View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Rant Room
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Liberals lost their reason to be.
derF
I submit this link as a favor to a former member of AT and still a good friend of mine. This was the message he was trying to get across when he was assaulted by so many of the ultra liberals on this sight that he thought it best to move on. I agree with Mr. Condell's message completely by the way. I also submitted this via the you tube option on the home page but I don't know what is going to happen with it so I resubmit it again, here:

http://www.youtub...4FpTvp0tgs

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G4FpTvp0tgs&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G4FpTvp0tgs&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Been off to San Antonio to visit new grand baby but will try and get caught up here, shortly.


*edited to add video
Edited by Skeeve on 10/16/2009 09:28
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
catman
I agree with Pat Condell's viewpoint absolutely. One must realize, however, that the definition of 'liberal' in the UK and Europe is a bit different than it is here in the USA, since there is an Islamic invasion and virtual takeover in full swing there which isn't going on here. I too would be very unhappy if it were happening here. Multiculturalism is going to absurd lengths in Europe.
 
JohnH
One of the Hopi villages (I do not remember which one and an internet search did not help me) has a very permanent sign on the road to it that says basically "If you do not live here do not go any further". Hopi women are not allowed into the kiva societies that play a prominent role in how the culture runs. It is a culture that I have great respect for.

Islam has great problems. So does Christianity. Do any of you think that we would have gone to war with Iran and Afghanistan if they had been Christian countries. If you do, you are wrong.

I will agree that Mr. Condell makes some excellent points. I will also stand by my own belief that acceptance of other cultures must be continued. We must disagree with those elements that we find counter our own, but we cannot condemn the culture in total, our we risk our own condemnation.

I will further posit that on this board we find it easier to condemn Islam than we do Christianity primarily because we were mostly raised christian and not muslim.

edited because I wanted it to read better and because I could.
Edited by JohnH on 10/16/2009 02:07
 
catman
So you are against women having any say in Hopi society? I don't respect that about the culture, although I do respect their culture otherwise (as far as I know).

I take your point that "we" would have been less likely to go to war against Christian countries, but Islamic countries harbor those who perpetrated 9/11. Bush had most of the world on his side until he got all high-and-mighty about it.

We can 'accept' other cultures, but we don't have to let them usurp that of Western Europe or the USA. I'm speaking of the supine attitude of the British mostly, as an example the Muslims being able to practice Sharia law in their enclaves.

The war in Afghanistan is without end, and when we finally leave, the Taliban will probably return. As long as they have sanctuary in Pakistan, we can't defeat them decisively. Nor can we build them a nation. Most Afghans are caught in the middle of an endless war between outside forces. They have no electricity, running water, etc., little infrastructure for a defensible nation to exist. It's a no-win situation for us. I was never for any of it. The USSR's ten-year losing effort was instructive.
Edited by catman on 10/16/2009 03:32
 
Cynic
catman wrote:We can 'accept' other cultures, but we don't have to let them usurp that of Western Europe or the USA. I'm speaking of the supine attitude of the British mostly, as an example the Muslims being able to practice Sharia law in their enclaves.


It's just another case of groups thinking they're more important than individuals. Culture isn't to be respected, but viewed suspiciously and tolerated only up until the point where people start to get treated unequally on any level. The things that have been accepted in the name of "respecting culture" are disgusting. Culture is as akin to gods and religion, where we tend to hold it to a different standard, with a high opinion of it no matter how horrible it is.

As is my custom, I'll say it again: fuck culture.
 
Skeeve
I've always respected and enjoyed Pat's videos. I know there are a few here that don't, but that's ok too. IMO, this is one of his best.

It boggles the mind how the UK has allowed Islam to become almost equal with it's centuries old law and culture.
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
comfortable
Cynic wrote:
It's just another case of groups thinking they're more important than individuals. Culture isn't to be respected, but viewed suspiciously and tolerated only up until the point where people start to get treated unequally on any level. The things that have been accepted in the name of "respecting culture" are disgusting. Culture is as akin to gods and religion, where we tend to hold it to a different standard, with a high opinion of it no matter how horrible it is.

As is my custom, I'll say it again: fuck culture.

I agree with your sentiments, Cynic, but I'd like to analyze further:


1) groups don't think, individuals do
2) when one 'respects' another's culture, one is merely recognizing that other individuals have an equal right to their own point of view
3) if such a point of view includes harm to other individuals, I cannot respect it.
4) sometimes, defining 'harm' is difficult
5) others often assume that because I seem to be a reasonable person in their eyes, that I share their points of view (i.e. that I share their culture). This is natural, but fallacious. I often must inform such people, when they come to me looking for validation (e.g. make disparaging remarks or relate vicious jokes about members of other 'cultures') that I do not share their views.

I adhere to 3) - regardless of whether the holder of such views is one of 'us' or one of 'them' (terms which I despise).

I think most of the arguments are caused by 4)
- the straight parent who fears a homosexual teacher in the classroom - perceives actual harm in that teacher's presence
- the Baptist who fears sexual content in movies - perceives actual harm is being done
- the Muslim who fears that the fabric of their entire existence is threatened by cartoons of Muhammed - perceives actual harm.

....isn't that interesting.

My working definition of 'culture' is an agreed-upon world-view which results whenever many individuals interact. A consensus, if you will, influenced by background and circumstance.

A polygamous Mormon household of 30 individuals has a different 'culture' than 30 stockbrokers in a Merrill Lynch office.

100 Mennonites will strongly agree that modern cinema puts their immortal souls at risk; a huge 'harm' that must be fought vigorously.

Ditto 100 Saudi Wahhabis

....isn't that interesting?
Edited by comfortable on 10/16/2009 10:26
.
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
.
Men are sheep in credulity, but wolves for conformity.
 
Hypatia
I very much respect and agree with much of Pat Condell's viewpoints, and this video is one which I very much agree with.

An excellent point Pat said has been raised, and one he himself wonders about, at least when it comes to the wearing of the burka, though the question goes even deeper than just the burka, is where is the feminist voice in this? And he is so right - the feminist voice is deafeningly silent, and that is amazingly curious, and to me, quite offensive.

Women - what say you about the absence of our voices, our thoughts and outrage being made known, if in fact you have it? If you don't have it, why not? Where is it?

I agree with you whole heartedly cynic, and great post Comfortable.

 
Max
This seems to me to be some obvious hidden jab at JDHURF and Willie. I don't like Pat Condell, I find him to be a knob head, a comedian with little actual world experience who fancies himself an intellectual, like Bill Maher, but in some respects he is absolutely right. I don't think any reasonable people would argue that certain groups should be given special rights. People should go right on printing insulting cartoons of Muhammad. People should also go right on wearing burkas in France, if they so choose. It's discouraging to see "Tea Bagger" slogans being used to describe other members of this site who aren't here to defend themselves. Let's grow up a bit and leave words like "Ultra Liberal" out of normally intelligent discussion. I can't believe months after it's happened, this sophomoric argument between JDHURF, Willie, and Neilmarr is still going on. This kind of discussion belongs on Face book between teen girls, not adults. To anyone who recognizes me, yes I'm still alive, but I don't usually post.
 
Cynic
Hey, Gil! What've been up to?
 
Max
Comments on the video: I agreed with most of it. The idea of new world culture(or "Western" ) is a sacred one, and no movement or belief has the right to try and destabilize it. It's points like these that I can so completely agree on, but then he goes off on rants about burkas. They may be offensive, they may be sexist, but if one wears one out of free choice, end of argument. It doesn't matter how much he screams about it, no one, no one has the right to regulate what one wears. Comparing it to wandering around naked is laughably absurd, and for a usually sensible man such as him, it is a very weak argument.

I don't have a big problem with Pat Condell, more some of the sheeple who follow him. There are people like Pat who have reasonable objections to Islam, but there are also the people who latch onto him for another chance to demonize the "Brown People." Ron Paul is a great example. I personally don't agree with the man or his politics, but his followers are bat shit insane. They make up a good majority of those "Tea Bag" movements.

I've gone through a lot of the comments left on Pat Condell's videos, and they are filled with things like "Death to Islam! Expel all Muslims from Europe! Kill all the Muslims!" And what's worse, they have multiple Thumbs Up approval ratings. And these people are not a minority.My problem isn't really with Condell or Paul, though disagree with them I may.

I also have a beef when people are willing to allow Sharia law to be practiced alongside English law, but things like his burka objection just make me plant my face in my palm. Instead of attacking liberals or the left, attack individuals who are willing to allow things like public stoning and Sharia law.
Edited by Max on 10/16/2009 21:45
 
Max
Cynic wrote:
Hey, Gil! What've been up to?


I'm good Cynic, thanks. Still struggling to go through school; my family has been hit bad by this recession. I usually read this site everyday, but just don't usually get around to posting. I hope more of the old crew return, or more new people come, as it's been slow around here lately.
 
Skeeve
Hi Max..good to see you post again.


Max wrote:
This seems to me to be some obvious hidden jab at JDHURF and Willie. Let's grow up a bit and leave words like "Ultra Liberal" out of normally intelligent discussion. I can't believe months after it's happened, this sophomoric argument between JDHURF, Willie, and Neilmarr is still going on. This kind of discussion belongs on Face book between teen girls, not adults.


This argument isn't "still going on". Reread the OP and you'll see the video was posted as a favor of a "former member of AT" because it expresses what he was trying to articulate before leaving this site. I'm not sure why you feel "Ultra Liberal" is a juvenile word, not used by grown ups...?

Right or wrong, the the OP felt it was an appropriate term from what he observed in past exchanges. I would have used a different term, but I don't need to go into that here. That argument has been dead since the day Neilmarr, willie and JDHURF moved on. It's sad that this incident caused 3 of our members to stop posting, though I know they still visit the site occasionally.

BTW, attacking the OP by likening him to teen girls on Facebook is something teen girls on Facebook would do. Shock
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Cynic
(I've reversed the order of the upper and lower half of your post to better facilitate my response to it.)

comfortable wrote:
My working definition of 'culture' is an agreed-upon world-view which results whenever many individuals interact. A consensus, if you will, influenced by background and circumstance.

A polygamous Mormon household of 30 individuals has a different 'culture' than 30 stockbrokers in a Merrill Lynch office.

100 Mennonites will strongly agree that modern cinema puts their immortal souls at risk; a huge 'harm' that must be fought vigorously.

Ditto 100 Saudi Wahhabis



I'm not sure if we agree on what culture is. We might -- language is hard. For instance, I'd suggest that culture isn't "agreed upon", per se. I'd think it more accurate to say that culture is the mean of behavior in a given demographic. Not a consensus -- most don't do it consciously so much as just behave as that culture is because that's the environment they find themselves, human follower nature. Some people work the system. Some people are insecure and can't stand it when people aren't like them. Others are insecure and can't stand it when they aren't like others. Often, it's one then the other all in the same person. Still others just do their thing, on their own or in combination. Taken as a whole, that's culture. But there is no agreement, no form to sign or box to check.

It's backwards, I think, to suggest that there is culture and that people subscribe to it. Rather, there are things people subscribe to and the result is culture. This distinction is important, because I believe it impossible to not have "culture". I completely despise the effect culture has, but if I were the last one on the planet, whatever I thought or did would be culture anyway. I don't think we've disagreed here, necessarily, but I think, as I'll show below, that they distinction matters.


comfortable wrote:
1) groups don't think, individuals do
2) when one 'respects' another's culture, one is merely recognizing that other individuals have an equal right to their own point of view
3) if such a point of view includes harm to other individuals, I cannot respect it.
4) sometimes, defining 'harm' is difficult
5) others often assume that because I seem to be a reasonable person in their eyes, that I share their points of view (i.e. that I share their culture). This is natural, but fallacious. I often must inform such people, when they come to me looking for validation (e.g. make disparaging remarks or relate vicious jokes about members of other 'cultures'Wink that I do not share their views.

I adhere to 3) - regardless of whether the holder of such views is one of 'us' or one of 'them' (terms which I despise).

I think most of the arguments are caused by 4)
- the straight parent who fears a homosexual teacher in the classroom - perceives actual harm in that teacher's presence
- the Baptist who fears sexual content in movies - perceives actual harm is being done
- the Muslim who fears that the fabric of their entire existence is threatened by cartoons of Muhammed - perceives actual harm.



Groups do not think, yet there is group-think. We've all got these insecurities in us that make us want to seek out something we'd like to be part of and then sort of adopt it, considering anything that differs from that to be inferior just because it makes us feel better to do so. People want to root for the home team. If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. No true Scotsman turns down a plate of haggis. Listen to people talk about "the American way" and all the things that are "threatening" it.

The group isn't thinking, but there are plenty of people concerned enough about the group to take on the role of thinking for it. Why? Because they've identified with it. Not subscribed to it, necessarily. Deep in the recesses of most fanatic's minds, I suspect you'll find they feel like they embody the group. The culture, to some, is them, and if you aren't like Bill O'Reily, you're just not American. And so you get people that feel that they can tell other's how to be. People that threaten their culture threatens them, personally.

I would suggest that in common usuage, when people say that we should respect other cultures, what they really mean isn't so much that individuals have their own right to their own point of view, but that they're inwardly defending their own culture against those who would "threaten" it. Otherwise, why speak of culture at all? They want "our way of life" preserved, not yours, not mine, ours. Because if we aren't us, we're them. Despise it you should, but that's how people think. Surely, not everyone means the same thing by it. But the fact is, no one really fully respects a culture that isn't theirs. They tolerate it. They politely disgree. But they don't "respect" it. Respect is what you have for something you approve of.

As for harms, I reference none other than your own contention that there is no such thing as altruism, that all impulses of concern for others are inherently selfish. If this is true, then concern for people within one's own culture from harms as perceived by the person who supposedly shares that culture are really just acting because they themselves feel threatened by it.
 
Cynic
Max wrote:
Cynic wrote:
Hey, Gil! What've been up to?


I'm good Cynic, thanks. Still struggling to go through school; my family has been hit bad by this recession. I usually read this site everyday, but just don't usually get around to posting. I hope more of the old crew return, or more new people come, as it's been slow around here lately.


Sorry to hear that. Yeah, the economy isn't finding my family very well either, and I'm still struggling to get through school too. Those it's more embarrassing to say that at my age than yours. Smile What are you going to school for, anyway? I'm heading toward biochemistry lately, or at least something in that ballbark.
 
Max
Skeeve wrote:
Hi Max..good to see you post again.


Max wrote:
This seems to me to be some obvious hidden jab at JDHURF and Willie. Let's grow up a bit and leave words like "Ultra Liberal" out of normally intelligent discussion. I can't believe months after it's happened, this sophomoric argument between JDHURF, Willie, and Neilmarr is still going on. This kind of discussion belongs on Face book between teen girls, not adults.


This argument isn't "still going on". Reread the OP and you'll see the video was posted as a favor of a "former member of AT" because it expresses what he was trying to articulate before leaving this site. I'm not sure why you feel "Ultra Liberal" is a juvenile word, not used by grown ups...?

Right or wrong, the the OP felt it was an appropriate term from what he observed in past exchanges. I would have used a different term, but I don't need to go into that here. That argument has been dead since the day Neilmarr, willie and JDHURF moved on. It's sad that this incident caused 3 of our members to stop posting, though I know they still visit the site occasionally.

BTW, attacking the OP by likening him to teen girls on Facebook is something teen girls on Facebook would do. Shock


I did read the whole thread. Point is, a dead horse is still being beaten. If Neilmarr had been so fed up with the community of this site, so much so as to throw a tantrum and leave as JDHURF and Wille did, than why is he continuing the argument through someone else by posting videos to a YouTube comedian? If he wants to make a point, why not come back and make it himself? The drama surrounding it is ridicuolous, and I will call it out for what it is: silly. If JDHURF or Neilmarr had done the same thing, but expressing the counter argument, would the same consensus be reached here? People argue, people have their feelings hurt. The internet is not reality. How many times in the past did I act like a child, or get into an argument on this site, and threaten to leave? I believe I was about 17 when I was doing that. I am still here because I realize that getting into a fight on the internet is not the sign of the apocalypse. I am still here because I grew up. Finally, "Attacking" Derf is not something I did. When someone makes a crude characterization of past people on this site as "Ultra Liberals" and makes it seem as if Neilmarr was verbally raped (the word "assaulted" sticks out rather starkly) is childish, and I make no apology for calling it out as such. The fact that these people are not here to speak for themselves makes it even more childish; it's a cheap shot. I liked all of these people, and was sad to see them go. It doesn't change the fact that they acted like children. If Derf had worded this differently, I wouldn't be having this discussion. Was the inclusion of "... when he was assaulted by so many of the ultra liberals on this sight that he thought it best to move on." That is unnecessary and mean, especially when it's hurled from the safety of a no-rebuttal-zone. If someone responds using hyperbole like that, they shouldn't be so quick to balk when it's thrown back at them.
 
derF
MAX Wrote: but then he goes off on rants about burkas. They may be offensive, they may be sexist, but if one wears one out of free choice, end of argument. It doesn't matter how much he screams about it, no one, no one has the right to regulate what one wears.


Max!!!!! Do you honestly think that there are women out there who willingly wear a smothering burka in 120 degree weather? Come on, man. Use your head. These women are being dominated and blamed for the sexual cruelty committed against them because some man was allowed to see a small part of their body and couldn't control himself from raping her?

How's about I take you out in the middle of the Mojave, throw a lightweight sleeping bag over you and let you walk around out there in 100 plus degree weather for the whole day? Yeah, sure, there are LOTS of women who wear burka's because they really want to and like them. It really absolutely floors me when I hear comments like that.

And yes, you can call me childish and immature and prove to all the other members that you are equally endowed. Personally I miss JDHURF and Willie and NIELMARR but I think the thoughtless and oafish way that they treated his ideas was uncalled for and(of course) in a way that MAX is far to mature to stoop to.
Edited by derF on 10/16/2009 23:55
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
Max
Cynic wrote:
Max wrote:
Cynic wrote:
Hey, Gil! What've been up to?


I'm good Cynic, thanks. Still struggling to go through school; my family has been hit bad by this recession. I usually read this site everyday, but just don't usually get around to posting. I hope more of the old crew return, or more new people come, as it's been slow around here lately.


Sorry to hear that. Yeah, the economy isn't finding my family very well either, and I'm still struggling to get through school too. Those it's more embarrassing to say that at my age than yours. Smile What are you going to school for, anyway? I'm heading toward biochemistry lately, or at least something in that ballbark.


Well, linguistics and language is still my goal. I am trying now to get the General Education courses out of the way so I can focus on my major. I really love to translate and read other languages. I'd like to try a Russian or German course soon. I am no where near an expert in language or linguistics, so I'm sort of plodding slowly along. I hope your family is okay. Last I heard, you had a wife and two daughters, correct?
 
Max
derF wrote:
MAX Wrote: but then he goes off on rants about burkas. They may be offensive, they may be sexist, but if one wears one out of free choice, end of argument. It doesn't matter how much he screams about it, no one, no one has the right to regulate what one wears.


Max!!!!! Do you honestly think that there are women out there who willingly wear a smothering burka in 120 degree weather? Come on, man. Use your head. These women are being dominated and blamed for the sexual cruelty because some man was allowed to see a small part of their body and couldn't control himself from raping her? How's about I take you out in the middle of the Mojave, throw a lightweight sleeping bag over you and let you walk around out there for the whole day. Yeah, sure, there are LOTS of women who wear burka's because they really want to and like them. It really absolutely floors me when I hear comments like that.


The sweltering 120 degree heat of France? You didn't read my post. I said that when it comes to people being FORCED to wear burkas, I couldn't object more. It is barbaric and wrong. But women in many countries, not Sudan, say the USA for example, choose to wear them freely. I have talked to many women who choose to do so willingly. Do I think it's silly? Yes, of course. However, forcing them to NOT wear burkas is just as bad. What is next? No Catholic school girls wearing crosses because someone objects to the symbolism? We're talking about two different things here. If your only beef is with women being forced to wear them, I couldn't agree with you more, but that's not what I am arguing, nor what Condell said.
 
Max
derF wrote:
MAX Wrote: but then he goes off on rants about burkas. They may be offensive, they may be sexist, but if one wears one out of free choice, end of argument. It doesn't matter how much he screams about it, no one, no one has the right to regulate what one wears.


Max!!!!! Do you honestly think that there are women out there who willingly wear a smothering burka in 120 degree weather? Come on, man. Use your head. These women are being dominated and blamed for the sexual cruelty committed against them because some man was allowed to see a small part of their body and couldn't control himself from raping her?

How's about I take you out in the middle of the Mojave, throw a lightweight sleeping bag over you and let you walk around out there in 100 plus degree weather for the whole day? Yeah, sure, there are LOTS of women who wear burka's because they really want to and like them. It really absolutely floors me when I hear comments like that.

And yes, you can call me childish and immature and prove to all the other members that you are equally endowed. Personally I miss JDHURF and Willie and NIELMARR but I think the thoughtless and oafish way that they treated his ideas was uncalled for and(of course) in a way that MAX is far to mature to stoop to.


I was hoping for a more... Controlled response from you. The "thoughtless and oafish behavior" that went on was going on on both sides, not just JDHURF and Neilmarr's, and you know that. It quickly deteriorated into name calling (on all sides) and ended when all three threw a hissy fit and left the site. Derf, you seem to hate being challenged or disagreed with. You agreed strongly with Neilmarr, and when he broke down and left, you blamed all those who had views who he disagreed with, the "Ultra liberals." Instead of letting this be, either you or Neilmarr are continuously picking at the scab, bringing it back up, and then get surprised when you find you hurt yourselves. I don't think your view point is childish or immature Derf, how you go about trying to justify it is. Whatever contempt you have for me, know that I don't return it. I think you're an intelligent, great chap, which is why I am disappointed to see you engaged in name calling to people who aren't even here to defend themselves. I don't know whether those words were yours or Neilmarr's, so I am assuming for now that they are yours. I am sorry if I offended you, but what you said in your original post was very immature and rude, so if you're answered back with the same treatment, please try and remember where it started.

PS
I have some work to do tonight and tomorrow, so if I don't respond quickly, that's the reason. My apologies in advance.
Edited by Max on 10/17/2009 00:52
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Romney invokes church as reason for not releasing taxes Election 2012 (US) 2 08/26/2012 09:21
Lobby Day for Reason: March 23, 2012 Secular Activism 1 12/10/2011 11:17
One reason why people are distrustful of government U.S. Politics 12 09/23/2010 21:39
Say hello to X woman, your long-lost cousin Evolution 7 04/02/2010 13:03
Are liberals and atheists smarter. Why atheism? 13 03/04/2010 07:37