Disqus - Friends of karlaporter

Re: Mary Ann Sieghart: You don't have to believe in God to cherish the Church

Steersman — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:15:30 -0000

If multiculturalism isn’t working I would say a large reason for that is the excess of cultural relativism, the argument that any practice of any immigrant – or native – culture is to be given the same credibility and degree of acceptance as any other. Seems to me that some core principles and values have to be accepted or we might be wise to advise any potential immigrants that they might be happier elsewhere.

And since it seems entirely apropos, the view of various Islamic groups that their religion and various icons are to be immune from criticism or that the principles of democracy and free speech of the larger society are going to be crippled to cater to their delusions really shouldn’t be given the time of day, much less any serious consideration, deference or respect.

And relative to which I’m reminded of a story told in Irshad Manji’s The Trouble with Islam Today – highly recommended for its chapter and verse on the foregoing point among a great many others – that described the experiences and policies of Britain in India in the mid-1800s. Apparently some British officer, on being told that suttee – the “self”-immolation of the widow on the husband’s funeral pyre – was a traditional cultural practice, said that the British cultural practice in response would be to take the perpetrators out and hang them. Britain’s record of colonialism may not be perfect but it is the hands-down winner in comparison to that of Islam.

Really very bad karma to be putting on par every cultural practice, regardless of how barbaric or inimical and antithetical to the practices of democracy and human rights it might be.

Re: Mary Ann Sieghart: You don't have to believe in God to cherish the Church

Steersman — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:46:34 -0000

Why can’t you look for the good in, say, Mussolini making the trains run on time (although that seems to have been propaganda), or Hitler reducing the unemployment rate?

I’m sure that a great many individuals in the Church of England do a great many good works and they are to be commended for them. However, if the premises or several of them undergirding those works are intrinsically and profoundly flawed then it seems that the ultimate consequences of them are not likely to redound to that organization’s credit – or to the society which condones or supports them.

And while I will happily concede that even some of the principles of Christianity are credible and have some support in the secular society, there are also a great many others, mostly of a “supernatural” nature, that are quite a bit less so. Seems to me that any religion that starts off by asserting something about the nature and attributes of a supposed afterlife, particularly in the face of mutually contradictory assertions by all of the other religions, all of which have diddly-squat in the way of solid tangible evidence to justify them, is really asking to be the target of ridicule and derision: really not much of a solid foundation on which to be basing any good works.

Re: Mary Ann Sieghart: You don't have to believe in God to cherish the Church

Steersman — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:54:32 -0000

“Not sure if that makes me tolerant or intolerant by your definition.”

[In passing as a point of reference, I’m the author of the comment you responded to; I had to use my Yahoo account as I didn’t have a Disqus one then.]

But definitely a somewhat problematic word with quite a number of different connotations. And as I wasn’t quite sure which one you had in mind I had to take a guess. And, more specifically, it seemed that you were taking Dawkins to task for “holding a position with which [you] disagree” which would seem rather incongruous at best given your later comments.

But my point was that you seemed not particularly tolerant of him being intolerant of what he and I and, apparently, you, particularly given your comment about actions of others leading to “the suffering of others”, would consider the intolerable actions and behaviours, egregiously so, of various believers in various religions. Hence my argument about what I thought were appropriate limits on tolerance – certainly not any get-out-of-jail-free card in my book.

“You appear to assume, without any hint of self -doubt, that your view of the world is the correct one.”

Always willing to stand corrected, to temper my opinions, although I expect to be presented with some evidence or cogent arguments before I do so. And the bottom line as far as the religious are concerned is that they really don’t have any of that to justify their various claims – otherwise there wouldn’t be and have been literally thousands of gods that humanity has worshipped and sacrificed to over tens of millennia.

“From this perspective, anyone who encourages other people to explore different truth claims, again religious or otherwise, appears to be guilty of 'force-feeding'.”

While the dictionary definition of “indoctrination” isn’t all that helpful, I find the Wikipedia summary on the topic quite useful: “It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.” All very well to allow adults to “explore different truth claims”, but to be presenting those “claims” as veritable truth to young and very impressionable children, and to deny them the opportunities to “critically examine” those doctrines, is, as you say, simply abuse – and of the most egregious and abominable kind.

You no doubt know of the apocryphal aphorism attributed to the Jesuits to the effect of “give us a child for the first seven years and he is ours for ever thereafter”. While the C of E might not be quite so draconian I doubt the Catholic Church has changed much since then, and I know that Islamic madrassas are generally hell-on-wheels – on which point you might want to read “The Trouble With Islam Today” by a Muslim woman, Irshad Manji, who describes her difficulties there because she “insisted on being educated rather than indoctrinated”. And along the same line she also describes the madrassa-“educated” Saudi youth whose “intellectual skills don’t keep pace because their schools remain poached in religious studies”. Poached. Doesn’t seem like a wise idea to give such schools and philosophies any type of a toe-hold on or bridgehead in Western democracies.

“… Christian heritage … still leads, many people to the acts of selflessness ….”

While those individuals are certainly to be commended, I tend to be a little skeptical about their motivations. Seems a little disingenuous to suggest that they don’t derive some benefits from their actions – which they are certainly entitled to – but when such actions are frequently accompanied by an apparently willful blindness to their consequences I begin to suspect that the tail is wagging the dog.

Re: Do any of us, however ill, have the right to die?

Steersman — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 02:21:47 -0000

While Ms. Pearson didn’t actually offer much in the way of reasons why she thinks that Mr. Nicklinson should be obliged to suffer until “the bitter end”, her brief reference to “God” suggests that religious, probably Christian, values and perspectives provides the bulk of them – if not for her then for a great many who oppose assisted dying.

And in that event I’m reminded of a similar case two years ago in which some man “who was dismissed for refusing to provide sex counselling to gay couples even though that was part of his job. He claimed religious discrimination.” Lord Justice Laws, in McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited, very forthrightly and cogently cut the legs out from under that claim by asserting that the precepts of any particular religion “cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:57:18 -0000

I wonder how low you expect him to grovel before you’ll deign to give him that “second chance”? As low as a dog’s belly? Or maybe substantially lower?

But while you didn’t explicitly characterize all of A Voice for Men as “egregious MRAs”, I wonder whether you know that the SPLC issued a retraction of sorts about MRAs in general:

It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.

Seems to me that you’re engaging in some rather egregious behaviour of your own – i.e., “tarring everyone with a very wide brush”. Which, not to put too fine a point on it, is further amplified by the fact that Sally Strange– “Elite Femi-Fascist Genius” and denizen of the FTB mosh pit – concedes that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good points”. Mote meet log ….

“www.splcenter.org/blog/2012...

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:23:36 -0000

So, I'm more than willing to be corrected on Justin's alignment with the MRA.

Really? For true? So then since that supposed alignment could only be construed as problematic if all MRAs are beyond the pale, I suppose that, in support of that position, you’re going to stand pat on your post on your own site on the topic? [“Secular Coalition’s Big Goof”] To wit:

The question of whether or not MRAs are sexist misogynist jerks that need not be taken seriously was settled a long time ago.

A rather categorical statement, in my view. And that in spite of the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center has conceded that not all of the claims and positions of all MRAs are “without merit”:

It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.

But maybe you have a whole slough of citations to a raft of studies that clearly proves that all MRAs are “sexist misogynist jerks”?

Considering all of the largely spurious and specious demands for an apology from Justin and in light of the foregoing, one might more reasonably expect that you in particular and others in general should be the ones tendering apologies for tarring all MRAs with the brush that is, one concedes, applicable only to some subset of them. Not to mention for failing to apply skepticism “to the things [you] want to believe.”

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:02:21 -0000

@LeftSidePositive:

Furthermore, "gender traitors", … "sister punishers" and "chill girls" are not slurs. They are descriptions of misguided and/or harmful behavior by which women diminish the status/security/respect of other women to get ahead themselves.

You say po-ta-toe and I say po-tat-oh. Since your dictionary seems to be broken:

Slur:A disparaging remark; an aspersion (an unfavorable or damaging remark; slander)

Seems to me that, by that token, “gender traitor: one who exhibits misguided behaviour” would qualify as a “slur”, as a “disparaging or damaging remark”. Seems on par with either “Uncle Tom” [Informal derogatory; a Black whose behaviour towards Whites is regarded as obsequious and servile] or “Uncle Mary”, both of which seem to be jake with Josh, Official SpokesGay. But why else use the term, any of them, if not to put someone down?

Moreover, did Greg Laden actually say anything to Justin Griffith other than "kick your ass"? Because I'm pretty sure that's a colloquialism.

So then, by that token, I expect that you’ll concede that “If I were a woman then I’d kick you in the c**t” is only a “colloquialism” and not any type of a threat?

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:07:42 -0000

@LeftSidePositive:
[repost of one above]

You say po-ta-toe and I say po-tat-oh. Since your dictionary seems to be broken:

Slur:A disparaging remark; an aspersion (an unfavorable or damaging remark; slander)

Moreover, did Greg Laden actually say anything to Justin Griffith other than "kick your ass"? Because I'm pretty sure that's a colloquialism.

So then, by that token, I expect that you’ll concede that “If I were a woman then I’d kick you in the c**t” is only a “colloquialism” and not any type of a threat?

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:50:48 -0000

Seems to me that Amy is selling jewelry and not pictures of them so I fail to see how a posting a photograph really "unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of the right holder."
But I wonder whether Zvan has actually had an actual lawyer versed in the question give her a solid judgement - maybe one she could share as part of her campaign - on the topic before she set out to crucify Vacula over that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:37:09 -0000

@LeftSidePositive,

3) Yes, "Men's Rights" activism is inherently sexist, because its central
claim is that feminism is stripping men's rights away.

Really? You must be reading from your hymn book at a different page from where I’m at as Wikipedia at least suggests something quite different:

If feminism is understood--by masculists themselves, or by masculists as read by their feminist critics--as an assault on men's rights, then the campaign to protect men's rights tends to be understood as antifeminist. This sort of antifeminist masculism is typically called masculinism. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a "masculinist" as "an advocate of male superiority and dominance".

If on the other hand feminism is understood as a campaign for equal rights and the mutual liberation of men and women, then the campaign to protect men's rights is part of the feminist project, and masculists and feminists are perceived as working together to achieve those goals. In this latter light, the assault on men's rights and dignity that some men (and even some women) associate with feminism is not feminism at all but a survival of the war between the sexes that masquerades as feminism, and rejecting and resisting those tendencies is not antifeminist but part of the struggle for gender liberation.

You might want to recalibrate your gun sights ….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:07:53 -0000

@LeftSidePositive,

Try reading all of my post for a change instead of going off half-cocked – you’re less likely to shoot yourself in the foot for one thing.

Even the section that I quoted gave a balanced view - on the one hand and then on the other - of what the different types of masculine rights, objectives and perspectives were without asserting that the merits of either were better than the other. Although it shouldn't take much reading between the lines to figure out where the ethical and moral high ground is. But the other half – which you apparently didn't bother reading – talks of a “kinder, gentler” type of masculine perspective, to wit:

But since you probably didn't bother to read the article either, I’ll close with a bit of a caveat in the “Controversial semantics” section:

However, this morphological argument is very far from being established; the definition of masculism remains contested.

But it seems to me that if you aren't just blowing smoke you might want to consider the possibility that there’s some merit in that second alternative ….

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 03:02:43 -0000

@LeftSidePositive

Did you actually read any of that article? Because it sure the hell doesn't look like it when you say shit like this:

But it is in "the latter light" (i.e., the one you're saying is the nicer version), that contends that feminism is stripping men of their rights and dignity, and this is unfounded and adversarial to women's legitimate concerns for equality.

Which is more or less explicitly contradicted by this from that article:

Mascul-ism, then, would be seen as the morphological equivalent of femin-ism, and masculists and feminists would be seen as allies in the project of transforming the social psychology that sustains patriarchy, and liberating both men and women.

To put it a little more plainly for you since it sure looks like your dogma is clouding your thinking processes: there is supposedly – hypothetically, apparently, as per the thesis advanced in the article [RTFM!] – some segment of the “men’s rights movement” – aka “mascul-ism” – that sees “masculists and feminists … as allies [in the liberation] of both men and women”. How the fuck can you construe that as “adversarial to women’s legitimate concerns for equality”????

But you might also want to reflect on the aphorism, “Good fences make good neighbors”; support doesn't mean being a doormat … for either party ….

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 00:19:33 -0000

@Luna,
If someone makes a categorical statement – all of the class X is Y: all swans are white – it is not cherry picking to point out that one member of X – one swan – is not Y: is not white. It is a simple refutation of the claim.

Re: Second Chances

Steersman — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 00:29:34 -0000

@Luna

Funny, I think you should quote the whole section on that post.

I didn't think it was necessary since my point wasn't that there aren't any crazies at all who might self-describe as “Men’s Rights Activists” – particularly where very few others subscribe to their particular “philosophies”. It was that even the SPLC acknowledged that not all of the claims of all MRAs were without merit. Which contradicts and refutes the largely categorical assertions by individuals such as PZ Myers and Greg Laden that, in the words of Myers, “… MRAs … are narcissistic clueless psychopaths”.

But since both Myers and Laden seem to be so vocal about demanding an apology from Vacula, maybe they might want to start the “truth and reconciliation process” with apologies of their own for defaming at least some MRAs ….

http://freethoughtblogs.com...

Re: Why I Feed The “Trolls.”

Steersman — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:10:31 -0000

Excellent post – covers quite a bit of ground, most of which I agree entirely with. And many fine comments as well, notably the argument that vicious and malicious comments from “our” side are more counterproductive than not which frequently suggests, if not proves, “the paucity of one’s intellectual position”.

However, one might quibble somewhat with your “you’re a feminist because you respect women as a group …”, although I think it is quite problematic in several areas particularly in the hands or minds of more doctrinaire feminists, notably those who think that “connecting the word ‘feminism’ with the word ‘virulent’ … is misogyny”. For one thing, “women as a group” seems to qualify as the logical fallacy of reification – taking an abstraction – the group – as if it were a concrete entity to which one might tender respect – defer or “bend the knee” to: any number of individual women are entitled to or are deserving of scads of respect, but simply being a member of that group hardly confers much – like other groups such as “men” – and to argue otherwise seems disingenuous at best.

For instance, I’m reminded of quite a good post by Rebecca Watson which I’m quite sympathetic to, but some of which is more than just a little problematic:

A few weeks ago, I tweeted a screenshot of this email I received from one “C. C. Velvet” (sure):

... Similar goes for you. Rebecca, you will go through life thinking that men don’t like you because [you’re] a woman. I want you to know from the bottom of my heart, that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re a cunt.

The email amused me because of how easily it shows its bias to anyone who isn’t a raging misogynist. Imagine: “You will go through life thinking that white people don’t like you because [you’re] black. I want you to know from the bottom of my heart, that won’t be true. It’ll be because [you’re] a nigger.” Or try Jew/kike, or gay/fag, or any combination of oppressed group and word used to shame, demean, and dehumanize a member of that group.

But, apart from the highly questionable equating of group and epithet, that “oppressed group” itself really kind of sets my teeth on edge as, echoing Paula Kirby and her Sisterhood of the Oppressed article, it has more than a faint echo of demagoguery; as if to say, “They can’t talk to us like that, Sisters! Onward! To the Bastille!”. Sort of a case of wrapping oneself in the flag, as if to say, for examples, “I’m woman” or “I’m Belgian” [channelling Monty Python] “and they’re criticizing me and you also are [women, Belgians, ....] so you should support me regardless of the reasons for the criticisms”. Some truth to the aphorism that politics is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

While I’m more than happy to genuflect towards the concept of feminism – it has unquestionably provided a great many benefits to society in general: “no nation rises higher than its women” – its tendency to transmogrify into dogma justifies quite a bit more than just a raised eyebrow. Before I put my name on the line as a feminist, much less my life, I’m going to want to read the fine print – particularly when the section titled “Exceptions apply” happens to be as long as your arm and would be sufficient to drive a Philadelphia lawyer to tears of frustration.

Re: It's Personal - ATAWT Episode: The TAF

Steersman — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:53:24 -0000

Interesting bit of “fiction” with, of course and maybe unfortunately, more than a bit of relevance to real life. Really a serious problem that the atheist/secularist/skeptic communities are spinning their wheels over some apparent inconsequentialities and/or personal animosities. Although there are, of course, some principles that are hanging in the balance and which are part of the motivations.

Somewhat apropos of that and your link to the MIT courses on gender studies, you might be interested in, if you haven’t run across it yet, a book by several female professors – Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge – titled Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies which the Amazon blurb (1) for describes as follows:

Feminists have often called Women's Studies the "academic arm of the women's movement." But Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge charge that the attempt to make Women's Studies serve a political agenda has led to deeply problematic results: dubious scholarship, pedagogical practices that resemble indoctrination more than education, and the alienation of countless potential supporters.

In this new and expanded edition of their controversial 1994 book, the authors update their analysis of what's gone wrong with Women's Studies programs. Original chapters feature interviews with professors, students, and staffers who invested much time and effort in Women's Studies, and new chapters look primarily at documents recently generated from within Women's Studies itself. Through critiques of actual program mission statements, course descriptions, newsletters, and e-mail lists devoted to feminist pedagogy and Women's Studies, and, not least, the writings of well-known feminist scholars, Patai and Koertge provide a detailed and devastating examination of the routine practices found in feminist teaching and research.

As the above suggests, the problem, and a serious bone of contention, in these contretemps seems to be some nitty-gritty aspects and features of various feminist ideologies – Wikipedia lists 17 different ones; on track to be almost as bad as Christian sects. Unless there’s some effort and willingness to confront them I can’t see initiatives like the CFI’s HEADs program are likely to bear much fruit.

P.S. Like your gender – and species – segregated elevators …. :-)

(1) “http://www.amazon.com/Profe...

Re: It's Personal - ATAWT Episode: The TAF

Steersman — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 04:01:51 -0000

And thank you for your compliment. As Mark Twain reportedly said, “I could dine for a week on a good compliment” – that one should do me for a more substantial portion of a month.

But I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your observation about “the human need to belong”. It seems frequently to be a substantial part of both our glory – the best of our common humanity and allegiances – and our nemesis – its worst, its tendency to mob behaviour, the “rough beast” in Yeats’ The Second Coming (1).

And I think that unless we have a better understanding of that process we’re not likely to forestall that vision, that nightmare that Yeats seems to have had in mind. Although there is certainly more than a small amount of understanding of that process which is extant: the relationships between the individual and the group, the tendency to group-think that frequently outweighs our rationality, our skepticism, and even our humanity. A common set of processes that seems to at least explain why there are so many similarities between the worst aspects of religion and those of the various segments within the atheist and so-called skeptic communities – some rather disconcerting tendencies to dogma, intolerance, and arrogance.

But while my understanding of the phenomenon is only “through a glass, darkly” – at best, one useful signpost, I’ve found, comes from various readings in evolutionary biology, even if at a rudimentary level, notably those from the scientist and professor David Sloan Wilson and, in particular, an article of his on the nature of religion in the magazine eSkeptic (2) that discusses the coalescing of individuals into groups into super-individuals, and their selection by evolution:

Not only can group selection be a significant evolutionary force, it can sometimes even be the dominating evolutionary force. One of the most important advances in evolutionary biology is a concept called major transitions. It turns out that evolution takes place not only by small mutational change, but also by social groups and multi-species communities becoming so integrated that they become higher-level organisms in their own right. ….

In each case, the balance between levels of selection is not fixed but can itself evolve. A major transition occurs when selection within groups is suppressed, making it difficult for selfish elements to evolve at the expense of other members of their own groups. Selection among groups becomes a dominating evolutionary force, turning the groups into super-organisms. Ironically, during the Age of Individualism it became taboo to think about groups as organisms, but now it turns out that organisms are literally the groups of past ages.

Dawkins fully accepts the concept of major transitions, but he pretends that it doesn’t require a revision in his ideas about group selection. Most important, he doesn’t pose the question that is most relevant to the study of religion: Is it possible that human genetic and cultural evolution represents the newest example of a major transition, converting human groups into the equivalent of bodies and beehives?

It certainly seems, as Wilson suggests, that the emotions that the religious experience within their groups are probably not far from, if not a large part of, what many of them term “God”, and which is probably akin to the same emotions of allegiance in many other individuals in their own groups - both deriving simply from being part of those groups. Group solidarity – whether it’s in the singing of “Onward Christian Soldiers”, “The Internationale”, “Alice’s Restaurant”, or “This Land” – is a tremendously powerful emotion which seems to motivate and cause that coalescing – whether for good or ill.

And, as some have argued, it’s the same processes and principles that undergird a diverse and broad range of other phenomena, from the swarming of locusts to the emergence of our persons from collections of some 100 billion neurons. Really seems to be the case that it is part of our biology to form into groups and then into individuals of broader scope again – indeed, it is part of biology, period – although I think we need to be a lot more circumspect about the groups we do join – even if that is frequently easier said than done.

(1) “_http://www.yeatsvision.com...
(2) “_http://www.skeptic.com/esk...

Re: Open Letter, Letter Opener

Steersman — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:48:44 -0000

“the Slymepit and its culture of slurs and hate”

Really? That’s a pretty broad accusation there, oolon. Per chance, you have a detailed and evidenced analysis to support that?

Re: Open Letter, Letter Opener

Steersman — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:07:31 -0000

oolon said:

"Perhaps it would not need to be a lawless frontier if people had better options than "agree or be banned""

Riiight so its all the meanie PZ's fault that there are assholes at the Slymepit! He made them that way by banning.

Apart from the fact that "asshole" and other similar insults are rather subjective and entail a judgement of some degree of obnoxiousness, the answer is, no, oolon; it’s not all PZ’s fault; there are others in the docket with him. I, and probably many others, have been banned (or put into eternal moderation) by Zvan, Benson, Christina, Crommunist, Thibeault, and Skepchick, simply for presenting, I think, cases that did not comport with the conventional wisdom there. I should note that Ed Brayton’s site was a notable exception as I’ve argued pretty much the same position there that got me banned at the other places.

Jack Smith argued on Michael Nugent’s “Atheist Skeptic Dialogue” thread, “we should strive to avoid commenting on others without accepting a right of reply” which, I think, would improve things substantially. Likewise with not making unevidenced accusations of one sort or another.

Why I can suddenly start churning out misogynist slurs on a forum dedicated to hating him, why didn't I think of that!

And, speaking of “unevidenced accusations”, maybe you can point me to the peer-reviewed article in some philosophy or logic Journal than unambiguously and conclusively proves that a gendered epithet directed at one individual is, ipso facto, directed at all members of the class and thereby constitutes hate of that entire class. Bonus points for showing how it is, even though many members of that class do not react that way, that does not invalidate the thesis. That one person’s feelings are hurt is rather thin evidence to justify their claim that every other member of the class is likewise hurt – if I call you an asshole does that mean that everyone who possesses that anatomical feature is obliged to likewise feel offended? In addition, you might want to consider Crommunist’s recent comment: “Read yesterday’s post. Your [EBW’s] hurt feelings are not proof that an accusation isn’t true.”

Even weirder that you support this letter given it expressly forbids the type of activity that got many of the bitter pittizens banned in the first place -> moderation of blogs/forums for using slurs!

One might reasonably argue – as I have elsewhere – that “asshole” also qualifies as a slur, one which PZ and company make full use of – this post (1) has over 100 examples of it, and this one (2) on Skepchick about likewise. People who throw stones, and all that ….

You really haven't thought this through too well Ed.

You substantially less so, I think.

----
1) “_http://skepchick.org/2011/...

2) “_http://freethoughtblogs.co...

Re: Don’t satirize feminists, but happily draw Mohammad?

Steersman — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 03:22:33 -0000

Speaking of the “concept of satire” (1):

Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic
and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.

Considering the chicken-little “the sky’s falling, the sky’s falling”
response to Justin’s presence at the WiS conference, “satire” seems like a fair and complete description of what that photoshop did: the “follies, abuses, and shortcomings” of the FfTB/Skepchick mob held up to ridicule.

Although the chances of “improvement” seem somewhere between slim and none ….

---
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: Don’t satirize feminists, but happily draw Mohammad?

Steersman — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 04:55:15 -0000

Laurence said:

The situations presented are just not even close to being related for the analogy to be strong. The situations is even more different since at least one of the individuals in the picture have explicitly asked to be left alone by Reap and yourself.

Analogies don’t have to be at the same “level” to work – all that is required is that a similar set of relationships must hold (1). For example, consider the paradigmatic example in that source (Wikipedia):

Hand is to Palm as Foot is to Sole

As Wikipedia notes, “the analogy is focusing on their similarity in having an inner surface”. And as for “difference”, that Wikipedia article starts off by noting that Bohr drew an analogy between the solar system and his model of an atom – it would be hard to find systems or cases that differ so much in scale while exhibiting such significant similarities, i.e., the elements and their relationships in each case.

But I think that Justin is somewhat in error in denying, and that you are correct in suggesting that he is "proposing" an analogy which actually seems to be quite a good one. More particularly, one might suggest that the analogy is:

Islamic dogma is to Draw-Mohammad-Day as Feminist dogma
is to “draw its modern-day ‘prophets’ in ridiculous poses”.

While of course feminist dogma isn’t promising life-after-death – much less consorting with 72 virgins at any time, some of it is also based on some very specious and problematic premises, and is likewise rather dogmatic in insisting on a “One True Faith” of sorts – something that is emphasized in the photoshop (2) Paula Kirby provided not long ago. And, of course, feminist dogma isn’t, yet anyway, planning on advancing itself at the point of a sword – although some radfems seem to be toying with that idea. So some very significant differences in scale between the two cases, but the significant similarity is in the dogma and pretentious claims, and in the appropriate and “civilized” responses to it.

But there is, I think, a delicious bit of irony in that analogy – which is maybe more along the line of what Justin had in mind. And that is that Myers & Benson & Company have been making a great to-do about poking fun at Islamic dogma – quite reasonably, I think – but seem remarkably unwilling to consider that significant portions of their feminist “philosophy” also qualifies as dogma and so should, by rights, be fair game for any true-blue skeptic. Which means they either have to admit to being egregious hypocrites, or to admit that maybe there’s a fly or two in the ointment that they have been peddling.

-------
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
2) https://twitter.com/PaulaSK...

Re: Don’t satirize feminists, but happily draw Mohammad?

Steersman — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:40:56 -0000

Laurence said:

I still [think] the connection between the two things in
the analogy is weak and stand by [my] assessment for the reasons given.

But you haven’t really even attempted to rebut, much less succeeded in rebutting, my argument about the nature and mechanisms of analogies. Which suggests a very strong connection.

There is no feminist dogma. There are people who feel
[strongly] about something for reasons given. That is not dogma. I have never heard any convincing argument that there is some feminist dogma being upheld by Benson, Myers, or anybody else. ….

And fundamentalist Muslims and Christians “feel strongly” about their
beliefs too. And many people “felt strongly” that the sun went around the earth, and that the earth was the center of the universe. Strong feelings don’t make them an accurate reflection of reality.

As for “feminist dogma”, you might want to take a look at this Wikipedia article which lists and describes some 17 different feminist ideologies. And then there’s the book “Professing Feminism”, a review of which here by some less dogmatic feminists argues:

The book is a critique on Women Studies departments in the United States. The authors interviewed dozens of women, from staff to professors to students, all quite supportive of feminism, but all still sharing the same criticism of infighting, indoctrination, political correctness and a near total lack of objective discussion.
....
The authors, however, demonstrate that these problems have existed since their ideology’s inception, and were particularly common within Women Studies programs. The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students. [my emphasis]

Hardly seems appropriate that a bunch of atheists and skeptics should be getting into bed with some “anti-science, anti-intellectual” feminists. But, as argued, very strong similarities in the amount of dogma and responses thereto, as well as large differences in magnitude and details and implications – both of which are hallmarks of analogies.

Re: Don’t satirize feminists, but happily draw Mohammad?

Steersman — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:48:07 -0000

Yea, that comment about Jen probably qualifies as a cheap shot.

But I don’t think “childish mockery” holds much water. As mentioned,
considering the chicken-little “the sky’s falling!” type hysteria generated
over Justin’s presence at the WiS conference, I would say that that photoshop highlights the ridiculousness of that response, i.e., credible satire.

Re: Don’t satirize feminists, but happily draw Mohammad?

Steersman — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 03:08:24 -0000

That “message of solidarity” wasn’t what was being ridiculed. It was that
the biggest thing that that group of individuals came together over was in
getting their panties in a bunch over Justin showing up at that Conference.

For which they should rightfully feel "crappy". And seek to mend their ways, not that anybody is holding their breath at the prospect ....

Re: Don’t satirize feminists, but happily draw Mohammad?

Steersman — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 03:52:49 -0000

Yes, and what is “the material used”? While you might think that that “message of solidarity” was integral, many who had any knowledge of the backstory prior to that photo would realize, particularly in the context of the modified message, that what was really integral was the serious hate-on - or at least histrionics - that many of the people in that photo, and their supporters, experienced in considering Justin's pending presence at that conference. And that contrast, that incongruity between the message and the subtext is, I think, the basis for the ridicule which quite reasonably and justifiably falls on many in that picture.

However, you might also check the Pit for a few other photoshops of the same picture which make some reference to that message, and which suggest that at least several in that photo are little more than "champagne socialists".

But YMMV ….