Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yes, this post is about Pat. Don't read it if you're tired of reading about him. But I'm writing it because I think this is a poster child example of a common attribute in this country, where some people seem to be entirely immune to irony or cognitive dissonance. Pat has displayed this trait in many obvious ways already, like claiming he was going to have me thrown in jail for stalking merely for criticizing something he wrote publicly and then posting what he thought was my address on his blog and inviting people to pay me a visit (and then, in a rarely seen triple irony backflip, accusing someone on another site who posted his address of stalking him).
Then there's the clear contradiction in claiming that anyone who criticizes him is violating his freedom of speech while simultaneously saying he will shoot anyone who "talks shit" about him to his face. Clearly this guy is utterly incapable of recognizing the contradictions in his own actions. And here is yet another example: He actually criticizes Pajamas Media for allowing racist comments on their blog (more accurately, for "Allowing" racist comments on "thier" site - hey, you got your random capitalization in my inability to spell; no, you got your inability to spell in my random capitalization).
Pat? Accusing someone else of allowing racist comments on their blog? When he posts astonishingly racist crap on his blog and then blows a gasket when someone points out the racism? Let's recap. First there was his reaction to a Republican legislator voting for health care reform. That legislator is of Vietnamese descent, causing Pat to spew his racism all over his Twitter account:
@AnhJosephCao You Bastard piece of shit fuck! GO BACK TO Saigon, South Vietnam where you fucking BELONG GOOK!My Uncle served in Vietnam all he could stab this Country in the back. @samuel @levihenry @kerrence @tonyyeung @paparatti @Yeggo @frautoasty
Some of us, have not forgotten what happened on Dec 7, 1941 either! @samuel @levihenry @kerrence @tonyyeung @paparatti @Yeggo @frautoasty
@tonyyeung That's because LIBERALS like YOU LIED about the damn war, ya sland-eyed ASSHOLE
I'm really starting to distrust ANYONE of Eastern Descent. 1st it was John Yu, then it was Obama's guy saying we should repay China.
I'm head fucking serious... Al-Qaeda is not our Worst Enemy. The East is man. China, Japan, Vietnam, all of 'em. #tcot #hcr #killbill #VTO
Remember '41 people, this was their revenge on us. Ceo is a fucking Commie Plant in the G.O.P. #tcot #hcr #killbill #VTO
@FoxieNews Ya think? That rat bastard sold the G.O.P. up the river! and After all the Americans that went to 'Nam and Died. :-/ Pissed.
@samuel They had it coming after what they did to us at Pearl Harbor!!!!
@TexasRV Not to mention that Yellow man Cao that sold us up the damned river.
Whack Job my ass.... that bastard slant-eyed son of a bitch sold the G.O.P. up the fucking river and he knows it!
Nah, no racism there. By the way, here's the comment that was apparently allowed at the Pajamas Media blog that Pat is calling racist:
You ignored the elephant in the middle of the room. The population of Detroit is 82% black. The schools didn't fail, the students failed. Ozzie and Harriet didn't ravage the city, Jamal and Latisha did. When the refugees from New Orleans settled in other places, they brought a crime wave with them. In Detroit they drove out the decent people and mostly refuse is left. All you say about Leftists and unions is true, but without factoring in the huge element of race, your analysis is meaningless. Drop the PC and try again.
And he's right, that certainly is racist. But let's compare that to something Pat himself wrote less than three weeks ago:
For putting a hamburger-headed looking Negro thug out of his own damned misery, the Seattle Police Department deserves a metal of freedom. That is right, I said it, I am glad as hell, that this black thug is dead. Truth is, this black bastard should have been executed, long ago, for his damned crimes in the first place. This is why; I believe that death penalty is a sane solution to our Prison overcrowding system. However, because we live in a liberal society, that believe that dirtball thugs like this have rights too; most States in America do not have a death penalty in them and dirt bag black bastards like this continue to roam the streets and fill our already overcrowded prisons...I know, some of you, most likely liberals are going to say that this is a racist posting. I got one thing to say; I am a white and proud motherfucker and I am sorry that you are not. Besides, we all know that the black race is not exactly made up of civilized human beings anyhow.
He is completely impervious to the stench of irony, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. He loudly accuses others of the very behavior he engages in as a matter of routine. As I said, this is a fairly common trait in this country, especially among the right wing. But rarely have I seen a case this advanced. This is weapons grade cluelessness.
Politics
Comments
Pat's also immune to education, an epidemic disorder amongst the reichwinger trolls who gather here.
Posted by: democommie | December 26, 2009 9:22 AM
Pat could look into a mirror & he wouldn't recognise who was looking back at him.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 26, 2009 10:04 AM
Now Pat has decided that the attempted plane bombing in Mich. was personal. "On Christmas Day, no less. For those who do not know, I am in the Detroit-area. The Airport in question is in Romulus, Michigan, (Not Detroit…) and less than 10 miles from my house. So, now, it’s personal, the bastards tried to hit MY town! You can imagine how I feel, at the moment." Whoo boy! Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 10:10 AM
Especially with that Grizzly Adams beard! Probably he'd mistake his reflection for his momma. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 26, 2009 10:10 AM
James - What's with the constant need sign-off in a self-congratulatory mode? :)
Thanks, DingoJack
Posted by: DingoJack | December 26, 2009 10:15 AM
RE the beard. "Update #2: The only reason I am not in the car and down there taking photos is the following: 1. It’s dark outside now, and there’s most likely not much to see. Also, that place, that is Metro Airport is most likely crawling with cops. I just do not want to risk getting in the way and possibly getting tossed in jail. I will be monitoring all news outlets and passing what I know on. Plus, I do have this shaggy beard. I do not want to be mistaken for another terrorist!" In case you don't know, Pat was incensed when a commenter on YouTube called his beard a "jihady beard".
Posted by: James M.Phillips | December 26, 2009 10:16 AM
DJ, No self congrats at all. Merely a little civility. I personally beleive that we could all do with a little more manners and a lot less invective. Thats all. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M.Phillips | December 26, 2009 10:20 AM
The signoff, I find, seems more like a facade of any sort of civility rather than real civility, which is contained in a discussion of the topic that expounds on the merits of an argument rather than on bashing one's opponent with ad hominems.
Posted by: Katharine | December 26, 2009 11:18 AM
If Pat is an exemplar of the master race, we're all doomed. (You're welcome, Emily)
Posted by: Emily | December 26, 2009 11:19 AM
Although quite frankly, it seems quite apparent from Pat's refusal to address logically founded and quite true criticisms of his views, that Pat is a deluded, sub-100-IQ boob.
Posted by: Katharine | December 26, 2009 11:20 AM
I saw the "now it's personal" line last night and laughed my ass off. Like now he's gonna take that 9mm that he usually uses on those who say mean things about him and go off to hunt Muslim terrorists. Of course, he's gonna have to take the bus to get there unless mommy can drive him, but still....now it's personal!
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 26, 2009 11:39 AM
Folks, I find it odd and amusing that my signing off with Thanks is a topic of discussion at all. I thought the topic was Pat and his insanity. I believe that we as a group should rise above the ad hominen attacks of the right and use our intellect and debate skills to win the argument. Not to sound grandiose, but in the struggle of the civil rights era and Gandhi's struggle againt the British, haven't we learned anything from them? If we sink to the Right's level, doesn't that take away from our point? Maybe it doesn't matter and maybe it does. But it's what works for me, and basically I think, that's our point anyway. Don't say Thanks if you don't want to, or do. Don't call people like Pat names or do. Whatever works for you. So, Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 12:05 PM
For what it's worth, I appreciate sign-offs such as James' and DingoJack's, as they're relatively uncommon, especially on this blog. They're a charming glimpse into the character behind the username. Concerning the topic at hand, Pat once again takes projection and a deficit of self-awareness to a new low. Yours truly, Sadie.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 26, 2009 12:17 PM
C'mon guys. I saw DJ's mentioning the sign-off as a great joke example of the irony coming from pat. Am I missing something? ta - eddie
Posted by: eddie | December 26, 2009 12:22 PM
James M. Phillips,
Personally I found your sign-off confusing. I wasn't sure who or why you would thank someone for your comment. I therefore thought maybe comment @ 3 was written by someone (not you) ending their post by thanking you. But then your 'Posted By:' field was populated by your name which made me wonder if someone was thanking you in the post and then inadvertently misappropriated your name in the "Posted By:" field, which occasionally happens.
Please remember this blog attracts people who tend to be logical, possibly to a fault or weakness when it comes to social niceties.
For example, I have two buddies that always phone me when they know I'll be eating lunch, which they know I find annoying and therefore why they do it in order to entertain themselves. My revenge: Each of their voice announcements for their voice mail ends with "Thanks". So I usually start my voice message to them as follows:
If you want to sign off in your comment post, may I suggest the following:
Cheers, (my personal all-time favorite)
Sincerely,
Sincerely yours,
but not 'Thanks' unless you are directly thanking someone from a previous blog post or comment post. That just isn't logical.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 26, 2009 12:26 PM
Suggestions:
1. Don't answer the phone.
2. Get some new friends.
3. Both.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2009 12:31 PM
Simple answer: thanks for listening, thanks for your opinion, thanks for being on the same side, thanks for a place to have my individual voice heard. I'm not sure what the hullaballoo is about. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 12:33 PM
Geeze, I was mildly ribbing James, no need to have kittens! I am actually am quite aware of his reasons for signing-off in such a way (although 'cheers' would be my choice, I'm not James), and kind of see his point.
I'm currently trying to figure out a secular version of 'I'll pray for you' to patronise and irritate Godbots. - DINGO (not DJ)
Posted by: DingoJack | December 26, 2009 12:42 PM
How about: "I'll think critically for you"?
Posted by: DJ | December 26, 2009 12:44 PM
DJ, no kittens here, ok we took in 3 strays a couple of monts ago, just not sure why there was any concern for why I signed off the way I did. Regarding the godbots, I used to say to the one who came to the door(we live in the deep south) jesus saves and moses invests! Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 12:49 PM
Sorry, that was for Dingo. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 12:53 PM
Pat is HEAD FUCKING SERIOUS!!!!
So, I guess you all'd better take him HEAD FUCKINGLY SERIOUSLY!!!
Posted by: How | December 26, 2009 1:06 PM
DJ - I don't think James' sign-off is a big deal, perhaps there really is nothing left to expound upon regarding Ed's analysis of Pat's behavior. What I do find interesting is how people communicate and how people respond differently than the intention of the writer; I was merely commenting on that. In this case a casual aside appears to be received as an issue to debate rather than a mere modest suggestion.
Gretchen - Nah, guys make friends for life. I have ways to get under their skin every bit as effective as they do to me. I answer the phone and let them get their yucks as a play my role as the annoyed one, all the while planning some form of sweet revenge for later. Given we've all known each other since childhood we know where all the pressure points are hidden.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 26, 2009 1:09 PM
How, as opposed to TOE FUCKIN' SERIOUS!?!? Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 1:09 PM
Meh. I don't find the signoff more than a little weird, it seems a little supercilious.
For the comment about people being logical, though, I do have one nitpick: I hate it when people act as if it's a bad thing.
Nature does not care how people feel, and the most mature thing people can do about it is sack up/ovary up and deal with it. Grow a thick skin. Besides, realistically, unless someone's threatening physical harm, it's best to let anything that isn't a response to one's argument roll off your back.
And I can understand why some people are upset about this. Sometimes people are insecure or have baggage. But the adult thing to do is to deal with that and take part in a conversation as an adult who doesn't take criticism of one's position personally - they're not criticizing you the person, they're criticizing your position with the express aim of informing you, not beating your ass.
This blog is not a care bears fucking tea party, and I don't want ANY blog to be one.
Posted by: Katharine | December 26, 2009 1:32 PM
Mr. James M. Phillips!
Don't think for a SINGLE MOMENT that I have forgotten what happened on Dec 7, 1941!!!
And I bet you have SLANDY (or, at the very least, a SLANDED) eyes!!!!
Thanks eversomuch,
How
Posted by: How | December 26, 2009 1:34 PM
I await with baited breath a documentary of Pat going terrorist hunting. I can't decide if it would be more like "Equilibrium" or "Taken". (probably more like Barry the Cat, if there are any Viz readers here!)
Posted by: Coryat | December 26, 2009 1:35 PM
I am all for finding a simple, humane way to reduce further addition to the pool of idiots.
Posted by: Katharine | December 26, 2009 1:40 PM
Mr. How, I'll have you know my eyes are blue! OK, my right eye is a little slanded to the left. It's beause my parents are liberals, FSM's justice. You're WELCOME, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 1:46 PM
Katharine, how about keeping abortion safe and legal. It's a start anyway. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 1:48 PM
Mr. So-called James M. Phillips,
LIBERALS like your parents LIED about the damn war, ya slandy-eyed Phillipsino!
most sincere Thanks,
How
Posted by: How | December 26, 2009 1:57 PM
... which I consider to be a highly appealing and entertaining aspect of the comment threads of this blog (most of the time).
So, my 2$ worth; I end most of my work e-mails with "thanks" as a customer service kind of thing. (Maybe I shouldn't?) James just came across to me as someone who doesn't have different communication styles for different circumstances.
My pet peeve is when commenters use emoticons in a passive-aggressive way; e.g., a smiley-face at the end of a comment that basically says "you're full of shit!"
Posted by: ildi | December 26, 2009 2:03 PM
I, for one, would like to personally encourage Pat to arm himself to the teeth and head down to Metro Airport to hunt terrorists. The sooner the better.
Posted by: Taz | December 26, 2009 2:10 PM
James,
I took the main jist (or perhaps initiating factor) of DingoJack's original comment to be that your signoff is ambiguous. While many people do use that form, I find it a bit confusing, requiring a second-take to grasp the semantic intent. Contrast
with
with
or perhaps
See?
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | December 26, 2009 2:17 PM
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, But I beleive in good manners and say thank you, please, sir, and ma'am. I also think folks are reading way too much into this. If you are confused about my motivations see comment #17 Thanks, James PS Yes I will continue to say "Thanks" when I sign off, not to irritate anyone and not as a facade of civility, I am just one of those folks who thinks alot of all of you and appreciates the opportunity to be a part of the liberal community. Not to mention that's just the way I was raised in a southern home. Some habits are hard to break.
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 2:52 PM
---Pat is HEAD FUCKING SERIOUS!!!!
So, I guess you all'd better take him HEAD FUCKINGLY SERIOUSLY!!!---
And you are welcome Mr. Poe Pat....and welcome home from jail.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | December 26, 2009 3:15 PM
James, I am in no way offended by the sign-off, and plenty of us have the good sense to say 'please' and 'thank you' when needed (although I consider 'sir' or 'ma'am' entirely too deferential unless used simply for the sake of courtesy; I'm the sort who thinks people should stand on their merits and their brains regardless of who they are), and we appreciate that you think well of us and you are proud to be a member of the liberal community. I'm just pointing out that a discussion about this reflects a broader problem: shallower forms of civility, whether or not they are accompanied by real civility, are something I perceive as rather inane without an actual sense of being a civil adult in a conversation and addressing the merits of an argument rather than attacking the person. There are times when someone can say 'Yes sir' and mean 'Fuck you, subhuman moron'.
Posted by: Katharine | December 26, 2009 3:17 PM
I think Miss Manners would frown on the idea that your standards of politeness require you to keep using language that potentially irritates some of the very people you are trying to bond with. A true Southern gentleman wouldn't. For example, you wouldn't keep calling a lady ma'am once you found out it made her feel old, would you?
Posted by: ildi | December 26, 2009 3:29 PM
James M. Phillips - I think Uncle Glenny makes a good point.
Thanks,
James
reads like you're signing off with a thank you.
Thanks, James.
reads like you're thanking someone named James. It's a little jarring, especially since we see it before your signature.
Posted by: Taz | December 26, 2009 3:50 PM
Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't understand the pile-on in reference to my signoff. But, obviously I should change it because a small group out of the whole don't like it? Well, how very conservative christian right wing republican straight white american male of you(H/T Todd Snider). Would you prefer fuck off and die, adios, mea culpa, eat me or just no comment at all. I don't mean to sound cranky but, what is the big fucking deal if I say thanks or not. Does it really change the way we think or feel about issues that are important to all of us as a community? And, if it does, what does that say about our priorities? Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 4:02 PM
Michael @ 23
Not to get all stroppy, but you should say that you make friends for life. It's certainly not true of all men, nor is it untrue for many women. In fact, I'd probably say it's not true for most people.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2009 4:06 PM
I will admit that, when James first started commenting here, I was a little confused by his sign-off; I didn't know whom he was thanking or why. But after reading subsequent comments, it quickly became crystal clear that "Thanks, James" was in fact simply his sign-off, and I accepted it. It doesn't have to be 100% logical in the context of his comments; does anyone really question signing letters or emails with "sincerely, x?" If you stop to think about it, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's an accepted, even expected, signature. It is my opinion that, if anyone is seriously irritated by James' sign-off, then the problem is more theirs than his.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 26, 2009 4:09 PM
It makes no difference at all, at least to my English eyes. This whole nonsense confuses me.
Posted by: Coryat | December 26, 2009 4:26 PM
No offense meant on my part, James. It doesn't matter to me how you sign your comments. Now if you went to Pat's blog and did that he'd probably 9mm your ass with a motherfucking 9mm.
Posted by: Pat | December 26, 2009 5:25 PM
Damn, comment #44 was from me. I can't believe I signed it "Pat". I should start drinking.
Posted by: Taz | December 26, 2009 5:27 PM
Ideologues almost exclusively live by such an extreme double-standard that they are intensely blind to.
Posted by: Brando | December 26, 2009 5:48 PM
Any sound pretty good to me...
Because you're saying that it's the honorable chivalrous Southern thing you simply MUST do, no matter what.
Etiquette. You're doing it wrong. Have a nice day!
Posted by: ildi | December 26, 2009 6:36 PM
i think the nigerian dude who had the explsives at teh detroit airport was a fan of the "die hard " movies series..
attempting to bomba plane on christmas is true die hard fashion ..
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 26, 2009 6:44 PM
Ah, but was there a classically educated British super-villain involved?
Posted by: Coryat | December 26, 2009 6:55 PM
I don't think you're in any position to lecture others about etiquette, ildi.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 26, 2009 7:01 PM
Want to know what else is HEAD FUCKING SERIOUS? A kakapo.
Posted by: Janine | December 26, 2009 7:01 PM
This isn't cluelessness but mental illness with a megaphone. Unfortunately, he won't get any help until he physically attacks someone, and is forced to. Won't help, 'cause "the problem's not with me, it's with this system"
Posted by: featheredfrog | December 26, 2009 7:04 PM
James, honey, as a fellow deep southerner, I understand you perfectly. It's the devil's own work to unlearn a courtesy instilled in us from the time we've said our first words. You keep doing what your Mama taught you, just like I'll keep saying "yes mam" and "no sir" to people 30 years my junior. It's how we are made.
Oh, yeah, and about Pat, what a sad little monkey he is. Constantly jibbering meaningless catchphrases, flinging poo and dancing around his cage excitedly. Let's hope he doesn't escape and get a job as a postal worker.
Posted by: momkat | December 26, 2009 7:36 PM
Southern manners: an irresistible subject. I'm afraid, James, that some of your "thanks" closings do in fact grate on these old very Southern ears.
Unlike your apparent idea that "thanks" is appropriate at the end of any and all messages, I've always noticed that there are two categories of "thanks." One is a polite appreciation for something already done or provided (like "thanks for listening, thanks for your opinion, thanks for being on the same side, thanks for a place to have my individual voice heard"), and the other "thanks" is the equivalent of "I expect you in future to do as I say."
The second kind is found, for example, in a memo from a Southern boss: "It would be helpful if everyone who uses the break room cleans off the counter after use. Thanks, George." The "Thanks" means, "This is a directive, and I expect you to do what I said."
James, a number of your comments sound to me like the second kind of thanks. For example, "I personally beleive that we could all do with a little more manners and a lot less invective. Thats all. Thanks, James" sounds to these Southern ears a lot like "I expect you people to shape up and use the same methods of indicating politeness that I do." And "I'm not sure what the hullaballoo is about. Thanks, James" sounds a lot like "I expect you not to talk about it because I don't have a problem with it."
I too was raised in a Southern home and spent a lot of years hearing comments like, "The TV is a bit loud, thanks, Sugar", which I knew meant "Turn that TV down immediately." I know a good many Southerners who take offense at the "I expect you to do as I say" use of "thanks" coming from anyone other than someone like an older relative or a superior at work.
But the South is a big place. Maybe we come from very different environments.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 26, 2009 7:46 PM
Did a whole bunch of my readers really just spend that much time and effort making a big deal out of the fact that someone ends their comments with a thank you and their name? Seriously? Are you guys that freaking bored today?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 26, 2009 9:22 PM
Really, Sadie? I thought I followed the conventions for commenting on this blog pretty well. Thank you for sharing...ma'am!
(Is there an emoticon for the non-Duchenne smile?)
Also, what JuliaL said.
Posted by: ildi | December 26, 2009 9:26 PM
Post-Xmas decompression.
thanks
Posted by: ildi | December 26, 2009 9:29 PM
Hey, it's the weekend after a holiday. If ever there's a time for lazy talk about trivia, it's now. If it's trivial to talk about somebody's habitual closing, just think what it is to analyze somebody's talking about somebody's habitual closing, and then to respond to somebody's analyzing people talking about somebody's habitual closing. But it's just relaxation, not boredom.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 26, 2009 9:32 PM
Dingo Jack, my current response to the condescending "I'll pray for you" is "I wish I could reason for you."
Thanks,
Pieter
Posted by: Pieter B | December 26, 2009 10:07 PM
Wow, eight hours later and still there is this much discussion about little 'ol me? If I had known I would have used something really grating. Like, oh I don't know, praise jesus. Or maybe cheney/palin '12. JuliaL, I don't expect anyone to do what I do. Do as you please, I thought that was pretty much covered in comment #12. And yes, Miss Julia I do know exactly what you mean by the expectation thingy. However, that was not at all where I was going. Thanks, James PS surely you grammar nazis have someone else to go after, like Pat. Goodnight.
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 11:57 PM
To My Esteemed and Most Benevolent Host, Mr Edward Brayton.
Sir:-
I think you have some misapprehension of my intent.
My earlier missive (numbered as five) was merely a slight and foolish thing, a weak attempt at being humorous, not at all meant to be considered as being either weighty or serious in content or in conception.
Any attempt to construct a solid hypothesis on this airy foundation would be, in my humble opinion, to stumble further off the topic and into the slough of error.
I ask your forgiveness for drawing your guests off into the wilderness with this slight and airy will-o-the-wisp, and will dutifully exhort others to return with me to the path.
Your Most Humble and Obedient Servant:-
Mr DingoJack
Posted by: DingoJack | December 27, 2009 12:29 AM
Ed,
I haven't been following the Pat business but, as one who is often misdiagnosed as suffering from the malady, I am delighted that you use cognitive dissonance correctly. You say that he appears to be immune rather than saying the opposite: that he has it.
Those of us who are scientists and Christians are often accused by our detractors as exhibiting or living with cognitive dissonance. Jerry Coyne is particularly muddle-headed in this regard. It would be perfectly reasonably to say (as you used it) that we must be immune to it because we should be suffering from it it big time, but it is really stupid to say, as Coyne and many others do, that we have it. If we feel no tension then we don't have it.
Presumably this Pat creature feels no tension.
Posted by: heddle | December 27, 2009 7:16 AM
heddle @ 62:
I'm a regular reader of Jerry Coyne's blog. While I'm not particularly interested in the whole 'faitheist' debate that is of great interest to him, Chris Mooney, and others, I do skim the reader comments and haven't seen a rebuttal from you.
Is Coyne aware of your dissent and if so, do you have a link where you two debate his supposed failure?
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 27, 2009 9:09 AM
Pat is a true citizen of Dumbfuckistan.
Posted by: Owen | December 27, 2009 12:50 PM
No, you feel cognitive dissonance when you feel that there is a logical inconsistency between your ideas. Cognitive dissonance is strongest when some of your beliefs seem to contradict basic ideas of self-concept; in this case:
"I am a rational, reasoning person who uses the scientific method to make judgments about reality"
or whatever your personal descriptor is of you as a physicist. One way of reducing dissonance is through rationalization; e.g.:
"There are other ways of knowing, and knowing through revelation in the religious context is just as valid a way of being rational and reasoning as knowing through the scientific method in the physics context."
Dissonance resolved, no tension! Of course, the rationalization doesn't have to be true to work...
Posted by: ildi | December 27, 2009 1:34 PM
No true Dumbfuckistani...
Posted by: Owen | December 27, 2009 2:07 PM
Michael Heath,
I am banned from three blogs: Common Descent, a YEC blog, and Coyne's blog (no explicit statement, but my recent comments never appear--I've tried four or five times) --thus you'll find no comments more recent than about 4 months from me.
Posted by: heddle | December 27, 2009 2:07 PM
ildi
Yes, that's called tension. And you are correct, it's when you sense an inconsistency between your own ideas, not when someone else senses an inconsistency between your ideas. If you don't feel tension, there is no cognitive dissonance. It is essentially self-diagnosed. If you want an example, think of Kurt Wise. He admits he feels tension between his knowledge of science and his YEC beliefs.
Posted by: heddle | December 27, 2009 2:35 PM
...except for that it's not a "malady" that requires "diagnosis." It is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when there's a discrepancy between what we already know or believe and new information, or a new interpretation of our knowledge. This state of discomfort can be considered a necessary state for becoming open to assimilating new information.
Or, you can rationalize the dissonance away...
Posted by: ildi | December 27, 2009 3:04 PM
heddle stated:
Do you instead mean Dembski's Uncommon Descent? I could neither find nor I have heard of Common Descent. My comments rarely get through either (though I rarely read that blog or try to post comments). They did allow me to fisk two of the blog posters' many lies there regarding the recent Ardipithicus papers.
My respect for Dr. Coyne just went down a large notch. I assumed given some of the crackpot YEC comments I've seen there that the only moderation was for spam.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 27, 2009 3:16 PM
Michael Heath,
Yes I meant Uncommon Descent. Too much Presbyterian eggnog. I should stick with Baptist eggnog.
ildi,
Or, you can insist the person has it, when he doesn't.
Posted by: heddle | December 27, 2009 3:28 PM
Who's been accusing you of having cognitive dissonance? That's just so wrong! That would imply that you actively consider new ideas...
Posted by: ildi | December 27, 2009 4:11 PM
Sorry to be late to the party here, but I noticed that Mr. James, in post 40, has taken the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his name be praised) in vain. This is just to inform Mr. James that, however many “Thank yous” or “Pleases” or “Help me! Helllllllp meeeeeeees!” you may invoke, the immanent and all-powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his cheese be grated with a sharp blade) will be coming for you. And you will be pesto-ed.
Yrs in most humble subservience to the All-Powerful and Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his marinara be spicy and hot),
Tigerwolf
Posted by: Tigerwolf | December 28, 2009 12:01 PM