I admit that I disappoint myself by vacillating between topics that deal with interesting new developments in science and functionally illiterate bigoted hicks whose minds are under siege from a two-pronged demolition team, with an innate lack of cognitive wattage protruding from one side and lifelong religious indoctrination jutting out from the other. But when someone is as consistently malevolent, hypocritical, and laughable all at the same time as Nathan Bradfield is, it's fair to consistently maraud him. After all, as he'll tell you himself, he is the quintessential Christian, and folks who may not be convinced how akimbo the minds of these slap-happy ding-dongs have every reason to be as informed as possible.
Nathan is making a stupendously senseless complaint, one adored by wingnuts across the land: that calling people on their intolerance and unfair judgment invoked a double standard, because dammit, the person doing the calling is himself being intolerant and judgmental!
Most people can spot the flaws in this "logic." If I go on record as saying that blacks make poor cellists and am criticized by my employer, friends, or the media, few would be sympathetic to any pleas I might make about being targeted by hate speech or not being given the right to speak my mind. Yet this is exactly what the Bradfield errorbot does, over and over, and now he's waxing apoplectic about the travails of a University of Toledo pencil-pusher who wrote a wreck of a column for the Toledo Free Press that included this idiotic passage:
"As a black woman ... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman ... Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few."
First of all, I find it disturbing that Dixon, given that she feels that homosexuality is pathological, draws any parallels between race and sexual orientation. Is she saying she would deblacken herself if she had the choice? Maybe, maybe not.
Regardless, her comments represent boilerplate ignorance. Anyone who thinks that gay people who declare themselves newly straight are doing anything more than wishing really, really hard are even more deluded than the most cross-eyed, fire-breathing Baptard. Exhibit A is how Ted Haggard's de-re-un-ex-conversion turned out. And even leaving out the mainstream scientific literature -- none of which supports the notion that sexual preference is a choice -- anyone who believes that anyone living in a country rich in wall-eyed jackholes like Nathan and Ms. Dixon would opt to be gay obviously isn't much of an authority on basic human psychology.
In response to the column, University president Lloyd Jacobs repudiated Dixon's comments, stressing that they were not representative of the values the U. of Toledo seeks to project. Dixon was not disciplined in any way. So far, so good, right? Dixon's First Amendment rights to say loopy and offensive things was never imperiled, and the university community wants to be regarded as a place where everyone can feel safe and embraced.
Nathan, of course, feels differently. He says that in his response to the Free Press column, Jacobs -- whom he describes as a "[l]iberal alter boy," who has "bumbled his way to becoming the University of Toledo President" but doesn't explain what was bublesome about it -- is "bowing at the alter of tolerance." Now, I may be reaching here, but how is it that someone pushing thirty who's as deep into the Christian shitwaters as Nathan is can not know how to spell "altar"? That's not just sad, it's frightening.
Nathan then tries to discredit Jacobs' labeling his university as a place for "Diversity, Integrity and Teamwork" by claiming that this doesn't hold when something "goes against your personal, or even the majority, opinion. Just be honest for once and say that you care more about advancing your agenda than actually caring about people and their rights."
We aren't told what Jacobs' alleged hidden agenda is -- the man has made it clear he doesn't agree with gay-bashing, but that's it -- and as I mentioned in my last post about this lying sack of manure, the majority does not agree with Nathan at all. I don't doubt that in a startlingly backward place like Alabama -- where banning dildos takes precedence over the fact that the state rests near the bottom of the national shitheap when it comes to trivialities such as education, measures of health, and SES -- Nathan's opinions are shared by lots of people. But if he thinks that a shimmering bumpkinfest is representative of what the country as a whole does or should aspire too, he's a bleaker case than I thought.
I think I can safely stop after quoting this next bit:
"Hello, earth to the, uh, President, if you tolerate homosexuality as an acceptable expression of sexuality, you have no ethical standard."
I won't point out the problems with this because I wouldn't want Nathan to think I'm depriving him of his right to be a moron as I go about my liberal atheist agenda of promoting tolerance in the face of intolerance. Jesus Christ, are people like Nathan really bred from humans or are they produced by some sort of rogue budding process, like hydra? Or are they the result of bioterror experiments gone horribly awry, like the monsters in The Mist?
As something of an aside, anyone who writes as poorly as Nathan does is bound to be wrong about practically everything. I will grant that there are plenty of people with a great command of English who expel plenty of boneheaded, uninformed ideas. But as far as I have seen, there are virtually no bloggers possessing the grammatical prowess of a comparatively gifted third-grader (Bradfield, Gribbit, the entire slate of WorldNut Daily and Stop the ACLU "writers," and so on) who make useful or accurate arguments or bother questioning -- or even carefully reading -- their sources. That is, you'll see your share of false positives (for example, some of the fellas at Telic Thoughts and even the Discovery Institute can turn a phrase okay, but like the Pope they're full of shit) but very few false negatives (if it writes like a baboon, it's all but certain it reasons like one too).
Comments
As of now the woman who wrote the column, Ms. Dixon, has been suspended with pay. The story implies that the suspension is in response to her remarks in the newspaper. The President's column hints (maybe) at this too: "taking internal steps" or some such. But in the story covering her suspension he repeats his statement that she has the right to speak. If she is punished over the remarks I'd have to object, even though I think she's an idiot and a bigot.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | May 7, 2008 10:54 PM
It's pretty easy to pick what any intelligent person would see as the dumbest most ass-backwards views on nearly anything this side of Busch-light vs. Coors-light and find the extreme idiot side of it at Bradenfield's blog.
And even better, if you call him on it he'll be glad to oblige you with further gut busting material.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2008 11:07 PM
Bradfield not Bradenfield. Ooops.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2008 11:08 PM
Thanks, ice. I didn't investigate nearly as thoroughly as I should have, and I assumed that if she had been sanctioned, Nathan would have mentioned it.
I think this was a bad move on the part of the UT administration. Were Dixon a professor or a department head I could see things being dicier, but she's just an HR drone, albeit a high-ranking one.
She's also a lot loopier than the material I quoted indictates. The last paragraph of her column:
"My final and most important point. There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God's divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right."
Again, I don't think she should have been suspended. But I would never hire someone with this kind of thought disorder if I knew about it in advance -- not even to clean the shit off of toilet seats. People who live in alternate realities that starve them of basic humanism aren't people I want to spend time around.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | May 7, 2008 11:22 PM
anyone who writes as poorly as Nathan does is bound to be wrong about practically everything.
You should check your own writing:
"Nathan's opinions are shares by lots of people."
"are people like Nathan really bred from humans or are the produced..."
"Or are the result of bioterror..."
I'll let you find your own errors. Three to be exact to my one. Which, by your own insult, means you are three times as wrong on everything as am I. Thanks for the laughs. You've made my week by coming out in typical fashion swinging your fists of defamation and insults instead of making the far simpler decision to engage in polite debate. I could have written this post for you...your failed tactics never change. What's that, you disagree with the omniscient Kevin Beck? Prepare to be insulted. You aren't reasonable, logical, or even worthy of basic human kindness. You are beneath me and I will stomp you. LOL
Posted by: Nathan Bradfield | May 8, 2008 12:38 AM
You're right, Nathan, I'm a sloppy typist, and when stooping to write about sewer-rat rednecks like you I'm not nearly as diligent as I could be about proofreading. And spell-checkers don't flag words like "shares" and "the" when those aren't the words I want, since they are in fact words in their own right.
As for "polite debate," do you think I see any point at all in "debating" someone who states categorically that gays are immoral because it says so in an ancient book of lies and myths? I'm not out to change your mind, only to repeatedly tell the world what a waste of decent carbon you are. You can say whatever you like, but don't pretend that the bullshit you say about homos, liberals, scientists and others is the kind of jabber that inspires polite discourse. When I remark about the utter senselessness of Biblical Christianity and the pitiful self-delusion required for its acceptance, I don't expect polite responses. I expect assent from the kinds of people drawn to science blogs and indignant bleating from halfwits like you.
"I'll let you find your own errors. Three to be exact to my one.
Actually I usually make far more than just three typos; I don't know what happened tonight. But, your "one"? I didn't provide a comprehensive list of your mistakes, because frankly, you and your dishonest, painfully stupid etchings aren't worth the time I put into my posts about you, much less the additional time it would take to note each and every crime against English you commit. And as bad as your writing is, your beliefs are far worse, so I prefer to keep the focus on those. I mean, what kind of human shitstain can say with a straight face that Crystal Dixon is any kind of victim and that condemning her rancid, uninformed, and flat-out insane babbling represents "intolerance"? The woman is a brain-dead, Bible-whacking, twittering imbecile. But it's unfortunate that UT disciplined her because she was already busy hanging herself with the many yards of rope her own words had afforded her. People can write lost of nutzo things in editorial columns and find support for them from people living under various rocks, but Dixon's were in a rare class of crazy.
But Nathan, you evil prick, I can't believe you would come here and say the things you have to me, you intolerant fucking hillbilly! I guess when it comes right down to it and your agenda becomes clear liberty goes out the window!!! (That was for demonstrative purposes. See, anyone can play the "criticizing criticism is intolerant" game from now until the end of time -- it has a built-in tautology.)
But since you mentioned it, here are more of your gems:
decrying an column (oops)
bald face lie (oops redux)
what liberals decide is tolerable when they woke up that morning (this one you won't know how to fix even after it's been pointed out)
if your worldview is de-sensitized enough to recognize your lies (worldviews don't recognize things)
There are other examples of sloppiness with punctuation and such, but I'm not your English tutor and you're beyond help in this area anyway.
Anyway, since you conspicuously avoided mentioning anything about the substance of what I wrote, we can chalk up another mark in the "L" column for you. And please, do not make me bust a gut by saying I provide you with laughs. You are not only a flagrant discredit to Christianity (which is why I like the fact that you continue blogging, and in something barely resembling your native tongue at that; you do over half of the work we anti-superstition people would otherwise have to do on our own by reinforcing the uneducated, prejudiced, prevaricating, and multi-phobic Jesus-freak stereotype) but a calamitous, uproarious spectacle of one. I don't know how you get out of bed and shuffle to your computer without walking into walls -- or maybe you do.
I can't wait for your next debacle of an evolution rant, Nathan; the last one was pure pyrite and a great time was had by all.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | May 8, 2008 1:22 AM
"You are beneath me and I will stomp you."
No further proof is needed that Nathan Bradfield's "Christianity" is merely a convenient cover for his sociopathy.
Posted by: meatbrain | May 8, 2008 6:34 AM
"Hello, earth to the, uh, President, if you tolerate homosexuality as an acceptable expression of sexuality, you have no ethical standard."
That is about the ethical norm in America.
Last President: Impeached for "sexual immorality".
This President: Destroyed two sovereign nations, New Orleans, and the national economy, yet not even a reprimand.
Someone who loves Jesus can do no wrong.
Someone who loves sex can do no right.
"You are beneath me and I will stomp you. LOL"
Wow, that's one arrogant eight year-old you pissed off there, Dr. Bushwell.
Posted by: Jason Failes | May 8, 2008 8:42 AM
I think we all know eight-year-olds with greater self-control and better spelling skills than Nathan Bradfield.
Posted by: meatbrain | May 8, 2008 10:24 AM
"No further proof is needed that Nathan Bradfield's "Christianity" is merely a convenient cover for his sociopathy."
Actually, one thing I'll "credit" him with is that he's probably not a sociopath. He was born with no choice but to develop into a stupid human being and on top of that was stuffed full of toxic, insensible bullshit from the crib, but this only grants him two of the three elements that make for a "perfect storm" among the faithful:
1. Undergoing religious programming starting at an early age.
2. Sociopathic tendencies.
3. Low intelligence in key areas (high levels of credulity, rejection of new ideas, etc.).
Combine these in one person and you have a Pat Robertson or a James Hagee. The really dangerous people are the ones who can speak well enough to mask their stupidity and boast a clumsy, superficial form of charisma that carries considerable attraction in the minds of really unsophisticated godheads, like those in West Virginia and the South. People like Nathan lack this token charm and so are relegated to making assholes of themselves on the Web.
But I think that Nathan really believes he's being fair and just in condemning gays wholesale and that my cursing and name-calling in intrinsically more impolite or uncalled for than his profanity-free but obviously offensive blather about anyone who doesn't have his lips surgically attached to Jesus' prong. To him, anything other than unconditional surrender to nonexistent entities allegedly dispensing cruel and incoherent justice is just plain evil. Sadly, it's fuckheads like this who breed like there's no tomorrow and help create brand new armies of hapless proto-people who scamper around the country like methed-up zombies, doing their best to launch America back toward the glory days of pre-medieval times. It's repugnant.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | May 8, 2008 2:03 PM
Ah, the good old "you're intolerant for not tolerating my hateful intolerance" game.
I went over to Nathan's blog because I simply had to read his article myself. What I found was another "Christian" whose status as FamilyMan "qualifies" him to authoritatively yet ignorantly and unintelligibly yammer about "Church/State/Family/Legal" issues? Neat-o.
What made me spit out my delicious afternoon green tea in laughter was this comment following the article:
"Members of the Homosexual Internet Militia roam the boards for victims -- a Krystalnacht -- a cleansing of the boards of all opposition."
I can't figure out if this commenter is parodying the victim-mentality of bigots or if s/he is truly that delusional and paranoid. I have a hunch it's the latter. But, if these folks want us to take them seriously, they should work on proving that they're mentally stable first.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to roam the internets...
Posted by: fannie | May 8, 2008 2:48 PM
"What I found was another "Christian" whose status as FamilyMan "qualifies" him to authoritatively yet ignorantly and unintelligibly yammer about "Church/State/Family/Legal" issues?"
Oh, of course. Once you are infected by the Jeebus Virus, you automatically know how everyone else in the world should live their lives.
Posted by: meatbrain | May 8, 2008 3:11 PM
Homosexual Internet Militia.... H.I.M. for short.... I like that, how can I start a chapter in my neighborhood?? And if I do, can we PLEASE have a copy of the 'Gay Agenda?' I'm STILL waiting for one.
Posted by: Rebel without a clue | May 8, 2008 5:28 PM
Welcome back, Fannie!
Rebel without a clue wrote:
"can we PLEASE have a copy of the 'Gay Agenda?' I'm STILL waiting for one."
Things have reached the point where if you see the word "agenda" in an opinion piece, you can be at least 90% certain that the piece was written by an especially clueless wingnut.
It's impossible to argue with these people. When criticized, they complain that people close-minded and refuse to accept opinions other than their own. They completely miss the fact that those of us with Liberal Agendas invariably explain why the opinions excreted by the Bradfields of the world fail to command the slightest amount of respect, and that our challenges to these cartoonish characters to defend the charges we level against those opinions go completely ignored. Nathan Bradfield has never responded to the substantive issues I have raised when raking him over the coals. He lies, he postures, he repeats himself, and that's it. In a just world be would have been born sterile but alas, this is (although no one knows for sure!) evidently not the case, and in maybe 15 years it's likely that Alabamastan will have one or two more decerebrate soldiers in God's anti-gay, anti-truth, anti-intellectual army.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | May 8, 2008 5:47 PM
I refuse to waste another post on this perambulating dildo so soon after the last one, but now Nathan is bitching about a Harvard psychology professor's noting that studies have shown that children can lead to lower levels of happiness in their parents. Notice that the same clown who wrote "all I want is polite debate" up above has no problem doing nothing but name-calling and ranting, and that he, unconcerned about repeatedly being called on his false claims regarding majority opinions and feeling no need to look into the research the Harvard dude cites, accuses the Harvard prof of not being able to do research or read polls.
And the line about "micro evolution" is another anti-classic.
I maintain that there is no way this man can get out of bed and find the door without knee-walking into at least three walls first and shitting himself en route.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | May 9, 2008 8:02 PM