interesting. Mostly because that’s been seriously lacking in her posts.
I’m not sure how our maturity (and we really are quite mature, thankyouverymuch) has to do with her perception of how polite we are. Since when has polite been the same as mature?
I’m a bit confused on that issue.
But I really would like her to be more interesting. Seriously. Because she’s boring the fuck out of me right now.
I know that feel. She almost makes me want to do calculus.
I rather talk to grown ups who don’t live in Wonderland and force others to do the same.
Oh, I so should have played the White Rabbit card there.
*sigh*
Um… membership in a criminal, terrorist organization actually isn’t a civil right. Remaining a member of such an organization can cause one to forfeit the vast majority of their other civil rights.
Given the KKK’s stated goals, and more importantly, it’s track record, nonwhites can reasonably expect intimidation and violence from KKK members.
Given Skepticon’s stated goals, and more importantly, it’s track record, what can a theist expect?
Intimidation? Violence?
Or possibly just… mockery?
Understanding the difference here will help you get why your analogy is kinda dumb.
Another important point of contrast is that a large percentage (probably a majority, but I’m not sure of that) of Skepticon’s atheists used to be theists – most likely Christians – of one flavor or another. Very very few of the KKK white guys were born and raised black.
This tends to give Skepticon atheists a much better sense of empathy and understanding of theists they encounter than your average KKK member has for nonwhites. This has been my experience, at least, in meeting high-ranking people from both organizations.
Just so you know.
mrianabrinson wrote:
Do you mean textually abusive? Because I’m pretty sure you can’t hear us saying these things to you – well, unless you’ve got some kind of text-to-voice device hooked up to your web browser.
Seriously, drop some hints around your friends that you want a dictionary for Xmas. You really need one.
StarStuff:
I’m currently calculating the rate of decay of my faith in humanity, all thanks to mrianabrinson adding another term to the equation.
(And I already have a constant and a linear and a squared term, so you know what that means.)
I’m never going to understand people who consider politeness more important than intellectual honesty when an actual debate is taking place.
I trust that you just accidentally left out the paragraph where you link to or quote anyone here *demanding* that others think as they do, right? I mean, leaving aside that fact that people have pointed out that “Fundamentalist” means something, (Something that you apparently don’t understand, or you wouldn’t keep using the word as you are), there’s nobody here even suggesting that people be forced to think as Atheists do. There is nothing wrong with trying to convince people to change their own bloody minds!
Damn straight, we all think we have the right, even the duty of trying to convince people to change their superstitious, bigoted, tribal way of thinking, but we’ve always explicitly allowed everyone, including religions and the religious to think whatever they damned well please. There is not even the slightest hint here of forcing dogmas or modes of thought on anyone, and I think you’re being either startlingly dishonest or willfully blind and ignorant to claim that anyone here has ever done or intends to do any such thing.
Can you truly not see how very different that is from the Fundamentalists, who are constantly doing everything they can to do exactly that, FORCE us – ALL of us, not just their own members – into the rigidly-confined actions and modes of thinking that they allow? Blue laws, DOMA, passing laws against gay marriage, trying to mandate or sneak religion into schools and science out of them? That’s not even mentioning things like stoning women for not wearing a hijab, the Inquisition, and the murder, harassment, and attempts to run-out-of-town abortion doctors, family-planning clinics, known atheists, or any sort of sex-friendly business like pornography or sex toys.
All we’re using is words. Sure, the truth can hurt when we say “I still think GG acted in a bigoted fashion and committed a crime of discrimination when he put up the no-Skepticon sign. No, I don’t forgive him.”, or when I say “I think you’re a slimy, hypocritical liar because you’ve insinuated again and again that PZ and/or his readers use or advocate violence or illegal force to change people’s thoughts or actions.”, but you have no right not to be offended or hurt by other people’s words! Sometimes the truth hurts, that doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to tell the truth just because someone will become upset over it! Sometimes you have to face up to the consequences of your actions, no matter how fleeting those actions may have been. When the consequences are nothing more than people saying “Nope, I don’t forgive him yet, he’s not really showing any sign that he understands WHY what he did was wrong.”, there is no comparison to be made to the downright -evil- actions of the Fundamentalists.
Of course, you’re the same person who started with a simple “So no, for these reasons, I don’t accept GG’s apology. He seems far more worried that he did something stupid and that it’ll affect his business than he is about what he actually did, and his excuse is a transparently self-serving not-pology.” and turned it into insinuations that atheists – and PZ in particular – angrily wanted revenge, wanted to torture him, lock him up, they might even enjoy hanging him! You disgust me.
HOW is s/he acting like a Fundamentalist? Be specific!
Really, never mind. I can see your responses in the posts since I started writing this reply. You’ve gone completely round the bend, and are beyond help and hope at this point.
Bloody tone trolls.. PLEASE stick the flounce!
So, Mriana’s basic problem is that she’s a
fundamentalfundamngelical atheist and she hates herself for it?;1. #300
2. #441
3. #461
4. #244
Shame factor – #449
Comment 178.? I think she was referring to herself…
Is that a psychosis showing? Or just the ramblings of an unashamed div?
Lots of terms here that Mriana has redefined. “Verbal abuse” is one of them. Mriana, where exactly do you see abuse? Or is it just colorful language that bothers you?
What I’d like to know is what PZ means by “forgive”, and what he would have done if he hadn’t decided not to.
I see that you are too lazy to read.
Well, no. I’ve read the whole thread. I don’t see anywhere where PZ says what it is that he refuses to do, other than “echo back some banal formalities at you” which isn’t what “forgive” means in any normal use of the word.
The whole thread seems to be an argument about, literally, nothing.
In the context, forgive means accept GG’s pseudo apologies. A lot of us won’t accept the apology, but won’t do anything against GG either. A few trolls tried to force us to accept the apologies. They didn’t make any headway.
Apologies, the sign in protocol seems to have changed, so my handle now appears as “thepint” instead of “The Pint”
Yep, that just about sums up Mriana’s whole whine on this thread. Disagreement and pointing out the holes in your arguments are not being “abusive,” Mriana. There’s a difference between saying “You are an idiot, therefore your arguments have no merit,” and “Your arguments have no merit because [rebuttal points] and you’re not listening, therefore you are being an idiot.” The former cuts off any possibility of discussion because right out of the gate, it indicates an unwillingness to hear anything the other side has to say. The latter is the result of the refusal of one party to consider the criticism of the argument laid out.
You’ve continually engaged in the former, by claiming those here disagreeing with you are “mean” and “abusive” so therefore you won’t even consider anything we have to say, while the rest of us have gotten fed up with having to deal with the latter – us pointing out the holes in your reasoning and you essentially replying with “NUH UH! YOU’RE BEING MEANIES AND I DON’T HAVE TO LISTEN!!”
And I notice how you’ve sidestepped having to answer the question as to whether or not shame is ever acceptable as a rhetorical tool, such as when dealing with sexists, racists or homophobes, or if you’re just making a special exception for religious bigots.
You keep accusing commenters here of trying to “force others” to believe or act as they do, calling us “fundamentalists” when in fact you are the one who has been berating atheists for acting in a way that you think they shouldn’t because “being a humanist is better” and that if we don’t fall into what YOU think a humanist should be like, then we’re not humanists. Nevermind the fact that as I pointed out before, atheism and humanism are not interchangeable as the former applies to a lack of belief in deities and the latter applies to a philosophy of human values and concerns not necessarily tied to a belief or lack thereof in deities – not all humanists are atheists, there are plenty of people who would identify as religious humanists as well. Please do take a long hard look in the mirror when you’re accusing others of engaging in behavior that you yourself are.
mriana@566:
All? I challenge you to find one behavior this, or any atheist specific group does that is also otherwise unique to fundamentalists. (as opposed to something stupid, like eating and breathing, which all humans do. I include this disclaimer because we’ve really seen enough of your passive aggressive attempts at ‘humor’ as an excuse to avoid answering questions).
and again at 568:
More assertions. Yet no actual evidence or even an explanation of what the parallels/similarities are.
As Wowbagger notes, fundamentalist has a very specific meaning, as does militant. You should, as a wannabe writer, be a bit more selective and precise in how you use the language.
nigelthebold@611:
I’m not! [/Monty Python] ;-)
Timecube? (Yeah, I went there, whatcha gonna do about it?)
Ah well, that’s what I get for having fun last night (and that whole sleep thing…). She’s flounced, and I’m left here making snarky one liners (but thanks for the setups, Nigel!)
Well, it still all seems to me to be an argument about nothing. Or rather, an argument about whether it’s nicer to be nice than not nice.
Does refusing to accept an apology mean that you don’t think the apology is sincere? Or that you think it is sincere but it’s too late, because the damage is done?
If so, what damage (there seems to have been none)?
Or does it mean that you still think they are an asshole? In which case what would “accepting an apology” mean – changing your mind?
Or, perhaps, refusing to accept the possibility that the person was an asshole but is now trying to put it right?
Or is it, as the skeptic within me says, seeing that there is good mileage to be had out of prolonging the guy’s embarrassment as much as possible in order to hold his fellow theists up to ridicule and excoriation?
In which case, it seems really bad tactics to me.
I enjoy this blog, though I don’t think I’ve ever posted on it before (maybe once), but I’m a bit appalled at the divisive mountain that has been built from a temporary molehill. If humanism means anything, isn’t it that we are all capable of being assholes as well as generous and noble creatures, often in rapid oscillation, and that that is worth bearing in mind whenever we are tempted to feel self-righteous over another person’s tantrum.
As I’m doing right now, I guess, if I’m honest.
ho hum.
But it seems to me, that if you are going to refuse to “forgive” someone, it’s only rational to figure out what the consequences of that refusal are likely to be, and whether it’s a) helpful and b) kind. In this case, I’d say the answer is no, and no.
Cheers
Lizzie
(another TalkRat)
PZ and his blog is hardly the only actor in this situation. Too try to imply that PZ is responsible for this going is to have a distort view of this. For example, PZ had nothing to do with the interview with Andy.
Also, it has been other people from TalkRat who kept this thread going. And frankly, those people were idiots. And one was not arguing in good faith.
You are one of those people.
So, how long do you want to keep this argument about “nothing” going?
Lizzie – Whether or not Drennen’s apology is accepted by anyone has been besides the point, honestly – the larger (and to my mind, more interesting) result of his actions have been some good discussions about the concept of religious privilege and how Drennen’s actions are reflective of how that privilege operates in our country, and how religion is still treated with great exception when it comes to criticizing its precepts. Remember, Drennen’s sense of offense stemmed from his expecting to find Skepticon “making fun of” belief in things like UFOs, alien abduction, Bigfoot, etc., only to find that his brand of Christianity was being lampooned in the same way as he expected to find these other beliefs ridiculed. PZ’s original post about why he wouldn’t accept Drennen’s apology outlined much of what Drennen’s initial actions reflected regarding the double standard to which theists (which in the US means mostly Christians) and atheists are treated, and how often exceptions are made in the name of “respecting religion” in which “respect”=”free from criticism.” PZ has also touched upon idea that mockery is one of many useful rhetorical tools (note: he did not say that it was the only one that should be used) employed in swaying people to rethink previously held beliefs.
All the whining about whether or not people should accept Drennen’s subsequent apologies and not use mockery at all because “it will make atheists look nice” have been distracting, seeing as how most of that whining has ignored the parallels between how powerful majorities have subjected other minorities to the same kind of “Your unwillingness to play nice with us is only making your movement look bad” as a decentralizing tactic, when said minorities have attempted to stand up for their rights, such as the fight for gender equality, racial equality and same-sex rights.
TL:DR version: The discussion quit being about Drennen’s actions in particular a long time ago and has been more about what Drennen’s actions and the expectations regarding his apology reflect regarding the relationship between theism and atheism in our culture.
So why didn’t you just decide not to post at that point, hmm?
Well, I guess I don’t think mockery is a useful rhetorical tool. I think it’s a counter-productive one.
Not especially because “it makes atheists look bad”, though it may, but because it usually has the opposite of the desired effect.
And I’m still not clear what “forgive” is supposed to mean in this context, nor “accept an apology”. What does it mean to accept an apology? Seriously? Indeed, what does it mean to offer one?
In your view?
Ah. So you’re an extremist so far as your hatred of extremism is concerned. Come back when you’ve come to terms with your self-hatred.
I do not think you read this. The mockery was for the people who gave bad arguments. Also, in case you have not noticed, mrianabrinson entered mocking. So save your fucking lecture.
No one is under any obligation to forgive Andy. Also, what proof do you have that acceptance of said apology would do a thing to make Andy rethink why he acted like a bigot.
As to what it means to give one, ask Andy.
Actually, it is a very effective tool. Lots of folks have reported here that mocking their beliefs caused them to rethink their position, whereas with nicey-nice, they kept on not rethinking their beliefs.
You are objectively wrong.
Well as a simple matter of fact, you’re wrong about that. We’ve had multiple people say here that mockery was exactly what started them on the road to escaping their religious indoctrination. So I guess you’ll shut up and go away now. (Well, one can always hope.)
She comes from the same place as TTT and BWE. That and the general tone of her objections does not bode well.
No one expects you to use mockery if you don’t find it useful. The thing is, the assumption that mockery “usually has the opposite of the desired effect” doesn’t hold true in the experience of many others (including myself), who have found it useful and productive and so employ it when we feel it’s necessary. You use what works for you – the problem is when accommodationists start handwringing that mockery is always counterproductive and that atheists who use it are mean and nasty. PZ’s posted quite a few emails from former creationists/theists/etc. who have expressly noted that it was mockery that triggered their path to leaving those beliefs behind – some because it shamed them because they knew better, and some because it spurred them go out and look up the information themselves. So it can work – just not for everyone.
Well, “forgiveness” and “accepting an apology” in our cultural experience seems to be equated with “erasing the offending gesture from the record” in that the offending party is allowed to go back to zero and start over without any reference to the original offense. Which clearly many of us here are not willing to do, for various reasons as outlined.
However, not wanting to offer forgiveness or accept Drennen’s apology =/= wanting to actively hurt Drennen or retaliate for his actions, and it seems like many of the negative reactions against those not willing to forgive Drennen are falsely equating those two concepts.
It is entirely possible to neither forgive Drennen nor accept his apology and just move on, neither retaliating against him or holding ill will, nor openly supporting him or attempting to cultivate a friendship with him. Similarly, it is possible to use Drennen’s actions as a teaching moment without it being a personal attack against Drennen himself.
What it means to offer an apology is trickier. It may be that Drennen is sincerely sorry for having discriminated against an entire group of people because his personal sensibilities were offended. It’s also possible that his apology was precipitated not by a sense of moral remorse, but by concern his business would be negatively affected and possibly sued. Since none of us are mind-readers, we can only make educated guesses at his intentions, guesses which are colored by personal experience, interpretations of what Drennen himself has said, what his subsequent actions have been, etc. Which of course triggers the discussion as to what is a “real” apology? Are words enough? Should the offending party not just say xe is sorry, but also make concrete gestures to alleviate the damage done? Are words even necessary so long as the offending party’s subsequent actions reflect an unwillingness to make the same mistake again? Again, it all depends on the person being asked to accept the apology.
Personally, I’d be interested to see this particular example framed as a poll. I have a pretty good idea of what *I* would accept from Gelato Guy, but that’s not very useful when his offense was against an entire community of people with their own standards.
Bad idea. It would just get Pharyngulated.
Golly, didn’t quite expect this level of aggression.
Oh well.
Would folks on Pharyngula really Pharyngulate their own poll? We have to register here, right?
How childish.
*eyeroll*
*facepalm*
Go back to your safe little hidey hole and send Andy an e-mail stating that you accept his apology.
Remember ridicule is ineffective and mean. Passiveagression on the other hand…
Well, that’s the risk you run when you decide to offend an entire group of people who all have varying individual standards. Drennen’s just going to have to live with the fact that not everyone is going to accept his apology or forgive him, because no one is obligated to and we all have differing standards of what we find an acceptable apology.
Just to be perverse and to prove the main point about unreliability of internet polls? Fuck yay!
You know how we are.
Well, as I see it, that is a very “religious” view of forgiveness, which was sort of my point.
It assumes some kind of “record” that can be “erased”. That you can go “back to zero” and be shriven.
That’s what I’m querying, I guess. As an atheist, I’m happy to have shed the idea of shriving. So I take people as they come. If they’ve been an asshole, saying sorry doesn’t make them not-having-been-an-asshole. But it can do something to make things better now. And accepting the apology can do something in return to make things better now.
So to my mind, accepting an apology isn’t wiping the record clean, because there’s no record (IMO) to wipe. What it is doing, though is reaching out in response to a gesture of reconciliation.
Which seems to me to be a good thing.
Perhaps the atheists who frequent this blog tend to come from a more fundamentalist theistic tradition than I do :)
Erm, you DO read this blog, don’t you? Pharyngula is known for many things. “Being nice to everyone” isn’t one of them. The number of comments on this post ALONE should have been an obvious indicator that this is a topic that people are pretty passionate about. Also, please note that “passion” =/= “aggression.”
I don’t see why forgiveness has to be absolute. I mean taking the sign down and apologizing in my book is the first step to basically being on conditional forgiveness. You’re not absolved or forgiven or even respected but your minor diplomacy check has turned me from Slightly Hostile to Negative or neutral. It’ll take demonstrations that you actually understand why it was wrong and a pattern of consistent behavior before I’d fully go on to forgive.
As for the counter-productiveness of mockery – I am perfectly willing to concede that it sometimes works.
In my own experience it more often doesn’t, and incites retreat behind tribal ramparts.
ymmv.
…Good point, lawl.
IF you don’t think people keep a running track of your rep then you’re either lying or a fool.
If it’s the later I have a wonderful business proposition for you.
Yes, I read the blog, but the comments not so much. And by “aggression” I meant being sworn at for making an apparently non-majority view comment.
Seems not very rational to me.
There are actual studies which trump your experience.
Tell me, how does being a passive aggressive dismissive snot work in your experience?
And you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion. Just don’t think that because not everyone shares it, they’re in the wrong.
Careful there. You’re starting to tread perilously close to sanctimony by implying that those who don’t share your view are inflexible. I’d hate to think that my earlier courtesy in response to what I thought was an honest inquiry was misplaced.
That isn’t what I said.
And I don’t lie. Whether I’m a fool depends on where you are standing I guess.
I didn’t say that everyone who doesn’t share my view is in the wrong, although obviously if I didn’t think that their view was wrong, I’d change mine.
That’s not the same as considering myself infallible. After all, I used to be a theist.
No, I wasn’t suggesting people here were inflexible. I was suggesting that they have a view of forgiveness and atonement that indicates a more fundamentalist theistic background than my own.
You are no where near as clever as you think you are.
I’d be interested in seeing them. Citation?
Lizzie, do you honestly think people aren’t picking up on your little bitchy snipes? Do you have any idea how annoying it is to have someone insulting you and expecting to be treated as a nice person because they’re playing a little haha sillypopo pants friendly tea party game?
That may be true, but I don’t know how you can judge, because I don’t know how clever you think I think I am.
I’m not making “little bitchy snipes” and I’m not insulting you, and I’m not expecting to be treated as a nice person.
I do expect people to read a counter-view and comment on it, and not simply assume that the view expressed is a “little bitch snipe”.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/73/5/722/
Here’s the thing. When you screw up and it’s not a big deal, you tend not to remember that mistake. When you screw up and are embarrassed, you just about damn near can’t forget.
Bode well for what?
I’m going to take you at your word that you’re not very familiar with the commenting atmosphere around here, so a friendly-warning: your comment that I quoted could very easily be interpreted here as “tone-trolling” in that you’re more concerned about the “tone” of the argument, rather than the “substance.” It’s not going to win you any points around here. What some might call “harsh language” is the norm for a lot of regular commenters here – and “politeness for politeness’ sake” is not what you want to be focusing on if you want to get taken seriously.
Oh please
You’re playing a childish game.
And what if we don’t think the pseudo apology is sincere? We don’t have to accept it.
Now, you have had your say. At what point do you become aggressive in pushing your theories, versus just giving us your opinion and moving on? Think about that one for a while.
Let me put this in a different context. I am a dyke. I take part of talk that parodies a straight marriage. A person sees this and puts up a sign that LGBT people will not be served in his shop. He takes it down and apologizes.
Am I under any obligation to accept his apology?
From my point of view, no. He has shown what he thinks of me. He has shown that he thought he could treat me like shit. There are other people and other places I would rather be. Let him deal with his problem on his own.
It is not my job to make sure he becomes a better person. Especially when I see no reason to think he has learned a thing.
@Thepint
Except they’re not even being polite. They are being rude but think they’re clever because they believe they can hide that.
My opinion of your cleverness and you humor has just gone down a couple of notches.
…I wonder if that has anything to do with viewers of Jon Stewart’s show scoring the highest on actual knowledge of news?
From:
http://furiouspurpose.me/viewers-of-fox-news-know-less-than-those-who-dont-watch-news-at-all/
You’re making an assumption based on your own experience. There are quite a few people here who never “de-converted” so to speak, from a theistic background, and who’s sense of morals and social justice are thus not derived from any theistic background or tradition. For instance, I came from a Christian upbringing, but it certainly wasn’t a fundamental Christian one, and my understanding of what constitutes “forgiveness” has been informed by a number of things.
Shorter; NAH NAH BOOBOO!
I suspect it is of a similar phenomena. The event is memorable because of a strong emotional reaction (humor) thus the information is retained. Teachers have realized that even stupid corny gimicks can help students as long as they’re memorable. (My SO for example uses nesting dolls)
Then you need to stop sniping, and address your attitude, which is supercilious egotism in action. You think you are smarter than we are, and are vainly trying to teach us something. Never mind we have discussed the issue ad nauseum amongst ourselves, and your opinion has been part of that discussion (and rejected). You seem to think you are bringing something new for us to hear. You aren’t. We are tired of repeating ourselves, and you group needs to stop its tag-teaming of us.
@ING – point. I’ve seen that play out often enough here for certain. I’m hoping that Lizzie is just unfamiliar with the ground here, so to speak. I probably fell closer on the spectrum to “tone troll” when I was younger – in retrospect, in part because I was not as confident in my own viewpoint, so focusing on tone was something I felt I could more easily “combat.” It’s also easier to address. It’s entirely possible to grow out of – it’s just not pleasant, as it requires you to be often harshly objective about the strengths and weaknesses in one’s argument, but it’s ultimately led me to being a better communicator and presenting my positions with more clarity and focus.
(con’t from 679) Also, I came from a background in which politeness above all things was drilled into you from Day 1. The WORST possible thing you could do was be impolite, even if pointing out someone’s missteps (regardless of whether or not the thing you’d pointed out as being wrong/hurtful actually was, in fact, wrong/hurtful). It’s a difficult habit to get over.
@Thepint
I suppose the upbringing I had where people were more direct and being passive aggressive was more offensive than just insulting someone informs my view of it.
Someone calls me a fucker I know where he stands. Someone who calls me a fucker but phrases it as sweetheart apparently also thinks I’m an idiot.
There was no shortage of passive aggression in my upbringing, but we also didn’t shy from argument. Hmmm.
I’m not sniping, I’m disagreeing with you. That doesn’t mean I think I’m smarter than you, although obviously it means I think I am right and you are wrong. If I thought you were right I’d think the same as you, right?
And posting on the same board doesn’t make us a team, heh. I count BWE as a friend and TTT (if he’s who I think he is) is someone I have a lot of respect for, but frequently profoundly disagree with. Which doesn’t mean I think I’m smarter than TTT (I’m not). It does mean I often think he’s wrong. There’s a difference.
I’m not making an assumption, I’m making an inference. A tentative one. I’m raising the issue as to what people mean by “forgiveness” and it struck me that a number of posters seem to mean something much closer to a fundamentalist Christian notion of forgiveness than I would expect from atheists (including PZ).
The inference could be quite erroneous, and from the reaction, possibly is.
But rather than address my point, a number of people seem more concerned with my “tone”. Well, tone is difficult to convey on the internet I guess.
Maybe especially for a Brit. But mostly I just mean what I say. wysiwyg.
Well, I guess I’ll have to live with that.
I still don’t know what your objection is though.
I understand that. What I’m querying is what you (or PZ) actually mean by “forgive” or “accept an apology”. What is it exactly that you think you are doing by saying you do not accept his apology?
Telling him your opinion him has not changed and won’t? That you think he is being insincere? That he is, and will remain, in your eyes, an irredeemable dick?
A sincere acceptance of an apology would involve recognizing that the person has mended his ways, understood their error, and is not going to commit the same error again.
If I say I accept an apology without actually believing all that, I’m essentially lying. I won’t do that. The only part that comes close is that I don’t think he’ll do it again, but it’s not because he sees that he did wrong — it’s because he knows atheists will openly express their wrath.
Since I can’t trust him to have changed his views at all, my only recourse is to do what I can to make it clear to him that the wrath still simmers, and that at least some of us will not lightly excuse his bias, if he expresses it again.
Holy Hoedown Christ, what obvious bullshit. She’s spent how many posts doing the tone troll wank and now claiming that’s everyone but her. 686 posts and she’s still playing the “*giggle, hair twirls* golly, I just don’t know what you meanies mean!” game. And now, gendered insults.
You’re not ready for primetime, player. Run along.
No, he has to show us he has learned something. Why he was wrong to do what he did. Not his reasons, the right reasons. Which requires more than words, namely actions to show that he has learned his lesson. Not there yet with pseudo apologies.
You say a great deal, but mean pretty much doodly-squat. You’re a crashing bore, with a grossly inflated sense of your own importance.
– A fellow Brit.
I can assure you that you have very clearly conveyed that you think you are extremely clever.
We may have come at it from different backgrounds, but this is where I stand now, too. I’d rather have someone be upfront with me about disagreeing with or not liking me, rather than having someone smile as they’re about to knife me in the back. There’s a difference between being polite and being an obsequious twit. It’s funny, but politeness in and of itself can be a defense, and an easy one to fall back on if you’re feeling threatened.
ThePint,
Politeness in and of itself can be an offense too! Not as trickery, but as a put down in it’s own fashion: the tired “Why are you so upset?” tactic is popular for making off like an issue isn’t important.
Case in point: the latest rat. Isn’t xi just so teehee giggle gee gosh golly lollypop sucker tutu frufru polite?
Dhorvath – Yup. I hate that particular move. It’s insulting on so many different levels.
Ing – I’m honestly not sure. I’ve been interpreting the politeness as a defensive “please don’t hurt me!” use rather than in a passive-aggressive way, but that’s just me. It depends on how the conversation goes.
I won’t speak for PZ (he answered quite clearly for himself), but for me, by not accepting his apology, I’m marking my position as one in which I do not find words alone to be adequate, and that in fact as far as his justifications for his actions go, I don’t accept those as an acceptable excuse for his behavior, either.
In a larger sense, by not accepting his apology, I’m demonstrating that there are larger consequences for hot-headed, stupid actions – for example, as Drennen is a business owner, he’s seen that it’s a lot easier to lose business through one stupid, ill-conceived action than it is to regain that lost business through mea culpas that may not be accepted – and hopefully, he won’t make the same mistake again. Drennen’s actions have become a teaching moment, which is hardly unexpected given that it was a textbook moment of unexamined privilege leading someone to think that even for a moment it was ok to discriminate against a whole group of people and put that discrimination into effect.
I honestly don’t get what more there is to “understand,” given that there has been AMPLE information for you to form your own opinion, not just in this thread, but in the previous one that PZ posted after Drennen’s apology hit the web. And PZ’s point of view isn’t the only one – there are plenty of other atheists who are arguing the opposite. If you’re not comfortable with or don’t like the viewpoint being espoused here, it’s not like you won’t be able to find other atheists who share your particular view and present it in a way that you don’t find objectionable.
@Pint
Adding in the little enders like “Oh my you’re so aggressive” “How irrational you are” “I must be from a less insane Christianity than you teehee Smiley macro cat face curtsy” are attacks
Thanks for the clarification! It makes my point beautifully. Were you a catholic once, Professor Myers?
You require contrition, reparation, and a firm purpose of amendment, right? Without all three you will withhold absolution?
So you withhold absolution, not because he won’t make the same mistake again, but because, in his heart, he is not penitent?
So it is not the practical effects you are concerned about but his soul?
“Excuse”?
Sure, I’m being sarky, here, but I’m also genuinely puzzled. As I said above, the great thing I shed when I shed my theism was the idea that there was a Golden Book in which it was Written what we had done Right and what we had done Wrong. Instead, I got something I consider a great deal healthier (and more Rational), namely, the idea that people do what they do, and that culpability is a useful model not an absolute one. And only as useful it as it is effective. So if it makes things better to hold someone culpable despite an [insincere] apology, then sure, continue to hold them culpable. If you can do as much (if not more) good by considering that the effects of your protest have put an end to the harm done, then drop it. Neither forgive, nor not forgive, unless forgiveness helps (as it often does), in which case do that.
Perhaps that’s too utilitarian, but it seems to me to make sense – to drop the idea of retribution completely, and do What Works. Holding people responsible for their actions is reasonable (rational?) because if we don’t, then people won’t accept responsiblity for their actions, and are likely to behave a) badly and or b) hopelessly. Culpability (and free will) is not an illusion, it’s a functional model. But continuing to hold some vindictive grudge, despite its clear lack of utility, simply because you think that the person has not reached some arbitrary threshhold of self-knowledge and self-recrimination seems utterly pointless to me, at best, and destructive at worst.
And, tbh, in this case, unjustified.
Well, I don’t. So I can’t have been clever enough to convey what I actually think.
It’s not a vindictive grudge.
You are being an obtuse ass.
In that case, don’t read my posts.
@Elizabetherliddle
Since you don’t think you’re clever and others agree, why don’t YOU stop posting?
Could you explain your point, rather than simply insult me?
Oh, hi Lizzie! (Perhaps you might remember me as hecaterin.)
I tried making your point earlier and had no luck at all. I’ve basically given up.
Seriously, I can’t believe how much people here – even PZ – are refusing to grant christian forgiveness to this guy. It bugs me too. You’re not christians, so why are you using their model?
elizabethliddle,
You’re an asshole.
Sorry :)
Why should I? I’ve followed Pharyngula with great enjoyment and appreciation for years, and for once I had a disagreement with PZ, so I posted. Unless I’m banned I don’t really see why I shouldn’t express my disagreement.
Why bother? You aren’t listening, but rather preaching. You must explain yourself to us. We don’t need to bother satisfying you and your tone trolling.
Nothing to apologise for. I find it a bit weird, but hey, life is interesting.
Answered many times already. You’re droning on and on a point that no one is arguing.
Because it’s stupid. “You don’t believe in christian forgiveness! So why are you not granting it to him!?”
WTF?
Look it’s simple. I don’t think Mr. Hollyjolly here understands WHY what he did was wrong. He still argues that it was an understandable emotional response to people being different than him and now bowing down to his privilege and status. He continues to talk as if he has a right to not be offended and he doesn’t give any indication that he actually respects the rights of others.
“Tone trolling” is a new expression for me. I’m not sure what it means. I don’t think I’m “preaching”, I’m expressing an opinion – a divergent one, as it turns out.
And I’m not asking for satisfaction, though it would be nice if someone actually responded to the substance rather than the “tone”.
PZ and The Pint have answered that well, but I want to put a different light on it.
I’ve been in situations where people demanded apologies for deliberate infractions, just to establish that they have the right to do whatever they please. It’s not a healthy situation – the only way to stop escalation is to not accept the apology.
These situations are a power play, of the sort that proclaims “I am higher in the pecking order than you, and you are bound to accept anything I dish out.”
Not accepting the apology is a challenge to the pecking order, and will cause outrage. Accepting the apology is tantamount to accepting the bullying.
Those who accept his apology tend to think that this scenario does not apply; that Andy did something unintentional and stupid, and that people who are not accepting his apology do not care enough about him to soothe his feelings of sorrow at the incident.
I don’t for a moment believe that he has feelings of sorrow about the incident. The whole incident was one of retaliation at the mere existence of atheists (sparked by him seeking out a performance at Skepticon, that turned out to be less than reverent of Christianity. Surprise.)
People who believe that all atheists are duty bound to accept his apology, which people hounding PZ seem to believe, are projecting that atheists are duty bound to accept an apology from a Christian.
There is no duty to accept Andy’s apology. Andy’s actions were not accidental, and he would do it again if there weren’t going to be repercussions, because his thinking, that Christians are higher in the pecking order than atheists, has not changed.
Well if you don’t think you’re clever and thus have nothing good to say than you’re just posting to make noise. You’re not contributing, via inferences from your admission, so why are you posting? To annoy?
You’re not accepting my apology? Dammit, why are you so vindictive? Help! She’s totally holding a huge grudge against me!
FFS you’re just intentionally trying to be annoying.
Tone Troll is someone who focuses on the presentation rather than the argument and whines about how people are not being proper.
Sheesh.
OK,what, in your view, would constitute the “right reasons” for apologising?
um, no, I’m not. I’m simply amazed at how much a divergent opinion has annoyed people. What I’m trying to do is to make a point I think is important. Clearly you disagree. Right now, the more I read, the more important I think it is.
I’m not whining about how people are not being proper. On the contrary, what I’m reading is a great deal of whining about my presentation. I don’t give a damn about presentation (I’m from Talk Rational, right? I don’t care how rude people are) – I’m just amazed at the reaction I’m getting to a what is a minority opinion.
Answered already. This conversation is severely handicapped by your stubborn insistence to not understand.
Oh just STOP it with the “All of you are so hostile and closed minded TEEEHEE!”
To make my point.
Why else does someone post on a blog?
“I’m not complaining about tone! My word how mean you all are to me for having a different opinion! But I’m not complaining about tone! Why are you all so mean!? But I’m not…”
Not all of us view ourselves as babbling twits.
Could you actually read what I am saying, rather than what you think I am saying?
An acknowledgment that Andy has understood that atheists are not subordinate to Christians.
elizabethliddle:
That says much about you, Elizabeth.
(Your presupposition distorts your perception)
Purblind, you are.
I don’t think you are being mean, but you are certainly Making Stuff Up.
What “presupposition”?
I’m sure none of us do. I’m not seeing your point.
FFS, really? Are you really that fucking dense? Look, you clearly have no clue about the topic at hand, by your own admission are not clever, therefore you are just babbling.
Not surprising really.
I’m not insisting on not understanding. That’s why I’m asking the question.
Weirdly, the last person to tell me this was an IDist on Uncommon Descent.
If I don’t understand something, I ask. It doesn’t mean I don’t want to understand, it means I do.
That’s why I ask.
No, he believes that atheists do not have the right to be irreverent towards Christianity, even in the confines of a performance at Skepticon not directed at Christians.
He would not see the existence of Psalm 14 as problematic in the same way.
Simply put, he does not believe that atheists have the right to criticise Christianity in any circumstances, and does not apply this reciprocally.
Fuck you.
No you ask, hear the answer, then pretend you didn’t hear it and ask again hoping to get a new one apparently. Or you’re too dim.
elizabethliddle:
That PZ’s attitudes (specifically) and others’ (generally) are relics of their (presumed) theistic status, as evinced by this: … it struck me that a number of posters seem to mean something much closer to a fundamentalist Christian notion of forgiveness than I would expect from atheists …
(FWIW, PZ’s history is (very) liberal protestantism)
elizabethliddle,
You didn’t bother reading the thread, did you?
<blockquote.FFS, really? Are you really that fucking dense? Look, you clearly have no clue about the topic at hand, by your own admission are not clever, therefore you are just babbling.
I didn’t say I wasn’t clever. I just didn’t say I thought I was, either. I have no strong opinions on whether I am clever or not. I’m simply making a point, and asking for clarification.
If someone doesn’t understand an argument, there are at least three possible reasons:
They are dense
The argument has not been made clearly
There is a flaw in the argument.
Obviously, my view is either the second or third is the case. Obviously, you think the first is true.
At least one of us is wrong.
Yes, I did. I read the other thread first, and then I saw there was a followup, so I read this one too.
I finally commented, because I was really curious about what seemed to me a disconnect between atheism and the idea of witholding forgiveness, in what seemed to me to be a very monotheistic understanding of forgiveness, which I wanted to challenge.
*sigh* Nowhere did PZ say that his refusal to accept Drennen’s apology was based on vindictiveness. He’s simply stated that he doesn’t find Drennen’s apology to meet his standards, therefore, he won’t accept it. Period. No malice, no vindictiveness, no desire for petty revenge. Nowhere in PZ’s post or reply (or that of others agreeing with PZ) has there been any call for, as you put it, “retribution.” I don’t know how many frakking times it needs to be said, but the refusal to accept Drennen’s apology does not equal wanting or calling for retribution.. What skin off your back is it if he (and others) doesn’t accept Drennen’s apology anyway?
And by “excuse,” we’re talking “make excuses for his bias if he demonstrates it again in actions like telling Skepticon attendees they’re not welcome at his Christian store.” Drennen can believe whatever the hell he wants about non-Christians or skeptics or atheists or whatever, but that belief does not give him the right to discriminate against them. His bias against people who don’t share his belief (or at the very least won’t let it remain immune to criticism) is something that morally concerns us because as it has already been pointed out *in this thread,* that bias has been the basis for serious incursions of religion into the operation of our government, such that theists (quite often if they’re Christians) are given special privileges and passes for mistakes that non-Christians/non-theists are not.
You keep insisting that “the model” for which PZ and others are basing “forgiveness” and “accepting an apology” is Christian-based, but I think ING put it quite succinctly:
I fail to see anything “Christian” about that model. WHY what he did was wrong has nothing to do with some vague appeal to a “higher order,” or “some absolute Right and Wrong written in some Golden Book” it has to do with very concrete facts: that discrimination is WRONG (not to mention illegal), that an emotional response is NOT JUSTIFICATION for discriminatory actions, and that no one has the right to NOT BE OFFENDED, nor to not have their beliefs challenged or mocked. All of these have to do with the very real social contract we belong to as part of an ostensibly secular-based government with multiple belief systems attempting to (and currently not doing very well at) co-exist on an EQUAL basis.
You’re attempt at a “gotcha!” moment with PZ is sadly enlightening as to your intentions in this conversation. It’s obvious that you not only don’t agree with the refusal of some atheists to accept Drennen’s apology (which isn’t the problem, there isn’t an absolute right or wrong answer to whether or not someone will accept the apology), you don’t think that the apology should be refused by ANYONE. You are, in effect, attempting to tell us what we SHOULD be doing and why we are wrong. Which again, it’s an argument, you have a view point you’re trying to advocate, but you’re not listening or even giving much consideration to the viewpoints of the people who disagree with you because you’re convinced you’re right. Instead you’re trying to play cute little “gotcha!” games by coming at us with the same questions over and over again. Furthermore, your insinuation that while YOU may have managed to “shed the trappings” of theism as evidenced by your “enlightened” understanding of forgiveness and absolution, those of us who are not accepting Drennen’s refusal are obviously doing so based on our having been unable to similarly shed those trappings by using “Christan based models of forgiveness and absolution” is both willfully obtuse and insulting. It’s not going to give you the result you want, it’s just going to piss people off mightily – it already has in some cases, and it’s definitely starting to do so in my case.
Ok I’ll answer the question for you. You’re not clever. You’re annoying if anything
It wasn’t a presupposition. As I’ve said. And as should have been clear from my posts.
That’s not an answer to any question I’ve asked.
However, it is clear that I have annoyed a number of people here, so I guess I agree that I am being annoying.
Being annoying isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
You’re welcome.
You’ve excluded a middle.
Elizabeth,
Please respond to my #733, answering your direct question. You have stated that you think the argument was not clear, or faulty. Is it clear now? Is there a fault?
Furthermore his apology worked on some levels. He assured us that he realizes what he did was illegal and that he can’t do it. He’s made the necessary conditions to stave off being sued or campaigned against (as he was getting slammed in reviews on his store) but his apology was also a plea for rep basically. He requested that he be viewed as a good person(tm) but has not shown that he understands the reason why people were upset. It wasn’t just that they were denied frozen lard. For example, an apology making reference to how he didn’t realize before how easy it was to look down on atheists or to discriminate against someone who lacks the privileges that you do before but has really learned something about how some people are basically forced into living by religious laws they themselves don’t follow would go much further.
Oh for fucks sake, some of you have horrendous reading comprehension. Let me try this again (doomed to fail I suspect, tempers are high.)
Stipulated background: I do not give a shit about whether you accept his apology or not, or forgive him or not. That’s up to you.
I do want to know why the social model that it seems pretty well 95% of people in this thread are using, including PZ, is Christian forgiveness as a response to an apology.
I’m an atheist. I don’t do Xian sin, confession, absolution, atonement, 3rd party forgiveness, shriving, washing sins white as snow or any of that guff. If the dude wants Xian forgiveness he’s not getting it from me, and he’s downright stupid to ask.
But I do do acceptance or rejection of apologies. Apologies are secular things. And they are not about forgiveness, unless you are a Christian.
Hey heres an idea! Keep harping on that and talking down to people in that same fashion! That’s SURE to fucking work this time and not just annoy people more!
@Claw and Elizabeth
Oh if you missed my point, it’s that it’s fairly hypocritical of you to complain about people’s responses to you when you have a refrain that basically translates to “boy you people are dumb and irrational!”
elizabethliddle:
Really. Was that not your point when you responded to PZ’s requirements for forgiveness by writing “It makes my point beautifully. Were you a catholic once, Professor Myers?”
(my emphasis)
Are you claiming it was an inference? :)
(That you inferred that with such little warrant also evinced a presupposition)
—
BTW:
For mine, repudiation of the attitude that people should be punished for associating with those who mock some of those those who preach his religion.
Look at the apology again: Being a Christian, and expecting flying saucers, I was not only totally surprised but totally offended. […] I’m not apologizing for my beliefs, but rather for my inexcusable actions.
He is still totally offended, according to this claim, and still desires to somehow punish Skepticonners — if only so doing didn’t involve actions.
(Clearly, he still holds the grudge, but now considers he shouldn’t act on it, and it is only for that he’s apologised)
Why exactly are apologies not about forgiveness unless you are a Christian? Whether or not one wants forgiveness in response to an apology for a wrong done is not contingent upon one being Christian or even a theist. Forgiveness isn’t necessarily dependent upon religious connotations.
I’m seriously beginning to wonder if this insistence that forgiveness in exchange for an apology being a “Christian” thing is just another reflection of how pervasive the perception of Christianity being the root and basis of everything in Western civilization really is.
@ThePint
Well I’d say that apologies can work on two levels. one request is for a return to professionalism/status quo the other is an actual restoration of lost trust.
Typically apologies garner the first almost automatically but have to display earnestness to earn the second.
“I’m sorry I called you a nigger”
“Fine, accepted whatever”== We’ll move on, but yeah I think less of you now
*peroid of time where no repeat incidents are seen and the person illustrates they understand why they were wrong*== I no longer take that past action into account when assessing your character.
Oi. Look! I’m a member now but I needed 4 letters so I added a 4.
At any rate, Now I have my template for fundamentalist atheism. Thanks guys. And I appreciate your cooperation.
Thanks again.
BWE
I’m frankly baffled that the rat pack here continues to argue like we’re defending some tabula rosa forgiveness when Pint and I have both explained how our views on it differ. It seems like a simple concept to me.
elizabethliddle and Alethea H. Claw
OK, you’ve read the thread and there appears to be something you don’t get, which you don’t think has been either addressed or answered anywhere in all these comments.
What I’m getting from you is that you think forgiveness means nothing; that it’s just a word exempt from connotations. Thus, with that line of logic, sorry is also just a word that again means nothing; it’s just something people say, presumably when they think other people might think that they’ve done something wrong (as opposed to when they believe they have done something wrong). If that is the case, you shouldn’t be hung up on why people aren’t accepting an apology, you should be asking what motivated the guy to bother apologising in the first place (which actually has been questioned here).
If I’ve got you wrong, the onus is on you to clarify yourself; define what you think apologising and the acceptance of such means, ’cause right now, other than implying the majority here are closet theists, you appear to using words in a way utterly alien to the conversation.
OK, you’ve read the thread and there appears to be something you don’t get, which you don’t think has been either addressed or answered anywhere in all these comments.
What I’m getting from you is that you think forgiveness means nothing; that it’s just a word exempt from connotations. Thus, with that line of logic, sorry is also just a word that again means nothing; it’s just something people say, presumably when they think other people might think that they’ve done something wrong (as opposed to when they believe they have done something wrong). If that is the case, you shouldn’t be hung up on why people aren’t accepting an apology, you should be asking what motivated the guy to bother apologising in the first place (which actually has been questioned here).
If I’ve got you wrong, the onus is on you to clarify yourself; define what you think apologising and the acceptance of such means, ’cause right now, other than implying the majority here are closet theists, you appear to using words in a way utterly alien to the conversation.
Yeah yeah, fuck you too.
Seriously Elizabeth, Claw and BWE seem to only be here to wave their junk in people’s face while going on about how clearly superior and rational they are above us mud dwelling swinemen.
…and, ‘scuse the repetition…
I see apologies as negotiating a social contract, involving many aspects including social standing, agreement on standards of behaviour, what to do in breech of social conventions, and, yes, forgiveness.
The idea that forgiveness can only exist in the context of Christianity seems as bizarre as the idea that morality can only come from God.
Alethea H. Claw:
Then what are they for?
Let’s say someone does something which they later regret. They apologize. The apology is designed to do several things: first, to convey the regret; and second, to solicit forgiveness. (There are other social idioms tied up in an apology, but these are the two big ones.)
If the entire point of an apology was simply to convey regret, there’s no need for acceptance or dismissal of the apology. The admission of wrong-doing is a data point, nothing more. The acceptance of the apology is meaningful only if it also conveys a certain admission of understanding or forgiveness. If you “don’t do” the forgiveness thing, then it makes no difference whether you “accept” the apology. All you’re doing is acknowledging the other party’s responsibility, which they’ve already done.
This has not one fucking thing to do with the Christian concept of absolution. If anything, Christians have gussied up the whole fucking point of an apology, the begging for forgiveness, removing it from the purview of human interaction and placing it into the realm of the divine. Just like all other aspects of God, it’s a human trait, only bigger and better (to their eyes, anyway).
Accepting an apology without some modicum of forgiveness is simply acknowledging the wrong-doing of the other party. And you sure as fuck don’t need to go through the social niceties of accepting an apology for that. You just say, “Yep. You sure did fuck up.”
Ing: Hell if I know, I’m baffled, too. I think the reasons we’ve laid out for our positions have been quite clear. I agree with your differentiation of two levels of apologies, and I would argue that Drennen’s apology falls into the latter – it’s good enough to restore the status quo, but obviously for others, it fails to pass the “smell test” in restoring a level of trust. Drennen is a business owner – as potential customers, we trust that he will treat us with a certain level of respect, in exchange for our respectful patronage of his establishment. His posting of that sign destroyed that trust, and what can be done to re-establish that trust differs among individuals.
I think spyro’s post at 754 addresses part of the problem with the discussion with Lizzie and Claw, at least in regards to there apparently being a different understanding/definition of “forgiveness/acceptance” that I’m frankly at a loss understanding. As for the rest of it, I suspect that “I don’t understand” is missing a crucial subtext: Lizzie doesn’t understand why we don’t agree with her – either because she’s not getting what we’re saying (a communication issue), or because she just doesn’t get why we’re disagreeing with her in the first place (she’s right and we’re wrong and why can’t we just see that??).
QFT.
bwe4:
Yep. Fundamentalist atheism. It’s like regular atheism, only without all the apologizing.
[meta]
Ing, nah. One is not like the others — BWE is just a plain old troll, of the boring variety.
Thanks for addressing my point!
I know PZ that his refusal wasn’t “based on vindictiveness” but when I asked him for his reasons, it seemed to be based on no practical utility, which left only retribution. Or, possibly, that the refusal would somehow be good for his soul. As for “skin off my back” – well we are all part of the same society. It matters to me what other people do, because what other people do can have consequences for things I care about. But also I think that exchanging moral views is how morality evolves. I’ve changed my views over time; that wouldn’t have happened if people hadn’t disagreed with me.
Yes, and it’s important that that point is made. I don’t see that it is made by withholding acceptance of Drennan’s apology, in which he clearly accepted that he did not have the right to discriminate against atheists. Obviously he is entitled to be biased against them, just as you are entitled to be biased against Christians.
For one, I’m not “insisting” although I am making the point, and for two, I’m not saying it’s necessarily “Christian-based” although it does seem to me that it reflects a Christian (or at least monotheistic) notion of culpability. Which is what I’m challenging.
Yes, I know that discrimination is wrong, and Drennan, to my mind, clearly accepted that. He did not “justify” his actions by referring to his emotional response, he simply explained them as such. No-one has the right not to be offended, but, equally, everyone has the right to be offended. He found something offensive, just as I have found something offensive. I do not claim the right to have Pharyngula not post something that offends me, but I do claim the right to say so when it does.
Yes, of course I am. I’m saying what I think is right. That’s the nature of disagreement – thinking someone is wrong. Equally, you are telling me that I am wrong. Fair dos.
I don’t play games. And I have to say that I’m concluding that the tendency on the part of some people here to read intentions into other peoples words probably has something to do with the disagreement about how Drennan’s apology should be interpreted. Quite apart from my, if you like, theological, disagreement with the whole “forgiveness” thing, I think in this case it is being misjudged, just as I think you (and others) are grossly misjudging me (and others who have expressed dissent with the majority). I’m not playing games, I’m not trying to tell people how clever I am, or any of those things. I’m disagreeing with a lot of you, and trying to say why, and also trying to probe your reasons for thinking the way you do.
It may well be insulting. I guess it’s always insulting to be disagreed with, in a sense. But that’s life. It remains my view that the justifications I have seen for withholding acceptance of Drennan’s apology smack strongly of a monotheistic concept of culpability. And it is one that I reject. As an atheist.
It may well do. Sometimes things you do piss people off mightily, as we’ve seen in these threads.
I don’t think that refusing to give any kind of credit to Drennen for his apology will “give you the result you want” – in fact I think “it’s just oging to piss people off mightily”, as indeed “it already has in some cases”. And not only started to do in my case, but still is.
Hence my comments in this thread.
Yes indeed. And it’s not what I said.
What I said is that concept of the forgiveness that is being withheld from Drennen seems to me to be a very monotheistic one.
As far as I’m concerned, forgiveness is great stuff, and the atheistic kind a lot better than the other kind.
It’s that kind I’d advocate giving to Drennen.
Where I lose patience with Lizzie is her failure to engage with the arguments. After questioning “subordinate”, and stating that she thought the argument was unclear, or faulty, she simply fails to engage in the clarification, preferring to question “presupposition”.
But if she doesn’t understand the idea that atheism is considered so subordinate that even the mildest of billboards stating atheists exist are an affront to Christians, then she really has a lot to learn.
Alethea:
Simple — the stopped-clock metaphor.
Akin to the Golden Rule: that Christians profess it (though, of course, they’re generally hypocritical in that regard) doesn’t imply all who profess it derived it from Christianity — note that it was around long before that religion existed.
Public acknowledgement of it’s existence is not credit?
Again, please define what you understand an apology and forgiveness to mean.
elizabethliddle:
cf. my previous, posted before I saw the above.
(Correlation ≠ causation)
Elizabeth@764, you didn’t say that. Alethea did at @746. Please read my @733 and @744.
It was a testable hypothesis, based on a small amount of evidence, which I then tested. It was falsified.
A hypothesis is not a presupposition, nor is an inference. An inference, can result in a testable hypothesis, however.
Which can be falsified. And was.
It remains the case that PZ’s requirement of a “firm purpose of amendment” is a very catholic concept.
elizabethliddle:
You’re invoking the genetic fallacy?
(Forgiveness is what it is; its genesis is irrelevant)
elizabethliddle:
True.
So, on what basis did you hypothesise it, if not on a belief that if something is similar to what the religious profess, its source must therefore be that religion? :)
Please explain.
No, it isn’t.
That’s exactly what I’m asking – what people understand by those terms, and what it is exactly that they are withholding when they withhold acceptance of the apology or forgiveness of Drennen.
For me, accepting his apology would mean showing my appreciation for his offer of reconciliation, and forgiving him would mean acknowledging that I understood that he had acted in anger and attempted to undo the harm he had done as soon as his anger had abated.
It would not mean that I thought he hadn’t been an asshole. It would mean that I accepted that he agreed that he had been.
On anecdotal evidence of a correlation.
Not that I’m aware of.
But his offer of reconciliation was empty and self-serving. I don’t appreciate it. I don’t believe he even understands the harm he has done, let alone tried to undo it.
So… let me get this straight. Because the various conditions that we’ve laid out for how we might be induced to forgive Drennen don’t meet YOUR standards (ie that some of us would require that he do something other than give 10% off to Skepticon attendees and make a public apology, such as Ing outlined at 745), our idea of forgiveness is theistic rather than atheistic in nature?
*HEAD DESK*
That’s because you’re using a monotheistic-based definition of forgiveness, echidna. Clearly you’re not an atheist.
elizabethliddle:
You’re being evasive. Tsk.
The anecdote, such as it was, was your own: “it struck me that a number of posters seem to mean something much closer to a fundamentalist Christian notion of forgiveness than I would expect from atheists”
Again: Why did it strike you thus, if not from presuming that the similarity was due to remnants of Christian belief?
—
So, you consider that forgiveness isn’t really forgiveness, unless its basis is (as you see it) sound? :)
Thanks for referring me to this comment which I had indeed missed.
And for the clarification.
thepint:
Clearly. And Elizabeth continues to avoid engaging with @744 and @733.
You all have inspired me to write a book about god and win a templeton prize.
OK, in those terms 1) I do not believe he has made an offer of reconciliation, therefore it is impossible for me to appreciate it. By your terms, I cannot accept his apology; there is no implication of withholding anything. 2) If I were racist, and punched a black guy in the face, your idea of forgiveness would mean that he should forgive me as long as I acted in anger and took him to the hospital afterwards – I would be free to think that he was still scum on the basis of his race and hope that next time, someone else did the punching.
You’re wrong on the credit terms BTW; PZ was welcome to, and could have, never mentioned that GG made any kind of apology.
Moresoever, your terms of apology and acceptance sound very much like theist ones I’ve heard, if we’re throwing that about.
[meta]
echidna, to be fair, Elizabeth is one, we are many.
(Being swamped is no fun; I’ve been there)
I’m not being evasive at all.
Of course it’s my own. In my experience, that notion of forgiveness is something I encounter much more often among evangelical Christians than among atheists (although more often among atheists than I would have expected, and more often among ex-fundies).
From evidence that it often is. Which is not a presumption. As I think you agree (or someone did).
No. But in my view, monotheistic forgiveness, based on the idea of repentance and cleansing from taint, the “clean slate” notion, is inferior to the kind of forgiveness that doesn’t invoke a “clean slate” concept, but merely accepts that people do what they do, and often regret it and wish that they hadn’t done it.
It’s rarely possible to undo the wrongs we have done others (which is one of the many things wrong with atonement theory), but it is possible to try to make things better, and try to learn from our mistakes. And accepting when other people do try to do those things is generally, IMO, a good thing.
If only on the Skinnerian principle that rewarding good actions makes them more likely in future.
heh. I seem to go there all the time! Just extracted myself from UD.
Not to mention DemocraticUnderground (in a minority arguing that Bush probably really did defeat Kerry).
And at least here I have BWE and Tchomper.
Oh, well, nice to meet you all :)
Gotta go to bed now….
I don’t really see how much of anything can be undone by an apology, but I still value receiving them. Only time and further actions will reveal how much this event has changed the gelato man. To suppose that any expression of contrition would determine his behaviour, let alone those of others seems a little narrow.
So I am up on accepting a largely empty gesture as just that, a small step. Would I like more, sure, but it’s not coming right now and I sure as shit won’t be seeking him out to see where the future brings him.
Ah, glad you’ve found the posts.
So, engaging with the argument in @712, is it clear? Is there a fault with it?
The key idea here is that Andy, as other Christians do, assert that atheism is subordinate to Christianity. A refusal by an atheist to accept the (very limited) apology of an offended Christian for their illegal and emotional outburst is just plain uppity to those that accept the social order as defined by Christians.
Considering that the term fundamentalist atheism is an oxymoron, that makes you a moron. Fundementalist implies one is concerned about the inerrancy of the holy book, and the people who believe this tend to be very literal in their interpretation of allegorical scriptures (hence their problems).
The problem with “fundementalist” atheism is that there is no holy book. No deities, everybody is on their own. Since there is no holy text, there is nothing to take literally. Fundementalism is impossible. So, you show your ignorance once again, and why you should be derided and shown the door.
Show me the solid and conclusive evidence that Andy realizes exactly the mistake he made, why he was wrong then, why he is still wrong with his continued no-pologies, and what changes in himself he will make to rectify his problems. Or, shut the fuck up, as there is no true apology on the table. That is the case at the moment, no true apology is on the table, just a pseudo apology, so the answer is no, it isn’t accepted.
[anecdata]I have made an apology that was not accepted, and found that the acceptance didn’t matter; the point was that I recognised why and how I’d been wrong and changed my behaviour (why yes it was bloody hard work, but I did it because I believed I was wrong. Maybe in time, the other person involved will accept it, still kinda doesn’t matter because it has no bearing on trying to improve myself.
I have also accepted an apology that I shouldn’t have; the other person took it as a green light that their behaviour would be forgiven and within 2 weeks fucked me over in much the same way again.[/anecdata]
It’s not like GG’s apology hasn’t been accepted by many atheists already, I like the idea that by some not, he may be tempted to find out why and reconsider his very obvious bias. We can hope.
Its all in the narrative. Holy books, deities, community structure etc. I’m on my phone or id c&p a link. Anyway. Thanks. I do appreciate it.
I fail to see how “accept[ing] that people do what they do, and often regret it and wish that they hadn’t done it” necessitates forgiveness. Generally we’ve agreed that Drennen regrets what he did and wishes he hasn’t done it – we’re just varying as to whether we think that his regret is based on understanding not just that discrimination is wrong and that his actions could impact his business negatively, but understanding just how hurtful they were to non-Christians and WHY some of us were as angry as we were about it, leading him to a better understanding of what it means to be Christian and non-Christian, much less theist and atheist, in this country.
It is entirely possible to accept that people do what they do and regret it, and still not offer forgiveness. Drennen acted like a privileged asshole throwing a tantrum. I accept that people make mistakes and he likely regrets it. I don’t have to sanction that regret by giving forgiveness and neither does anyone else.
Also, why shouldn’t one’s standards for forgiveness include a requirement for restitution in some form, whether it’s in a marked change in behavior for the better, or attempts at alleviating the damage done by the offense? An offense once given can’t be wiped out, but it’s effects can be mended, and why shouldn’t that effort be made or at least asked for? This is in no way insinuating that any actions made to address the original wrong will “wipe that wrong clean,” but I fail to see how asking for such gestures to be made is somehow less desirable than just accepting that the person fucked up and is sorry – they both have their merits and it’s completely up to the person being asked for forgiveness whether or not xe will give it and whether or not there are conditions attached. One is not necessarily better or worse than the other.
I’m more than happy to engage with arguments (much happier than posting rebuttals to erroneous inferences about my intentions and views about my own cleverness, but needs must).
Yes, I understand that there is a big issue (especially in the states, but in the UK too) about the right not to be offended by “blasphemous” sentiments.
I’m just not seeing that in Drennan’s apology. I see that he was offended, and, as I said above, the right not to be offended no more or less a right than the right to be offended. You have every right to offend me; equally, I have every right to be offended – I just don’t have the right to stop you offending me (nor would I want to, actually).
If you maligned some member of my family I’d be deeply offended, and probably very angry. For Christians, God is a member of their family. You don’t have the right to insist that he henceforth ceases to be offended when you malign his God. You do have the right to insist that he does not violate your right to offend him.
Nobody has made this argument.
Boring, accommodationist, and already discussed twenty times view. You have not read the thread, that is obvious to those of us who have. You are repeating the same idjit arguments as the previous accommodationist posters. Nothing new, not even attitude, as you mimic their arrogance. Boring, banal, insipid, and irrelevant.
[meta]
Apparently not. :)
elizabethliddle:
Even if the claim were true?
(You should look up the meaning of ‘malign’)
Ok am I missing something or does this argument come down to “if you don’t accept his apology you’re a fundamentalist and irrational”?
elizabethliddle:
<snicker>
That is what a dozen, plus or minus, accommodationist trolls including elizabeth have been blathering for days. But there is no such thing as fundamentalist atheism, as there is nothing to be fundamental about. Fundamentalist is just a misused code word for not forgiving. I’ll forgive when I am certain Andy has learned. He hasn’t, which is there in in no-pologies.
Ing,
I think that sums it up. Except I would add that “uppity” is lurking in there as well.
For Christians, God is a member of their family.
NO.
no more than a child’s imaginary friend is the same as his real friends.
all you are doing is empowering a delusion.
stop it.
Ing: Bingo.
And it would have been fine, honestly, if anyone who felt differently had just said, “Well, his apology is good enough for me,” and just left it at that because everyone’s got a different standard to which we hold apologies to be worth something. Instead, we got the “By not forgiving him, you’re being mean, atheist fundamentalists!” whine, in multiple forms.
Drennen believed that because his religion had been mocked, he could discriminate against a specific group of people and publicly announced this discrimination. Later he decided to withdraw the notice of discrimination. However the damage had already been done. He evoked privilege against a minority group.
He justifies his actions in his apologies. He regrets his actions. He attempts, in a minor way, to make amends. All this is fine. What Drennen has not done is shown he understands he was operating from a position of privilege. He believed, and as far as I can tell still believes, that Christianity should not be mocked. In other words, its privilege should not be questioned.
Until Drennen acknowledges his use of his religion’s privilege, I withhold acceptance of his apologies. I’m not calling for any sort of retribution against him. I’m not disparaging the man. I’m doing nothing except not accepting his apology.
Unfortunately, certain people seem to have a problem with this. One in particular seems to think I’ll only be satisfied by Drennen’s head on a plate. They don’t or can’t understand that, for me, Drennen’s apologies are insufficient. They also apparently think not accepting his apologies are a moral failing on my part. Obviously I disagree.
QFT
All you trolls, instead of bothering us, go bother Drennen to give a proper apology. Lots of luck…
As has been pointed out before, accepting an apology can mean that the person feels that approval has now been granted to indulge in the behaviour again. When the offending behaviour results from a misplaced sense of power, it’s important not to demur and go through the motions for the sake of peace.
It’s a bit more than thinking that Christianity should be above mocking. According to Drennen’s own words, he doesn’t seem to think that any religious belief (it seems that he would classify atheism under this umbrella) should be mocked at all. This doesn’t make it any better – he’s just expanded the privilege from his brand of Christianity to all religion in general. Obviously PZ and many of us here don’t agree with that – all beliefs are subject to criticism and religion should be no exception. Given what Drennen has said in public regarding the whole affair, it’s highly doubtful that he’s managed to grasp this simple concept and as ‘Tis Himself put is, continues to be blind to his position of privilege as not just a Christian, but as a religious person in general, and how he attempted to use it.
John Morales wrote:
Yes, even if the claim were true.
You tell me my mother is a whore, I have the right to be offended whether it’s true or not. What I don’t have the rights for is the right to stop you offending me.
Could you link to where Drennen says that no religious belief should be mocked?
Thanks.
elizabethliddle:
I should’ve added the proviso of it being relevant, FWIW, but anyway, there you go: you find the truth offensive when it’s unpleasant, I merely find it unfortunate. No wonder you sympathise with Andy.
—
[OT]
BTW, I dislike your example; why is being a whore offensive?
thepint wrote:
Because I don’t know what “forgiveness” consists of accepting that Drennan has done all the things you seem to accept that he has done – admitting he fucked up, making restitution, and saying he won’t do it again.
Unless you are invoking some quasi-religious concept of forgiveness as slate-wiping.
If not, what is it that refusing to forgive is refusing to do?
elizabethliddle:
You weren’t responding to me, but the link is in the OP, and the relevant section is here:
However, Drennen’s response, concerning the street preacher telling us that atheist were going hell, was that was also wrong, believing that people on all sides, even Muslims, should try to co-exist in this world without mockery, judgment, or imposing their beliefs on others.
?
elizabethliddle:
(I’ve taken the liberty of inserting what should be there, for that to make sense)
He specifically wrote that it was not his beliefs, but rather his actions for which he was apologising. So, he still feels that way, he just won’t act on it.
‘Tis Himself, OM says:
29 November 2011 at 7:20 pm
Well yes he obviously “evoked” the bad old days of privilege against a minority group, but if you mean “invoked”, no, he didn’t. He had a temper tantrum because he was offended. The only privilege he invoked whae the privilege he possesses by virtue of owning a store. And he rapidly realised that his privilege did not extend to excluding members of a conference from it.
No, he doesn’t. He explains them. He does not justify them.
It is indeed.
No, those “other words” are not the same thing at all. Being offended by someone who insults someone or something dear to you is not the same as invoking the privilege of preventing them from doing so.
And yet you do accept his apology – you accept that he regrets his actions and has tried to make amends. That’s what he offered, and you have accept that. What you don’t accept is something he did not offer, but did not not offer either – the acknowledgement that atheists have a right to mock Christianity.
Of course you cannot accept what was not offered. You can accept – and do – what was.
So your “I do not forgive” and “I do not accept his apology” ring utterly hollow to me. All you are saying is that you still think he’s wrong about the rights of atheists to mock religion, even though you have no grounds (that I can see) to think that he thinks that.
And you are dressing it up in quasi-religious, and IMO meaningless self-righteousness.
I don’t think it’s a moral failing, I do think it is an intellectual failing.
And FWIW, “accommodationist” doesn’t describe my position here at all. I’m not saying “be nice to the guy, he meant well, and we could use friends better than enemies” (although I think that’s a good point). I’m not even saying “be nice, because it’s nice to be nice”. I’m saying that accepting that the content of an apology is, and then saying you refuse to accept the apology, is an oxymoron, and that saying you refuse to “forgive” someone, when what you seem actually to mean is that you still find his views (as you assume the still are) repugnant, is to invoke a thoroughly religious notion of forgiveness that I would expect atheists to have moved beyond.
[meta]
elizabethliddle:
Here we go again; you still persist with this conceit if the religious hold some opinion, then anyone else who also holds it is invoking a religious notion.
Bah.
(I suppose if I honour my mother, that’s religious in your eyes?)
No, I’m not “persist[ing] with this conceit”. It’s not my conceit at all.
Let me try to rephrase: the idea that “forgiveness” means something more than accepting that the other person regrets his actions, will try to make amends, and will try not to do it again, seems to me to be invoking the kind of abstract, reified notion of clean-slate-wiping that the monotheistic religions (Judaism and Christianity anyway, don’t know much about Islam’s take) also invoke, and which I reject.
I’m not saying that people who invoke it are religious, or even that they derive it from religion (though it has something of the stolen concept about it in my view, and I would hypothesise that it has roots in religious culture), but that it has exactly the same flaws when invoked by an atheist as it does when invoked by a religious person.
Our moral record is not, I would argue, wipeable. We have to live with our mistakes and most of their consequences. What we can do is to try to mend fences by showing our regret for our actions, fix what we can of the damage we’ve done, and try not to make similar mistakes again.
What else is there?
Yes, thanks for inserting my ommission.
I’m sure he’s still a Christian. What beliefs are you expecting him to change?
Are you expecting him not to feel offended in future when someone says bad things about his God?
elizabethliddle:
I suggest that it is your belief that there is but a single proper way for people to determine when and how to forgive (and which happens to be your way) which smacks of a religious mindset.
Other people’s opinions, of course.
Yeah, why not? Are you arguing it’s impossible for him to be anything other than petty and small-minded?
elizabethliddle:
What made you think I expect him to change his beliefs?
That to which I referred was his explicit assertion that he was unapologetic about them; since it was those beliefs that engendered his action, his apology rings hollow.
No, of course not, since he’s made it clear his beliefs haven’t changed.
No, I don’t think there is a “single proper way”. I’m trying to find out what your way is, because it doesn’t seem to be making a lot of sense.
And I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what beliefs Drennan would have to change in order for him to merit your acceptance of his apology (and a link to where he expresses those beliefs).
I’m expecting him to be as offended when people insult his God as you would be if someone insulted someone dear to you.
And as offended when someone lampoons his beliefs as you would be if someone lampooned atheism.
I don’t see what’s so difficult between distinguishing the right not to be offended (which none of us have) and the right to be offended (which we all have).
Ah thanks.
So that is what you need Drennan to change before you will accept his apology? His belief that people shouldn’t attempt to impose their beliefs on others?
elizabethliddle:
1. Well, you think asking for more than what you ask for is improper, and (implicitly) that so is asking for less* — so how not?
2. My way is irrelevant, since I was not one of the offended parties, and therefore I have nothing to forgive; thus, I haven’t referred to it.
(My discussion of this issue is purely from an Olympian perspective)
—
* Unless at least one of your criteria was redundant or irrelevant. :)
If so, that runs directly counter to the case that what Drennan hasn’t apologised for is his use of Christian “privilege”. Those words seem to be a direct and explicit statement that no belief system has “privilege”.
I remain convinced that the “I do not forgive” position is deplorably muddled.
[meta]
elizabethliddle, are you addressing your #29 to me?
There seems to be a recurring problem in this thread of people assuming that because a person holds a strong view that that person also considers his/her view the only possible/valid/proper/correct view.
I think that is a flawed assumption. Obviously, if we hold a view it’s because we think it is the right one. That doesn’t mean that we think we are infallible, or that all others are wrong (although it usually means that we think at least one other is wrong, at least on current showing).
If someone can convince me that not forgiving Drennan means something sensible, and is justified, go for it.
But I’m not seeing it yet.
It was an addendum to my 27, but your 28 intervened :)
Gotta run, see you later.
Good to talk to you (even if we disagree!)
It’s simply the position that the apology is insincere.
elizabethliddle, I find your #31 evasive.
You: No, I don’t think there is a “single proper way”.
Me: Well, you think asking for more than what you ask for is improper, and (implicitly) that so is asking for less* — so how not?
—
* Unless at least one of your criteria was redundant or irrelevant. :)
No, I don’t think it is “improper”. But unless someone can tell me what that extra thing is, I remain unconvinced of its validity.
elizabethliddle:
1. Have you considered that one can accept an apology and yet still not forgive?
2. Where did that come from? If he really believes that, then he must be against (among other things) the criminal justice system, no?
—
IOW, your way is the only way you see as being valid.
(Because properness and validity are so different, in this context!)
elizabethliddle@16 on this page:
you questioned John Morales quoting you as saying this:
See your comment @795.
I remain convinced that the
“I do not forgive”ElizabethLiddle position is deplorably muddled.elizabethliddle #818
I accept the correction. I meant “invoked” rather than “evoked.”
I think he’s justifying his actions. He said more than once he felt insulted by Brother Sam’s presentation. But this is something open to interpretation. Since you’re going out of your way to accommodate Drennen, you automatically take the milder interpretation. I’m not feeling as kindly to him as you are.
I’m not accepting anything. I’m describing what he’s done. There’s a difference between acceptance and acknowledgement.
You’ve almost got it. When he acknowledges that his religion, or any religion at all, is not above criticism, which might include mockery, then I’ll accept his apology.
Since I don’t accept anything, your hollow ring rings hollow to anyone actually paying attention to what I’m saying.
You have your opinion about whether you’re an accommodationist or not. I have a differing opinion. Would you prefer “groveling lickspittle”?
You have a serious hangup on “religious notions of forgiveness.” I expect an apologizer to understand what they’ve done to cause offense. This is not a religious position, rather it’s a pragmatic one.
So who can tell me what Drennan has not done that he needs to do in order to merit your forgiveness?
Specifically, please.
Several of us have posted that upthread. You aren’t reading for comprehension, only preaching faux forgiveness. Try rereading for comprehension this time, and going back to the previous page too. And then show us by you finding Drennan’s apology where he shows the proper remorse, or you shut the fuck up. The burden is upon you to show he fulfilled the necessary requirements. I don’t give a shit.
I’ve seen several unclear and/or contradictory responses to my question.
So let me offer some answers and you can say which ones apply to you:
He has to renounce his belief that Christianity is a better model than atheism
He has to renounce his belief that Christianity is privileged
He has to renounce the idea that people shouldn’t impose their beliefs on others.
He has to accept the idea that people have the right to impose their ideas on others.
Nothing. He doesn’t get a clean slate just because he makes an apology. He was still an asshole.
Other (please specify).
elizabethliddle:
I already told you: he neither harmed nor offended me, so I have nothing to forgive; as for his apology, it reeks of pragmatism and faux conciliation — yeah, I do think he’s genuinely sorry, but I have a problem with both the basis and the form of it.
(I basically think he’s just another clueless, parochial goddist amongst the multitude of such, and hope that perhaps this episode has provided him with a clue)
Frankly I’m getting tired of tone trolls coming to Pharyngula, like elizabeth, and trying to tell us what we must do. Must be a character defect to think they can TELL other mature adults what they must do. Who appointed them to any position of authority even to attempt such an aggressive act, and it is aggressive, no matter how polite they pretend to be.
So you think that by explaining that he was upset he is also justifying the action he took while upset, even though he thought better of it as soon as he calmed down? That seems a perverse interpretation to me.
Well, by describing what he’s done you are accepting that that is what he did, right? If I describe that you have posted this post I am accepting that you posted it, right? That I don’t think that it was a hallucination on my part?
OK, thanks for clarifying.
Both are equally wrong. I’m not groveling to anyone. I’m saying that if I accept that someone regrets their actions, tries to make amends, and says they will not do it again, I call that “accepting their apology”. And you seemed to accept all that, yet you say still aren’t accepting their apology. It seems to me that it’s not the guy’s apology you don’t accept but the one he hasn’t offered – to henceforth regard all religions and none as fair game for mockery.
But you’ve just moved the goal posts. He didn’t offend you because he was offended by Sam’s satire. He offended you because he said that Skeptikon members weren’t welcome at his shop. If he hadn’t done that, he could have been offended at his leisure and wouldn’t have offended you at all.
I think you are confusing the right not to be offended with the right to offend. You are holding against the guy the fact that he took offense (and probably always will) at the mockery of something he holds dear, even though what actually offended you was the action he took, even though he has clearly apologised for that.
You really cannot tolerate the idea that someone can be offended when their ideas are mocked?
On this thread?
If a “tone troll” is someone who whines about tone, then I’m more sinned against than sinning.
If a “tone troll” is someone who expresses a dissenting view about a view expressed in a blog post, then perhaps consider the irony of this being a “freethought” blog.
[meta]
PS Your choices of putative options available to us is revealing:
I bet his belief is that it should be, not that it is. If anything, he probably buys into the persecution meme Christians so love.
Um. You sure he holds this idea?
(I note that you blithely ignored my question @36)
You mean, like locking murderers up? :)
(You sure you’re not working with straw, here?)
Wait, didn’t you write “… seems to me to be invoking the kind of abstract, reified notion of clean-slate-wiping that the monotheistic religions (Judaism and Christianity anyway, don’t know much about Islam’s take) also invoke, and which I reject.” earlier?
I note that the only mention of slate-wiping was made earlier and derisorily, before you brought it up and attributed it to us.
(That straw-pile looks like it’s being used rather vigorously)
*brings in Pharyngula Labs™ strawman fire suppression system, and cleans up some straw*
Why is that dipshit tone trolls like this Liddle moron never seem to understand how fucking pointless it is to blatantly and repeatedly lie when everyone can simply scroll back up and read for themselves just how much of a blatant and repeated liar dipshit tone trolls like this Liddle moron are?
“Golly” you really are dumb. Tone troll was already defined for you. And, since you apparently don’t understand that words mean things, allow me to attempt to explain to your bank vault thick skull that “freethought” doesn’t mean “Elizabeth Liddle’s narcissism is so interesting”.
Elizabeth needs to show us she isn’t just a self-appointed narcissistic idjit who is trying to pretend to be our moral compass. A few things are needed for her to get the proper attitude.
1) Nobody here gives a shit what she thinks, other than SIWOTI. So tone down the attitude.
2) We don’t have to satisfy her, rather she has to satisfy our requirements to change our minds. The burden is upon her to satisfy, not us. Which, at least in my case, requires evidence she doesn’t have. Without that evidence, she should leave, or she is aggressive.
3) This is our clubhouse, and if she is trying to change our minds, she can be assertive and speak her mind, and leave after a half dozen posts, or be aggressive and not leave until we agree with her. The latter isn’t going to happen, see #2.
4) Telling other adults what to do in their clubhouse without proper authority is always aggressive.
5) Stop making “freethought” mean agreeing with you. Seems to be character default, as nobody has to agree with you.
6) We have had over 1000 posts discussing this issue to date. Elizabeth brings nothing new to the issue, and is just repeating fuckwittery. She should leave because of that. I’ve heard everything before.
I hope it is revealing. That was its purpose.
No, I don’t hold any of those ideas, I’m just wondering which of them any of you do.
PZ (if it is he, not sure) seems to have opted for something like my (2), i.e. he has to accept that no belief system can claim immunity from mockery.
Sorry, didn’t realise it was a clubhouse. Thought it was a blog.
Can you point out where you think I have lied?
Yawn, still saying nothing new elizabeth. Same-old Same-old, including attitude.
This is getting weird.
Sure, if you can explain to me what each means. PZ as I understand him has done neither.
From your post 15 above.
By “done neither” I mean: accepted Drennan’s apology nor forgiven him.
Me:
No, that’s isn’t what I said (whether or not you regard properness and validity as different).
Not seeing that something is valid is not the same as insisting that only some other thing is.
Damn, woman, what part of I DON’T ACCEPT HIS APOLOGY! do you have trouble understanding? You keep nattering that I’m accepting his apology when I say, plainly and without nuance, that I don’t accept it. I’ve explained why I don’t but you pretend I do.
Are you too stupid or too blind to understand that I don’t accept his apology? Or is there some other reason why you fail to recognize my absolute and total unacceptance of his apology?
For someone who came in complaining about people talking about nothing, elizabethliddle has spent alot of time and words playing word games and lecturing about nothing.
Go back to TalkRat with your friends, BWE and TTT. You all deserve each other. BWE is a dense little nugget of shit and TTT is a dishonest dingleberry. Elizabethliddle is a gaseous leak that lingers in the air.
I will not apologize for insulting any of you. And I will not accept forgiveness.
Pretty well all of it. You apparently accept the part where he said he thought better of it and took the sign down, and the part where he tried to make things better by offering free ice cream, and the part where he said he’d try to do better in future.
So I just don’t know what you mean when you say you don’t accept his apology. What, in other words, your refusal to forgive him/accept his apology actually means, other than you still think he’s a dick for failing to understand that his religion is not immune to criticism. Why not just say that? Why doll it up in words like “I do not forgive” and “I do not accept his apology”?
Loads of people think that people’s views on religion should be immune to criticism. Feel free to think that they are all dicks. But that wasn’t what offended you – what offended you was putting that sign in the window, and that is what he has apologised for.
No, I’m not pretending anything. I’m saying that, IMO, you aren’t making sense.
Yes, there is another reason. I’ve tried to explain what it is. I’ve tried again in this post. I don’t think you are stupid (obviously, or I wouldn’t have been following your blog for years) but I do think you are being blind on this. I think you are borrowing an absolutionist understanding of “forgiveness”, that only really makes sense if you assume a god. If you don’t, as I don’t, and you don’t, all that’s left when you accept that someone regrets their actions and tries to make amends (aka “apologises”), is your remaining difference of opinion. And we don’t normally call disagreeing with someone, however passionately, “refusing to forgive” them.
Clearly you disagree.
We will have to leave it there.
I can live with leaving unshriven.
Why the fuck is it so important for Elizabeth for us to accept his damn apology? People keep pointing out why they don’t and how it has nothing to do with some religious view (which I still don’t get, you don’t have a christian forgiveness world view so why are you withholding forgiveness in a non-christian way?)
Ing “I have a headache”
Elizabeth “You really shouldn’t”
FFS SHUT UP!?
How many times to people have to tell you this? This is what I mean by you being absurdly dense and intentionally not fucking getting it.
You are gaslighting. And it’s working because talking to you makes me feel drunk
You are repeating yourself.
Elizabeth, there is one easy way to determin whether you are preaching or discussing. What evidence is required for you to acknowledge you are wrong? If you can’t be wrong, you are preaching. And you are wrong.
This is sort of funny.
I’d be amused that Lizzie’s been claiming that we’re using a “monotheistic-based” forgiveness/absolution model when her argument is quite clearly reflecting a theistic bias, in that it assumes that models for forgiveness and absolution that seem to resemble parts of a theistic worldview must mean that our varying models are derived from theism/remnants of a theistic upbringing (which again, *not everyone here holding that opinion has had*), if her repeated insistence wasn’t so headache-inducing.
I forgot who mentioned it upthread, but a good example is how the Golden Rule/Mean has been co-opted by Christians to the point that it’s often attributed to having been derived from Christian concepts, even though variations of it have popped up predating Christianity. Just because there have been definitions/conditions for extending forgiveness here that might resemble elements of theistic absolution, it does not follow that they are then theistic in nature – in other words, correlation=/=causation.
No, it doesn’t. It could just as easily be sui generis. Makes no more sense that way though.
*brings in the Pharyngula Labs™ narcissist deodorizer prototype. Turns it on, it reduces the odor, and then stops due to clogged filter. Takes it back for further work*
What is required for you to acknowledge you are wrong preacher?
I told you the prototype wasn’t going to be strong enough to handle things around here!
Persuasive rebuttal.
@Elizabeth
“You have a theistic view of forgiveness”
“No I don’t”
“Prove it!”
Well, you could start by saying what you think “absolution” means in non-theistic terms.
Is all of this over your definition of forgiveness? Seriously, it’s a nuanced term, people have explained what they mean when they use that term and it appears you even understand what they mean, you just don’t think that forgive, accept, and apology mean the same thing.
Again, we’re back to definitions; elizabethliddle plainly believes that saying a magic word is the same as making amends. Srsly, elizabeth, do you come from a catholic background? That sounds extremely akin to the idea of confession + hail marys to me…
Absolution is your word not mine. Which is the fucking point.
Rebut what? You haven’t made your point, so there is nothing to rebut. Nothing but your ego, ignorance, illiteracy, and inabiltiy to remember what has been previously discussed.
You are wrong. Period, end of story. Now you prove me wrong. That is your game, and I’ll play it too…
Well, forgive, accept and apology don’t mean the same thing, do they?
We all seem to agree the guy apologised. A lot of people seem to think he really did regret what he did, he really did offer free ice-cream, and he probably really won’t do it again. So in that sense his apology is accepted by most people here.
But forgiveness/apology acceptance in some other sense is withheld. I’m trying to figure out what this thing is that is being withheld.
It sounds like absolution. I want to know what the atheists here think absolution is, because this atheist finds no use for the word.
Nerd:
Nerd:
You don’t see the irony?
Jesus fuck. I’ve explained this like 5 fucking times.
IT IS REP. REP IS WHAT ISN’T RESTORED
Actually I do, and I certainly do not think that “saying a magic word” is making amends. I do think that offering free ice cream is making amends, as is taking down the offending sign (before he was asked to do so, I understand) and indicating that he regrets what he did, and won’t do it again.
But equally, I don’t think that “forgiveness” is like “absolution”. I don’t think you leave confession either shriven or not, depending on what some priest has determined.
And the way “forgive” is being used in this conversation sounds much more like “absolution” to me (and the withholding of it).
Everyone accepts that the guy apologised but there is a magic something they refuse to give in exchange.
I want to know what that magic something is supposed to be.
Elizabeth,
For want of an s my sentence was lost. No, they don’t mean the same thing, they also mean different things to different people which as near as I can figure is what has you wound up.
I do not believe in absolution: actions are not erasable. As such, I don’t really find much use in the term forgive, and think the idea of forgetting is dangerous. That is not to say I don’t find some value in apologies and accepting them, but that they are very limited in scope.
Sixth time lucky?
Exactly. Actions are not erasable. I don’t believe in absolution either. I do believe that people are capable of resolving not to repeat an action they regret. Accepting an apology doesn’t do much, I agree, but refusing to accept one seems to me to do less. Maybe even a negative quantity.
Why, not like Elizabeth will read what I say either way. Or even if xe does xe’ll just ignore it.
It’s like dealign with the OWS critics. “Well why don’t’ they have any goals!?”
Elizabeth. What the fuck is wrong with you? “I don’t believe in absolution…but you’re wrong not to grant it to him”.
Why, in your view, was it wrong?
I thought he did.
He can’t avoid putting up a notice banning conference members from his shop? Really? Even though he himself took it down after he’d seen that it was wrong?
elizabethliddle:
No. What offended me is his assumption that he could discriminate against a group of people just because he didn’t agree with them.
And as far as I’ve seen, he’s not apologized for that.
What irony preacher. I’m copying what you are doing, which is saying we are wrong and requiring us to justify our position. So I turned the tables, golden rule and all. If you don’t like what I do, stop doing what you are doing. And you are still wrong. End of story.
ASKED AND ANSWERED. at this point either you can’t read or won’t.
I didn’t say anyone was wrong not to grant it to him. I’ve been asking why people are explicitly refusing to grant him something that seems to me to be meaningless, and, I would have though, would have seemed to you guys to be meaningless too.
I’m not going to give you an invisible pink unicorn.
But I don’t feel obliged to go out of my way to tell you that (except obviously on this occasion).
Seriously, people we should just call it quits. This is gaslighting. When the debate hits where Elizabeth would have to end it or make any new comment xe just cycles back to the beginning of the goddamn discussion and tries to start over.
Well, tbh, you are right, no, I can’t be bothered to scroll through nearly a thousand posts to find the one where you answered the question.
But I’ve seen various answers, and I was wondering what yours was.
Some of them seemed bogus to me.
I answered directly to you. You’re just dishonest now.
heh.
People directed you to what I said. You’re talking at people not to them.
WHy would we give it if we don’t believe in it? Seriously, how do you not fucking get this?
No, I’m not dishonest. I just can’t remember which reply was yours.
I may look later.
But probably not.
You’re basically asking us why we won’t cast a magic spell for him. He believes it but we don’t and it costs us nothing so why won’t we do it for him
Elizabeth
Can you think of no situations where an individual or group has acted largely in a fashion consistent with an apology being so negligible compared to the transgression that accepting it does more harm than rebuking? Do you argue that can never be effective? I would respond that I think there are times where an apology is contributing to the harm already caused and in those cases the apology should be rebuked to reduce that damage.
Right because you’re a twit who doesn’t honestly care and is just trying to be irritating.
You’re dishonest.
Why would you refuse to give something you don’t believe in?
I have no idea. Seems bizarre to me.
Elizabethliddle: Speaker For Nothing
Seriously? Really? Is this just it, you want us to humor him like he’s a child?
No, but when a lot of people are responding to my posts, I don’t always remember who answered what. And it gets very tedious if, when I ask for clarification, I am told that I’ve been answered before, with no link.
Creationists do this the whole time, and it’s just as annoying when they do it.
I asked a straightforward question which presumably you could have answered with fewer key strokes than this recent exchange.
Clearly it is pertinent, as if the reason you are withholding absolution from Drennen is because he hasn’t understood his error, it would be helpful to know what you think that error is.
PZ has told me what he thinks it is (that people’s beliefs are sacrosanct). But I’ve heard other reasons.
Seriously That’s apaprently your argument.
Elizabethliddle “You refuse to work under his theistic world view of absolution, therefore you’re working from within his world view of absolution”
Ing: I don’t believe in his frame work. Why would I work under it if I don’t believe in it?
Elizabehliddle “Why aren’t you granting it then if you dont’ believe in it”
Because I don’t fucking believe in it And somehow to you this proves we’re acting from within his world view…because we refuse to work within it? You are nuttier than squirrel shit
So what is it you are withholding if it isn’t absolution?
Of course not.
OK, I don’t seem to be getting my point across here:
What is it you think you are withholding when you withhold your forgiveness?
Not absolution, apparently, so, what?
Why? You probably would just over look it. For some reason you can respond to everyone of these comments but not to any of the ones where people answered your questions point blank.
That’s why I say you’re bullshitting us.
Fuck you too.
Let me spell this out
I
DO
NOT
ACCEPT
THE
THEISTIC
VIEW
OF
ABSOLUTION
HOW
CAN
I
MAKE
THAT
ANY
CLEARER
Trust you idiot! It’s trust!
You don’t TRUST someone as fully as before if you dont’ fully accept the apology. That’s all it goddamn is. Their rep takes a hit. It hasn’t gone from “something they did in the past when they didn’t know better” yet, it’s still the “oh that’s the sort of thing this person does”.
Someone who went through a shoplifting phase as a teenager who is now 30 and has recovered from it isn’t a thief. Someone who is one week away from their last five finger discount is and even if he was caught, expressed shame and remorse, they’re not fucking left alone in a store.
That makes sense to me – to rebuke someone for offering an apology that misses the main offense.
A “notpology” as it is sometimes called. And if that is the case here, then what I want to know is what the main offense actually was. Because AFAICT, he’s apologised for exactly what he did – the full transgression.
His transgression was feeling that his privledged status had to be respected by everyone.
He was upset that people who don’t believe in his religion didn’t treat his religion with reverence behind semi-closed doors.
His transgression was being upset that people are different and that he felt it was within his rights to abuse the negative view people have about a demographic to harm that group further. He doesn’t think his reaction was wrong, just that it was too extreme.
He still thinks HE was wronged somehow by people not being like him.
My trust and respect.
That’s what forgiveness is, you know. If someone fucks up, they’ve lost some of my trust or respect. An apology is an admission of the fuck-up, with the implication of behavioral changes such that similar fuck-ups won’t happen in the future.
Acceptance of the apology acknowledges the intent to avoid the fuck-up in the future, with a partial restoration of respect or trust contingent upon future behavior.
Basically it’s like a Klansman apologizing for damaging someone’s lawn with their burnt cross and offering to fix the damages by buying some new turf seeds (if I may use an exagerated example). He is responding to the legal and commercial wrong but ignoring the actual ethical wrong, ie WHY a crossburning is such a nasty statement.
Ing:
Damn. Ing beat me to it.
Ah. So not forgiving someone, or not accepting their apology means that you don’t still don’t trust them?
Well, why not say that? If these threads had said: Well, gelato guy may have given us a fine apology, but I still don’t trust him – he’s still convinced that all worldviews are sacrosanct and should not be mocked, I don’t suppose anyone would have turned a hair.
And odd usage, in my experience. If a child apologises to me for stealing sweets, I will accept the apology, and thank them, but also explain that it’s going to be difficult for me to really trust them not to do it again until they’ve gone clean for a while.
But OK, thanks for explaining what you mean.
Elizabethliddle
Ok did you ever see Farscape? You know how one of the characters was a peacekeeper but while traveling with the escaped prisoners sort of repented and abandoned that ideology? You know how the crew sort of forgave her on one level in that she wasn’t ‘one of them’ but didn’t actually forgive her fully and accept them as one of them for a long while?
Except it is fucking common usage. We even have a number of sayings expressing the effect
“Forgive, but don’t’ forget”
“Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names”
So your position would be that by accepting his offer of turf seeds you were letting him think that he had done the right thing? OK, that makes some sense.
So where is the parallel with Drennen? He does seem to have agreed that it was a nasty statement*. Indeed he took the sign down of his own volition.
* though one obscenely unlike cross-burning in ways too numerous to mention.
lol
Exactly! You have made my point beautifully. Forgiving someone, in common parlance, doesn’t mean you forget the offense.
Lizzie:
Jayzuz, child, are you really so stupid as to get into a two-day long argument about the meaning of this incident, when you don’t even have a grasp of the acknowledged facts of this incident ?
Fuck, you’re a dumb bunny.
The sign isn’t the issue. Just like the cross wasn’t the issue. What is represents is. It represents the idea that he views a certain group’s rightful place is ‘as his bitch’.
Ok around where I live “I accept your apology but do not forgive you” is commonly heard.
@Elizabethliddle
Ok look. Like everyone got the point but you. And you didn’t get it because you were hung up on absolution and forcing that on us.
Seems a stretch to me. It seemed to me that it represented his emotional over-reaction to a bunch of people who had just mocked his beloved Father.
On point as always, Nigel.
@Elizabethliddle
Well it’s a good thing you don’t get to decide isn’t it?
Ah, it was 10% off, not free. My bad.
So if he saw two black people who made a crack about someone in his family, then he would have tried to ban black people from his establishment?
Probably not, because he’s probably not racist enough to view them as his bitch. he totally views non-christians as that because of the culture that says that they are second class citizens.
I mean. that’s the point. We’re not required to respect his motherfucking sky rapist father!
The Klan burnt the cross because someone offended them greatly by having an interracial marriage, hurting their deep religious views on blood purity. It is the same sort of self righteous privilege.
“Why aren’t you like me? that offends me”
Sure I get to decide, for me anyway. I thought the guy was sincere, and I certainly accept his apology. I don’t forgive him, because I was never offended (seeing as it was all over by the time I found out about it), and I would disagree with him about it being not OK to make jokes about other people’s beliefs (I think it’s just fine) but I do agree with him that we shouldn’t impose our own beliefs on others.
I probably wouldn’t trust him not to act impulsively in the future, but then I don’t even trust myself not to do that.
No, it isn’t. Or at least, not in my view. I think it’s vastly different, so vastly different, that I would even call it “self-righteous privilege”. I’d call it a brief burst of self-righteous indignation, rapidly regretted.
would=wouldn’t
You agree with him that that’s what we were doing?
That’s the fucking problem. he saw other people expressing themselves as an imposition on him! Because he is king shit and we are the bitch.
Anyway, that’s a different point, and we’ll have to agree to differ.
I’m glad we’ve at least established that “forgive” means “trust” in this context.
I’ll take my leave :)
Fucking idiot.
PLEASE stick the flounce. My desk can’t be refinished, and it’s getting dented and bloody.
That right there is the problem. Drennen seems to think that Sam’s act mocking his brand of Christianity=imposing Sam’s belief on him, which is erroneous. Imposing would have been if Drennen had been prevented from leaving and made to watch Sam’s entire act. He was not – he was free to stay or go as he pleased.
If I see a fire and brimstone preacher belting it out on a street corner, it’s not imposing his beliefs on me because I can just leave. If what that fire and brimstone preacher is belting out gets codified in law and government procedure, then that’s imposing his belief on me. This is why we’re supposed to have separation of Church and State, by the way – government is supposed to be religion neutral.
And it’s the same privilege the Klan shows. They see other people’s decisions as some attack on them because they have an imaginary concept of whiteness that is important to them.
It’s the same privilege that gets people butthurt on gay marriage.
Somehow people being different is an imposition.
Nuance. UR doin’ it wrong.
Right. Not all racists in American are like the KKK. Not every racist is so soaked in his privileged position as a member of the “one true white race” as to feel it’s a good idea to scare the darkies, physically reminding them of their relatively-powerless place in the countryside. The burning cross represents what is wrong with that white-superiority mindset, and the mindset is still wrong and immoral even if it’s not displayed in anything as dramatic as crossburning. Yes, I’m sure it’s more comfortable to live among racists who restrain themselves (or are restrained by the larger society) from overt threats and violence … but if I happened to know a person who had taken part in a KKK type crossburning, then apologized because “it was wrong to give in to the impulse to show hate”, I would never accept such an apology. That man isn’t apologizing for being a hater. That man isn’t apologizing for continuing to hold onto his presumption of superiority, nor the consequent feeling that his innate superiority gives him the right (and even the duty!) to treat “inferior” races as, well, inferior. He’s only apologizing for one specific action of hatefulness which stemmed from the still-unexamined and uncorrected attitude underneath. Worthless apology. Not acceptable.
Not all christians in America are like Andy. Not every christian is so soaked in his privileged position as a member of the “one true god’s religion” that he can assume – even for 10 minutes – it’s a good idea to scare the demon atheists out of his store, trying to make them feel powerless with his CHRISTIAN BUSINESS sign. The sign represents what is wrong with that christian-superiority mindset, and the mindset is still wrong and immoral even when the sign is no longer on display. The fact that Andy took down that particular sign himself says absolutely nothing about the still-uncorrected attitude underneath.
Andy isn’t apologizing for being a hater. Apology not accepted.
*cough*
/chickenrun
(this post brought to you by my all-nighter-deranged brain. *nodnod*)
hotshoe #942
I’m glad somebody understands my point, even if Lizzie Liddle doesn’t.
What. The. Fuck. ?
In a careful attempt to avoid the ridiculous charge of tone trolling, among the most ironic terms ever coined, I will be as direct and abusive as possible.
This is a psychotic and delusional statement. He put up a sign which only in the most fucked up conspiracy theorist’s imagination could be rewritten to say atheists not welcome. If that is not the transgression then in the future, make sure to specify that the sign is not what you are all butthurt about. That really, you are upset about his secret belief that his privileged status had to be respected by everyone. A belief which you will find can only be discovered with the official PZ Myers church of the true atheist crackerjack decoder ring.
Since I do not have one because I am not psychotic enough to take the oath of fealty to the church, I can only conclude that such a ring is in fact imaginary and you are insane, delusional or simply hateful and desperately searching for some sort of rationalization to excuse your hatred.
If mocking people is supposed to get them to change their beliefs, are you then furious when it only makes them alert to their biases? This insn’t lampooning. It’s attacking. This is scorched Earth (She laughs at all isms because She knows that there is only now) policy.
You made that whole fucking thing up out of your presupposationalist idiocy. You insist that you can interpret those things from a statement which doesn’t include them. Your allegiance to your church is making you see demons. And there is one. Morton’s Demon. And it stands in the space between you and reality, only allowing validating information in and twisting observational data to fit your stupid tortured narrative about the evil of theism.
Religion has caused great harm. Tremendous injustices abound in the world. But at the core of injustice is fear and the core of fear is hate. And you are, to all outside eyes, preaching hate.
Hopefully my tone was rude enough that my message is clear.
*sniffs. wrinkles nose*
Hey, Nerd? Have you got that Pharyngula Labs™ narcissist deodorizer prototype fixed yet? The stench is starting to ramp up in here again.
That word, you keep using it. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Please, PLEASE, let Elizabeth stick the flounce! Now if only we can get BWE4 and TTT to join her..
I had a long post all ready to go around 2 am this morning, but in the end I decided that elizabeth was just too neutronium-dense to understand it – and I was RIGHT! Look at this shit!
(In other words: I’m refusing to see all the reasons that have been given, so now I’ll make up some new reasons that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ever mentioned and ask about those instead!)
NO ONE suggested these. Apparently elizabeth doesn’t grasp the difference between “mock” and “impose beliefs”. (I know, I know, there’s a hell of a lot that she doesn’t grasp.) Not one person here has suggested that imposing ones’ beliefs on others was a good thing. GG has every right to continue on through life as a bigot, and not one of us has even hinted that it would be right to force him to change his way of thinking. HOWEVER, we realize that he’s still a bigot, and so we don’t bloody forgive him!
GG never said anything about imposing beliefs, his problem was that people supposedly mocked his beliefs. Now, I saw the show that he objected to, and it was pretty weaksauce. If he couldn’t take THAT level of mockery, he’s got a long, hard life ahead of him, filled with overreaction at the slightest imagined provocation – But absolutely no one imposed their beliefs on GG, he did that with his sign.
*sigh* And then she claims that he gave away free ice cream! In other words, she doesn’t have the slightest idea what actually happened, but she’s been here for two days trying to tell us that WE were wrong, and our concept of forgiveness is muddled (or worse). Oh, it was 10% off? It’s the same thing, right? Suddenly I’m remembering an old joke – If she was about to take 10 lashes, would she see a difference between NO lashes and 9 lashes? (It’s 10% off, that’s the same as free!)
In the end I erased my post last night, realizing that she’d NEVER get it, and then I saw today’s posts and felt vindicated! Everything I said would have been a waste, as she is deliberately avoiding any understanding. My own desktop is looking a mite dented and bloody at this point as well, after watching her deliberately miss the point again and again. Aauugh!
Dishonest, slimy, hypocritical… Just FOAD, okay? Take your decaying porcupine, insert, and ROTATE!
For whatever reason, I haven’t been able to get greasemonkey and the killfile scripts to work with FireFox ever since about 5.0, otherwise I’d have already plonked ‘er. I can only -hope- she’ll stay gone now, as there’s certainly no point in talking with her.
I will leave it to the gentle readers to pick out the most delusional part of this nugget.
I will leave it to the gentle readers to pick out the most delusional part of this nugget.
aside from the verbiage of the sign, how about it not even being ABOUT what the sign says, as much as about what Andy himself said spurred him to put it there?
how about the gentle readers just chalk up the post we are responding to as nothing but ignorance and presupposition.
psychotic and delusional?
really?
wow.
talk about reading into things…
[meta]
bwe4:
Way to miss the point; changing the tone does not change the substance.
(Analogy for you: The text is what matters, not the font)
bwe4:
<snicker>
Because a sign that says basically “Atheists are not welcome at my CHRISTIAN business” apparently isn’t obvious to you?
Talking to people like Bwe4 and the like make me feel like I’m inebriated.
[OT]
Ermine, using this?
@John
Got it.
You missed that? You claimed to have read 2, fucking 2 posts *on this blog alone*, and the hundreds of posts associated, and you fucking missed that?
Fuck you, fuck your lies, fuck your lack of reading comprehension, fuck your shit. How fucking dare you walk into a room full of adults and claim to be on the level when you resort to that kind of halfwit simpering bullcrap. Here’s a fucking clue; do not even bother trying to engage people when you’re going to a) lie and/or b) be so obtusely ignorant (and proud!) that you can’t even be arsed to fucking bother to find out what it is that you’re trying to argue about. You shit-for-brains halfwit turdmonger.
Were you looking to piss people off? Well hell, congrats in that regard; I am fully ashamed at having ever treated you as a real person with legitimate concerns that should be addressed accordingly. You want to know why people here get pissy real easy? Look in a mirror. I’ve read this kind of snivelling shit a hundred + times; I’ve wondered if people here were being too harsh…and every time you fucks out yourselves as never being worth the reply time in the first place.
[meta] Hello gentle pharyngulates, I’m new here. I’m allowed to post drunk, right?![/meta]
@Sypro
In this threat it apparently doesn’t make a difference
Ing; was that an intentional wordplay, or am I the only one who doesn’t bother with preview?
Sorry, I do have a day job at the moment, so I had to go to projects meeting. (being the old fart, I am lead chemist on our old processes). I coupled the size of the carbon canister, so it should help. *wheels in and turns on deodorizer*
[meta]
Hey spyro, and welcome.
Feel free to post while drunk as a skunk or high as a kite; your posts will be considered on their merits and our knowledge of your posting history.
(The only problem with posting while drunk is that you may be less cogent and/or write stupidities* — but then, I suspect that at your worst, you’d still be far superior to that BWE specimen)
—
* If you do, you’ll get called on it, like anyone else.
[OT + meta]
spyro, be aware that Ing is dyslexic and subject to orthographic errors.
(He’s also pretty damn smart)
[argh]
Xe. I don’t know Ing’s gender!
John, you’ve met me before as SphericalBunny, and sounded me out as an idiot…or at least a fuckwit with issues. I would love to be able to tell you you were wrong, but…
Currently trying to locate TET and make myself less obvious as a fuckwit…
Having observed Elizabeth participate at Uncommon Descent and here, I have to say that the folks over at UD are far more literate. Not to say that they are master rhetoricians. Far from it. But, they do seem to have a larger vocabulary and a marginally better facility for using it.
Dang spellchecker.
I have to say that the folks over at UD are far more literate
well, there ya go then.
you’ve sampled and chosen.
poorly, but, who cares?
enjoy your stay at UD, it’s likely to be quite a short one if you disagree with an OP there.
door, ass, etc.
Must be philosophs versus scientists. We also have a large group of Aspies here, like myself. I know my SAT verbal was significantly lower than my math scores.
[meta + OT]
bennyh, even when assessing linguistic literacy*, it is not only the metrics of lexical capacity and grammatical expertise that are relevant.
(Your shallowness is duly noted)
—
* Never mind other types, such as scientific, logical or numerical.
but that isn’t what it did say now, is it?
*yawn*
it’s STILL here?
don’t you have someplace smaller to be?
Says the fuckwit who doesn’t know the definition of facility.
You might also try reading the thread – clue, there’s an ‘older comments’ button here. You might actually discover that people have been trying, in vain, to talk to elizabeth on a higher level for a long bleeding time; made no difference except to make her feel that she could blithely careen on with her lack of reading comprehension, misconceptions, and blatant disregard for fact. Terribly sorry for my usage (sorry, faculty) of plain fucking english, but when you cannot engage someone with the language they profess to use, you’re kinda left with the language that’s difficult to misinterpret. Kudos for the attempt though – are you the newest tag team member?
So you’re hanging out here because you’re illiterate?
Literal interpretation versus what the sign really meant. We aren’t stupid like you.
By the way, what is our holy book that we feel is inerrant? You haven’t said what that is, and until you do, we can’t be fundies. We need a holy and unchangeable text…fuckwit.
*brings in a three stage filter and replace the large carbon canister on the prototype deodorizer unit. the new filter starts immediately reducing the lingering odor*
*Looks like acid cartridge for amines, an oxidizing cartridge for thiols, and a smaller carbon cartridge for the residuals is doing wonders.*
bw4@945:
Janine@949
Inspirational question, Janine. The delusion is that the author didn’t realise it was self-referential. The rest of it is plain nonsense.
We need a holy and unchangeable text
Well, BWE calls us “fundies” because we just won’t embrace the hypocrisy strawman he repeated attempts to erect.
It’s odd he tries to call US “fundies”, when it’s BWE that keeps repeating the same false mantra over and over.
chalk it up to projection and move on.
all in favor of banhammer?
YES! BWE and Liz were enough to convince me to bang my head on Greasemonkey config again, and I -finally- figured out where the real problem was. It was telling me that Gm was enabled when it just -wasn’t-. Now that it IS, it’ll finally read in the FTB script, and I can finally plonk a couple of worthies!
Generally it takes a LOT for me to killfile someone, so the fact that greasemonkey wasn’t working for me wasn’t usually an issue. But when they make it clear enough that they’re not really even -trying- to communicate in good faith, well..
*plonk!*
*plonk!*
(Fizz fizz?)
Ohh, what a relief!
You should register at talkrational. I’d love to have a formal debate on this topic. You can even choose the title and what you want me to defend.
Also, the sign didnt say nor could it be construed to say by anyone without an agenda anything about atheists.
I interpreted the “Christian” in the sign to contast to Muslims.
I assumed the “Christian” in the sign was intended a contrast to Captain Bligh, but I admit that may be a questionable interpretation.
Ahhhh, relief!
See? I feel calmer and more relaxed already!
(Now I can deal with the news I just got a few minutes ago – that the closest thing I’ll ever have to a daughter of my own just joined the Navy. *glk!* At least she got a degree first! (Nothing wrong with joining the Service, but none of us had any warning, and she made all the big mistakes – she’s got NO guarantees that she’ll get the area she wants, just the assurances of her recruiter. She’s also never given any indications that she would fit in in the military, and I think she’s in for some serious upsets as she discovers how little control she has of her life now.) Well, I can still hope it all goes well for her, even if I am in shock!)
BWE: FFS, here is a transcript of the angrily-scrawled sign: “Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Christian Business“, with the NOT doubly underlined and the “Christian Business” underlined; this he has stated was prompted by his anger at encountering Brother Sam’s act (“It was an impulse reaction to an event I witnessed”).
(It’s all well-documented)
Sure, he was ostensibly addressing attendees of Skepticon, and claiming they were UnChristian. Your claim that it was not the atheism he encountered that prompted it is, however, ridiculous.
(And, for the umpteenth time, it was for giving in to the impulse that he apologised, he explicitly stated his beliefs hadn’t changed)
You’re an insecure sod, ain’t ya?
You came here, here didn’t come to you. You want to argue with us, go for it (not that I expect much from you, given what I’ve seen).
(What the fuck can you say there that you can’t say here?)
I thought his name was Andy.
I thought his name was Andy.
I dunno… was it on the sign?
if not, he might be lying about his name.
she’s got NO guarantees that she’ll get the area she wants, just the assurances of her recruiter.
That truly is not good, but there’s still time, if she’s really serious about this. If she will let you meet with whoever is responsible for her at the Naval base. She can always bail at this point if she feels they won’t be meeting her needs.
It’s sad that she felt she didn’t want to share such an important decision; I can sympathize, if not empathize. I have had several friends get royally screwed by the military.
*sigh*
You might want to swap emails with PZ himself; he kinda went through something similar with his son; he might have some advice.
You should register at talkrational.
I knew there was a reason I’ve been avoiding that place.
I’d love to have a formal debate on this topic.
based on what you’ve posted so far, it would be quite short:
BWE: “you guys are hypocrites”
everyone else in the world: “Uh, that’s a strawman of your own making”
end of debate.
fuck off back to talkrationalland, where evidently people don’t care if you spout bullshit all day long.
here is a transcript of the angrily-scrawled sign: “Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Christian Business“
This is a LOCAL SHOP, for LOCAL PEOPLE.
What the fuck can you say there that you can’t say here?
he has friends there.
IOW, he wants to skew the venue, just like a creationist would.
but then, he also uses projection and denial, just like a creationist does.
*shrug*
I know nothing about Navy recruiters but if they’re anything like Marine recruiters don’t believe a word that comes out of their mouth.
Also read the actual contract. Make sure she sees in black and white what she’s signing up for. Hanging out veteran boards might also help paint a better picture.
Ok,thanks for the reply. Surprise, I disagree. But at least I have something concrete with which to disagree this time and I appreciate the clear response. It makes it a lot easier for me to try to defend my position when I have a clear objection. If I’m wrong, at least there will be something concrete to point out.
My claim is that it was the event he witnessed at skepticon which prompted his misbehavior and had everything to do with skepticon and nothing to do with any broader notion of atheism. I do not share religion with the man and yet, even if I had known what skepticon was, and if I’d seen his sign, I would not have felt unwelcome in his store. I probably would have been amused actually. I would have realized without much trouble that he was offended by something at skepticon as it regarded his religion. In fact, an atheist unaware of the nature of skepticon would have no reason to feel unwelcome in the ice cream shop short of simply not liking christians.
Just mentioning that it was a christian business certainly raises the specter of bigotry due to the longstanding tradition of religions promoting bigotry, but that connection has to take place in the reader’s mind. Given a reader who wasn’t at skepticon or wasn’t predisposed to bristle at the word ‘christian’ the sign would obviously indicate that the attendees of skepticon were unwelcome in the shop due to some sort of conflict with his christian principles.
Given that there is no way for an uninformed customer- short of making it up -to know which principles specifically conflicted with what element of skepticon without actually asking the author, there is no warrant to assume the sign had anything whatsoever to do with prejudice toward a general category of people who don’t believe in gods.
That’s what atheism is, right? People who don’t believe in gods? Or are the events at skepticon a part of atheism? Because if so, then I have been operating under a false assumption and there’s my problem right there. But I assume that the only quality which defines an atheist is that they don’t believe in gods.
It not only isn’t at all obvious, but without a history of refusal to serve random people who he discovered to be atheists, without a reference to atheism as a category, without your defining what he saw as an element of atheism, without your claiming that atheism includes an active element, there is not only no warrant but it shows your prejudice, not his, to assert that the sign referred to atheism rather than skepticon attendees.
You said it was the atheism he encountered which prompted his sign. Can you tell me how one encounters atheism? Do you think if it was a medical conference and he saw a doctor say that she didn’t believe in god as an aside or reference to her presentation topic that he would have posted the same sign? Of course not. Because atheism has nothing to do with it. The personal attack on a belief he held dear prompted it and he said as much.
So, not only did you just make atheism into an active belief rather than an absence of a belief -and verifying what fundies already tend to believe- you also presented your own bigotry -prejudice- toward religion by assuming facts not only not in evidence, but ones which could only be assumed from a pre-judged idea of what christians think of what you think of as atheists. I do not associate skepticon with atheism in general because it has nothing to do with atheism. Unless, of course, atheism refers to a positive belief. Does it? Careful, that’s a trick question.
If that was atheism he encountered, then I am not an atheist because I do not self identify with people who attend skepticon. Can you make a case that skepticon has anything to do with the absence of a belief? Can you make the case that the general category of people who don’t happen to believe in gods have anything to do with skepticon? Of course not. Because skepticon is an event, not the absence of a random belief.
Why should they? His beliefs didn’t need to change for him to realize it was a dick move to post the sign. Unless you mean his christian beliefs. His religion. But that would simply be dumb. His actions involved impusive anger toward a specific group of people at a specific event who ridiculed something he held dear. He doesn’t need to not hold those things dear anymore in order to realize that the sign was dumb, counter-productive, and reactive, things for which he apparently felt the need to apologize and accept personal responsibility. He had no beliefs to apologize for. He had actions to apologize for and he did. Eloquently. And gracefully. Showing strength of character even.
So what beliefs did he need to apologize for if not his belief in his god? He hadn’t done anything discriminatory toward a class. No random normal person who happened to lack a belief in gods needed to feel threatened or insulted or persecuted by the sign. What group was he angry with again? Skepticon attendees, right?
Sorry, I was unclear there. It doesn’t need to be talkrational. It could be any forum with a formal debate area. What I wanted (and still do for that matter) is a structured environment where I don’t have to sift through so much porcupine up the ass, no u, “stand back, he’s got a Mollie!”, basic stupidity, goalpost moving, appeals to popularity and general noise for myself and the best and brightest of your crew to debate whether or not this forum constitutes fundamentalist atheism and a cult dedicated to hate speech.
The collective here has already pointed out my stupidity, it would obviously be an easy win, a victory for pharyngula. What do you say? What do you say PZ? How about you? Let’s say 4 posts each, 2000 word count plus quotes, opening statement, 2 rebuttal, and a closing. 3 days between posts?
It’s your chance to shut me up. Because I am openly mocking your forum as a cult in other places around the net, and so far, you are playing the part as I tell it. If you present a better argument in a formal debate, I’ll concede and you will have answered an entire class of critic. It’s a sure win for you. As long as you are right anyway. But you’ve already assembled your narrative. You already have the responses to these kinds of claims. I know because people keep referring to them. I haven’t seen the responses yet though and, given the generally stupid responses I’ve received so far, I don’t believe they would satisfy a naked presentation, naked as in without the shouts of porcupines up the outsider’s ass and boring and self congratulatory smegma swallowing you all do when someone makes a turd analogy.
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=1614346#post1614346
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=1614357#post1614357
BWE4
There is no such thing as fundamentalist atheism.
This forum is not a cult by any rational definition.
Your opinions are hateful, thus you get metaphoric porcupines.
I conclude there is nothing to debate.
So what?
bwe4:
Your claim is not congruent with his stated reason: “Once the store slowed down, I decided to walk down the street to learn more about the convention, fully thinking it was something involving UFOs (“skeptics”). What I saw instead was a man conducting a mock sermon, reading the bible and cursing it. Instead of saying “Amen”, the phrase was “god damn”. Being a Christian, and expecting flying saucers, I was not only totally surprised but totally offended.”
Clearly, it was the atheism (or, more specifically, the perceived anti-theism) to which he objected.
Well, just because you were not in the targeted group doesn’t mean he was not exhibiting antipathy towards it.
Well, a stupid atheist who could not infer that he objected to his targeted group on the basis that his business was Christian. More likely, pretty much any non-Christian would grok that non-Christians were his target.
Atheism isn’t in conflict with Christian principles? Really?
(Is it not bleedingly obvious that whatever the group was that he was excluding, it was on the basis that he was a Christian?)
Atheism, in the world we live in (where goddism is ubiquitious and rampant) is the result of applied skepticism to the contention that deities exist. It is, therefore, a facet of skepticism.
(Are you a Bigfooter or an aBigfooter? A Santa Clausist or an aSanta Clausist? An UFOer or an aUFOer?)
Fuck, but you’re slow. He stumbled upon Brother Sam Singleton’s act.
It was explicitly atheistic, not really that hard to discern, even for a Christian.
(You, however, I have doubts about. Perhaps you think it’s merely skeptical)
Already with the sophistry and rhetorical trickery?
No, I didn’t.
Atheism is both a lack of belief and a state of being; states of being are (definitionally) active, else they’re non-extant.
(It is the state of not being a theist, and the lack of being a theist)
Much like you don’t associate Skepticon with aUFOism in general because it has nothing to do with atheism, I suppose.
(Hint: why was Brother Sam’s act part of it; i.e. what was it that he was being skeptical about?)
—
Sigh, I tire of this counter Gish-galloping and endless typing.
I may be back later, or perhaps others will cover the remainder of your little peroration.
repeat the mantra until it becomes true.
Sigh. Can’t resist.
BWE:
Let’s say any number of posts, any amount of words, any number of rebuttals, and an indeterminate time-frame.