…and this is a 
I got a very annoying announcement on our university listserv today. Among the usual community and campus events, it says:
Please mark your calendars: Don Bierle, PhD in Biology, polar explorer, and former skeptic, shares FaithSearch Discovery at Morris Area High School Sunday, September 27, 6:30 pm. This event is sponsored by Stevens County Ministerial and area churches.
This really pisses me off.
Our local high school has problems. It's underfunded, it's academically compromised in many ways, and we were immensely relieved to get our kids out of there. It's a small school, with a total of two science teachers, and one of them is openly creationist and openly dismissive of evolution in the classroom. If you want a good science education, Morris Area High School is not the place to go right now. And this doesn't help.
Don Bierle is a creationist, a certifiable liar for Jesus, an evangelical, fundamentalist wackjob who is coming to town to lie to the community and to our kids. This FaithSearch program is undiluted Christian apologetics, and it's going to be presented in our school building.
I called the school, and they gave me a runaround about how it wasn't during school hours, and the churches were renting the room. I assumed all that; it doesn't matter. This is a group promoting propaganda antithetical to the educational message of the public school. They are going to be teaching lies to the Morris community, and the school doesn't care that their facilities are being used for this ghastly purpose. If it were the KKK asking to rent a room, there would be squawks and rapid backpedaling…but because this group is sponsored by a mix of our local churches, it must be OK.
It isn't OK. It's just more evidence that our theistically inclined brethren are happy to corrupt education and spread more ignorance through the area.
Any locals who happen to read this: if the school promotes this at all, if it's mentioned in announcements, newsletters, or flyers; if our dear little creationist teacher, Mrs. Franey, even whispers a word about this dishonest performance in her class, I hope there are a few of you willing to spread the word and pound on the school hard. This is not the way to improve the academic status of our community. I also hope a few biologists and biology students attend, if it goes on, and puts a little public smackdown on this pious phony.
I'm also a bit peeved that my university sees fit to promote this garbage to our faculty and staff.
Comments
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 12, 2009 6:43 PM
Small problem, as a public facility the school cannot bar any legal group from making use of it in a legal manner. This includes people we don't like.
Posted by: bobxxxx | June 12, 2009 6:47 PM
It's a small school, with a total of two science teachers, and one of them is openly creationist and openly dismissive of evolution in the classroom.
I'm pretty sure teaching religious ideas in a public school is against the law. I'm just curious PZ. Have you or anyone else ever complained about this incompetent idiot being allowed to teach science in the high school in the town where you live?
Or is everyone patiently waiting for this imbecile to retire, not caring about the students of your town who are getting an inferior education?
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 12, 2009 6:53 PM
Bierle, the former skeptic. This means that he was formerly rational but suffered a head injury, probably on his polar explorations where his imaginary god took hold of his fertile brain to lodge imaginary delusions, as noted in his title FaithSearchDiscovery. I can just imagine the gist of his deranged speech, as he relates how he found faith and lost reason on his search for the "truth". I could no more endure his puke as I can enduring open heart surgery without anathesia. Too bad a polar bad didn't get him before insanity took hold.
Posted by: FlyingSpaghettiTroll
|
June 12, 2009 6:53 PM
PZ, I think you can destroy this fundy fuckwit. Before this guy gets a chance to speak, make an attempt to rent out time in one of the churches sponsoring this nut. Proceed to then rent out a room across the hall from the SOB if you think it wouldn't be to hard to haul in more faces... make sure people are lined up out the door just to hear you speak while he preaches to a few people in the gym.
-FST
Posted by: Doc Bill | June 12, 2009 6:55 PM
Yes, PZ, where are the winged monkeys when you need them?
Fly, my pretties, fly!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 12, 2009 7:02 PM
Yes, it has every stereotype that is expected:
Probably some idiot who knew nothing about religion, and thought it was as unsophisticated as the Santa Claus tale. Then, not knowing anything about philosophy, he heard a bit of religion, and it was dressed up in much more impressive concepts than he had imagined, and he fell for it.
These people are always "skeptics" or "atheists" before "finding the Lord." The real word for every one that I have encountered is "ignoramus."
I don't mind that a school rents out a place for him to speak, however. So long as they'd rent it to atheists and religionists alike, I'm okay with that.
He should be jeered for his BS about being a skeptic, and for being an equally incompetent know-nothing religionist now, however.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Louis | June 12, 2009 7:05 PM
All you need is a few lads from the local Italian Sport Club Fraternity of Brothers (or some such) to pay a visit to this chap, the creationist teacher, and the school and remark on how flammable and easily breakable many elements of them/it are and how much of a shame it would be if any of them were, for example, to accidentally burst into flames or some such thing.
What do you mean we're the advocates of reason and we can't just go around intimidating people?
Fucking ethics and morals. They're always getting in the way of a really good hypothetical discussion of the flammability of vital things.
Louis
Posted by: pex | June 12, 2009 7:06 PM
Is there anything stupider to call yourself than a "former skeptic"?
It's like calling yourself a "former smart person".
Posted by: Grumpy | June 12, 2009 7:12 PM
In the vernacular, "former skeptic" means, "I didn't believe it at first, but now I'm convinced!" Strictly speaking, a person can be convinced yet remain a skeptic.
Ironically, the strict sense appears to be the case here. "I used to be a skeptic, but then I realized faith is easier!"
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 12, 2009 7:12 PM
Why is it that seemingly every fundamentalist, creationist lecturer is a "former skeptic" or "former atheist"?
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 12, 2009 7:13 PM
Maybe your University is promoting it because they're hoping you'll attend, and viciously disprove each of his ridiculous assertions.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 7:14 PM
Sad for education, but worse for religion.
Long term, those churches are shooting themselves in the foot by advocating creationism. Go ahead, Christians, turn Christianity into the 'deny evolution' group. Heck, claim that we never landed on the moon, water remembers things if you shake a stick at it, and that the germ theory of disease is "only a theory." Go whole hog stupid, make it a package deal, and be sure to use lots of charts and science-y stuff.
Then send the kiddies out into the world. And see which way the clever ones go.
'Destroy' this guy? Naw. We should secretly fund him.
Posted by: Humanistic Jones
|
June 12, 2009 7:14 PM
@Louis #7
To paraphrase Futurama, "Don-bot, I don't think we should count on an accident. Maybe we should set'em on fire ourselves and then say it was an accident."
Posted by: QrazyQat | June 12, 2009 7:18 PM
One wonders where he got his degrees; his various bios online don't seem to mention. Nor do they mention when this "former skeptic" got his MA in "New Testament Studies".
Posted by: cdx | June 12, 2009 7:19 PM
Is there anything stupider to call yourself than a "former skeptic"?
If there were truth in advertising, it would be followed by "but now with the con artists"
Posted by: Yellow Dog | June 12, 2009 7:20 PM
Good on ya, PZ. The freakazoids get away far too often with spreading their hateful lies in community venues that lend them unearned credibility.
We all need to keep on eye on events like this and do everything we can to stop them.
I can't count the number of times my explanations of the separation of church and state are met with "But my preacher leads prayers at school events all the time!"
Our silence give assent.
Posted by: ethin | June 12, 2009 7:22 PM
"Former skeptic". He was previously skeptical. Now, he has baseless, unevidenced, ignorant, blind faith. Isn't that one of the most common creationist canards? "I was once one of them, but now I know better!"
I think he was probably more of a skeptic in the Kirk Cameron sense of the word and not so much in the James Randi sense.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | June 12, 2009 7:24 PM
Re: 3
"Bierle, the former skeptic. This means that he was formerly rational..."
I've heard of other so-called "former skeptics/atheists" on the sermon-circuit (Kirk Cameron claims to have been an atheist until he found JEEZ-us) but I always come to the conclusion that this is a cleverly crafted lie. There is rarely no real way of telling what their beliefs are or were. The "was skeptical until I was convinced" line is quite powerful regardless of whether the pitchman is selling laundry detergent of spirituality. It gives the speaker an aura of false "open mindedness" juxtaposed to the faithless scientists and unbelievers who are so certain in the unshakable. Evil-utionary dogma. Besides, the idea of a former atheist has propaganda value; if even a die-hard atheist can be "saved," then the word of God must be truly powerful.
These people maybe deluded, and willing to lie in the name of their delusion, but they are not stupid. They know now their audience and they now how to play to them.
Posted by: Humanistic Jones
|
June 12, 2009 7:26 PM
That's a degree?! A whole masters on one half of a book? Can I get a MA in "The Second Half of 'Dune'"?Posted by: Louis | June 12, 2009 7:27 PM
@HumanisticJones #13
Indeed.
"Say, it's a very nice auditorium you have here. It would be a terrible shame if it were to, you know, catch fire or something."
Now I ask you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the supposed jury, is that the statement of a mobster? ;-)
I know we can't use the techniques of the perpetually benighted against them, and I know fantasising about it in a serious fashion would be almost as bad. But dammit there is a tiny corner of my primate brain that thinks maybe if we were a little ethically dubious a few more battles might be won. The problem is, if any of us slip even once we risk losing the war. And I really hate "us vs them" militaristic analogies, so forgive that one!
It ain't us vs them, it's us vs us. There is no them. The fight against anti-Enlightenment ideologies is a struggle with those same ideologies within oneself. Oh dear, I've gone recursive and Zen. This brandy must be better than I thought!
Note to self: never attempt to post sense after a week of new born baby induced lack of sleep and a couple of large glasses of a really rather good bottle of Hennessey XO.
Louis
Posted by: QrazyQat | June 12, 2009 7:30 PM
Looking further through the interface at his web site, I see his BA was from Westmar College in Iowa, his MA and PhD from U of South Dakota, no mention of his MA in New Testament Studies. He also claimed to have found Jesus in 1965 just after his BA (that would be at the age of about 24) so that didn't give him much time to be a "former skeptic", especially given his likely upbringing in 1940s and 50s Yankton, SD.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | June 12, 2009 7:34 PM
"Is there anything stupider to call yourself than a "former skeptic"?"
Ah, but remember, we live in a culture where most people believe in some form of supernatural belief is usually a given (even among some who are atheists).
Even among religious moderates, "skeptic" is a dirty word that conjures the image of a heartless, pedantic, denier whose lack of belief in the magical denotes a deficiency in their so-called "soul."
Like I said, these people know their audience.
Posted by: Clarie | June 12, 2009 7:35 PM
I dunno about in Minnesota, but in Oregon, a church group can rent out public school space for after-hours use because the buildings have to be available for anyone to use. The church I was a member of in high school used this opportunity a lot, especially for Easter/Christmas events with anticipated attendance more than our wee church building could hold.
So the school's hands might be tied...but sure doesn't stop the Superpowers of Reason(tm) making sure there's lots of publicity regarding what this speaker is really all about.
Oh, and I also cast my vote for "irritated by evangelical speakers claiming to be atheists/skeptics before seeing the light" It was a super common theme with these types way back when I was a christer, and none of their descriptions ever fit what I now see as skeptical or atheist. I think it's popular because it magnifies the whole theme of "I once was lost but now am found" After all, the bigger the sin, the more grace supposedly needed, and why settle for a bit of grace if you can claim a bunch?
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | June 12, 2009 7:37 PM
Edit: Ah, but remember, we live in a culture where some form of supernatural belief is usually a given (even among some who are atheists).
Sigh... sometimes I'm so anxious to make a point, I forget to proofread.
Posted by: mas528 | June 12, 2009 7:41 PM
they can't even use "skeptic" in a sentence.
What the hell does "Former Skeptic" even mean?
Absolutely nothing.
"He was a skeptic, but hey, now he's credulus as hell. He'll believes anything!
You name it, he believes it!
Posted by: raven | June 12, 2009 7:44 PM
The usual creationist lie. "Bierle used to be an atheist." (Then he suffered a severe head injury and found jesus.)
Yeah sure. They all say that and it probably has never been true. They earn their title of Liars for jesus.
Posted by: SplendidMonkey
|
June 12, 2009 7:49 PM
We're all born skeptics. So I guess anyone who loses their natural ability or desire to discern between real stuff and made-up stuff would be a "former skeptic".
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 12, 2009 7:51 PM
Louis @ 20:
Congrats on the new baby. Nice to know smart folks are propagating after all.
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | June 12, 2009 7:52 PM
When G&S started getting ripped off in the US by pirates of "Pinafore," they responded by mounting superior productions and defeating the stealers fair-n-square, or so I hear.
Thus, I second any sort of metaphorical-to-G&S actions PZ (or others) might take.
I myself am a lazy drunk, and would never bestir myself to do much beyond seconding other peoples' work (duh... except where I'm personally impassioned, mainly involving yeast and Mars).
Posted by: raven | June 12, 2009 7:54 PM
Not all xian sects are creationist. In fact, most aren't. I don't know much about the breakdown in Stevens County, Minnesota but it looks like they might have a lot of fundies there. The WELS, Michelle Bachmann's church, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutherans are almost as fruitbat crazy as she is and found in the upper midwest..
Posted by: raven | June 12, 2009 8:02 PM
I don't know if this is true. It doesn't seem quite right BWTHDIK.
Maybe the high school skeptic, atheists, and reality based community club* could try renting out the auditorium for a talk. Maybe they could invite PZ Myers to give a talk on creationists and their lies.
*The high school does have a free thinker club, don't they? And hell has frozen over hasn't it?
Posted by: Rick R | June 12, 2009 8:03 PM
"Former Skeptic".
Why does that sound exactly the same as "ex-Gay"?
I suspect he's
A) an attention whore
B) a money-grubbing son-of-a-bitch
C) mentally ill
D All of the above
Posted by: Erp | June 12, 2009 8:04 PM
Actually the New Testament is multiple books and I could well see a master's thesis written on just one small part (e.g., tracing the texts to figure out when and what was likely in the original).
From his C.V.
http://www.tccsa.tc/notices/bierle.pdf
Westmar College, Le Mars, Iowa - Degree: B.A. - 1963; Major: Biology; Minor: Chemistry
University of South Dakota, Vermillion - Degrees: M.A. - 1966; Ph. D. - 1969 Major: Zoology; Minor: Botany
His dissertation was on the ecology of Antarctic freshwater lakes
He taught at the University of Sioux Falls 1968-1973 as an Assoc. Prof of Biology (which sounds wrong, I would think Assistant Prof for a starting position though the university is a Christian institute [but not hardcore creationist, they are reading Collins and Dennett])
Denver Seminary, Colorado - Degree: M.A. - 1982 (with honors); Major: New Testament studies
I would put them firmly in the creationist camp.
http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/annotated-bibliography-for-the-intelligent-design-evolution-debate-2002/
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 8:22 PM
Similar trajectory, from fun to boring. (Not to imply that being heterosexual is boring, for actual heterosexuals.)
Please. Seriously, there are lots of ethical, smart, thoroughly decent people with mental illnesses, who don't deserve this kind of stigma.
Posted by: Louis | June 12, 2009 8:23 PM
@ Krystalline Apostate # 28
Tyvm. On both counts! Mind you, by "smart folks" I'm going to assume you mean my wife. It's the safer bet. ;-)
-----
I too am amused by the "former sceptic/atheist" rhetoric of some of our religious chums. It's a smart, smart move (personal testimony and vague appeals to intuition and folksy relativism work.....sadly) and fits nicely with the "anecdata" style of much of our media and lifestyles.
I forget, very often unfortunately, that we are coming out of the pre-Enlightenment period. I know people claim that we're past all that now, but really we ain't. For most people in the First World the Enlightenment hasn't happened beyond our access to mocha-mint-caramel half fat lattes and the new iPhone (WANT. SO. BAD. Sorry, must be a good little consumer now mustn't I). For most people full stop it would just be a pretty word which distracts them briefly from being rampagingly fucked over by us mocha-mint-caramel half fat latte-ists.
My point is that, tragically, we should EXPECT these idiotic rhetorical gambits to be effective. If utopia is achievable, and I have no good idea if it is or isn't (I hope such a nebulous concept can be approached asymptotically if it exists at all), then we are far from it. I don't argue for despair or apathy, just that we shouldn't even be remotely surprised by the effectiveness of truly staggeringly dumb behaviour. I say this in a week where two members of the fascist British Nationalist Party were swept into Europe by a combination of voter apathy, disillusionment and knee jerk-reactionary lunacy.
We are new to reason, new to the values produced by the Enlightenment, and certainly new to the concept that considered, consilient evidence is a good thing to consciously base ideas and actions on. What's a few centuries against the awesome sweep of evolutionary time? What's a few centuries of gradual progress towards something as utterly alien as a reason based society amongst friends?
Sod it, I'm going back to the tongue in cheek suggestion of setting fire to the building. At least that will raise an eyebrow. Or at least singe it.
Louis
Posted by: MadScientist | June 12, 2009 8:26 PM
If it makes you feel any better (or worse) PZ, the Australian National University seems to do the same. Only a few weeks ago some godnagger was *invited* to give a sermon about how atheists are the root of all evil. Of course they wouldn't phrase things like that, they use weasel words instead. Unfortunately I was not in the area; I doubt anyone bothered to put the godnagger in his place.
Posted by: Tyler | June 12, 2009 8:30 PM
If it's not the case that any public institution has the legal right to refuse accommodations to any person or group it deems counter to the public's best interest, then all religious groups should illegally be refused the use of any public property for religious events and be forced into court should they want to pursue the issue, so the case can be made that religion is not in the public's best interest. If for some insane reason the outcome favors the godbots, in effect putting god on trial is just so deliciously goddamn blasphemous, and win or lose, it will plant seeds of reason, which is always a good thing.
Posted by: Louis | June 12, 2009 8:34 PM
Seconded.
Given the frighteningly frequent occurrence of mental illnesses, like an infection an episode of a mental illness isn't always permanent, I would strongly advocate that this is another area where people give up their "them and us" attitudes. Given the wide spectrum of severity of mental illnesses I'd also strongly advocate that people look within before looking without.
There's a wonderful review/textbook on bipolar disorder and recurrent depressive illness by Kay Redfield Jamison. I defy anyone to read it, even partially, and a) not have their attitude to mental illness change rapidly and profoundly, and b) shit themselves!
Louis
Posted by: No BS | June 12, 2009 8:39 PM
PZ... time to get "expelled" again.
Posted by: Michael X | June 12, 2009 8:46 PM
I have to agree with those who've pointed out that there is probably no legal action that can be taken to restrict this twit from speaking. The correct response is for atheists to start renting rooms. Some of us could bill ourselves as "former muddle-headed thinkers" who found reason.
Posted by: Paul Gowder | June 12, 2009 8:47 PM
P.Z., get some legal firepower in on this! You have enough name recognition to get groups like the ACLU in to put a stop to this shameless establishment clause violation...
Posted by: Cactus Jack | June 12, 2009 8:49 PM
What happened to freedom of speech PZ?
Is it only limited to liberals?
Posted by: Cactus Jack | June 12, 2009 8:55 PM
If you call the Atheist Communist Lickers Union, I'll call Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Counsel.
These people have the same rights as anyone else to meet like this.
Stop being communists - stop censoring people's free speech.
I bet you people just can't wait until the Pedophile Protection Action becomes law can you?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 12, 2009 8:55 PM
Cactus Jack,
You can say whatever you want (within certain limits). We can mock you and get annoyed when you spout lies. You got a problem with that?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 12, 2009 9:00 PM
Cactus Jack is another conservative whiner who doesn't like it when he's called upon to think. As we all (including Cactus Jack) know, thinking is not an exercise that conservatives are encouraged to do. Mental masturbation is as far as Jack's political masters are allowing him to go.
Posted by: raven | June 12, 2009 9:02 PM
If what people say is correct, schools have to rent their facilities out to anyone. There is nothing stopping groups from giving talks like "The Lies of the Creationists." and so on. I rather suspect anyone trying to rent the Morris high school auditorium for such would have huge problems. But maybe not.
Posted by: Louis | June 12, 2009 9:03 PM
@ Cactus Jack #42:
Assuredly not. I relish the chance for creationists and loons of all types to speak their "minds". In fact letting them do so is not only equitable and good, it is vital in combating their lunacy.
PZ, nor anyone here, is advocating removing their right to free speech. However, advocating free speech is not the same thing as a) providing them with a platform or b) free speech in the absence of criticism.
Creationists are absolutely free to hold and communicate any ideas they wish. They are not free to do so in the absence of valid critique, no one is, and they are not free to wantonly legislate their ideas as fact (or as science) when it is demonstrable beyond reasonable doubt that they are neither. Creationist ideas and claims have been refuted many times over. Much (if not all) of what they claim is either demonstrably false on the basis of the evidence, or so confused and self-contradictory as to be worthless (or more commonly a combination of both). Trying to hide that unfortunate fact about creationist claims behind some spurious smokescreen of "free speech" is disingenuous in the extreme.
Denialists in general haven't really got any new techniques. They've been behaving the same way for centuries. Creationists are just a sub-species of denialist. The Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, moon landing hoax advocates, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, "alternative" medicine advocates and followers of David Icke etc all do the same things the same damned ways. Change a few key terms and you can transpose any one of their screeds into any one of the others' screeds. I'd even add advocates of certain political ideologies (on both sides of the house/river/divide/etc) to that list on occasion. No one group is absolutely above such dumbassery.
So nice try Cactus Jack, but you swung and missed.
Louis
Posted by: Cactus Jack | June 12, 2009 9:06 PM
What limits? I have read the posts here. I have witnessed first hand the blitzkreig of anti-Christian hatred here. Are there really limits?
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 9:06 PM
Cactus Jack wrote:
This isn't a liberal/conservative issue, nor is it even about religion. PZ's relevant quote is this one:
This is a group promoting propaganda antithetical to the educational message of the public school. They are going to be teaching lies to the Morris community, and the school doesn't care that their facilities are being used for this ghastly purpose.
Although you could argue that religion itself is "lies," that's a much tougher sell than this one. Creationism is clearly factually wrong -- just as it would be factually wrong to claim that space aliens built the pyramids, or that the moon landing was a hoax, or that 9-11 was a conspiracy planned by the Bush administration.
While schools could rent out space to all sorts of groups that PZ, or you, or I could disagree with -- and if it's open to rent, then there's no legit gripe - this issue may be a bit different. There's much more of a direct conflict with the educational mission of the school.
Posted by: Former Student | June 12, 2009 9:06 PM
Said second science teacher didn't allow me to make up a test I had missed because I was in the hospital for a week. I got a D in a class I had received only A's in prior to her taking it over; yet, my grades stayed steady in all other classes since those teachers understood the situation.
A few years later a friend of mine at college was in her class for his practicum and told me that instead of teaching evolution she had the students write a paper about their beliefs on creation.
It's utter bullshit and the more intelligent students have been petitioning to take other classes for the credit or do independent study. They shouldn't have to resort to that.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 9:07 PM
Jackass, the American Civil Liberties Union respects and works for your religious freedom:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/37958prs20081203.html
Posted by: Louis | June 12, 2009 9:07 PM
#47 paragraph 2 should have started with the word "neither".
Frankly I'm disgusted. What this place needs is a preview button and some damned good proofreading...
...WHAT?
{Ahem} Ah ha ha ha ha, erm, my bad.
Louis
Posted by: John Morales | June 12, 2009 9:11 PM
Cactus:
It's an opinion piece, o dull one.
"I called the school, and they gave me a runaround about how it wasn't during school hours, and the churches were renting the room. I assumed all that; it doesn't matter. This is a group promoting propaganda antithetical to the educational message of the public school. They are going to be teaching lies to the Morris community, and the school doesn't care that their facilities are being used for this ghastly purpose."
It's not about free speech, it's about pushing religion in school, instead in church where it belongs, and his consideration this is a betrayal of the school's putative goal - education.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Louis | June 12, 2009 9:11 PM
@ Sastra #49:
Spooky. We seem to have picked the same woo elements merely moments apart. It must be a conspiracy. I blame the alien space lizards that run the world. Teech Teh Contraversee!
Louis
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 12, 2009 9:12 PM
Directing violence is one such limit.
But why are you whining about hatred of Christians? I thought you conservatives were opposed to laws against hate speech (as am I, but your hypocrisy is delicious).
Posted by: Tim | June 12, 2009 9:16 PM
Ahh, Westmar... that beacon of education. I can't wait to send my kids there. What's that? You say they lost accreditation in the mid nineties? Oh, and then closed for good in '97?
I suppose it could've been decent in the '60's. But it was owned by the United Evangelical Church, so...
Posted by: raven | June 12, 2009 9:23 PM
Gee, cactus jack. You sure hate atheists. And liberals. I'm sure your hate list is far longer than that. Maybe you christofascists will earn the right to talk about hate when your xian terrorists stop assassinating people.
Posted by: Tyler | June 12, 2009 9:34 PM
You're exactly right.
No one's attempting to censor anyone's speech. These/you dingbats have the right to freely speak their/your vapid idiocy all they/you please. That right does not guarantee them/you either the right to an audience or a free pass to use public property to promote ideas that are, as has been pointed out, antithetical to the public's best interest.
Amusingly enough, that's exactly what you're advocating. Not the brightest lemming under the cross, are ya.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 12, 2009 9:34 PM
Louis #54 wrote:
Nonsense. There is a much simpler explanation, per Occam's Razor: mental telepathy. If we call it a kind of "energy," we sound all science-y, too.
Republicans were not always the "Fairy Dust Party," and conservatives often used to consider themselves strong advocates for science, reason, and the Enlightenment. Back in the old days, I guess.
Posted by: claw | June 12, 2009 9:38 PM
PZ you or someone you know that can lay a smack down got to represent, unfortunately not all biology teachers are made equal in their debate ability.
once when a christian "scientist" rented a room at our local university some bio instructors sat in to see what this guy was pushing (sharks, apparently just popped into existence according to this loon) and they didn't say much to him.
maybe they were told to play nice by their bosses, i dunno.
Posted by: Gavin Polhemus | June 12, 2009 9:57 PM
P.Z. You should rent the room for a talk promoting evolution, atheism, or both. This is your invitation! Don't get pissed, get even. The school needs money, as know, and renting out rooms is one way to get it. The school cannot pick and choose who rents. Ask your readers to pitch in a couple bucks, get some biologists together and go have a great time.
Everybody wins: Scientist/Atheists get to spread the good news, the community gets a great educational opportunity that they aren't getting in the classroom, the school gets some desperately needed dough, and we all feel great about helping to make it happen.
Heck, maybe you should make it a monthly thing.
Posted by: Lee Picton | June 12, 2009 10:12 PM
Louis,
Congrats on the new baby! My new grandson is a week old today also, but I have an advantage. After dinner, I turned the baby over to Mommy and Daddy, and they went home. Ah, the joys of being a grandparent!
Posted by: His Holiness Marcus Ranum | June 12, 2009 10:14 PM
Sastra writes:
'Destroy' this guy? Naw. We should secretly fund him.
We should fund our own fundies. Jam the overton window wide open by offering a complete cafeteria plan of beliefs. Every one of us should be a "Reverend" (except for those of us who feel the need to be Popes) Besides, think of the tax benefits. And, any time one of us wants to just tell our flock, "aw, fuckit, I just realized this is all bullshit. but thanks for the cadillac!" it'll help the cause by destabilizing and causing doubt. Right now the islamic world has a problem with too many imams making contradictory fatwas. I think we should all be imams, too. My fatwa for the day is that everyone except me should wear their underwear on their head for a week, or burn in eternal hellfire. Next week I'll issue a papal bull saying that all marriages must include a dog or they aren't real. Just wait 'till I get started on the flavored coffees...
Seriously, though... it's been obvious to me for some time that religion(s) in general are highly susceptible to disinformation attacks. They do it to themselves, all the time, but think about it - they're semi-sincere, at least. Deliberate, careful, consistent disinformation - backed with a bit of marketing money - would be an entirely new experience for the faithful to cope with. Imagine if, every time a church was thinking of inviting a speaker, they had to wonder, "is this guy a fake who's going to start babbling random nonsense that scares our marks?" What it, every time a speaker like this idiot came through a school, it was deluged with 20 more idiots with more amusing stories, or important moral messages like "fuck school; get high! porn is good!" They'd be awash in paranoia in about a year and paralyzed thereafter. The faithful used to be able to handle disinformation with a touch of the old auto da fe, but nowadays their hands are tied.
I'm deadly serious about this. Any of you who can write well should consider writing a book of theoidiocy and trying to publish it. Tie quantum mechanics, homeopathy, and christianity together better than Deepak Chopra does, then - after about 4 years - admit that "I just did it because you guys are stupid. Thanks for the new cadillac. Oh, and Deepak thanks you, too."
Posted by: unGeDuLdig | June 12, 2009 10:21 PM
This "former skeptic" soundbite keeps coming up in churches, because skepticism, rationalism and science are a huge threat to the fundamentalist belief. It is right there with "Ex-Gay" (mainly since the 90ies, see Jonathan Paulk), "former satanist" (80ies, see Mike Warnke) and "converted bolshevik" (70ies, see Sergei Kourdakov). If we'd follow this apostolic succession of "formers" we'd get to the "converted jews" of the Middle Ages. And here's the crux: The present variation of "former" is generally taken from the most hated group of the moment. This leads me to another revealing point. "Logically", the church should be flooded at this point with "former Muslims" (the biggest physical threat to Christians globally), but there are just a few. Instead we can assume from the quantity of "former atheists" that the fundamentalist believers hate the latter group far more than their rival cousins.
At the bottom of the matter it's because skepticism has not only "spoiled" most of the intellectuals and scientists, but also has managed to trickle down even into the most backward bastions of baptism. The whole ID scheme is not so much a deliberate assault on scientific reasoning as a desperate attempt to cope with the unpleasant and faith-threatening insights since Kopernikus. They seem to be on the attack, and in some parts they even seem to win. But on their way around the facts they violate logic so harshly that specially the most outspoken defenders of faith vs. reason can't help but spend most of their time fighting off the self-made contradictions. What I'm getting at is this: The "former skeptic" is more an appeal to the "inside" than to the "outside", i.e. to the half-conscious skepticism of the church members whose God keeps losing limbs under Occams Razor. Hence the deep need for "witnesses" who seem to have ove come the doubts that plague the ordinary church attender.
Posted by: Justine Ayers | June 12, 2009 10:37 PM
Hey Pz if it pisses you off so much. Rent the room immediately after the guy and do a lecture about how stupid creationism is and call it Creationism WOW!
People will stay cause they think they are hearing something more in addition to what he was doing.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 12, 2009 10:49 PM
See this is one of the things about the US and its education system that I dont get at all.
I think an atheist could teach religious studies in a neutral,openminded way,but a creationist teaching stuff their cult tells them are of the devil and untrue,how is that even meant to work??
Posted by: Justine Ayers | June 12, 2009 10:51 PM
Hey Pz if it pisses you off so much. Rent the room immediately after the guy and do a lecture about how stupid creationism is and call it Creationism WOW!
People will stay cause they think they are hearing something more in addition to what he was doing.
Posted by: tresmal | June 12, 2009 10:52 PM
"former skeptic" Translation: Brains are fer believin' not fer thinkin'!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | June 13, 2009 12:04 AM
Yupper. Rival religious groups still believe in belief, so they aren't as threatening as those people who don't.
Posted by: Blue-eyed Videot | June 13, 2009 12:06 AM
If the christianists want to throw their ignorance around, I'm all for it. So long as they pay taxes like the rest of us do. When your churches pay taxes like all businesses do, I'll say that limit has been reached. Until then, keep your ignorance and stupidity to yourselves.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 13, 2009 12:08 AM
How can he be a biologist and at the same time so ignorant about science and biology that he is a creationist? It doesn't work that way.
Posted by: John Morales | June 13, 2009 12:18 AM
Citizen,
Perhaps not in the ultimate, but evidently close enough to it, for all practical purposes.It's hard to try to pit incredulity against the evidence, ain't it? ;)
Posted by: ckitching | June 13, 2009 12:18 AM
Unfortunately, Marcus, James Randi already tried things like that. It had no effect.
http://www.skepdic.com/carlos.html
It really is quite sad. You can show them all the tricks, explain exactly how it works, and people still want to be fooled into giving away their money to frauds like that.
Or read about Marjoe Gortner, a child who was used to part credulous fools from their money, and participated in a documentary that explained how he did it. The documentary won academy awards. It had virtually no effect. It all still happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjoe_Gortner
These people just end up feeling cheated by the individuals who reveal that they are frauds, and then happily jump on the next one, unaware that the corruption is systemic, and not limited to a "few bad apples."
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
June 13, 2009 12:20 AM
Let's not get carried away with the "no true Scotsman" nonsense, now. Leave that to the religious nitwits. I think a lot of the people here are biased against the existence of "former skeptics" because so many of you are incredibly intelligent and educated. But stupid, unimaginitive, and ignorant people can be skeptics, too. And then fail at it when they reach the limits of their intellect, imagination and education and something comes along that they find more appealing or easier to wrap their brains around.
It doesn't help, either, that there's almost no public discussion of transcendental experiences as material, secular phenomena. So even smart skeptics can get bowled over by a powerful "mystical" experience and be at a loss for a skeptical way to interpret it that doesn't, at least to their mind, diminish it. To some of them, doubting the experience creates such a sense of loss that they would rather stop being skeptics. (And sometimes it just plain breaks their brain, I think.)
Not that any of that justifies the constant marketing of religious speakers or writers as "former skeptics." It's perfectly reasonable to get annoyed at the image this creates of skeptics and skepticism. And, of course, some "former skeptics" were nothing of the sort. But I don't think it's fair to jump to conclusions about the honesty of all of them. Much more satisfying to assume they're stupid, unimaginitive, and ignorant instead.
Posted by: Twisted_Colour | June 13, 2009 12:26 AM
Crazy Ann Althouse has a poll up. Please go and disrupt.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/06/andrew-sullivan-thinks-instapundit-is.html
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
June 13, 2009 12:29 AM
Marcus Ranum (#63)
I've considered it, but I've heard tales that it's really hard to get sheep to stop following you even after you tell them the truth. It could backfire too easily and then I'd have poisoned the world with more bad thinking. You can't just take back an avalanche of stupid.
Posted by: BluTexan | June 13, 2009 1:41 AM
Thank You. I live in the state in which I was born almost 60 years ago and too often feel such shame at the ignorance that Texas exhibits on a regular basis. It's with a small measure of joy that I see that this ignorance has spread to your distant outpost in the fine state of Minnesota. This lends possibility to my hope that the mean center of ignorance in the world is perhaps not Austin.
Posted by: Jon from Iowa | June 13, 2009 2:05 AM
I had the displeasure of seeing Don Bierle in person about 6 years ago in Caledonia, Minnesota. He is a dishonest fuck who believes that since there are a lot of copies of the New Testament manuscripts that means all the stories are true. This guy is a moron.
Posted by: Jon from Iowa | June 13, 2009 2:09 AM
I had the displeasure of seeing Don Bierle in person about 6 years ago in Caledonia, Minnesota. He is a dishonest fuck who believes that since there are a lot of copies of the New Testament manuscripts that means all the stories are true. This guy is a moron.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2009 2:45 AM
Kabin:
die you fucking spammer.
Posted by: davem | June 13, 2009 3:25 AM
Justine @ 67:
No. Rent the room before the talk. Then you have a bunch of new sceptics listening to the 'former' sceptic, and ready to ask some awkward questions.
Posted by: astrounit | June 13, 2009 3:37 AM
"I'm also a bit peeved that my university sees fit to promote this garbage to our faculty and staff."
Until I got to that line, I was going to say, that would bother me even more. Not just because it was present on your listserve. But because there hadn't been (so far, at least) an automatic and immediate reaction on the part of some hardy students and faculty to counter it.
Maybe that's still forthcoming and PZ is just really fast...of course, his lightning-like speed is an effective wake-up alarm. Thunder does roll out much slower than light...
Posted by: Porco Dio | June 13, 2009 3:58 AM
PZ, first time i have felt such hardcore frustration come through your words...
i wish i could be over there in the US and help you fight the Good Fight but unfortunately i am a world, and a god, away...
break their balls,
happy m0nkey.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 4:38 AM
What an asinine law.
I could go on, but if someone cannot see that requiring a school to allow an outside organisation with aims that conflict with the aims the school should have presents serious problems then there is little point.
Posted by: astrounit | June 13, 2009 5:46 AM
Matt Penfield #86 says:
"What an asinine law. I could go on, but if someone cannot see that requiring a school to allow an outside organisation with aims that conflict with the aims the school should have presents serious problems then there is little point."
Well, yes, you CAN "go on", can't you? EVEN WHEN "someone can't see"? Is there "little point" to attempting to fight just because "someone can't see"?
You defeat yourself and the rest of us because of a little bitty hitch? Like that there are people out there who are NOT particularly enamoured of ideas that aren't congruent with your own, so you give up???
COME ON MAN!!!
ZOUNDS ALMIGHTY!
I do not know anymore whether the opposition is really any dumber than those who pretend to "support" the side of rational thinking and science. Not when I see crap like that.
Matt? Why not just call it a day and forego commenting altogether, since, as you and we all too well know, there are literally MILLIONS of "somebody's" out there that have an incredibly hard time grabbing what we are trying "our best" to convey. (That doesn't mean we don't perhaps rescue some young people who are raised in that mess, who may liberate themselves from that hell-hole belief-system by the assistance of our efforts).
But, if you are as defeatist as you attest, you may therefore take a permament break from this horribly futile effort and on that basis refrain from commenting at all without ever once perturbing yourself over whether you've ever had the ability to persuade anybody at all. Fair enough?
Come on man. Buck up. It's hard on all of us. We don't give up just because we face horrible odds. One small step at a time, okay? It DOES work over time. A single raindrop cannot hope to erode out something like the Grand Canyon. Quit feeling sorry for your own limitations. Okay man?
Posted by: Jonathan | June 13, 2009 6:38 AM
I had the displeasure of seeing Don Bierle in person about 6 years ago in Caledonia, Minnesota. He is a dishonest fuck who believes that since there are a lot of copies of the New Testament manuscripts that means all the stories are true. This guy is a moron.
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 7:12 AM
@ A.Noyd # 74:
Speaking purely for myself I'd largely agree with you. I'm not sure I'd go as far as the "incredibly intelligent and educated" and "stupid, unimaginative, and ignorant" sections. I don't think we need to aggrandise "us" and derogate "them". I know that wasn't your intention btw, but part of recognising the "No True Scotsman", other than the purely logical formalities, is recognising the limits of in-group/out-group thinking.
Granted, there are many more reasons other than simple dishonesty behind the "former sceptic" rhetoric, and "stupid, unimaginative, and ignorant" are certainly among those reasons. I'd add (at least) "social factors" to them. For many, if not most, of our religious chums their religious ideology is firmly wedded to their personal/social identity. I think we forget that at our peril. Again, as I mention above, we should expect these rhetorical appeals to in-group identity to be successful.
Do any of us seriously expect intelligent folks not to have doubts about the religious waffle they are spoon fed at churches etc? Many of our religious chums bang on about the effort it takes to maintain their faith, that effort is made in the face of severe intellectual adversity. The "former sceptic" rhetoric is a sop, a reassuring noise indicating that those horrid doubts brought about by all that nasty thinking are wrong. They are an inclusive manoeuvre, designed to say "yes I had doubts too but look how faithy I am now!" It's a peacock's tail of religious in-group story telling!
Louis
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
June 13, 2009 7:35 AM
@Louis #7
As the former owner of a couple of vintage Alfa Romeo sports cars I had by necessity befriended a Sicilian auto mechanic owner of an Italian specialty auto shop, he may still have a few friends that might be able to assist you. If you need his contact information let me know... brother ;-)
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 13, 2009 7:38 AM
Matt Penfold, #86
And where would you have it end? You bar Don Bierle from speaking at a public venue and you make it possible to bar others from speaking at different public venues. It goes far enough you will see people you agree with, people you like, being banned because somebody doesn't like what they say.
For any law to have force it must apply to all. You want your friends to have a forum to say their piece, then people you hate can also use that same forum to say their piece. So long as what is said does not encourage the listener to harm others deliberately, or as a consequence of their actions, you have no right to forbid it.
So would I allow Don Bierle to speak at a public high school? I would allow a pedophile to speak. For if the pedophile were forbidden it would place my right to speak in jeopardy. The man urges the audience towards the commission of a crime, then call upon the law to put a stop to that. He only expresses his opinion, let him speak and do not as he encourages.
Don Bierle is a fool, and from the announcement PZ quoted above, a liar. But, the man is not urging the commission of a crime, only speaking about something he believes in. He's giving his opinion. His opinion is wrong, his opinion is contradicted by a body of knowledge gathered over many years by many people. But that opinion does not lead to the commission of a crime, and so Mr. Bierle gets to say his piece.
So he gets to speak at a local public high school. Does that mean people have to go listen to him? Do they have to attend his talk? The community can't go listen to a talk on evolution given at a local church, for example? Picture our own PZ Myers expounding on the evolution of the mammalian ear at a Lutheran or Methodist sanctuary. Watch as creationist irony meters sputter, melt, and burn. Such as Don Bierle need the controvery to survive, much less thrive. Refuse them the controvery, refuse them the attention they crave and soon enough they will fade away and be forgotten with the rest who's lives meant nothing.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 8:06 AM
Why is a matter of law at all ?
Why should a school be forced to facilitate the spread of creationism ? Schools should be fighting the teaching of creationism, not helping spread it. Who do allow to use school facilities ? Those the school deems to have values that correspond with those of the school.
It really is pretty simple and it seems only the US has problems with it. It is not an issue of free speech, since the school is not stopping creationists from speaking, merely denying them a particular venue. Allowing free speech does not mean you have to provide a platform for that speech, especially when that speech conflicts with the aims of the organisation providing that platform.
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 8:25 AM
@ Fred the Hun #90
Thanks very much for the help. What I'm looking for is a group Italian, perhaps Sicilian, gentlemen in warm up suits who have a keen eye for potential accidents and a public spirited attitude to informing people about the possible consequences. Possibly these gentlemen have something to do with insurance....
Have them meet under the bridge as usual. Bring Philly cheese steaks and 40s (or am I mixing my cultural stereotypes?).
Louis
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 8:32 AM
You are still missing the point. The school is a public school. It is owned jointly by the public. The government does not get to decide what sort of "values" are illegitimate; that would be a violation of the free exercise clause. Similarly the churches cannot promote their values during government-mandated school time; that would be a violation of the establishment clause (and why PZ is asking people to look out for even the tiniest of promotions of this event by the school).
It absolutely is an issue of free speech, because they would be denied access to a public venue that they own.
Sometimes it does. There is a reason that the concept of "the public square" is so central to our democracy.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 8:49 AM
So in US schools there is an anything goes policy ? It seems you are arguing that as long the behaviour is not actually illegal then it must be permitted, since otherwise it is imposing values. Maybe this explains why US educational standards are poor in comparison to many other countries.
"It absolutely is an issue of free speech, because they would be denied access to a public venue that they own."
Schools are built to educate. Why cannot you not understand that allowing groups opposed to that aim to use school facilities is not a good idea ? And when it comes to promoting values, actually it is something governments should be involved in. Unless you want to argue the state has no business promoting tolerance over intolerance. Indeed the very existance of publicly funded schools indicates an imposition of values.
"Sometimes it does. There is a reason that the concept of "the public square" is so central to our democracy."
There is a difference between ensuring those with unpopular views can express those views without intimidation and actually provinding the venue.
Supposing a group of creationists want to hire a natural history musuem that is publically funded ? You seriously think that the musuem has a duty to provide creationists with a venue ?
Posted by: Kingasaurus | June 13, 2009 9:05 AM
"So in US schools there is an anything goes policy ?"
After hours, yes.
After the school day is over, the school building isn't technically a school anymore. It's simply a public space that private groups can use. If private group A is allowed to use it, then private group B gets the same opportunity. There is no captive audience, and no one is required to attend.
PZ is correct, however, that the minute any teachers or school officials try to promote or mention this event to the students during the school day, it becomes a violation. They can't even mention it without getting into trouble.
Irritated people could TRY to bar groups from using the school building after school time, and they have, but they usually lose in the courtroom.
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 9:07 AM
@ Strange Gods #94
I'm going to both agree with you and disagree with you. In this case, i.e. the case of a public school which rents its facilities to anyone, I agree you're right. The school facilities must be open to all.
However the bit I'll disagree with is the claim that allowing free speech means sometimes providing a platform. This is simply untrue. There are rent-able halls, churches/church halls, stadia, public parks etc where the right of assembly is easily available. In this case the school is included in that list (as I've already agreed), allowing use of these spaces is very different from "providing a platform".
Perhaps I'm being overly picky about this, but I'll try to elaborate. Deborah Lipstadt, that tireless campaigner against Holocaust denialists, usually refuses to publicly debate with her "opponents". She doesn't campaign to have them silenced, or to deny them their right to speak/publish where/as they wish in legitimate public venues. The distinction she makes is that appearing on the same stage with them, giving that appearance of "parity of views" is granting them a credibility they have not earned and do not deserve. That is, partly, what she considers providing them with a platform. A platform elevates the speaker(s). In in this sense that I think "providing a platform" is different from "allowing access to a venue". Like I said, perhaps this is a picky distinction about a different emphasis we each place on the term, but I think it's a key one.
We've seen creationists try to self-aggrandise by claiming (for example) that they have given presentations *sponsored* by the Smithsonian when in fact they simply hired a hall. This isn't a simple case of merely allowing people to hire a hall, there are the ramifications of their subsequent claims of sponsorship or approval. But, like I've said, in this case there is not (perhaps not yet) any valid, or valid legal, reason for denying this speaker access to a publicly owned venue. In fact, I find it hard to think of an example (usual caveats aside) where denial of access could be validly done.
I think it's (partly, along with many other reasons) this that PZ and others are looking out for, i.e. creationists using the mere use of a specific venue as an association with it, or approval by the institution that owns it.
Take home message: I don't agree that "allowing access to a venue" = "providing a platform".
Louis
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 9:10 AM
"After the school day is over, the school building isn't technically a school anymore. It's simply a public space that private groups can use. If private group A is allowed to use it, then private group B gets the same opportunity. There is no captive audience, and no one is required to attend."
It is still very bizarre. Does no one get that there might be conflict between what groups who hire the facilities are advocating, and the values the school is advocating ? And do they not see by allowing anti-scientific groups, or racists groups, to use the facilities attempts by the school to teach science and tolerance are being underminded ? The simple fact an event occurs on school property sends a message about that event.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | June 13, 2009 9:35 AM
"The simple fact an event occurs on school property sends a message about that event."
Is the fact that certain types of opinions are expressed on public property "send a message" that the government agrees with those views? No, it doesn't. The school stops being a platform for government speech when the school day ends and students and teachers go home. After that, a school auditorium is just another taxpayer-funded public space.
If the group in question tries to underhandedly indicate that the school agrees with what they're doing, they are perpetrating a fraud and should be called out on that fact.
Doesn't change the legalities, though.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 9:44 AM
Louis,
Yeah, we're definitely using different emphasis. All I'm trying to say is that the government has to provide some public space. The right-wing wet dream, where literally everything is privately owned, should automatically be understood as unconstitutional, because it would mean a denial of free speech to everyone too poor to own property. And that's about the extent of what I mean by providing a platform.
There shouldn't be anything wrong with a law that says you cannot claim your speech was sponsored/approved by the Smithsonian, and such claims being punished by
drawing and quarteringheavy fines.Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 9:49 AM
"The simple fact that certain types of opinions are expressed on public property "send a message" that the government agrees with those views? No, it doesn't."
Correct, it does not mean that the government agrees with those views. However that is not what I said, so why did you bother mentioning it ? By allowing a platform it sends the message the government does not oppose those views.
"The school stops being a platform for government speech when the school day ends and students and teachers go home. After that, a school auditorium is just another taxpayer-funded public space."
I am beginning to understand why the US educational system is in such trouble. If there are no after-school activities, and the teachers go home as soon as the teaching has finished it does not indicate a thriving school does it ? No sports happen outside of school hours, no drama groups ? No teachers remain in school to do some marking or make themselves availible to students and parents ?
If you really think the fact that an event occurs on school property does not send a message then you are deluded.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 9:57 AM
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 13, 2009 10:04 AM
I may disagree with what they say, but I will fight to the death for their right to say it.
That is what freedom is all about.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 10:06 AM
Now I know you are crazy. A central role for any civilised government is to work towards a more equitable society. If what you say is correct the US government cannot do that, since in doing it would be opposing the views of some of its citizens. How ever did segregation get ended if the government was not allowed to say segregation was wrong and must be ended ?
"In well-funded suburban white neighborhoods, sure, all of the above and more. If you really wanart to know why US schools suck, it's very simple: they e locally funded. So poor neighborhoods can afford very little school funding, and with poor schools, the students grow up without opportunities and they remain poor. It's primarily an issue of keeping blacks and poor whites in their place."
So it would easier to hire school facilities in poor areas than rich ones, since in rich ones the school might still be in use ? The answer to stopping groups you do not want hiring a school is simple, ensure a teacher is on the premises still working at the time.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 10:12 AM
That does not mean providing them with a venue for them to promote their views.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 10:19 AM
Let's leave aside schools for the moment and look a musuems.
Are people really arguing that if a state funded musuem allows external groups to hire its facilities for their own events it cannot place any restriction on what type of events those groups hold ? If a science musuem wants to allow an organisation that promotes science education hold a lecture on some aspect of science it must also allow a creationist group use of the facilities if asked ? Even though a science musuem is in the business of promoting science and science education and creationists are in the business of doing the opposite ?
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 10:26 AM
Well, you could have just asked.
Very carefully. Segregation was found to deny certain people certain specific rights, thus clearly violating the Fourteenth Amendment. Notice that these are claims of fact, not value judgments.
Oh, having a teacher on the campus doesn't matter to this issue. I thought you were bringing that up just as a side issue, an indicator of low quality schools. No, the school becomes a public venue as soon as students are not legally required to be there, when the final bell rings. Having teachers hang around wouldn't change this.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 13, 2009 10:28 AM
They have not been provided a venue. They have merely been given the equal opportunity to rent a space that is legally available for public use.
Is it a poor use? I think so, but that is just my personal opinion, and they shouldn't be denied the opportunity based on my opinion, just as I shouldn't be denied the opportunity based on their opinion.
Are there circumstances and events that would and should be excluded? Certainly, but a talk espousing creationism would not seem to be going "beyond the pale".
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 10:35 AM
@ Strange Gods #98:
Yeah I figured we'd probably be on the same page but making a different emphasis. I agree that the "right wing wet dream" that you describe is an unpalatable, and unsuitable, option.
Louis
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 10:43 AM
"They have not been provided a venue. They have merely been given the equal opportunity to rent a space that is legally available for public use."
Of course they have been provided with a venue.
Either you cannot understand English very well, or you are being dishonest. What part about them hiring the school as a venue for their talk do you not understand ? Jeez, but that was an idiotic comment.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 10:57 AM
Matt, the creationists pay taxes. So they have the same right to use the public schools as anyone else does, as long as they do not violate the establishment clause. We can't make this point any simpler, so going around and around the same talking points is just going to exacerbate tensions until everyone is yelling. Naturally such conflict won't bother me, but most commenters would probably rather avoid hostilities.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 11:01 AM
"Matt, the creationists pay taxes. So they have the same right to use the public schools as anyone else does, as long as they do not violate the establishment clause. We can't make this point any simpler, so going around and around the same talking points is just going to exacerbate tensions until everyone is yelling. Naturally such conflict won't bother me, but most commenters would probably rather avoid hostilities."
You keep saying they have same right, but no one has explained why. Simply paying taxes is not enough to explain why that right exists, nor why that right should trump the right of the school to decide what activities should take place on its property.
At least you are doing a better job than Benjamin Franklin who cannot understand English it would seem.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 11:13 AM
It is basically as you say: in the United States, if something is not illegal then it is permitted. The presumption of legality remains on the citizen's freedom rather than the state's power. Creationists have the right to do anything which does not violate the establishment clause.
The public school is the government, and the government is the people. There is no such thing as the school's property, except inasmuch as it is the people's property. And we the people, in our capacity as the government, are limited by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, we cannot restrict any citizen's public speech unless that speech threatens another citizen's rights, such as explicit calls for targeted violence that would threaten someone's right to personal safety.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 13, 2009 11:14 AM
Jeez, but that was an idiotic false dichotomy!
I unnerstanz Englich real goodz!
provide-
1- to get ready beforehand; obtain in advance
2- to make available; supply; afford
3- to furnish
Was the venue made available to them? Yes.
Was the venue furnished? Well, discounting the chairs, no! They had to rent it, as anyone else would legally be allowed to do, so put a sock in it and quit quibbling over semantics. The fact is that they have a legitimate right to rent the space, as PZ and most others understand.
How long have you been a totalitarian fascist?
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 11:25 AM
Personally speaking, about three weeks now. Don't get me wrong, the bigotry, spittle flecked oratory and propaganda are great. The jack booted honeys are just wonderful and the access to the spoils ripped from a down trodden populace is simply divine, but I feel a certain sense of discontent.
Whether it's the tight uniform cutting off the circulation to my bollocks or the inappropriately homoerotic imagery of my peaked cap I couldn't tell you. Perhaps it's the fact that all the brunettes have mysteriously disappeared and all that's left are blondes. I really couldn't say, but there's definitely something that makes this totalitarian fascism less than fulsomely satisfying.
Perhaps next week I'll try anarcho-syndicalist-communism. At least that way no one will be oppressed.*
Louis
*If that doesn't start a Pythonfest/pun cascade I don't know what will.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 11:28 AM
"They have not been provided a venue."
"Was the venue made available to them? Yes."
Oh dear.
Which is it, or are you still undecided ?
How long have you been waiting remedial comprehension classes ? Only I think you need to ask them to put you to the head of the queue.
How the fuck can you be so stupid you cannot remember what you said a few posts before ?
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 11:32 AM
Arglebargle!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 11:35 AM
"The fact is that they have a legitimate right to rent the space, as PZ and most others understand."
I get thet have a legal right. What you will not, I suspect becuase you cannot, is why that legal right exists. Where did it come from ?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 13, 2009 11:37 AM
How the fuck can you be so stupid as not to have read the multiple definitions of "provide" that I "provided" for you a few posts before?
Or do you need it in larger type or comic book format for you to comprehend?
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 11:39 AM
From the Goddamned First Amendment. Alternatively, from the Blithering Ninth. Take your pick.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 11:44 AM
"From the Goddamned First Amendment. Alternatively, from the Blithering Ninth. Take your pick."
Since neither seems to cover the hire of school property I would go for neither. I would imagine that at some stage a judge or two got involved. And since the interpretation of what the US constitution means changes over generations that is not really great argument.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 11:47 AM
"How the fuck can you be so stupid as not to have read the multiple definitions of "provide" that I "provided" for you a few posts before?
Or do you need it in larger type or comic book format for you to comprehend?"
Look, just admit you fucked up. You made up some bullshit, got caught and tried to pretend it never happened.
You still have not answered the question though.
Posted by: Nic McPhee (Unhindered by Talent) | June 13, 2009 11:53 AM
As one of the other folk that received the University e-mail, thanks for grumping at them about this mis-use of that mailing list to promote this nonsense.
And while I have no love lost for the local high school (we're working with several other parents to ensure our 10th graders don't get the creationist for biology next year), there are more than two science teachers at the high school, and one of them (Mr. Cannon) is in fact quite decent based on our son's experience. There's plenty to complain about regarding the local high school, but it's not all dire.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 12:00 PM
First Amendment: public speech, public property.
Ninth Amendment: if there is no god, then everything is permitted.
Yeah, the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit pulling out a prisoner's fingernails, either. It just says "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted." Big fucking deal. If you think that's a bad argument for banning prison guards from creatively wielding the pliers, well, it's not my job to school you in United States common law.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 12:01 PM
What I think a number of people are not understanding is that there a good number of countries in the world where hiring school facilities to groups who's aims were antithetical to those of the school would not be legally required. Thus schools could allow groups promoting science to use their facilities but not creationist groups.
What is more people in these countries do not seem to have fewer freedoms than people in the US. Indeed in some respects, with regards same sex marriage for example, they often have more freedom.
So can anyone explain why refusing to allow creationists to hire a school is something that some people here seem to regard as akin to fascism ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 12:14 PM
"Yeah, the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit pulling out a prisoner's fingernails, either. It just says "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted." Big fucking deal. If you think that's a bad argument for banning prison guards from creatively wielding the pliers, well, it's not my job to school you in United States common law."
You missed my point. What the US Constitution means with regards rights has changed over time as judges interpret it in light of the society they are living in. Thus any ruling on the US constitution cannot be understood be reference to the constitution alone, but needs placing in context. Merely stating it is because of the constitution does not explain that much. Courts and legislatures in other countries have often arrived at similar positions to the US at similar times, which indicates that changes within society that are a bigger influence than the actual constitution. Indeed in some respects the US courts have been rather slow compared with other countries in ruling the constitution provides certain rights. If the constitution has always granted those rights, why would the courts have been so slow to rule as such ?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 13, 2009 12:21 PM
I get thet have a legal right. What you will not, I suspect becuase you cannot, is why that legal right exists. Where did it come from ?
Ah. Thank you for asking a legitimate question (although grammatically atrocious) without the unnecessary baggage of personal insult and invective.
Are rights natural, inalienable, God-given and self-evident?
Most of the Founding Fathers thought so.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Even if true, these claims are extremely difficult to prove with logic and evidence, so Jefferson sidestepped this by simply claiming these rights were self-evident.
According to Locke, natural rights were those rights enjoyed by prehistoric humans in their original "state of nature," before humans began forming complex societies. He wrote that the "state of nature" is governed by a "law of nature," which humans can discover through reason. Through his own reasoning, Locke concluded that humans were "by nature free, equal and independent." Furthermore, natural law obligated that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."
Nice, but not very real world, are they?
I rather think that rights are social constructs, defended by force, and open to change and improvement.
This is exemplified by the fact that in 1787, the Founders gathered in Philadelphia to debate about what rights and responsibilities should be included in the constitution. After three years of heavy argument, the 13 states voted on the constitution, and the rights and responsibilities within it became law. Included in this agreement was the authorization of force to defend these rights, from militias to state law enforcement, with all the necessary courts and legislatures to ensure the lawful application of such force.
So, to answer your question, the rights come from what has been written, and, as you point out, changed and modified in the constitution and other laws of the land.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | June 13, 2009 12:28 PM
"What I think a number of people are not understanding is that there a good number of countries in the world where hiring school facilities to groups who's aims were antithetical to those of the school would not be legally required."
There are also a "good number of countries" that do things I don't like, such as jailing dissidents.
The point, for the umpteenth time, is that taxpayer funded public spaces, if they are made available for rent at all, must be available to anyone, no matter their views. Either they are available for everybody, or nobody. When you pay money for the use of the (public) space, you can't be denied the space because of what you're going to say when you get there.
It is understood in the US that after-hours use of school facilities for private groups is NOT the equivalent of the school/government endorsing what they say. Most people understand this without too much trouble.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 12:37 PM
And I'll bet those countries don't have anything so strong as our establishment clause. Where are you from, anyway?
What you do not understand is that our admittedly idiosyncratic wall of separation is already working pretty well for us, given that we are a third world culture with some first world laws. Nowhere else does such a prosperous society have such high levels of religiosity -- it's amazing we don't have more sectarian violence -- and yet our wall still holds.
In some respects. But no country had same sex marriage before 2001, and the race is on now within the United States as much as in Europe, so that's not much of an example.
But where else do Communists defend Nazis' right to peaceable assembly? Where else is so immune from the sort of hate-speech laws that now threaten to silence British discussion of Islam?
This is a really shitty point, and you were better off when I missed it. The Constitution was never meant to mean only one thing for all generations. Freedom evolves and expands; the Constitution is a guide for how it may do so. Yes, judges have ruled that the free exercise clause means if a public school allows anyone to use the campus after hours, religious groups must be extended the same offer. So there were judges. Activist judges! So the fuck what?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 12:39 PM
"The point, for the umpteenth time, is that taxpayer funded public spaces, if they are made available for rent at all, must be available to anyone, no matter their views. Either they are available for everybody, or nobody. When you pay money for the use of the (public) space, you can't be denied the space because of what you're going to say when you get there."
Look, I know that is what you think. As you say, you have repeated yourself enough times. One cannot merely assert something as a right. There needs to be justification for why that right should exist. You argument seems to rest on ignoring the primary function of schools.
So please, tell me why the right to hire school facilities should exist regardless of how odious the purpose.
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 12:42 PM
Matt,
So it's simply the fact that the creationist in question is hiring a school hall (not a whole school IIRC) for an event that takes place after school hours that is upsetting you? If this weren't a school hall you wouldn't be bothered?
If that's the case then think of it this way: small towns/villages often use government/publicly owned halls/venues as if they were owned by a private business. The venue on hire is not considered to be representative of a specific institution, it is merely a venue for public hire. In the absence of a multiplicity of suitable venues, one venue has to fulfil multiple roles. After school the hall is a publicly available venue, during school it's an arm of the government education system.
It's two roles for one thing. Rather like having a respectable day job and then going home and being a dominant partner in a sadomasochistic sex commune full of nubile individuals of an open minded and libidinous disposition.
I don't know why that simile sprung up. Mind you I *am* wearing leather, carrying a whip and preparing to beat the Mother Superior into an orgiastic frenzy, with a few of our mutual chums, that could alter convent policy for a while.
Louis
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
June 13, 2009 12:45 PM
Louis (#87)
Well, that was meant to be a little tongue in cheek, aimed at this fellow in particular. I do mean it about the intelligence of the Pharyngula crowd, though, even compared to other forums/blogs favorable to skepticism and atheism. This place breeds more such folks, as well, and you can watch them delight in informing themselves as they participate.
I was mostly imagining people who stay foolish, unimaginitive and ignorant because they are isolated or isolate themselves. It's not like some of that can't be mitigated, but if their incredulity fails them before they encounter a step low enough to boost themselves along the path of skepticism, they're prone to latching onto whatever is around. "I don't know" is an unappealing state to maintain with nowhere to go. I've little doubt that many "former skeptics" could have been drawn over to the "us" side if they were subject to a different set of those social factors that you mention, though they might never shine as brightly as so many of the folks here.
Can't disagree there. Religion is designed (not necessarily by intention) to reward people for keeping with it. It would be more odd if one didn't reassure one's fellows that taking a cure for that mental parasite was to be avoided at all costs.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 12:52 PM
Why do Americans go on so about the "establishment clause" ? It does not seem to have helped you much. Look at Sweden and the UK. Both have established churches. Neither has anything like the problems the US has with religion in public life.
"In some respects. But no country had same sex marriage before 2001, and the race is on now within the United States as much as in Europe, so that's not much of an example."
It demonstrates that the US constitution might not be as good at defending rights as many Americans try to claim.
"But where else do Communists defend Nazis' right to peaceable assembly? Where else is so immune from the sort of hate-speech laws that now threaten to silence British discussion of Islam?"
You are somewhat behind the times. Hate speedch laws with respect to religion were proposed. They were withdrawn when it became clear the Government was unlikely to get the legislation through, and in the face of considerable objections. I am not aware of any current plans for the Government to try again, and given the state of the Labour party at present I doubt it will be up for consideration anytime soon.
"The public school is the government, and the government is the people. There is no such thing as the school's property, except inasmuch as it is the people's property. And we the people, in our capacity as the government, are limited by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, we cannot restrict any citizen's public speech unless that speech threatens another citizen's rights, such as explicit calls for targeted violence that would threaten someone's right to personal safety."
I guess it is a different way of looking at things then. It would explain why Americans seem so willing to tolerate non-experts making decisions with regards the curriculum. My view of schools is that they are public property in as much as taxes are used to pay for them. However that does not mean the public get to have a direct say in how they run. Not least because the public is not qualified to run schools. Within various laws, regulations and guidelines it should be those charged with running the school who decide on how the buildings are used. And if that means they do not want anti-science groups, or hate groups, using the facilties that is up to them.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 12:59 PM
The problem I have is that the aims of group hiring the hall are so antithetical to what the aims of the school should be, and the reason the buildings are there in the first place.
I imagine that in the US, as like here in the UK, musuems hire out their facilties as an addition source of income. Are publicly funded natural history musuems also required to hire their facilities to any group who wants to make use of them ?
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 1:00 PM
A.Noyd,
Oh I got the hyperbole, sorry if my comment came across as a bit naggy. That intent was not there I assure you! The occasional Pharyngulite does indeed rise above the average. Better not mention it, they might get big headed! ;-)
I think we're generally in agreement. This is wrong. If we at Pharyngula reach consensuses then all hell will break lose. Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria. Therefore I have decided that you must be a fascist whose terrible preference for magical thinking and abject intellectual dishonesty will be the end of us all. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!
Louis
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 1:04 PM
Maybe it is just a case of being divided by Ocean.
Schools in the UK are used extensivly outside of school hours, but nearly always for either education or sport. A lot of adult education classes happen in state schools(*) in the evenings, and gym and swimming facilties are often made availible to the public.
(*) The term public school(s) needs to be avoided as they mean quite different things in the US and the UK. Public schools in the UK are fee-paying schools, normally selective.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | June 13, 2009 1:11 PM
"Why do Americans go on so about the "establishment clause" ? It does not seem to have helped you much. Look at Sweden and the UK. Both have established churches. Neither has anything like the problems the US has with religion in public life."
If you think America would be helped on its road to secularism by making a government-endorsed official religion, I think you're dreaming. The fundamentalists wet dream is to have America officially made "Christian." No thanks. Even if you're right in a hundred years, I'm not biting.
I'd still rather the government be kept out of it, and the best way in this instance for the government to try hard to maintain a "no opinion" view on religion, is not to specifically discriminate against religious believing taxpayers when the opportunity to rent public spaces comes up.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 1:22 PM
"If you think America would be helped on its road to secularism by making a government-endorsed official religion, I think you're dreaming. The fundamentalists wet dream is to have America officially made "Christian." No thanks. Even if you're right in a hundred years, I'm not biting.
I'd still rather the government be kept out of it, and the best way in this instance for the government to try hard to maintain a "no opinion" view on religion, is not to specifically discriminate against religious believing taxpayers when the opportunity to rent public spaces comes up."
No, I accept that now the US cannot move to an established religion. What I take issue with are the claims it has made any difference. There is no denying that in the US religion plays a much larger role in public life than it does in either Sweden or the UK. In many part of the US is would be almost impossible for an atheist to be elected to public office, and yet in the UK and Sweden I doubt most people know the religious beliefs of their representatives. If the establishment clause was supposed to help keep the US secular, then I think verdict has to be, could have done better.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 1:23 PM
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Better than yours; you Brits still have same-sex marriage precisely nowhere, while we have it in six states.
No, you responded to the question you preferred to answer, not the question I posed. Britain is not immune to these laws like the United States is. You have no Constitutional right to freedom of speech. One little Act of Parliament is all it would take to revoke your freedom, and no court could overrule that Act. A similar law in the US would be illegal and overturned upon judicial appeal.
And why is Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church entirely banned from the UK? Not just from UK schools, but from the streets? Because the UK already doesn't have freedom of speech.
Posted by: Dr. P | June 13, 2009 1:27 PM
I can understand the position that a publically funded building must be rented out without consideration of political or religious affiliation as long as it is to be utilized in a legal manner. Alan @ 89 stated this eloquently and I agree with this wholeheartedly; the more disturbing point to my mind is that they have a biology teacher who is using school time and resources to push a religious agenda.My understanding of Dover vs Kitzmiller is probably limited, but if the argument ruled was that ID was inseparable from religion and the basis of this argument was to compare it to creationism, why is this not an issue of introducing religion into a science class? Further , if as stated, she is not teaching a basic cornerstone of modern biology competently, why is she still teaching?
Posted by: Kingasaurus | June 13, 2009 1:27 PM
"If the establishment clause was supposed to help keep the US secular, then I think verdict has to be, could have done better."
The purpose of the EC is to keep the U.S. government secular in its official capacities and duties. That's all. If the American people happen to be highly religious, it isn't the job of the US Constitution to try to make them less so.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 13, 2009 1:34 PM
Penfold, you hamster.
Deny one party a right, and you make it possible for others to deny you rights. There is also the principle of equal protection under the law. Unless there is a legitimate purpose behind an act of discrimination (such as denying a blind person a driving license), you can't discriminate. Unless conditions dictate otherwise you must treat all as equal under the law. So while basic rights can be denied a person suffering full blown hallucinations, no person with a healthy mind can be denied those same rights.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 1:36 PM
"Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit."
I suggest you read what I said. I did not say there were NO problems, I said they were not as bad as they are in the US.
"No, you responded to the question you preferred to answer, not the question I posed. Britain is not immune to these laws like the United States is. You have no Constitutional right to freedom of speech. One little Act of Parliament is all it would take to revoke your freedom, and no court could overrule that Act. A similar law in the US would be illegal and overturned upon judicial appeal."
With regards free speech, I suggest you look at the European Convention on Human Rights. I also suggest you look at Guantanamo. Still open last time I checked. When the UK government tried locking up foreign nationals without trial it was rules illegal and they were released. I make no claims the UK is perfect. In some regards the US is better. But not it seems when it comes to detention without trial.
"And why is Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church entirely banned from the UK? Not just from UK schools, but from the streets? Because the UK already doesn't have freedom of speech."
Phelps is not a UK citizen.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 1:40 PM
"The purpose of the EC is to keep the U.S. government secular in its official capacities and duties. That's all. If the American people happen to be highly religious, it isn't the job of the US Constitution to try to make them less so."
So why so many attempts to push religiously inspired laws onto the statute books ? How come Prop 8 in California was even allowed on ballot paper ? And how come it has not been struck down ? Do you really want to argue that Prop 8 was not religiously inspired ?
Posted by: Brad Ericson | June 13, 2009 1:49 PM
Why not take the approach of the anti-choice people and glue the doors shut just before the event?
Posted by: Kingasaurus | June 13, 2009 1:50 PM
"So why so many attempts to push religiously inspired laws onto the statute books ? How come Prop 8 in California was even allowed on ballot paper ? And how come it has not been struck down ? Do you really want to argue that Prop 8 was not religiously inspired ?"
Any person or group with a religious opinion can campaign or put their support behind a drive for any new law they like. That's free speech. Hence all the attempts to get creationism into the schools. They've been struck down by judges for precisely the reasons we've been discussing. They violate the Establishment clause.
The fact that religious groups might throw their support behind the adoption of a specific law, does not mean that law is automatically unconstitutional. It might be, but that is up to the judiciary to decide after looking at the specifics of the law and what its purpose might be.
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 1:55 PM
@ Strange Gods # 137,
To be fair to Matt he said we don't have the same level of religious problems in the UK that you chaps in the USA do, and he's largely correct. We do still have some issues (Obviously! The Vardy schools are a blight on the nation for starters!).
The same goes for your nonsense about free speech and Phelps. Phelps wasn't allowed in because his antics were deemed to be inciting hatred/criminality, a limit on USAian free speech too IIRC. Also, since the Civil Partnership Act of 2004, same sex couple have been able to have exactly the same legal rights via a civil partnership as any different sex couple can via a "traditional marriage". So sorry, we Brits have same-sex "marriage" absolutely everywhere. It's not enough, it's still imperfect, it was vastly too late, but it's a start. Please get your facts straight.
Anyway, rather than getting into one of those asinine and absolutely ridiculous pissing contests about whose nation is better (hint: neither!) I'll confess, I'd LOVE an Establishment Clause here in the UK. I'd equally LOVE to have the church disestablished. I think the US constitution, imperfections and all, is a foundational document appropriate for any basic rational democracy. Could it be done better? Sure it could. Could things in the UK be done better? Sure they could. Are we done setting the world to rights yet? Fuck no! I think we can agree that we all have a long way to go in many directions.
Louis
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 2:13 PM
I saw what you said, and you're wrong. We don't teach creationism with taxpayer money. That's the power of the establishment clause.
And isn't it correct that an Act of Parliament could remove the UK from that convention? It was only an Act of Parliament that agreed to it, no?
And now you want to change the subject. No one is in Guantanamo for speech crimes. And the prisoners have access to international human rights inspectors who can carry their messages.
Wrong again, those prisoners have been granted habeas corpus, they have the right to appeal to our courts, and trials are being prepared.
The United States is not so chauvinistic as to claim that free speech applies only to US citizens.
And under what supposedly non-existent hate-speech laws was Nick Griffin prosecuted?
The Civil Rights Act was religiously inspired. Listen to Martin Luther King's speeches sometime; they are Christian sermons.
It is not illegal to have religious motivations; we would be a worse country if it were.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 2:23 PM
My whole point about this hate-speech crap is that "inciting hatred" is not criminal in the US. Nor should it be. Fred Phelps has never called his followers to violence against gay people.
So sorry, but no you don't. Louis, I know exactly what I am talking about and I will not be lectured from your straight privilege about how separate-but-equal is equal. It isn't, and you're lucky to be straight so you don't have to know the difference.
Susan Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger were denied their civil rights by your courts under your explicitly homophobic MCA 1973 law, and I won't let Brits pass off the rubbish notion that this is somehow an improvement over the United States' DOMA.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 3:29 PM
"And under what supposedly non-existent hate-speech laws was Nick Griffin prosecuted?"
Incitement to racial hatred, not religious hatred as you tried to claim.
"And isn't it correct that an Act of Parliament could remove the UK from that convention? It was only an Act of Parliament that agreed to it, no?"
Yes, but it cannot be repealed by a simple act. EU membership is dependent on being a signatory to the ECHR. Since EU membership is a constitutional issue it would
"And now you want to change the subject. No one is in Guantanamo for speech crimes. And the prisoners have access to international human rights inspectors who can carry their messages."
The overwhelming majority have been neither convicted of, or charged with, anything. If the US courts will do nothing to stop illegal dententions then it is about time other countries did. Spain is already making a start, and is looking to prosecute the lawyers involved in authorising both Guantanamo and torture.
"The United States is not so chauvinistic as to claim that free speech applies only to US citizens."
It does claim that the US constitution does not apply to foreigners. Reference Guantanamo again. I would also draw your attention to Yusuf Islam, previously known as Cat Stevens. He is a UK national, denied entry to the USA for being outspoken against US policy in the Middle East. Given what he has said, were I American I would not want him in the country. However you have denied yourself that defence, and are guilty of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 13, 2009 3:43 PM
"I saw what you said, and you're wrong. We don't teach creationism with taxpayer money. That's the power of the establishment clause."
Has it not occured to you that creationism should not be taught in science classes becuase it is not science ? Suppose a school board decided it wanted Astrology taught as science ? How do you stop that ? Western Astrology is not religious in nature the way it can be argued creationism is. Your strategy would mean you cannot stop it.
Creationism does not get taught using taxpayers money in the UK either. That is because publicly funded schools are required to meet certain standards. One of those is following prescribed curricula which are set not by politicians but by the people who should set them: Teachers, experts in the field, educational experts etc.
You seem to have this idea that governments should take no position on the desirability of certain behaviour. Yes there are rights to free speech, but to go from that to argue that the government should equally facilitate the expression of all views is odd. If you think governments should promote tolerance over bigotry, and knowledge over superstition then I am glad you do not live in the UK. I do not think the type of society you want is one I would want to live in.
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 4:22 PM
@ Strange Gods # 147,
Oh do grow up! Straight privilege indeed! Lecture indeed! Tish pschaw stuff and nonsense. You pulled a claim out of your arse and you were wrong. Also, arguments stand or fall on their merit not on who makes them, remember? Take your claims of "privilege" and shove them up your pampered arse. You've misunderstood. If I may be so blunt. ;-) Ok, "nasty bit" over.
I AGREED that the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 is a) imperfect, b) too late and c) not enough. More needs to be done. This explicitly does not mean "Hey gay folks be happy with your lot and shut up", it means your lie (for lie it can only be as you are so "well informed") that the UK doesn't permit same sex unions is false. We do. You were trying to apply a false double standard between the UK and the UK, especially poignant as you've acknowledged the failures of equality in the US perpetrated under DOMA. I was not, absolutely not, claiming that the UK had some perfect utopian gay marriage situation, just that same sex unions are legal, and entitle the participants to all the legal rights different sex unions have. Like I said, read the Act, it's pretty clear.
The case you cite was the result of a foreign marriage that was not recognised legally in the UK until the 2004 Act was passed, and not recognised as a "marriage" in the automatic manner that any other foreign marriage would be recognised. The ladies in question had got married in BC and emigrated to the UK prior to the Act being enforced, and found their union not legally recognised. Upon the enforcement of the Act their marriage was officially recognised as a "civil union", a very imperfect and unsatisfactory result to be sure, but the one we are all stuck with until we can get the law changed. Something we are all working towards.
I freely grant that the social status of those "unions" * is imperfect and needs to be "upgraded" to an exactly identical "level" as that of any union, specifically different sex marriage. Legally it is, read the text of the act, but the terminology is not (something I find abhorrent too btw). Same sex couples have the same legal privileges, according to that act, that any other couple does but have to operate under the ridiculously bowdlerised term of "Civil partnership" or "same sex union". Frankly I find the euphemistic hiding of people's rights to be disgusting, but it is the daft state we are in now. The rights are basically the same, but the names are different.
As for Phelps, note I didn't merely say "inciting hatred" but "inciting hatred/criminality". Inciting hatred is a very tricky area, and the UK law has been very carefully formulated to allow debate, allow people to say whatever they like privately or in certain public fora, but to restrict them from saying certain things, in certain ways in certain places. It's a fine distinction to be sure, and I'm not convinced we've got it right, the definitions are usually too vague. Usually these cases come to light as "incitements to civil disorder" or "harassment" cases, a restriction on free speech that applies in the USA also you'll note. Basically the difference usually boils down to speech that could incite civil disorder (note Phelps doesn't need to ask his followers to be violent, violence might be perpetrated upon them). Again, IANAL and it's a tricky area.
And look, you've entered into precisely the sort of nonsensical pissing contest (also erroneously I note) I predicted. Bad idea.
Louis
*I favour the word, concept and status of "marriage" btw, and can't see why any type of marriage has to be different from any other. Incidentally, I campaign (not merely chuck money at) for equality with Liberty and OutRage amongst other organisations, so your accusations of "privilege" and "lecturing" are pathetic asinine bluster on your part and are better retracted. To be very blunt you, like several others here, are vastly too fond of trying to intimidate people by chucking these words around, frequently wrongly. Please stop it and get over yourself. You aren't the only person in the world whose rights have been trodden on, nor are you the only one who has suffered. Deal with it. Who I fuck, or don't fuck, has no bearing on either what I think about politics or any subject (other than fucking!). The continual chucking around of the argumentum ad hominem annoys me beyond politeness. How would you like your own standards applied to you? Perhaps I should tell you that who you fuck, or don't fuck, has some bearing on which arguments you are allowed to make, how valid they are and which topics you may address. Luckily I'd never do such a thing, I think it would be a very, very stupid thing to do, and something I disagree with strongly. I also imagine I'd get very short shrift. And rightly so.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 4:26 PM
Penfold, you halfwit, Yusuf Islam was in New York City just last month. I saw him on the set of the Colbert Report. And when he was on a no-fly list, it was a case of mistaken identity, not because of anything he said. So all that horrific anti-American rhetoric you've heard from him? That's all A-OK in the USA. He is our honored and welcome guest.
No, I did not try to claim otherwise. But "incitement to racial hatred" is a thoughtcrime, and so the United Kingdom is insofar not a free country. In the United States even our Communists defend our Nazis' free speech.
And what actual authority does the EU hold to ensure compliance? Can the EU actually step in and change your laws, or can they only pass stern denouncements?
Again, they have habeas corpus and demonstrably have already exercised it. The Obama administration is currently working on indictments. Many others have been freed already. But this has not a thing to do with freedom of speech, and is entirely your deliberate misdirection. I never said Guantanamo was a good thing. You brought this up because you could not make the case that other nations had more freedom of speech or religious liberty.
But in this case it matters not, because the First Amendment does not just protect the speaker; it protects the American citizens' access to foreigners' speech as well, for example Lamont v Postmaster General. So any infringement on a non-citizen's free speech is also an unconstitutional infringement on a citizen's access to that speech.
Are you listening to anything that anyone has been telling you? I explained it to you back at #92, then Kingasaurus did again at #94, and I see several repetitions. Look, "the churches cannot promote their values during government-mandated school time; that would be a violation of the establishment clause". How much fucking clearer do we have to be? For all your initial hostility toward commenter Benjamin Franklin, you have some seriously shitty reading skills. This is settled law, Kitzmiller v Dover.
Astrology clearly makes spiritual claims regarding cosmic "fate" and its teaching as a practice would have no secular purpose, but even if that were not so, the burden of proof would be on the state to show that the practice of astrology has some empirical relation to life. A class discussing the history of astrology and the belief's influences on culture would pass the Lemon test, and could be legitimately educational. My public school had classes in mythology, for example, and they were awesome.
Are you saying the Vardy schools get no taxes? I'll have to look that up, but no matter, other faith schools do. Again, that's just not possible in the USA.
Except that I do not, and you deliberately pretend to misunderstand me. Governments have a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of their citizens. Anyone calling for targeted violence is in violation of others' rights to personal safety.
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 13, 2009 4:36 PM
To a believer skepticism means simply disbelief. Disbelief, as distinct from skepticism, can be based on ignorance and irrationality. Believers, whether they are UFO nuts, alternative medicine kooks or religious fundamentalists, like to project their own ignorance onto skeptics.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 4:42 PM
The hell I did, Louis, you dishonest git.
There is not a single gay marriage in Britain. Not one. Yes, it is your straight privilege that allows you to ignore the difference, and claim that civil someothershit is "marriage" when it most certainly is not and your openly homophobic laws explicitly say that a marriage is automatically nullified if "the parties are not respectively male and female."
Don't misunderstand me. It's your straight privilege that makes you so comfortable being wrong. You don't have to give a shit, because it doesn't affect you.
What a disgusting liar you are. I said your homophobic laws ban gay marriage, you respond that you have something separate-but-equal. You are drowning in your privilege, and completely blind to it. And then you have the gall to call me the liar?
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 4:49 PM
Strange Gods,
Ok so one nasty, now one nice.
Penfold is wrong. Creationism is taught in the Vardy schools and they do receive public money. It's a disgrace, and a disgrace we are trying to correct. Incidentally, the Vardy schools are an exception (there's only about 3 or 4 of them if memory serves) and understanding how they get away with it requires a deeper understanding of the politics of the current govt and development of education in the UK than you have demonstrated thus far.
Also your article about faith schools from Auntie Beeb doesn't even mention creationism. Faith schools aren't exactly what you seem to think they are (some of the private one are, but the public ones are in a much greyer area).
As for your claim that creationism isn't taught in US schools....really? Of course it is, it just goes under the radar and is horribly prevalent. You chaps have a vastly bigger problem with creationism than we have. This is well documented. Does that make us better than you? Nope. No one even claimed that (nor should any sensible person). The simple version is faith school =/= creationism being taught. Or at least, not simply so. You do realise that this does not equate to the claim that the UK has no problem with creationism in education don't you?
But again, as predicted this is wallowing in nationalistic bullshit. I was certainly not trying to claim, as you seem to think, that the USA is lesser than the UK, vice versa, or any such nonsense. Please stop your blinkered jingoism and defence against attacks that haven't even happened.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 5:00 PM
Strange Gods,
So in a post, in the body of which I explain that I acknowledge those differences and find those differences that remain in UK marriage law abhorrent, I'm the one lying?
LOL
Tell me, does this hysterical nonsense on your part normally work?
I think any literate person would struggle to find your claims about my words in my actual words. If you were even moderately honest, I think you'd find it equally tough.
I also think you'll find, once you learn to read for basic comprehension, that you owe me an apology.
Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath, I've encountered your brand of hysterical hypocrisy before. It usually doesn't allow the individual demonstrating it to a) admit mistakes or b) act in a fashion consistent with reason.
You have my pity.
Louis
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 5:03 PM
Thereby rendering them second-class citizens. Real first-class citizens can keep their marriages wherever they go in the Commonwealth. Second-class citizens get downgraded if they move to Britain. You don't have to live with that stigma. You're lucky not have to think about it. Yet I point out your luck and you feel free to mock me for it. Again, a function of your unexamined privilege.
And were you religious, you wouldn't have to live with the stigma of being denied access to religiously-officiated marriage. Britain counts no such thing as a religious civil partnership, but the first-class citizens' religious marriages are counted as such. That might not matter personally to you or me, but it matters deeply to religious gay couples.
Read Proposition 8 sometime. Remember all the Britons yelling at Americans, "oh what has your country done, what has California done?" Proposition 8 eliminates gay marriage in California law. Separate-but-ostensibly-equal gay partnerships remain in California law. Progressive commenters on this blog have the damned sense to call this what it explicitly is: the elimination of gay marriage.
Yet Proposition 8 is the law of the land all over Britain. And when I point this out, you deflect and try to pretend it's still marriage.
This horrible, shameful, homophobic law that everyone is angry about in California? It's the same as Britain. All I did was try to point this out to Penfold, and you took offense, called me a liar. Boooooo, Louis. You're up past your bedtime and you're getting cranky.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 5:10 PM
Your lie: "So sorry, we Brits have same-sex "marriage" absolutely everywhere."
I would have accepted an apology, but after this:
FUCK YOU SIR.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 5:22 PM
Now you admit that you don't even know what straight privilege is, and yet you feel confident in denying that you have it. No, don't bother to educate yourself or ask questions, just keep on being certain that you couldn't possibly be wrong.
And your "So sorry... Please get your facts straight" is condenscending lecturing, even if you don't intend it to be.
Please stop it and check your privilege, Louis. You don't even understand what you're saying, and you think you have the right to boss me around?
Again you try to use your ignorance as a weapon, as though I was saying anything like the above. Hint: I'm not. Get over yourself. Pointing out that you have straight privilege is not an indictment of you. Pointing out that you're being a dick about it, well, yes, but that's something you can fix.
And if I were to start telling you what your married life must be like, like I know better than you do, you would indeed have every right to tell me to check my assumptions.
Getting the picture yet?
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 5:26 PM
Strange Gods,
Sorry where did I try to pretend UK civil partnerships were identical to marriages? Would that be in the sections of my posts you've skipped where I clearly say differently? Would what's confusing you be the legal distinctions made? In the UK, unlike in California, same sex couples in a civil partnership have all the legal rights of a different sex couple, it's "marriage" in almost all but name. Again, read the act. It's there in black and white. Note that I STILL think this is a disgusting inequality. This state of affairs is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I am in no way advocating, supporting or happily privileging along with any "separate but equal" bullshit.
Contrast this with Prop 8 which doesn't allow same sex couples anonymous unions, the right for under 18s to marry with parents' consent, and perhaps even more importantly in some cases (govt workers IIRC) domestic partners don't get access to specific long term healthcare packages. None of this is the case in the UK.
You're not comparing like with like. Not only that but you are accusing me of approving of a status quo I statedly do not approve of. Learn to read. The status of gay marriage in California is WORSE than in the UK. The separateness of the "separate but equal" bullshit in California is greater than that of the UK act. Do you understand the nature of a comparative statement by the way? You seem to only understand absolutes (or seem desperate to find them).
Try harder.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 5:35 PM
Oh and I didn't take offence at your remarks to Penfold, they were simply wrong. You haven't the capacity to offend me. Annoy me certainly, offend? Not so much.
You're just a bog standard hysterical moron (something I've observed before). Like I said, I've encountered such before. You cry "persecution" instead or reading what people actually write in an attempt to shut down discussion. Your actions are transparently daft.
YAWN! You don't even have the basic smarts to realise who your allies are, so keen are you to persist in your misunderstandings. You don't even note when things you quote have appropriate scare quotes around specific words, and you have deliberately ignored all subsequent clarifications.
Apologise? Me? What for? Your inability to read? Hardly!
My pity just got upgraded to contempt.
Louis
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 5:37 PM
When I said to Penfold: "Better than yours; you Brits still have same-sex marriage precisely nowhere, while we have it in six states."
And you decided to "correct" me, incorrectly, by saying: "So sorry, we Brits have same-sex 'marriage' absolutely everywhere."
It would have been another matter if you just said, "but we do have this separate and unequal stuff which isn't so bad." That still would have been more condescending, presumptuous lecturing, because I already knew all that crap. But at least you wouldn't have been such an asshole as to say that you do in fact have marriage, which is false.
Now tell me again how you don't have straight privilege, and how this wasn't your privilege talking.
Posted by: Axel | June 13, 2009 5:54 PM
sorry ,folks, my English might not be too good and - being German - I'm well aware of the European prejudices concerning American eating habits, but did anyone click on 'Monthly Menue'? Putting the kitchen team up against the wall might promote science more than any of your comments...'Chicken Patty on a bun', 'Foot long Hot Dog', 'Breakfast Pizza' as a lunch? If this is your diet we can't count on you getting rid of our Nazis the next time...
Posted by: Axel | June 13, 2009 5:56 PM
sorry ,folks, my English might not be too good and - being German - I'm well aware of the European prejudices concerning American eating habits, but did anyone click on 'Monthly Menue'? Putting the kitchen team up against the wall might promote science more than any of your comments...'Chicken Patty on a bun', 'Foot long Hot Dog', 'Breakfast Pizza' as a lunch? If this is your diet we can't count on you getting rid of our Nazis the next time...
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 5:58 PM
The hell they were. You're lying again. Can you even stop lying to admit how wrong you are?
This is factually accurate: "you Brits still have same-sex marriage precisely nowhere, while we have it in six states."
Not wrong by any stretch of the imagination. You had to start redefining terms to call me wrong, a redefinition you felt compelled to do only out of self-righteousness, when you couldn't bear to hear your island disparaged.
Again with the privilege, you think you get to decide how others should see you, despite your actions. I'll know you're an ally when you act like it, sir. Jumping in and lecturing me when I'd made no mistake? Definitely not the action of an ally.
Except that they don't. Already married people lose their marriage when they move to Britain, making them second class citizens in fact. And they can't be united religiously under the state's view, a right granted to straight people. These are much more than differences in "name," and so comparable to the differences under Prop 8 in California. And still you overlook the overwhelming similarity. The dominant variable in California is the stigma of denying marriage. The dominant variable in Britain is the stigma of denying marriage.
That's better, and thanks for dropping some condescension. Now we see eye to eye.
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 6:02 PM
Strange gods,
And STILL you persist in misunderstanding and blank incomprehension. Calm down, learn to read, you might find that people are not saying what you think they are.
I put the word "marriage" in quotes in post #145 for a reason. In the very following sentence, a sentence you quoted (apparently without even a modicum of comprehension) I noted that gay "marriage" (note: not "gay marriage" or simply gay marriage, the careful and correct use of quotes around the word "marriage" denotes a subtle distinction obviously lost on you. If I thought it was real, equal marriage why use the quotes?) in the UK was "...not enough, it's still imperfect, it was vastly too late, but it's a start.". That is, to the reader with an IQ above that of a houseplant, not a statement which would lend one to consider approval on the part of the writer. Like I said, you do like to persist in your misunderstandings and insist your reading is the intent of the writer. Allow me to disabuse you of that highly erroneous notion. You don't speak for me, nor do you get to put your words into my mouth. Clear?
Do the words "It's not enough, it's still imperfect, it was vastly too late, but it's a start." conjure in what passes for your mind an idea that I somehow approve of "separate but equal"? If they do I suggest most strongly that you hie back to grade school immediately! Do the subsequent loquacious statements that I deplore the current state of affairs in the UK (and the USA and elsewhere btw) and don't consider anything resembling "separate but equal" a tolerable status quo somehow morph in your cranium to "separate but equal = Teh Gud"? If so, check into a mental health facility before signing back up for grade school. You said marriage, I said "marriage" (and elaborated), if you can't tell the difference (esp after much clarification) or insist that these are the same thing, you are beyond rational help.
Oh and my "lecturing" you (as you see it) is not because of my privilege, your lack of privilege, or anything else. It's because you are making bad claims badly, and persisting in misunderstandings of your own confection.
Whilst on the issue of privilege, what privilege? I am not a part of the legislature that perpetuates the inequalities you and I deplore equally. I am not part of a silent majority that is comfortable to remain inactive in the face of an unequal status quo which ostensibly doesn't affect me. What you don't understand is I *do* have to worry about how that legislature impinges on your rights (or lack thereof) because we both know they won't stop there. My marriage, now perfectly legal, would have been illegal not so long ago (a generation or two IIRC). Progress can go backwards as well as forwards (esp since certain elements of the UK seem hell bent on electing actual fascists, not merely rhetorical fascists). Your rights and mine are not separate. What I wish for you I also wish for myself and vice versa. I defend your rights and privileges with equal ferocity to defending my own. Why? Because they are identical. Your rights are my rights. Inequality perpetrated on you is inequality perpetrated on me. If not now then usually soon if history is any indicator. These ideas aren't new!
The fact that this seems to be beyond you and your culture of victimhood "privilege" nonsense is disturbing.
Louis
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 6:04 PM
And this:
Jesus. Jesus Christ. I definitely never accused you of approving of this status quo. Learn to read.
Entertain me some more, Louis. Tell me what you think straight privilege is. I could use the laugh.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 6:17 PM
BINGO! Hey, I got BINGO! Wooohooooo!
Doesn't matter. I wasn't wrong.
You could have said "we have something that's similar to marriage though." Like I said, it still would have been condescending, but it wouldn't be you correcting me and then calling me a liar when I point out that I wasn't wrong.
Ha, you self-righteous blowhard. I don't have to put any words in your mouth. I have quotes right there of you calling me a liar when I was not wrong. Again, ass, this statement was not wrong: "you Brits still have same-sex marriage precisely nowhere, while we have it in six states."
Yet you called me a liar for it: "it means your lie (for lie it can only be as you are so 'well informed') that the UK doesn't permit same sex unions is false."
So I have no need to put anything in your mouth. Your bullshit is right here to read.
Again, wrong, I made a perfectly accurate statement to Penfold which you decided to "correct" and lecture me for, only by twisting my words to mean something I never said. Talk about putting words in my mouth. What do you think you were doing when you changed my word "marriage" to "same sex unions" and then lectured me for your own change?
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 6:29 PM
Your straight privilege. Keep denying that it exists, though; that reflects very well upon you.
Not in the same way I do.
Sure, to a degree I have to worry about how the US government treats black people, because they are a bellwether in this society; police brutality, practiced on them, slowly and eventually spreads to other neighborhoods.
But it would be fucking ridiculous for me to deny that I have white privilege. Still all things considered, I can drive through any neighborhood without worrying that I'll be stopped spuriously and searched for drugs, and I can expect that if I am stopped legitimately for some traffic violation, the police will not take the opportunity to rip out my upholstery or bring out the dogs to do worse.
I never have to worry about black people's rights the way that a black person has to worry about their rights. Not even close. That's white privilege.
And yet, they are very different. For instance, you quite currently have rights that I don't.
You are keen to ignore this distinction. I tell you, you do neither of us a service when you do so.
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 7:18 PM
Ok one last attempt.
Try to follow this with some modicum of charity, you might find it helps. I'll try to be polite too and deal with you charitably also, I might find it helps:
1) In #137 you said that the UK has same sex marriage precisely no where.
2) I replied in #145 that the UK has an inadequate same sex "marriage" (note quotes) everywhere. The reason I did this was because I had no idea what you knew about same sex "marriage" in the UK, civil partnerships or what have you. I cannot read your mind. Hence why I clarified that I thought UK same sex "marriage" (note quotes) that we have everywhere to be inadequate etc. Call this a correction/clarification/continuation of a conversation/whatever you wish.
For UK citizens in civil partnerships in the UK, the 2004 Act grants identical legal rights to those of different sex couples. This is legal marriage (note no quotes) in all but name (as the tabloids of the time squawked). I still, btw, think this is grossly inadequate (have I made that clear yet I wonder?). The case you cite about foreign marriages not being properly recognised, and religious marriage still being impossible for same sex couples are good cases in point. They demonstrate the remaining legal inequalities and the euphemistic "civil partnerships" etc demonstrate the social inequalities that persist. These need correcting. In no way would I ever claim that this "separate but equal" situation is actual equality.
That said, to reiterate, for UK citizens who have a same sex union in the UK, the 2004 Act grants them identical legal rights in the UK to different sex unions. (This is an improvement on prop 8 style "separate but equal" cases, but still not good enough). So in this very limited legal sense we do have same sex marriage (note no quotes) in the UK. I freely grant that this is ONLY in this limited legal sense. We do not have globally equal same sex marriage (note no quotes) in the UK. Do you see the distinction being made?
3) In #147 you accused me of arguing that "separate but equal" is the same as being equal, arguing that I was doing so from a position of privilege. Again, I think that the quotes around "marriage", the specific mention of the inadequacy of the status quo indicate that I did not mean marriage as in a marriage 100% equal to that of different sex couples.
If in the UK we had gay marriage identical to straight marriage then what would be inadequate about it? LOL! Incidentally nor did I claim that the 1973 MCA was superior to DOMA. I think your projection here is obvious. YMMV.
This is the point at which your persistent misunderstanding originates.
4) I'll explain the sarcasm behind the "lying" comment in #150 for you, perhaps you missed it. You claimed to be vastly well informed about the status of UK same sex marriage (note no quotes, I'm going to keep doing this until it sinks in). In #147 you had not clarified, at least to me, that you understood anything about same sex marriage in the UK. Again, I can't read your mind. I've seen people on the net claim they are vastly well informed before. It's (in my experience admittedly) usually a precursor to something that demonstrates a lack of being well informed on their part! Informed people rarely need to claim that they are informed, it's easier to demonstrate it. Perhaps I was wrong in this impression I had of you. If so, I unreservedly apologise for my error.
Couple that to the "privilege" and nonsense about me claiming separate but equal = equal and I was pretty sure what I had on my hands was yet another big mouth know nothing. I've seen you pull this act with other people btw, I wasn't impressed then and perhaps this prejudiced my opinion. If so, and if I did so wrongly I apologise unreservedly. We'll see if I was actually wrong about this in your reply.
I assumed that anyone who validly claimed to be well informed about UK same sex marriage would know that, as I've mentioned above, for UK citizens marrying in the UK the same sex union grants the same domestic legal rights as different sex unions. Again, to all domestic legal intents and purposes that is marriage. I freely grant that marriage is more than merely the domestic legal aspects. I just want to make that clear. Again. Hence why I originally put quotes around "marriage" in reference to the status of same sex marriage in the UK, and mentioned its inadequacy.
I felt that you had demonstrated that you weren't that well informed. I thought that the distinction between marriage and union was beyond you or one you were unaware of. So, annoyed at the idiotic "privilege" comments (it really is a gun jumped all too soon and all too often) I thought a shot across your bows appropriate. The point I was trying to make was not that you were lying about the state of same sex marriage in the UK, but that you weren't as well informed as you were claiming. Sorry if that allusion passed you by, and even more genuinely sorry if I was incorrect in my estimation of you. I framed this as a sarcastic comment about you lying because if you were in reality well informed you wouldn't have made the un-nuanced claim you apparently did. See?
5) Pretty much everything subsequent to #150 is a rehash of the identical misunderstandings on your part and my abject lack of charity in dealing with you despite a few clarifications.
So, I've been a big boy and apologised for the things I (at least potentially in some cases) did wrong. I wonder, can you do the same....ARSE! There goes my uncharitable gland again.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2009 7:48 PM
Strange Gods @ 168:
If that, and only that, limited sense of the word privilege is being used, then I definitely don't deny it. The very etymology of the word demonstrates that usage as valid! It's observable reality that, in an unequal society, there are those born with legal rights that others don't have. I'm not in the business of denying observable reality! LOL
However, given your persistent misunderstanding starting at #147, I wasn't so keen to charitably assume that this was all you meant by "privilege". In fact in #147 you specifically claimed that as I was privileged I was thereby unfit to make an argument about the topic of gay marriage. "...you're lucky to be straight so you don't have to know the difference." ring any bells?
This is an illegitimate use of "privilege" and it constitutes nothing more than an argumentum ad hominem. I.e. that my straightness (never established by the way, I could be bi, you can't read my mind either, sorry!) precludes me from being informed and caring about a topic and thus making valid arguments. First, you claim I am saying something I am demonstrably not, then second, based on that you claim it is my presumed sexuality that disqualifies me from making a correct argument! If that isn't a classic argumentum ad hominem, well, you may have to paint my bollocks blue and call me Nigel!
As bad as that is the fact that this privilege, whether used in the valid sense or not, is a red herring. Nothing I say regarding the subject of gay marriage is rendered more or less valid by the fact that I am or am not gay. It is almost exclusively in my experience brought up to distract from poor arguments and to poison the well regarding the character of an opponent. It is nothing short of bad form. I'm sure there are perfectly valid uses of it, but that wasn't one of them.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make at the end of #165 is that privilege is a matter of degree, not absolute. It's not something I have and you don't or vice versa, it's something we both have in varying amounts under varying circumstances. It's inescapable that, as members of the same society (if we were in fact so), we are linked inextricably. My allowing inequalities to be perpetrated on you is an open invitation for inequalities to be perpetrated on me. The fact that these may be different inequalities or different in degree doesn't defeat, or even address, that central truism.
The same sex marriage thing in the USA is as great an example of this as any. After all do we truly believe that the religious right who touted prop 8 and similar things, want to stop at your rights? Is it only your bedroom they want to invade? Kink positive they ain't. Allowing these chaps and chappesses to peer into your bedroom is an invitation for them to peer into mine.
Louis
Posted by: John Morales | June 13, 2009 8:12 PM
What's suspicious is why, if as PZ says: "This FaithSearch program is undiluted Christian apologetics, and it's going to be presented in our school building."
and as FaithSearch says: "FaithSearch International presents an inspiring, astonishingly logical case for believing in the historical person of Jesus Christ. You are invited to join our cause proclaiming that Christianity is supported by the greatest body of scientific, historical and biblical evidence that the world has ever known!"
and as the notice says: "This event is sponsored by Stevens County Ministerial and area churches.",
then why are they spending money to hire a school venue when there're churches which are perfectly adequate venues, where they could do their Christian schtick, available for free?
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 8:34 PM
Louis, I don't believe I owe you an apology. And I've already explained that I'm not much interested in yours. I remain uninterested, in light of the fact that you decide to sit in passive-aggressive judgment of me, rather than make a truly charitable call for mutual forgiveness:
I hardly care. I am not here to make friends. When it happens that I do, that's great and I'm happy to, but it's not my first motivation here. I am here for the lively debate.
This "act" as you call it has been nothing but an attempt to knock some sense into you. You are absolutely unwilling to even think about your straight privilege. You are not even willing to talk about it, or answer what you think the term even means. You are only determined to take offense at the very suggestion. So I see no common ground where we can begin to work toward mutual understanding. If that has to mean that we both leave with contempt for each other, I'm fine with that.
Pat yourself on the back and call yourself the big boy if that's what you want. Have a cookie.
That would be too charitable, now wouldn't it? Because you know you weren't being charitable when you said "So sorry... Please get your facts straight." We'll call it what it was: condescension.
No, you don't. Is it called marriage? No? Then it's not marriage. See, this is your privilege talking. This is you trying to decide that an unequal relationship should be referred to with the same term -- marriage -- as the hypothetically equal relationship. This is you deciding that some legalese is more defining than the actual lived experiences of gay couples who are not treated equally in their communities, partly because of the stigma of separation.
I misunderstood you, because I was angry about your condescension. Correcting me when I was not wrong, while insisting that "marriage" is a term that should apply -- an equal term that inherently implies equality -- struck me as ridiculous. It seems I misread you, but I owe you no apology for that, only an acknowledgement of fact.
This was when you were still interrupting my argument with Penfold. He was making the implication that Britain was better for gay rights than the US. My rebuttal was to you both.
And I had said nothing to indicate otherwise. I was absolutely correct in my comment to Penfold regarding same-sex marriage at #137. Despite this correct statement, you assumed that I was nevertheless ignorant, based on nothing but stereotype and/or intuition from you and the charitable horse you rode in on.
Ahem. Louis. It's a big mouth know nothing who assumes he has nothing to learn about a specific sociological concept he can not even demonstrate familiarity with, and in fact uses incorrectly.
No, it's not my duty to use the nuance you think I should, which in my argued opinion imparts an air of equality on an unequal relationship. If I intended to include domestic partnerships, then I would not have said "we have it in six states." The number would be at least double that.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 8:36 PM
Re #170, OK, now you are willing to talk about it. Reply in progress.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 9:28 PM
Stunningly, many people are actually eager to argue that only disadvantage exists, but that the relative lack of disadvantage means nothing. Good to hear that you're not one of them.
Privilege does make us unfit to make certain arguments. For instance, neither you or I can ever be in a direct position to know whether a particular legal restriction on abortion is sufferable or insufferable for women. We simply cannot know, because we cannot directly experience the restriction. We can only experience indirect effects of it, and we can take women's words for it, but that's the extent of our knowledge. As hand-me-down knowledge is all we can have, we are inherently impaired in our ability to judge. The very best we can do is pass on our hand-me-down knowledge.
I can never argue as well as a black person can, as to whether local hiring practices are racially fair, or local police prejudicial. I cannot experience the facts myself. I can only listen. I am impaired in my ability to actually know, precisely because I do not have to worry during a traffic stop.
To say "you are speaking from a position of privilege" is not to say "you know absolutely nothing." It may be that you have a lot of indirectly acquired hand-me-downs. It may be that you are more qualified to make that judgment than another privileged person who has listened less.
But it does mean that you need to be acutely aware of your limited understanding, and refrain from making judgments that you cannot adequately make, and probably listen more than speak. "Check your privilege" just means stop and think, don't assume you know better than someone more experienced.
So obviously I disagree with all of this:
Except for this: you might be bi. But you are a father, so because of society's heteronormative assumptions, you pass as straight to anyone who you don't inform of your actual orientation. And when you pass as straight, you are the recipient of straight privilege. It's not something you can control; it's something other people bestow upon you with their habits and snap judgments.
Privilege is not an argumentum ad hominem. That would be "you ride too high on your charitable horse, so I can't trust you." But it's not a fallacy to say that because you are necessarily relatively inexperienced in some field, you are less qualified to make judgments. Women are relatively experts on sexism; black people relatively experts on racism. It would be arrogance to assume that you are as qualified to speak on chemistry as someone with a Ph.D. in chemistry. Yet privilege makes some people blind to their own relative inexperience.
That's true in some senses. Having white privilege, I am subject to certain preferential assumptions that are not extended to either gay or straight black people. But my white privilege is not under my control. I cannot make everyone treat me as non-white.
And yet the habits of homophobia are unique in their way, and you would not be subject to them even if I were more exposed. Dwelling only on perceived similarities is not helpful -- not that you do that all the time, but that's where this particular conversation has gone.
Posted by: K.R. | June 14, 2009 1:41 AM
Isn't that Franey dame the wife of Morris Community Church's Pastor? I'm surprised she's even allowed to have a job...
Posted by: John Morales | June 14, 2009 2:13 AM
strange gods,
You do not distinguish between relative and absolute fitness here; in any case, I dispute this contention.
True, but misleading. None of us are in a "direct position" to speak as to the subjective opinions of others.
I can imagine two women each experiencing the same restrictions, and yet each coming to a different determination as to the sufferability of this experience.
Again, true but misleading, for the same reason - we all are limited in our extent of knowledge about others' subjective perceptions, and only have direct experience of our own.
I consider you are descending into sophistry, here.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 2:38 AM
one word: Walton
;-)
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 14, 2009 1:55 PM
Yes I do: To say "you are speaking from a position of privilege" is not to say "you know absolutely nothing." It may be that you have a lot of indirectly acquired hand-me-downs. It may be that you are more qualified to make that judgment than another privileged person who has listened less.
Not misleading, because the nature of the privileged's argument is so often one that requires experience. Like a straight person arguing that gay partnerships in Britain are equal enough that they ought to be called marriage even though they're not.
Some kinds of privilege even actively encourage the privileged to imagine themselves as authoritative on things they cannot experience. Boy students are praised for being assertive, for behavior that would be called argumentative from girls. As a white male, I am afforded the ability to interrupt a woman who knows what she is talking about, then blow smoke out my ass, and be judged by onlookers as reasonably well-informed.
Of course. I'm sure it happens all the time. So both experiences have to be taken into account. And in this case, erring toward a less restrictive outcome would accommodate both.
Not at all, because Louis was claiming that it doesn't matter who's talking, the straight person should be assumed just as competent to speak on homophobia as the gay person. It's as erronious as saying that the high school student is as competent to speak on chemistry as the Ph.D. chemist. My point is that experience matters, and inexperienced people often erroneously judge themselves more competent than they are.
Posted by: Uppity | June 14, 2009 1:58 PM
It's amazing that this event is allowed. Free speech only applies to speech that we agree with. And, if necessary, they must be "encouraged" to comply when they refuse. It isn't repression if they're being given the Truth.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 14, 2009 2:01 PM
Jadehawk, but I'm relatively impressed with Walton, he's shown occasional signs of getting it. Very occasional.
Posted by: The good lookin' fatman | June 14, 2009 3:38 PM
Of course, no true "rational" person who believes the universe randomly crapped itself into existence would ever become a believer. Just like no true Scotsman would, umm, yeah...
Posted by: Louis | June 14, 2009 5:15 PM
{Pops head in after busy day...notes Strange Gods still persisting in dumb misunderstandings and chippy nonsense, laughs)
Oopsie SG, I didn't say this. I said that the validity of an argument is not in any way modified by the nature of who is making it. A distinction clearly too subtle for you. A valid argument is valid no matter who makes it. You've been projecting your...well let's be blunt and call it what it is...erroneous reactionary wank onto me as if it was a view I hold. I don't, as you've repeatedly been told, and still you persist. Stop attributing views to people they demonstrably don't hold. Your misunderstandings, persistent insistence on them etc do not constitute evidence.O ut of context quotes, another of your standard pieces of asshattery I note, won't save you. A literate person would not come to the conclusions you have.
I see your asinine, erroneous projections, misunderstandings and assumptions of hostility persist. Since your modus operandi seems to include apparently deliberate misrepresentations of what people actually say, naked stupidity and refusal to act even remotely like an adult or even with basic charity, correct yourself, even when (mildly politely and with no trace of sarcasm) someone attempts to sooth your ruffled feathers and engage you politely, I think I'll leave you to enjoy your hair. You're clearly capable of little else.
Louis
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 14, 2009 6:21 PM
That's false, because you aren't capable of making a valid argument that, for instance, a particular abortion restriction should be considered sufferable for women.
You can't know it, so you can't argue it.
You merely assert that your arguments are valid. You merely assert that your arguments should be considered valid no matter who you are. I've explained a counterargument to this assertion, a counterargument which you also believe you are entitled to ignore. You believe your assertion should be taken as prima facie true. That's arrogance. That's your privilege talking again. You simply cannot even imagine the possibility that you are unqualified.
Examples, please. I admitted an error on my part at #172. You offer no evidence that I've made any others.
Another lie from you, Louis. I corrected the only error you've pointed out. Quote: "I misunderstood you, because I was angry about your condescension. Correcting me when I was not wrong, while insisting that "marriage" is a term that should apply -- an equal term that inherently implies equality -- struck me as ridiculous. It seems I misread you, but I owe you no apology for that, only an acknowledgement of fact."
You are apparently a reflexively, habitually dishonest person, Louis. Can you even admit your lies?
If you believe that this was polite -- "Try to follow this with some modicum of charity... Do you see the distinction being made?... LOL!... I think your projection here is obvious.... I'm going to keep doing this until it sinks in... I've seen you pull this act with other people btw... So, annoyed at the idiotic "privilege" comments... So, I've been a big boy and apologised for the things I (at least potentially in some cases) did wrong. I wonder, can you do the same....ARSE! There goes my uncharitable gland again." -- then it is most probable that you have no social skills whatsoever. That comment was repeatedly impolite and you ended on a note of sarcasm. It appears that you have spent so much of your life with your head up your ass that you are genuinely incapable of knowing when you are being a jerk.
And then after your earlier abuse -- calling me a liar when I was not wrong and a pampered child when I pointed out your privilege, which you simply can't stand to have mentioned -- you feel entitled to demand that I accept your sarcastic apology and apologize to you. This is the purest arrogance, Louis, rarely have I seen anyone so self-absorbed as you.
You cannot ever demand that anyone accept an apology. If an apology is offered with the intention of again verbally abusing the person if they do not accept the apology, then by definition the apology was not sincere. Mature adults know this. Why don't you?
I gave you the engagement you earned, at #174. Instead of returning the favor, you just want to focus on slights against your ego.
I do not expect or require politeness. Like I said, I'm here for the debate. You can be nasty to me all you like. It's okay. I'm not very polite, myself. But when you try to claim that you've been charitable and sincere, after you've been abusive, insincere and dismissive, then I'm going to call you out for lying again.
Posted by: Tani | June 14, 2009 6:46 PM
wrt the university listserv, what better way to bring educated people to the meeting? This offers the opportunity for intelligent debate to what would otherwise be a rather one-sided proselytizing session.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
June 14, 2009 7:44 PM
Louis (#133)
LOL! Well, if I do start thinking that way in the next 14 hours, I can just go join Fred Phelps (who, oddly, already came up in this thread) instead of protesting against him tomorrow outside my old high school. I hope that doesn't happen, though, since I might come back to my senses and be forced to throw myself in front of one of our pretty new trains out of extreme self disgust.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 7:50 PM
so am I (except right not I'm kinda pissed at him, but that's beside the point), but it doesn't change the fact that in every possible subject, you first need to de-construct his existing privilege-based opinion before you can have a proper constructive discussion about it. He's a prime example of privileged ignorance; on virtually everything
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 14, 2009 8:20 PM
True, true. I was at least as bad at his age.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 14, 2009 8:42 PM
This is Louis's MO. Louis, you love to accuse people of misrepresenting you. Doesn't it seem unlikely that so many intelligent, well-meaning, and reasonable people would be so consistently misrepresenting you? Have you considered that the problem might lie with you?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 1:58 AM
...a particular abortion restriction should be considered sufferable for women. You can't know it, so you can't argue it.
how is that one can't know these things empirically?
if it can be known empirically, then how is it that it matters WHO presents the empirical argument?
I'm balking on this, because I've seen people make the argument that Darwin being a racist means evolution is teh WRONG!! Regardless of whether Darwin was a racist (for the time, of course, he wasn't), it has fuck-all to do with whether natural selection can be presented as an empirically testable idea, right?
Can someone who has studied an idea or concept their whole lives have more information on the subject that someone who has lived it, even day in and day out?
if your answer to that is no, then you must think that university education is a complete waste of time.
I used to work with commercial fisherman who thought, because they are out on the water every day, that they know more about fish than anyone.
Not so, says I. I've yet to meet the commercial fisherman who can construct a fisheries model based on their daily observations of the fish they haul up on lines or in nets.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 2:15 AM
Because whether or not it is sufferable is a matter of subjective experience. Look at the specific example I gave; don't assume that I'm talking about all possible knowledge. A man cannot know whether the an abortion restriction is too much to endure, because the man cannot endure it.
This has nothing to do with what I've said. You're expanding my argument well beyond the bounds I've set upon it. A more relevant example would be if Darwin had said that black people in Britain at the time weren't really experiencing significant racism.
As broadly posed as this question is, it has no answer. You show experience at fishing for red herrings, though. ;)
Since those commercial fishermen haven't experience modelling fisheries, I don't see why you asked this. Do they know more about how to catch fish than you do?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 2:34 AM
Do they know more about how to catch fish than you do?
This is a mischaracterization of what i said. Did I mention anything about CATCHING fish?
nope. If you're going to disagree with me, at least disagree with what I said.
Because whether or not it is sufferable is a matter of subjective experience.
But if it's all subjective, why then is one perspective more relevant than another?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 2:39 AM
As broadly posed as this question is, it has no answer.
It wasn't broadly phrased at all, I even gave a very specific example. Instead, it was broadly characterized, by you, and then you avoided answering it.
It also was not a red herring, as it relates directly to the issue of who has authority to present any specific kind of argument.
You're expanding my argument well beyond the bounds I've set upon it.
I'm not allowed to expand on your argument?
Sorry, I must have missed the rules post earlier on somewhere.
I'll let you get back to arguing with Louis then.
have fun.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 3:31 AM
The same applies to you, then, because your question about fishermen modelling fisheries does not relate to anything I said.
I've been specific. If you have criticisms that relate to my specific claims, then make them.
Because it's not going to be a man who's the subject of those restrictions.
"Can someone who has studied an idea or concept their whole lives have more information on the subject that someone who has lived it, even day in and day out" is extremely broadly phrased. The answer may be yes or no, depending on how closely the studies track the experience.
Which was not remotely analogous to anything involving privilege, or my claims about it.
No need to pout about it. You can expand the argument; you can't expect that it applies to anything I haven't claimed it applies to. That's not a rule, it's common sense.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 3:55 AM
Because it's not going to be a man who's the subject of those restrictions.
cycle back to square one.
You can't have it both ways.
Either the impact of restrictions is measurable, in which case it really doesn't matter who makes the argument for or against them, or they are entirely subjective, in which case it's all just a matter of opinion anyway. If it were me, I wouldn't care who was making the arguments, so long as they were based on empirical evidence. Surely you really aren't trying to say that the impact of abortion laws on women is entirely subjective?
The same applies to you, then, because your question about fishermen modelling fisheries does not relate to anything I said.
yes, it does. Especially if you are going to claim special privilege to present an argument based on subjective experience, or even gender. Just like a fisherman's personal experience fishing makes them think they are entirely knowledgeable about fish in general, in reality I wouldn't necessarily want a commercial fisherman deciding fishing quotas. Similarly, just because someone is a woman, doesn't defacto make them the most qualified to present an argument regarding the impacts of specific legislation, even if that legislation affects women only.
If you have criticisms that relate to my specific claims, then make them.
I fucking well DID. that you seem to have managed to mischaracterize what I said into something I didn't doesn't address my concerns with the statement of yours I quoted in #189.
I can see why Louis is having problems explaining his position to you.
I can also see that it's pointless to continue.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 4:27 AM
It matters when a man thinks he understands the issue, even though he cannot actually imagine what it would be like to be in the situation of being pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy. We get men in here in almost every abortion thread pretending that they can imagine it, and then going forward with "it's not so bad." This is what I'm criticizing.
Even if the only data we could have access to were subjective descriptions, then we could still work to come up with an answer that would be accomodating of all those descriptions. In the case of abortion, eliminating the restrictions would be accomodating of both those women who didn't mind the restrictions and those who did.
Whether the restrictions are tolerable is not a question much amenable to empiricism, and yet it is ultimately one of the most important questions. I have nothing against empiricism where it works, but laws require value judgments.
But I didn't say that. I said a man can't know whether the restrictions are sufferable or not. I didn't say anything more general, like that only a woman could tell you how many women will die from black market abortions under the proposed restrictions. That would be analogous to your scenario of fishermen modelling fisheries, and that's how your scenario doesn't relate to anything I've said.
No, you did not. You asked about fisheries, not a question that involves privilege at all. I'm telling you, my claims have limited scope. I'm not arguing that they expand beyond that, so I'm not obliged to answer any questions that assume a broader scope.
Oh, can you? I've acknowledged the only error of mine that he's pointed out, and he isn't explaining anything else.
If your goal is to make me answer for claims I haven't made, then yes, pursuing that goal will be pointless.
Posted by: John Morales | June 15, 2009 7:31 AM
Strange Gods, I try again to make my point.
Please expand as to what category(ies) of arguments are included within that qualification of "certain".
I ask because, on that basis, I am presumably unfit to argue regarding the effects of slavery on slaves, as I have the privilege of never having been enslaved.
Posted by: Louis | June 15, 2009 7:35 AM
SC #188,
Yes I have, hence why I try very hard (as I have here and elsewhere) to clarify what I mean.
Tragically, in this case and a couple of others, it's been the apparent desire of a couple of people to persist in misunderstandings (miscommunications happen to the best of us. I am more than capable of fucking things up and not making myself clear. Not only do I acknowledge this and admit it freely, I think it should be a caveat on every post made by everyone everywhere, myself included) beyond clarification that an intelligent, charitable person could reasonably do or grasp.
I think that calls into question the claimed "intelligence" or "charity" (by which I mean desire to engage with another person as a rational, unpleasant agenda free, agent) on the part of the "so many" (lol I think you mean "tiny but incredibly vocal handful" if we're being accurate) people to whom you refer.
I've yet to see one instance of this "privilege" crap to be raised at Pharyngula where it applies validly, at least to anyone other than an obvious religious loon/libertarian/autocrat (but I repeat myself!). I don't think it never can, but I think its potency is diluted by a tiny cadre of chippy morons (let's be blunt shall we?) bringing it up to stifle what they see as disagreement (wrongly or rightly). It's used as a bludgeon is a bullying rhetorical tactic, and an unimpressive (and unsuccessful) one at that. It is classic poisoning the well, at least.
So you can accuse me of a standard modus operandi all you like re: claiming misrepresentation. Doesn't make it true. Have you ever considered that in the confusion generated by certain individuals yelling "privilege" any time certain topics arise might be directly contributory to this phenomenon? For example the claim that "the validity of an argument is independent of who makes it" is not the same claim as "anyone's (in)experience is as valid as anyone else's". I'm making the former, very VERY clearly, even a houseplant could grasp that, SGBM is claiming I am making the latter (or something resembling it) and persisting in claiming this despite several clarifications. What is that if not misrepresentation? Regardless of how intelligent SGBM is or isn't.
Go back through the thread SC, let's see if you can find me arguing the sorts of things that SGBM claims I have been. I'll bet that, in the absence of out of context quoting and insisting that (ignoring clarifications made) interpretation X of words of stated intent Y is true, you can't.
So no SC, very few "intelligent people" misread what I write. Quite a lot of "reactionary morons" do though, and quite a lot of them seem keen to persist in insisting their misreadings are true even when politely (or even not politely) told they are mistaken. Note that the groups "intelligent people" and "reactionary morons" are not mutually exclusive. Not all of us need to rely on nonsensical absolutism. Also, contrary to your asinine assertion that I love to accuse people of misrepresentation, I actually HATE it. For a conversation to break down to the extent that I consider I am being deliberately misrepresented (as opposed to merely misunderstood etc, which I remind you happens to all of us, and is potentially my fault as much as anyone's, communication is a two way street) something pretty unpleasant has to happen. Like it or not I, like many people, are looking for an enjoyable intellectual exchange of ideas, replete with charity and humour as appropriate. The fact that this is getting rarer and rarer, esp here, is extremely regrettable.
This is a bit of a recent trend on Pharyngula TBH, and an ugly one. You'd possibly be amazed at how very few times throughout a ~15 year long history of posting at TO/Pharyngula/PT/AtBC I consider myself to have been misrepresented. It is surprisingly rare given the recent upswing. Let's be clear here, when I speak of recent trends/upswings I am not merely referring to my exceedingly humble self. If any thread even moves towards looking at anything that could remotely be considered to possibly touch upon the very boundaries of the outside wrapper of a topic which might just have a tiny amount to do with race, equality of the sexes, women's issues or equality of a variety of sexual lifestyles, then analogously to Godwin's Law, the chances that someone will wrongly accuse someone else of unpleasantly exercising "privilege" increases to 1 very rapidly. Note deliberate hyperbole in that last sentence! Do I need a humour smiley? Am I even permitted to ask that question? What if you take exception and call me a meanie! Oh noes the DRAAAAAAMMMMAAAAAAAA! LOL
Since SGBM can't tell my self-mockery from an attack (and has to misquote me to do so I note) on SGBM, I'll leave SGBM alone to enjoy SGBM's sanctimony. It must be nice to be so self-righteous. I think the irony of being accused of being self involved etc by someone who cannot even see mild self-mocking for what it is a perceives it instead as a vicious attack on their person is staggering. I'm surprised it's lost on you!
It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch, the current trend at Pharyngula isn't argument, it is an attempt to automatically gainsay any comment made by almost anyone else. And I'll pre-empt the inevitable by paraphrasing the slogan of McSorley's bar in NYC: "I was here before you were (metaphorically) born". So please don't bother. Trends come and go, this one included.
Louis
P.S. If you bother to check upthread, you'll find I don't dispute the existence and unpleasantness of certain forms of privilege. Never have in fact. I understand completely how inequalities are manifested in law and society at large. I campaign to correct them for fuck's sake! My evenings (when I get a free one nowadays) are taken up with letter writing etc. Sitting idly by ain't my bag. What I dispute is the claimed effect of privilege on matters of fact and subjectivity and the ability to form valid intellectual arguments. One's privilege, or lack of, is irrelevant to the truth, validity or accuracy of any proposition or argument one make. Take for example the comment re: women and abortion that SGBM makes. SGBM is right, I can't decide what restriction on abortion is sufferable for women. The reason is not because I am a man, the reason is because no one can make that decision for women. The group "women" is not a homogeneous group for which any individual can speak. No one can decide what is sufferable for WOMEN. An individual woman might be able to decide what is sufferable for HERSELF, but even her common experience of womanhood with other women doesn't grant her the right to decide what is sufferable for women in toto. It also doesn't magically elevate her arguments either. What it does do is potentially provide her with some insight into the plight of people in similar situations. To continue with this analogy, the fact of being a woman grants insight into being a woman, it doesn't grant automatic insight into objective matters of fact about women's issues. It's the extension of this perfectly valid (by which I mean useful, appropriate, potentially accurate and insightful) subjective experience and empathy to an ability to argue validly (by which I mean, logically, factually and based on reason) about matters of an objective or empirical nature that I disagree with utterly. It's an utter non sequitur. Incidentally this is "group independent". It doesn't matter if we're talking about men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals etc.
The false equation between having a PhD in chemistry (something, perhaps ironically, I DO have!) and the simple fact of being female is also a total howler (it's comparing apples and oranges for starters). A PhD in chemistry does not confer an automatic right to be correct, to make valid arguments, even about chemistry (I'd say "especially"! I wonder if that piece of self mockery will also be misunderstood). It increases the chances but only by virtue of greater experience with the empirical data within the subject of chemistry. Simply being a woman equally does not confer that same type of automatic right. It confers the ability to potentially have shared experiences with other women, but in matters of objective fact it's no greater (or lesser) qualification than being male. The sufferability of a specific restriction on abortion is a matter of subjective taste for any individual woman. What's the old slogan? "Don't want abortion? Don't have one!". The problem with restrictions on abortion (or at least the relevant problem to this discussion there are many more) is the restriction on the right of a woman to decide as a rational adult for herself what is in her best interests. No one gets to make that decision for another person, regardless of what sex they are. My "maleness" is no greater an impediment than anyone else's "femaleness". It's equally impossible and illogical. This is why I disagree with this slippery use of "privilege". The fact of specific types of "privilege" existing (undisputed) does not grant people with it (or without it) a different ability to be factually and logically accurate in their intellectual arguments, or even their moral ones. It's a classic logical fallacy (is/ought).
Posted by: Louis | June 15, 2009 8:17 AM
LOL O RLY?
LOLOLOLOLOL {choke splutter faint} Self awareness: Ur doin it wrong.
Oh the Huge Manatee!
I'm beginning to wonder if you think the XKCD cartoon about SIWOTI syndrome is a personal attack on you as opposed to a rather excellent piece of self mockery about we netizens who bother to debate with others.
I wonder if I should mention that most hilarious piece of misrepresentation FTK once did. Oh hells, I think I shall. It's only tangentially relevant but I think it's fucking funny. I once did a totally tongue in cheek post about persecuting religious people. The humour was so leaden, so blindingly obvious, so dripping with self deprecation and hyperbole that even a yoghurt could have noticed. It was not the most subtle thing ever. I even put in a disclaimer which, very sarcastically, indicated the lack of seriousness in the forgoing post. The key bit is that I stuck the word "might" in the disclaimer, as in "the above might not be serious" etc. FTK reproduced the post on her Bleurg as evidence of the terrible persecution of those poor innocent christians by us horrible atheists. She {ahem} "forgot" the disclaimer. When this was {ahem} "delicately" mentioned to her, she included the disclaimer but changed the emphasis on the word "might" to claim that I had in fact been serious all along. Now I'm not Jonathan Swift (about as far from it as it's humanly possible to get) but this was so obvious that she might as well have accused me of advocating eating babies.
Why is this relevant? As mentioned above, there's an element of the culture here at Pharyngula (and SciBlogs as a whole 'twould seem) of late that is not merely keen to gainsay other people but to see persecution behind their words where none exists. Disagreements inevitably turn personal before the traditional "third post" (oh fuck, do I really need to explain THAT joke too?) and usually threads career off into vituperative nonsense. Hence why WAY back I mentioned that delving into nationalistic pissing contests (partly what kicked this all off) is a total waste of time. It's not like this hasn't been encountered by anyone before. Creationists are famous for this type of chuckling funstery. It's not different when it comes from a non-creationist.
Louis
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 11:30 AM
Broadly speaking, any presumption of knowledge as valid as personal experience, in any area you do not have experience.
This is generally understood, as you point out, and so usually doesn't bear mentioning.
But in the case of privilege, the speaker is often blinded to his or her own ignorance, forgetting or ignoring the limitations. An undeserved sense of entitlement has been fostered by society's preferential treatment, and this becomes habitual. So, as with any other unexamined ignorance, the speaker is emboldened. Mentioning the ignorance is also often perceived as a personal slight.
So for example, Louis feels entitled to use the term marriage, which implies equality, for relationships which are not marriage and are not equal. When his error is pointed out, he cannot admit it was an error, even as he acknowledges particular inequalities.
You would not be unfit to describe the empirical data or historical record. You would be unfit to say that slavery was tolerable; this limitation seems unremarkable to you, yet there have been many people never enslaved who felt entitled to call it tolerable or even beneficial to slaves.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 12:09 PM
Louis,
At what point have you acknowledged that you should not have referred to Britain's domestic partnerships with the term "marriage"?
Obviously so. Look at how angry you got at the very mention that you might have privilege. Of course, you haven't been able to argue that you don't, but you're still complaining about the mention.
Wrong. I gave you a full and fair response at #174, and I again responded directly to your claim that "A valid argument is valid no matter who makes it" at #183, to clarify that you are incapable of making certain arguments validly. You do not care to engage these direct responses. You only wish to flaunt your hurt feelings.
Ironic that you say this, considering how quickly you took to calling me a liar regarding my absolutely correct remarks to Penfold.
Calling me a liar is self-mockery on your part?
This is part of my point, as already expressed to John Morales. But there's more. Women are more qualified to talk about the crisis of an unwanted pregnancy, because they have to take the threat more seriously than do men, and so they spend more time worrying about it.
You love this martyr play, don't you? This is the best thing in the world for you, being the target of persecution. You just can't let go of it. You're welcome to your masochism, but you might keep the giddiness to yourself.
Repeating what I've said as though I haven't said it doesn't make your arguments more impressive.
Since that's not relevant to anything I said, there's no point for you to keep bringing it up.
There are men who pretend to imagine being pregnant and then carry forth with claims that they ought not to be allowed to abort in that situation. This is privilege talking, the privilege of never having to actually know what they're carrying on about. This is what my example relates to. You're not one to complain about misrepresentation.
Your straight privilege has shown up here as your inability to admit error in calling non-marriage "marriage", your judgment of this as valid based on (also unequal) legalese rather than the social stigma of separation, and then your outright denial of even having straight privilege at all at #165.
I'm not complaining about you having straight privilege. I'm calling you out for denying its effects, and being unwilling to admit the error that came of it.
As I've not once claimed you were "persecuting" me ( only erroneously calling me a liar when I was correct and then arrogantly insisting that I accept your apology), while you have claimed over and over that I'm persecuting you, you must be the one of whom you complain.
You continue to lie about your sincerity and charity, too, demonstrably non-existent when you offered a supposed apology only with the intention of berating me further when I did not accept it. Sincere apologies are offered without strings attached. Mature adults know this. Apparently you do not.
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 15, 2009 1:00 PM
Strange gods before me @ 199,
That limitation would be partially true only if ‘tolerable’ and ‘intolerable’ were completely subjective states of mind, unaccompanied by any outward signs of comfort or discomfort. I don’t think that is the case.
In fact, we can easily see that slaves suffer, and even die from maltreatment, that women with unwanted pregnancies sometimes commit suicide or expose themselves to life-threatening abortion procedures in countries where abortion is illegal. From these facts people who are not slaves, or who are not women, are still able to deduce that certain conditions are intolerable for members of those groups. If members of a group never showed any sign of distress with respect to a particular condition (not even in secret), then someone who is not a member of that group would be justified to state that that condition is tolerable.
If on the other hand the question whether a certain condition is tolerable or not is entirely subjective, then this knowledge is ultimately only accessible to the individual. Other members of the same group may well have different tolerance levels. Why would members of this group then have any more authority with respect to the issue of something being tolerable than non-members?
There is also such a thing as empathy. But you probably don’t believe in that, since you appear to consider the circumstance that a person is privileged to preclude the possibility for him or her to have empathy beyond the group of privileged people to which he or she belongs. Example: Since a man can never get pregnant he is unable to imagine the distress of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. To this I would say: Nonsense!
Posted by: Depeche | June 15, 2009 1:30 PM
PZ, why don't you put on your own event? The community newsletter that this came from (not a U newsletter) lists ALL events in town. Killing the messenger only hinders thoughtful discussion across our very diverse community - and this is very much needed to respect all viewpoints.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 15, 2009 1:32 PM
It should have occurred to you at some point that perhaps people have been exercising privilege all along, but there are now more people around with an awareness of the problem and a willingness to draw attention to it. Perhaps they're not wrong. Perhaps you could engage in a bit more self examination.
And you are not being misrepresented, yet you continue to misrepresent sgbm's arguments, despite his repeated restatements and clarifications.
It's interesting, because I've been in a little scrap elsewhere the past few days that has touched on precisely these questions, but in relation to farmers and the food system...
Anyway, maybe it would help to think about it like this: Have you ever exclaimed to someone "Easy for you to say!"? That pretty much captures the essence of privileged positions. Leave aside the issues of race and gender for a moment. Think about public policy. People making policy are often those who have not experienced the effects of those policies and will never have to.
"Not having doctors who perform abortions or pharmacies that provide birth control in your area isn't a big deal, since people can find ways around it." "Easy for you to say!"
"We don't believe a 150% fare increase and the elimination of several bus routes is too burdensome." "Easy for you to say!"
"I believe public food assistance is sufficient and not particularly stigmatizing," "Easy for you to say!"
"In practice, civil unions are essentially the same as marriages." "Easy for you to say!"
"Immigrants don't face major hurdles to integration or citizenship here." "Easy for you to say!"
And so on. To use the fishermen example, imagine a policy is being considered that would leave the average incomes of poor fishermen the same but would greatly increase their economic insecurity, and a policymaker from elsewhere - a non-fisherman -asserts that they've had said policy in place for a few years, their fishermen don't seem to have a problem with it, and it appears to be a tolerable risk to impose on poor fishermen.
The effects of privilege, as sgbm has pointed out, are that privileged people are less likely to think seriously about the subjective effects of situations by which they're not personally affected. When we do, we're likely to err on the side of minimizing the negative effects or experiences, because we're unfamiliar with them, and to not be particularly concerned with that lack of knowledge. We're thus more likely, from a position of unexamined privilege, to have a more callous or dismissive attitude to the subjective-experience component.
And these subjective aspects are key components in many policy decisions. Of course we the privileged can seek more knowledge about the subjective aspects through reading, studying, and listening to people. In doing so, we may even gain a broader understanding of the range of subjective experience than that of individual people involved. But it's always second-hand - never the same thing as lived experience.
But the point is that this is a practical means of minimizing the limiting effects of privilege (whether or not this is explicitly acknowledged) which cannot be overcome entirely. We can also have input of the nonprivileged, or take their words into account, in the design of our research, since otherwise the limitations of privilege may weaken our empirical analyses themselves (we're not asking the right questions or looking at enough/the right things). And then the people affected by a policy can participate in the decision-making process...
This is not to say that the nonprivileged have a broad understanding of the issues merely by virtue of their subjective experience, but strange gods has never argued that.
Honestly, I would prefer that people in positions of privilege try to do some of the things I described above - listening, engaging, including,... Acknowledge our privilege, or not. Get annoyed when our behaving in ways consistent with it is pointed out to us, or not. But we should do more listening than talking.
Posted by: Louis | June 15, 2009 2:23 PM
SGBM,
LOL Tish pschaw stuff and nonsense is ANGER? LOLOLOLOLOLOL! BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh my lack of god you are reaching. Who talks like that? Well apart from my hero Stephen Fry, who talks like that? The whole fucking paragraph is deliberate humour! Most precisely at my own expense. The fact that it isn't starkly obvious to you makes me remember that quote about the UK and the US: Two nations separated by a language (or something like that). Seriously, do I need to litter my posts with further disclaimers? It's bloody awful enough as it is, they can't get much longer or more turgid with caveats without achieving some kind of singularity.
Like I said, you can't tell mockery from a mudslide. You are looking for trouble, you fit the mentality I described above to a "T". Unsatisfied by not being able to rationally argue with people you attempt to gainsay them, when all your bluster fails you make appeals to prejudices you think likely to win you popular acclaim or intimidate your foes. Transparent. Sorry. Oh and I know how much of an arsehole and liar etc I am, you've already told me, save the electrons. When you are capable of understanding that insisting on YOUR interpretation of someone else's words, at the expense of listening to them point out your error several times, then maybe I'll take anything you have to say about me seriously. Until then....
Look back at that "liar" comment btw, just look back, in context, try to puzzle out what I meant. Perhaps it's what I say it is. Try to incorporate the idea that at the time of that post I thought you were operating under a major misapprehension (explained later on by me, ignored by you ever since). I've already mentioned I was wrong to think you were acting under a misapprehension, apologised and clarified things for you. Ignored by you again. You don't think my apology is sincere because I had the temerity to predict that you wouldn't act well upon it? Awww, here let me call the WAAAAAAAHHHHHHmbulance for you. As for the rest: Already explained, already ignored by you. Why waste my time any further?
The "privilege" thing is a red herring of your own, rather pathetic, confection. I explicitly don't deny the existence of privilege in the limited sense I defined way back when (can't be arsed to look). I don't even deny that I have it. What I deny is your invidious misunderstanding of what I said originally and your persistence in perpetuating it, that a person's "privilege status" somehow modifies facts and logic, and that it has anything to do with anything I said. You aren't calling me out on anything but your own delusions. Until you realise, and admit, that you have my initial comments utterly wrong, as even a moderately literate basket of speciality cheese could understand, progress of any kind is impossible. I am simply not exercising the "privilege" you speak of in the way you claim I am. As even mildly literate basket of cheese can understand from my original and subsequent comments on the subject that I never said any of the "separate but equal = equality" or "non-marriage = marriage" things you are trying to ascribe to me.
Now, just how long do you wish to go around this particular Mulberry bush? Because SGBM, I can take the piss out of reactionary little muppets like you until the cows come home. The great British sport of Moron Baiting is hard to give up, but OH so FUN! And if you think I'm going to suddenly cry "Oh, SGBM's vacuous misrepresentations of me are suddenly true because he keeps whining about it!" you've got a big shocker coming your way. ;-)
Like I said, enjoy your hair.
Louis
P.S. Until you have something sensible to say, I've moved you to the "Not to be taken very seriously, mock as appropriate" file. Just FYI. Now, what snappy little comeback have you got? More ineffectual and inaccurate attempts at character assassination? More bluster? Or can you break the cycle? Can a mind so small as SGBM's cope with being whacked with a big stick of mockery and finally grasp it's own limitations? Find out next time on MASSIVE INTERNET DRAMA. Dunh dunh daaaaaaaaa!
Posted by: Louis | June 15, 2009 2:27 PM
SC,
Quote one misrepresentation of SGBM I've made. Just one.
Quote one argument from exercise of privilege I've made. Just one.
Thanks
Louis
Posted by: Louis | June 15, 2009 2:49 PM
SC,
Really? Then you haven't been reading.
From #183:
It's part of an argument that because individual women can know whether or not they find it sufferable they are better capable to judge that it is sufferable for WOMEN. Something I dispute.
Take, for example, this classic piece of misrepresentation from #178:
Now I am explicitly NOT arguing that. I am not arguing that subjective experience of a phenomenon is all equally valid, far far from it as I have taken great pains to point out several times above. I've even pointed out WHY SGBM (and apparently you too) are confused: you are conflating the objective and the subjective. Matters of personal experience with matters of fact. I'm deliberately making clear that they are separate. Nowhere have I said anything remotely resembling the claim that my experience of homophobia (little to nil, mostly directed at others) is equal to that of your average homosexual person (probably extensive). I haven't said that my experience of homophobia is equally valid. What I HAVE said is that my experience of homphobia is irrelevant to the accuracy of any factual argument, or logically valid argument, I make about it. That is a big fucking difference.
Follow the course of the non sequitur behind the argumentum ad hominem. It roughly runs thus:
1) Person X makes argument Y
2) Person X has undesirable trait Z
3) Person X cannot make argument Y because of undesirable trait Z.
4) Therefore Y is false.
Possession of trait Z is nothing to do with argument Y. Even if they are related, the truth of Y does not lie on the relatedness or undesirability of Z. A dirty person could (correctly) state that the immune system is exposed to dirt (over simplified I know). The truth of that proposition depends on how accurately it maps reality, not how dirty the person is.
I'm not claiming to know how a homosexual person feels when exposed to homophobia, all I'm saying is that one's sexuality does not preclude one from making valid factual arguments about factual issues pertaining to sexuality (for example).
The fact that this is continually, repeatedly, persistently being a) missed and b) conflated erroneously with subjective matters or matters of individual taste/preference makes SGBM's linking of the Dunning-Kruger effect hilariously ironic.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | June 15, 2009 3:02 PM
Oh and anyone who read it,
The point of the FTK story is that when someone is insisting that their erroneous interpretation and use of your words is what you mean, then you are dealing with a loon (unless of course they can admit their mistake, then you are dealing with someone who once was mistaken!).
Louis
Posted by: SC, OM | June 15, 2009 3:41 PM
You're melting down Louis. It's disturbing.
sgbm pointed one out himself just above:
Here are more:
You're disagreeing with arguments sgbm has not made, as he's patiently tried to clarify several times.
The "in all but name" idea with which you began this discussion, which misses an important point: that "in all but name," even if the other inequalities didn't persist - is vastly different from in name. The way you entered the discussion was to condescendingly explain to sgbm that he was wrong about there not being gay marriage in the UK because there is gay "marriage." Your contention that he was ignorant about the existence of gay marriage there because it exists "in all but name," regardless of all of your other criticisms of it, suggests that you don't (or didn't at the moment you posted that) appreciate the lived difference between in name and in all but name.
BTW, I don't think sgbm needed to apologize to you here:
Your initial "correction" of sgbm only made sense if you were failing, presumably due to your privileged position, to appreciate the significant difference in terms of people's lives between publicly-recognized marriage and "marriage." The whole message is contradictory, but that aspect seems clear. I think sgbm read it right the first time (but then I've argued with you in the past and am not inclined to a charitable reading of your posts).
You stated later: "I freely grant that marriage is more than merely the domestic legal aspects. I just want to make that clear. Again. Hence why I originally put quotes around "marriage" in reference to the status of same sex marriage in the UK, and mentioned its inadequacy." But this was after sgbm's responses pointing out the significance of these other aspects, and the quotation marks and mentions of inadequacy, again, do nothing to erase the fact that you were claiming that sgbm was wrong about there not being gay marriage in the UK and thus ignoring to whatever extent the significance of public recognition. It's the only way your "correction" of sgbm made sense. All you had to say was "Yeah, I do appreciate that this is a major element; it's true that may not have come through in my post" or "I hadn't thought about the importance of that aspect when I was comparing the two."
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 15, 2009 3:57 PM
SC, OM @203,
You completely miss the point. Nobody will argue with what you say here. But when people like sgbm maintain that it is in principle impossible for privileged people to understand these subjective effects, then I must protest.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 15, 2009 4:16 PM
Yes, I have. You apparently haven't. Why don't you go back through and read his posts again? I have.
This is becoming ridiculous, and I'm starting to despair...
No, you're the one conflating them, when you say things like "an understanding of the issues" or "any valid argument" or "argument X." sgbm has made it clear that he's talking about making arguments about subjective experience and has provided specific illustrations.* You're claiming that he's making some broad statement about all arguments related to a social phenomenon; then you're arguing that the nonprivileged don't have better or more valid sociological knowledge and the sociological arguments of the privileged aren't invalid or less valid. But you're arguing with your own strawman.
*I then pointed out - just to make things more complicated - that subjective experience, in addition to being of great significance in and of itself in making these decisions, is also important in terms of gaining an understanding of the subject generally (the "objective facts"). For example, if we're studying racism and looking at traffic stops, just looking at different numbers of groups who are stopped/searched/arrested may not get at the true extent. You also have to look at how the police behave toward people from different groups in the process, for example. Or you could look at birth control "availability" in terms of places ostensibly providing it, without recognizing the social contexts which can impinge upon girls or women being able to actually obtain it in practice. And there are often aspects of the situation we would never think to investigate if we didn't learn more from people about their experiences. Not all discrimination, suffering, indignities,... are in clear evidence, and the further we are from directly experiencing them, the more we have to work to recognize and understand them. We see research being shaped by the limitations of privilege all the time, and it's essential to keep the problem in mind when we're doing or reading it. It takes effort.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 15, 2009 4:27 PM
it's even worse than that. it's not even just about what restriction to (access to) abortion does to the women who are actually faced with having to solve the problem; it is about absolutely all women having to live with the spectre of having someone else make decisions about their body. This isn't measurable in the same way the actual physical effects of abortion-restriction are, because those are effects that are subtle objectively, on a societal level, but massive on a subjective, individual level. it would be rather difficult to objectively measure the amount and strength of anxiety a particular policy may or may not induce in a segment of the population.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 15, 2009 4:53 PM
I don't know why.
>We can't see the full subjective experience, easily or otherwise. Much if it is inaccessible to those who do not experience it. We can only - with great effort - come to appreciate it in part and indirectly. Never fully. And that can't be done through imagining or abstract empathy. It's necessary to listen and learn.
Again, I don't know why. Of course he is. (Jadehawk has expanded on this quite well just above.)
Here are some of sgbm's posts where he spells out his position:
174
183
190
195
199
200
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 15, 2009 5:03 PM
another analogy: I watched Scenes from a Marriage" not too long ago, and there's one scene in which the husband pontificates on gender equality. basically, he says that women do have equality, but don't seem to really want to use it. This is a pretty common argument even now, and it comes from the fact that men cannot imagine the subtle forms of discrimination that lead to inequality even when on the outside, the law doesn't look unequal. They see the big chunks of inequality removed from law, and they think all is well.
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 15, 2009 5:19 PM
Jadehawk @211,
That's what I call stereotyping, if not downright sexism: pretending as if all men would say of an unwanted pregnancy, 'it's not so bad.'
Dr. Tiller was a man.
Let me ask you this. What is worse: If a man like me, although apparently fundamentally unable to empathize with women, says that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, or if some fundamentalist Christian woman calls every abortion baby murder? Would you say that that woman is entitled to her opinion, but I am not?
I don't like it when people like sbgm and you portray this as a matter of men versus women, as the privileged versus the un-privileged. Life is far more complicated than that. This whole group-thinking spiel is positively nauseating to me. For me people are first of all individuals, who may or may not share certain interests with me, and if people for some reason resonate with me, then I don’t care to which privileged or un-privileged group they belong. People like sgbm, who hammer on this distinction, apparently think that I, as a ‘privileged’ white male, will never be able to interact on equal terms with a member of an ‘un-privileged’ class, like a woman or an African male, because I am unable in principle to understand them. A depressing thought, if it were true. But I am sure it is not. People can learn to empathize outside their own group, and they will. Increasingly so, I hope. Saying that this is impossible is not helpful at all; it will just serve to maintain the status quo.
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 15, 2009 5:45 PM
SC, OM @212,
Of course, we have to observe people to be able to empathize with them. When we do that we will see signs of distress that are similar, for example, to the signs of distress shown by someone who has lost a child, or someone who had a terrible accident which rendered him or her an invalid. We may then infer that the underlying suffering, although caused by different circumstances, probably has much in common. In this sense, I will be able to understand the suffering of a slave. But can any individual fully understand another?
Ultimately, suffering is subjective, so in a strict sense a slave will not be able to fully appreciate the suffering of another slave, even if they both lost all their relatives and were treated equally badly.
Posted by: Louis | June 15, 2009 5:58 PM
SC,
You're starting to despair? You ain't the one being misrepresented, again.
And herein lies your confusion, I didn't make a simple "in all but name" argument, SGBM thinks I did and has operated in the misapprehension ever since despite several lengthy corrections. His claim, quoted by you, that I did is in error. I understand how you could (mis) read what I wrote that way, hence why in post #169 I elaborated thusly:
The "do you see the distinction being made?" comment was not intended to patronise or condescend to anyone but to ask the question "have I made the distinction I was trying to make clear, clear to you?" Again reading this as unpleasantness is a mistake. Like it or not, regardless of any "privilege" I know my intent better than you do.
Go back and read #169 again, this time with a modicum of charity. See the distinction I am trying to make, see that I recognise that the status of gay marriage in the UK is NOT "in all but name" in the sense you and SGBM persist in claiming, but in a very narrow, very specifically legal sense. Hint: "legal marriage in all but name" =/= legal marriage =/= marriage =/= an approval of the disgusting status quo =/= equality etc
I think you are under the impression that my position has changed since the first post on the subject. It hasn't. Perhaps more of my thought has been revealed, but I didn't change my mind in response to anything you or SGBM said because I didn't need to. I already AGREE. What is being worked out here is not an argument, we're not on opposite sides on the issue of gay marriage and the inequalities thereof, but on correcting a series of pernicious misunderstandings. You can think SGBM read me right the first time but you would be very, very wrong. Again, even SGBM noted that he had misunderstood my intent. Again, I'd ask you to loom at point 4) in #169, where I apologised to SGBM if I had got the wrong impression of his understanding of gay marriage (or lack thereof) in the UK, and I stated, very clearly before that what impression and meaning of his post I was operating under. Not only did I explain my thought at the time, I apologised if it was wrong. Where has this same courtesy been extended to me? No where.
I wasn't, for example, ignoring the wider social (and international legal) aspects of gay marriage when I made my first post on the topic. I mentioned this in the same post you quote for fuck's sake! As I explained, again in #169, I didn't know what SGBM knew about the topic because I cannot read his mind (no condescension, just lack of knowledge). I explained the nature of the miscommunication between us, and said, in my own inimitable fashion PRECISELY what you ask me to say at the end of #208. The fact that you missed this part....well should I be surprised or not? I'm not sure with you. I explicitly said that I was aware of the greater picture and that this might not have come across and if I had dot the wrong idea about SGBM and thus communicated poorly with him it was my bad. I've already done what you ask, and yet...well you're read everything, right? This time how about some comprehension.
The initial mistake I made, and admitted to and apologised for, was assuming that when SGBM said "no gay marriage in the UK" he was ignorant of the fact that civil partnerships (not the same thing as gay marriage, as I have been at pains to point out) exist. I subsequently clarified, several times, at no small length, that I understood (and deplored) the difference between marriage (proper, full and utterly equal) and "marriage" (scare quotes, incomplete, unequal, and unjust). SGBM pretty much ignored it. You've basically ignored it despite quoting me! Which takes things to new depths. So keen are you to see an attitude of unpleasant "privilege" (not mere fact of inequality but deliberate action upon it) you are blinded to my actual words, stated clearly several times. Take for example the fact that when asked to quote an example of me making an argument you don't do it, you quote SGBM claiming I did! I'm sure even you see the difference!
You and SGBM are reading into my words the global "in all but name" stuff (as well as condescension etc etc etc etc) that isn't there. I cannot argue against someone who persists in saying that I mean X when I say I mean Y (and say so with no small amount of clarity).
On privilege, I disagree that it's me conflating issues of objectivity and subjectivity by the way. The analogy of abortion issues/chemistry PhDs was not mine, it was SGBM's. I was the one who pointed out that he was comparing apples and oranges. Look at his supposedly substantial post #174 where he mixes issues of subjective taste (sufferability of abortion) with issues of objective fact (hiring practises for example).
The latter is to a large extent (although I agree not completely) subject to independent observation. We can know a great deal about hiring practises without relying on people's (notoriously unreliable) subjective opinions. To make that even clearer, I for one would be seriously unwilling to rely purely on what a firm accused of racist hiring practises told me their impression of their practises was. I'd ask for evidence, data, something independent of their subjective impression. This ANYONE can talk about accurately. This is a matter of fact. Whether the hiring practises of this firm ARE racist or not is open to empirical effort. Whether the hiring practises of this firm FEEL racist to individuals or not is a different matter. I can rely on people's impressions (as SGBM rightly note) but I can never know more. The problem SGBM (and you) have yet to acknowledge is: NEITHER CAN ANYONE ELSE. Someone's race doesn't grant them mystical insight into the feelings of other members of their race (and let's be blunt I hate the term "race" as the inaccurate poorly defined bilge it is). If those people have shared experiences based on their race then a degree of empathy can easily exist, but it is the shared experience that increases the likelihood of the empathy, not merely the fact of a specific racial identity. A black lady in Beverly Hills has a very different experience of being a black lady than one in Harlem. The likelihood of common experience might be greater than that of a white lady in Beverly Hills and a black lady in Harlem, but we cannot know this unless we investigate (and that, again, is a rational, evidence based, objective process. I.e. equally open to all).
This is why I have been banging on about the illogic of this "privilege" crap. Saying "you can't know, you're privileged" is discriminatory in the worst way. It fails to take into account the possibility of shared experience and judges on superficial qualities. It discounts empathy that people may validly share. The comments SGBM make about me saying I claim to know better than someone who has lived it (#174 again) are projection pure and simple. Never said it. Never will. My claim re: privilege is not "knowing better" but just "possibly knowable regarding matters of objective fact". That's a materially different claim. Again note that I am not disagreeing with the fact of the existence of "privilege" nor the lack of control I have over my own, nor anything like it. I am arguing against the epistemological claim implicitly and explicitly being made by you and SGBM.
I'll try to make this even clearer with a more relevant example: homophobia. SGBM is a gay man (AFAIK). SGBM has directly experienced homophobia (I sincerely hope he hasn't but let's assume he has. I'm more than aware of the ugly world we live in). I've directly experienced homophobia, but to a degree so footlingly tiny, we'll assume it doesn't exist and say that all my experience of homophobia is indirect. Is SGBM more "expert in homophobia" than me? No. Here's why. Firstly, the term "expert in homophobia" is a meaningless phrase. What SGBM is expert in is the homophobia he has experienced. He is an expert in his own experience. More expert than anyone else can be. Unlike the chemistry example he gave, experience of homophobia is a subjective experience, not a collection of objective data with which one can independently have some familiarity. Even considering homophobia the as a global phenomenon, homophobia is not a collection of objective data, it is a body of individual subjective experiences perpetrated on a group of people with one thing in common: their sexuality. The group "homosexuals", the group linked by that sexuality, is a very diverse group and cannot be treated as homogeneous. Their individual experiences of homophobia will have common elements to be sure (after all homophobia is a type of bigotry directed at a set of people defined by one aspect of themselves) but these are a series of individual experiences. They are by nature subjective.
Some common elements to the incidents of homophobia that individuals experience might be open to objective study. So now we've moved from the phenomenon called "homophobia" to the specific behaviours inherent within it. These specific behaviours are observable objectively. I.e. I can tell homophobic behaviour when I see someone perpetrating it. I can't tell you what it feels like for SGBM to be on the receiving end, that is an experience uniquely his own, but then neither can anyone else, homosexual or heterosexual. They can empathise, especially if they have experienced similar bigotry, but they cannot know SGBM's subjective experience. More than that, no one can dictate to SGBM what his subjective experience should be like or how it should manifest itself or how it should feel. Not even another homosexual person can do that because they are not SGBM and can only experience the homophobia he experiences indirectly. Same as me. What they CAN do that perhaps I cannot do is share their experiences of homophobia with SGBM and perhaps achieve some greater consensus about their shared experiences. Anyone who has experienced bigotry can do the same, perhaps to a lesser degree, but remember we are still dealing with degrees of empathy with subjective experience, NOT matters of objective fact.
Where I seriously disagree with you SC and SGBM is that specific traits grant greater factual insight into objective matters. I can't experience what SGBM experiences when confronted with homophobia. But no one else can. I can't precisely experience what gay people in general feel when confronted by homophobia, but then no one can, the set is too diverse and all we can do individually is offer greater or lesser degrees of empathy. I can understand the objective data regarding homophobia just as well as anyone, gay or straight. The very fact of their objectivity indicates that by definition.
I'm far from alone in reading SGBM's comments on privilege as the curious mixture of the factually accurate and the blisteringly bilge ridden nonsensical that they are. Even your comments on the issue are engendering adverse comment. So it really isn't me "misreading" your claims. In fact, there's no "misreading". There's genuine disagreement on the issue of "privilege" and reason it would appear. The issue of gay marriage is a series of misunderstandings, regrettable but there is no substantial disagreement. I really don't think that the gay "marriage" (read: civil partnerships) we have in the UK is gay marriage. How much clearer can I be? I've said it repeatedly, demonstrated an understanding of the wider issues repeatedly, agreed repeatedly about the unjust aspects of it and STILL even now, by you also, I'm being accused of something I simply haven't said. Despite several clarifications. If that isn't misrepresentation then call me Brian and paint my left knee green.
I hope this has made things clearer.
Louis
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 16, 2009 8:00 PM
SC,
Thanks for that summary. It's nice to see that the situation is obvious to an honest observer.
Good point. But don't tell Drosera that, or he'll know you're the real sexist.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 16, 2009 8:21 PM
Drosera,
And when slaves are not beaten, and appear healthy? Then by your measure you would have to conclude that their slavery is tolerable. Yours is the kind of reasoning that led Samuel Cartwright to diagnose drapetomania.
You do not get to decide for someone else what is tolerable to them. You do not get to take cues as consent. Your line of argument would render many rapes permissible -- as long as the victim does not scream or cry or say no, that's as good as saying yes. This is incorrect. You do not get to decide what is good for other people based on your judgments of them. This is the worst sort of paternalism.
What is wrong with you, Drosera? Can't you read? "Even if the only data we could have access to were subjective descriptions, then we could still work to come up with an answer that would be accomodating of all those descriptions. In the case of abortion, eliminating the restrictions would be accomodating of both those women who didn't mind the restrictions and those who did."
Because they're the ones who will be subject to the condition in question! Men will not be subject to abortion restrictions. The people who will be affected have to be afforded some reasonable kind of veto over things that are done to them. I suppose this will not make sense to you if you're an authoritarian.
Of course, I'm probably not human. Or are you just trolling?
Empathy is a simulation. It doesn't actually give you telepathic access to the other person's mental state. It only allows you to guess. And the simulation is necessarily limited by the brain's recorded experiences. So no, a man can never accurately understand the distress of being pregnant.
It is in principle impossible for you to understand the distress of an unwanted pregnancy. That you have fooled yourself into believing otherwise is cute, but laughable. Having any unusual cravings?
That's what I call stereotyping, if not downright sexism: pretending as if all men would say of an unwanted pregnancy, 'it's not so bad.'
Of course, neither Jadehawk nor I said anything of the sort. But your eagerness to say "nuh uh, you're the real sexist" is noted. I may yet get another BINGO.
You're both "entitled" to your opinions, whatever the fuck that means (not much).
You don't like having your privilege talked about.
What it means is that you will never interact equally until there is equality. Equality is possible, but we don't live in an equal world yet. Pretending otherwise -- which you would have to do to imagine that you aren't privileged or that your privilege doesn't dramatically color your worldview -- doesn't help.
You can do your small part to change this. You can study privilege and try to understand what it does for you, and how we all construct it. This is work, maybe more than you're willing to do, but it's more constructive than deluding yourself.
And yet you want to reduce the whole of this discussion to such sophistry, as though there were no other differences between people of different genders, races and sexual orientations, beyond the fact that you can't read another individual's mind.
Assuming you're really having trouble understanding this concept, and not just playing dumb, here's a measurable example of how privilege makes privileged people ignorant.
Gallup does a regular poll on race relations in America. One of the questions is "how well do you think blacks are treated in your community?" In 2003, 73% of white people answered "the same as whites," while only 39% of black people gave that answer. Well, what does that mean? What can we compare it to? As I said, this is a regular Gallup poll. To the same question in May of 1968 70% of white people said "the same as whites." In 1968. So that's not a measure of racial equality, rather it's a measure of whites' incompetence to answer such a question.
And look, a minority of white people got the question right. So I'm not claiming all white people are completely incompetent simply because they're white. But it does mean that all white people have to stop and check their privilege instead of simply assuming that their race can have nothing to do with their competency. There's no way for me to know for sure ahead of time that I'm not about to speak ignorantly from white privilege; I have to make a constant effort, and be aware that even then I will be wrong sometimes, maybe more often than not.
Assuming that you are competent to discuss issues from a perspective of privilege, instead of trying to understand your privilege and how it colors your outlook, is a recipe for arrogance and ignorance.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 16, 2009 8:48 PM
Louis, you claim that you are willing to acknowledge mistakes. When have you acknowledged that you should not have referred to Britain's domestic partnerships with the term "marriage"?
And this: "Take your claims of "privilege" and shove them up your pampered arse.... your accusations of "privilege" and "lecturing" are pathetic asinine bluster on your part and are better retracted.... Please stop it and get over yourself. You aren't the only person in the world whose rights have been trodden on, nor are you the only one who has suffered. Deal with it."
You want to deny that you were seething with rage when you wrote those words, fine. But whatever you call it, you were upset; that's the only explanation for such an outburst about how you can't stand to have your privilege discussed. Get over yourself. You are privileged, and you don't get to silence everyone who tries to point this out.
Again, explain how calling me a liar is humor at your expense. Explain how it's humor at your expense to tell me that talking about your privilege is "pathetic asinine bluster."
How about you admit to your lies, then? You appear unable to do that:
When you changed my word "marriage" to "same sex unions" and then lectured me for your own change.
Look: I said to Penfold, "you Brits still have same-sex marriage precisely nowhere, while we have it in six states." You replied "your lie (for lie it can only be as you are so "well informed") that the UK doesn't permit same sex unions is false."
You misrepresented me by insisting that I should have been talking about domestic partnerships, and then you went further and explicitly lied that I was talking about "same sex unions."
And you still have not admitted that you were wrong.
The same one we've been talking about this whole time, that you haven't once acknowledged.
Your straight privilege has shown up here as your inability to admit error in calling non-marriage "marriage", and your judgment of this as valid based on (also unequal) legalese rather than the social stigma of separation.
No, I didn't ignore it, I said I didn't owe you an apology in return and didn't owe it to you to accept your apology. Why can't you read, Louis? What the fuck is wrong with you? Why are you so dishonest? You can't say I "ignored" you when I so clearly responded and told you that you hadn't earned an apology in return.
Ever arrogant, Louis. As I said, I don't care for your apology. I don't care for politeness. It's not that you aren't giving me something I want. I don't even want a sincere apology, because it still wouldn't mean that you learned anything, only that you were sorry for being so stupid, and that's not worth much to me.
"I do not expect or require politeness. Like I said, I'm here for the debate. You can be nasty to me all you like. It's okay. I'm not very polite, myself. But when you try to claim that you've been charitable and sincere, after you've been abusive, insincere and dismissive, then I'm going to call you out for lying again."
So your arrogance is demonstrated again: you think you have something I want. You don't, you simpleton.
I'm not bothered by your insincere apology. I'm just pointing out a fact. For an apology to be sincere, it has to be offered without strings attached. Yours was not. You only lie again by claiming that it was.
Again, don't misunderstand me. You're not wrong simply because you have privilege. You're ignorant and your privilege makes you blind to this. That's why you keep proving yourself incapable of arguing that British domestic partnerships should be referred to as "marriage," because you don't have to live with the stigma of difference, and you can't account for it. You continue to cling to your legalistic interpretation, even after multiple explanations that you're missing the bigger picture. Your privilege doesn't make you wrong. It makes you ignorant and blind to how wrong you are.
Look, illiterate Louis. Your initial comments, this is what I said of them: "I misunderstood you, because I was angry about your condescension. Correcting me when I was not wrong, while insisting that "marriage" is a term that should apply -- an equal term that inherently implies equality -- struck me as ridiculous. It seems I misread you, but I owe you no apology for that, only an acknowledgement of fact."
So I have admitted it. You have not admitted that I've admitted it.
In one important sense, matters of personal experience are matters of fact. It is a fact that the experiences happen, and the important part is, it is a fact that they have the effects upon the person that they do.
But you are claiming that you are qualified to call British domestic partnerships "marriage" when you are not qualified to do so. It's not that your sexuality makes you wrong. It's that you're wrong, and your sexuality makes you ignorant of how wrong you are. This has been explained numerous times now. You are too fucking stupid to get it, or too dishonest to answer it. Probably a bit of both.
Lying Louis, when will you acknowledge that you should not have referred to Britain's domestic partnerships with the term "marriage"?
Why do you keep lying about this? I admit my error in #172, but you keep lying that I have not. The complaint I still have is not based on my earlier misunderstanding, rather, I'm saying you aren't qualified to decide to refer to Britain's partnerships as "marriage", even with scare quotes, when the word implies an equality that isn't there. We get well-meaning people here at Pharyngula in every gay marriage thread insisting that gays should settle for civil unions. Your usage of the wrong word does not help the situation. You "correcting" me when I say Britain does not have gay marriage does not help the situation. You still won't admit that you were wrong to use the word "marriage."
A post you ended with sarcasm, and still demand that it should be read in charity. What arrogance.
Why do you keep lying, Louis? I'm not claiming what you claim I'm claiming. I've been repeatedly clear: "Your straight privilege has shown up here as your inability to admit error in calling non-marriage "marriage", your judgment of this as valid based on (also unequal) legalese rather than the social stigma of separation"
What the fuck? Then why did you just say "Until you realise, and admit, that you have my initial comments utterly wrong" and on and on with such bullshit?
Why do you think you deserve any courtesy, after all the invective you've leveled at me since #150? What arrogance, Louis. I know I've been rude to you, but I have the damned sense not to insist upon politeness in return. Christ, but you are full of yourself.
And again, your apology was not sincere. Quit lying about that.
You did, at #169. SC didn't miss this. She said you could have said this earlier instead of hurling invective. But you haven't actually corrected yourself by admitting that you shouldn't have called it "marriage" in the first place. All you've done is argue that you were right to do so. Well, in order to make that argument, you have to ignore everything but the strict legalism because factoring in anything else would mean that you were wrong.
What the fuck? Then why did you just say "Again, even SGBM noted that he had misunderstood my intent."
Your idiosyncratic definition does not alter what other people mean by the actual definition. No action need be taken on your part. Privilege is conferred upon you by others. You allow this to keep you ignorant, yes, but it's hard to call this deliberate action.
There's no conflation there. Apparently I'm just not allowed to talk about more than one thing.
Another lie; I said nothing like this, and even reiterated otherwise to John.
Talk about skin color instead if you like; that won't make racism go away.
That the black woman in Beverly Hills may share class privilege with her white neighbor does not mean she is no longer the target of racism, or that her neighbor no longer has white privilege.
No it isn't. You just don't like having your privilege talked about. You don't like the reminder, and that's what's at the root of your complaints here.
Aww, how cute. Now you too think you can empathize your way into another person's life.
Quote?
Is this what you're offended by? "But it does mean that you need to be acutely aware of your limited understanding, and refrain from making judgments that you cannot adequately make, and probably listen more than speak. "Check your privilege" just means stop and think, don't assume you know better than someone more experienced."
What a ridiculous thing to be upset about, Louis. Grow up.
And yet when I said "Sure, to a degree I have to worry about how the US government treats black people, because they are a bellwether in this society; police brutality, practiced on them, slowly and eventually spreads to other neighborhoods. But it would be fucking ridiculous for me to deny that I have white privilege. Still all things considered, I can drive through any neighborhood without worrying that I'll be stopped spuriously and searched for drugs, and I can expect that if I am stopped legitimately for some traffic violation, the police will not take the opportunity to rip out my upholstery or bring out the dogs to do worse. I never have to worry about black people's rights the way that a black person has to worry about their rights. Not even close. That's white privilege," you didn't disagree.
I gave Gallup poll statistics to Drosera demonstrating that specific traits do make people more or less ignorant about objective matters.
And yet you feel entitled to ignore the social implications of separation between marriage and domestic partnerships, focusing only on the legalism. You claim you aren't ignoring the social implications, but then you go on to focus on the legalisms anyway. That's privilege.
But you are more likely to ignore the objective facts, or more likely to have those facts unavailable to you, just as white Americans are more likely to ignore or be unaware of racism.
And because of your privilege, you are more likely to assume that you're right and the disadvantaged person is wrong, exactly what you did when you decided I must be talking about domestic partnerships.
What arrogance.
Posted by: Louis | June 17, 2009 6:57 AM
SGBM,
You're trying to claim the word "marriage" is a term of art, i.e. a specific term with one possible technical meaning. It isn't.
One can have an unholy marriage between chocolate and dog turds, the marriage of a beautiful symphony and delicious company. Etc etc etc. Marriage can simply mean union. As explained way back in #169, I didn't know what you knew about gay marriage the world over, and I didn't know what sense you were using the word in. I've agreed countless times now that the "marriage" gay people have in the UK is NOT marriage in the sense I now understand you were originally using it.
You've also admitted that you misunderstood my (I think pretty clear) use of the word "marriage" (scare quote and all) in the following post.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it. There is no material disagreement between us about the status of gay marriage, as mentioned above, all there has been is a series of misunderstandings on both our parts. A fact you've already admitted to and are now trying to change. Oh and if you think SC is impartial, you really are deluded.
You are projecting an attitude I don't have onto me. Sure I'm annoyed about the "privilege" red herring but not for the reasons you think. I'm annoyed by it because it is irrelevant to anything I've said. IF, and I stress IF, I was saying something like "gay people should be satisfied with the status of gay marriage in the UK" or "the status of gay marriage in the UK is in all ways identical to that of straight marriage", which I hasten to clarify AGAIN I am not, then you *might* have a point in bringing it up. What you cannot admit is your reaching for your "privilege" red herring (and let's be blunt, bully rhetoric) is based on nothing more than your misunderstanding of my original comment.
Give it a rest.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | June 17, 2009 7:07 AM
Oh and P.S. Piss and moan all you like about my rudeness etc, you're one of the more unpleasant customer here, so pot, meet kettle.
I'm not offended by anything you've said, I'm annoyed because a) you have to resort to pathetic claims of privilege rather than deal with actual arguments, this I think is disgusting, and b) you cannot even begin to comprehend what I do with objective facts, and assuming that I will ignore facts because I am a member of group X is no better than the bigotry you claim to deplore. Hint: emulating the behaviour of bigots isn't the way to counter it. There are legitimate exposures/criticisms of privilege etc, SC mentioned some up thread with respect to research etc (and I should apologise for not emphasising the amount of agreement I have with her on those issues before now btw).
What you fail to understand is you are not dealing with the sort of person you think you are. No matter how many snipped quotes you make, no matter how much you insist your interpretation of my words is more accurate than mine. Did the FTK story pass you by completely?
Louis
Posted by: Rorschach | June 17, 2009 7:08 AM
Not getting into this at all,but this kind of statement by strange gods,or anyone for that matter:
always makes me uneasy.
Posted by: John Morales | June 17, 2009 7:33 AM
[meta]
I can't see this being resolved, the involution now being so great, and the personal investment likewise. All I see now is antagonism building up.
Perhaps infelicitous phrasing has been seized upon? Is this worth it?
Anyway. Carry on, if you wish - but I'd sure prefer if those involved (myself included, if tangentially) saved their disputations for real foes. Because I think, in the end, we're all on the same side.
Posted by: Louis | June 17, 2009 7:58 AM
Rorschach,
EXACTLY!
What SGBM is missing is that I (and others) are well aware of our "privilege" (in the strict legal sense) and even our "privilege" (in a more general social sense, although this sword cuts both ways, so use it carefully people). I'm even aware of how unaware this could make people (self included). What I'm disagreeing with is twofold a) the implicit (or in SGBM's case quite explicit) claim that valid, objective, argumentation based on facts is somehow modified by some aspect X of a person. This is the argumentum ad hominem writ large. It's fundamentally an epistemological claim, and a false one at that. b) that a specific aspect X of a person (sex, sexuality etc) necessarily means they will deliberately ignore data. This is a claim about the honesty of, well, a huge number of people based on an unrelated aspect of them, and is an example of the identical stupidity/bigotry (depending on how hard it's pushed and in what way) that people rightly complain about from sexists, homophobes etc. There's simply no way for anyone to know this, it's damning people by label, not treating people as individuals.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: there are many perfectly useful cases to check one's privilege (even in the sense SGBM means it), this ain't one of them, no matter how nonsensical`sxxxxxxs a frenzy SGBM works himself up into over a series of simple misunderstandings. More than that, when dealing with relatively sensible educated folks, it is, at least in my experience, pretty rare. Usually some misunderstanding has occurred as opposed to some vulgar exercise of privilege etc.
I'll ask the question (ignored last time pretty much) again: If I, a (as far as anyone here knows) straight man, said "It's that you're wrong, and your sexuality makes you ignorant of how wrong you are" to a gay person would I be justified in doing so? I'd argue not. I'd go further and argue that such a statement would be an indicator of stupendous bigotry on my part. So, in the realm of facts and objectivity, how is it not so for SGBM? Careful now, wouldn't want to claim some special status on the basis of sexuality now would we, that could be construed as "privilege". If it's wrong for me (and I seriously agree it is, I've never said anything remotely like it in my life, the very thought hasn't crossed my brain even) to do so, then it's equally wrong for anyone else. A history of persecution etc doesn't change logic for the sake of someone's convenience. If anyone wants to claim it does, then I've got a few instances of personal persecution I'd like taken into account to magically make everything I say beyond question. ;-) (I wonder how this will be misunderstood/misued)
Louis
Posted by: Rorschach | June 17, 2009 8:05 AM
Louis,
I think you and SG should maybe take John Morales' advice @ 223 into consideration.
Posted by: Louis | June 17, 2009 8:11 AM
John,
Something I've been saying for a while, in my own inimitable fashion.
However, on the issue of "personal investment", I don't like bullies, anywhere of any kind, and SGBM is trying very hard to play various tactics that smack of bullying. Granted, I've been less than polite on occasion, and that's entirely my bad. What can I say other than I am far from perfect?
Oh and forgive any extraneous X's and c's and v'c etc anywhere, I'm trying to fix my keyboard after the laptop dropped on it as I was tending to a crying baby. Really don't ask! Poo is so hard to get out of a keyboard.
LOL
Louis
Posted by: Louis | June 17, 2009 8:47 AM
Rorschach,
I'll play nice if others do.
Although what I said before still stands: there is a recent and unpleasant trend by certain Pharyngulites to attempt to silence anyone they even think disagrees with them (whether they do or not) about certain hot button subjects by means of claiming bigotry (however tacitly) on the part of others (whether it demonstrably exists or not). This is typically done by insisting on idiosyncratic emphases on people's words despite attempts at clarification. I'm far from the only person to have had this done to them by the way. One problem is that this is also done to people who are genuinely arguing for bigotry, even then it's a pretty shoddy form of argument, but of course no one speaks out because to do so is to be seen to defend a bigot.
I'll expand. Sorry!
It's actually part of a bigger picture, just like the framing debate is. It's part of what I think is the only genuine area of controversy that is regularly encountered. We very, very rarely encounter areas of genuine factual or scientific controversy in the comments sections of the popular blogoverse, and if we do it's a relative minority of people capable of dealing with the data. I'm not talking about correcting the clueless, I'm talking about actual matters of genuine controversy where decent data is perhaps lacking.
The area of real controversy I'm talking about can loosely be called "tactics". It's an area fraught with trouble, not least because of the "concern troll" phenomenon. Personally I favour a pragmatic pluralist approach to tactics, i.e. do what works at the time, but this is far from universal. It's an area where more data is needed, and people's subjective impressions cloud the issue as often as they help it. Mine very much included.
Always beating people with sticks doesn't always work (shock horror), neither does always soft soaping people (equal shock horror), nor does the "truth" lie in the "middle". But the one thing I hope we can all agree on is that it behoves us NOT to make the same mistakes they do (if, again, this has to be phrased as "us vs them", it really isn't that way you know). I don't see how fighting bad arguments with yet more bad arguments is a way forward. It's yet more lip flapping that gets no where, worse it lulls people into the false impression that good arguments don't exist. This is my issue with much of the recent brouhaha. There are real, staggeringly good arguments out there. Messing them up with fallacious garbage serves no one.
Louis
Posted by: Rorschach | June 17, 2009 9:03 AM
Louis,
Yes I realize that.
But from arguing with creationists you should know that you will not convince a fundamentalist that he/she is a fundamentalist,or that they are using fundamentalist tactics to argue their point.
So I would let it rest,can't win this one.Never will.
And as John said,too much personal involvement or investment for anyone of you two to win at this point.
All on the same side? Yes,certainly,but only to a certain degree...
Posted by: Louis | June 17, 2009 9:28 AM
Rorschach,
LOL Win? Win what? Do I get a prize? Can I has cookie too? ;-)
All I was initially trying to convince SGBM of was nothing more than I am not arguing for what he thinks I am arguing. Simple as that. I'm certainly not arguing that the status of gay "marriage" (or whatever one wants to call it, don't the scare quotes and comments about inadequacy do enough for intelligent people?) in the UK (or much of the world) is in any way acceptable or good (as SGBM once acknowledged I was doing but now seems keen to forget).
When the illogical claims of "privilege" were raised, I was trying to disabuse him of the notion that claiming the validity of someone's argument rests on their sexuality (for example) is a good idea. It's a fucking terrible idea! My privilege doesn't alter the facts, and in my case at least, it really doesn't alter my appreciation, use or understanding of them. The former is a logically fallacious claim, the latter is a character slur (unwarranted). Neither tactic on SGBM's part is a useful one, even if he were dealing with a bigot (which he fucking well isn't if I might be so bold! ;-) )
I don't, for example, think SGBM is a fundamentalist or anything like it. Whether or not he's using fundamentalist tactics....well...I wouldn't even say that. Flip that around perhaps, i.e. he's using tactics that fundamentalists also occasionally use, and I might agree. But that's yet another subtle distinction and I know that's what you meant (or at least I strongly suspect it is! Good Gravy, don't kill me if I've got that wrong!).
Part of this is also about language. SGBM et al don't get to control my language, just like I don't get to control theirs. Insisting someone means X when they statedly mean Y, even given local variations in dialect, multiple uses of words etc, just isn't cricket. Look above at SGBM's diatribe, replete as it is with insisting his misunderstanding is true. And of course, *I'm* the arrogant one. LOL
Louis
Posted by: Louis | June 17, 2009 9:45 AM
Oh one thing I forgot to mention (I've mentioned it before elsewhere in relation to linguistic concerns) is that words are tokens for concepts. They are placeholders. They can be indicative of the nature of our thoughts but it's the concept that matters. It's like in a maths exam where points are given for showing the working even when the answer is wrong due to some minor clerical mistake, the word (the answer) is important, but what is more important is the concept behind it (the working).
We can (and here mostly are) argue endlessly about which word fits where (and there can be very good sociological reasons for this, think of the excellent work of "consciousness raising" done by many feminists as an example) but what matters are the concepts. The consciousness raising isn't merely an attempt to control language but an attempt to expand thought, to introduce important concepts into the social dialogue. To miss the concept for the sake of controlling the language (as I believe SGBM is doing, perhaps wrongly) is a grave error.
Louis
Posted by: John Morales | June 18, 2009 6:56 AM
Louis,
No. To 'win' here is to have general agreement.
Isn't this clear?
You know, I could read this from any concern troll.
You're not one. You're one of 'the good guys'.
Still, you know the generic response to this claim.
What else can I say? Your opinion is noted.
Posted by: Louis | June 18, 2009 9:46 AM
LOL So now I'm a concern troll and a bigot? Excellent work on my part. I think I should see if I can go for the trifecta: the world is 6000 years ol.....
Nah, just can't manage it. Oh well, I suppose I'm the only one who sees the humour here. My bad. (BTW, the "win" thing was another joke, I know what you and Rorschach meant. Am I forever doomed to the humour smiley? Personally I reckon you knew all this anyway)
Briefly serious: The comments I've made about recent trends are far from concern trolling, a concern troll has to be pretending to share the aims of a particular group. I do share them. Take for example the fact that I disagree with nothing SGBM and others have said about gay marriage. What I disagree with is what they are claiming I have said about gay marriage. I genuinely disagree about some of the aspects of the "privilege" shennanigans though, not all by any means, just some. Perhaps I disagree about the immutability of certain linguistic items too, but I don't know about that yet.
I wouldn't go as far to say I'm one of the "good guys" though. I'm just a guy, good, bad and indifferent. That curious blend of angel and demon (forgive the metaphor) that is human. I think it's a crucial thing to note that there are no "good" or "bad" people, no "them", just "us". It was a (forgive THIS metaphor too please) Road to Damascus moment. Look at PZ's recent post on "sympathy for the snookered" for a great example of this attitude.
Oh dear, needlessly preachy wasn't it? My bad again! Whilst people, self included, *do* get frustrated with discussions (on the web or in real life or indeed anywhere), and I'm certainly not innocent of firing off a few unpleasantries, I generally tend to view all of this with great humour. Perhaps that doesn't come across. I don't take much of it too seriously, although we can deal with serious issues properly. The reason being I think it's far to easy to misunderstand each other and drift off into vitriol (as it has done here). Anyway, I really do think countering bad arguments with bad arguments is a bad idea. I hardly thought that would be controversial!
Louis
Posted by: Rorschach | June 18, 2009 9:56 AM
Louis,you good thing,
of course youre not a concern troll,but you need to master the skill of how to let things rest !
There,here's some classic Western for you !
Fight or flight?
Posted by: Louis | June 18, 2009 10:26 AM
Let things rest? LET THINGS REST?
Fuck YOU, buddy!
Louis
P.S. OH NOES! WHAT IF SOMEONE MISUNDERSTANDS TEH FUNNEH? QUICK! TO THE EMOTICON BANK! ;-) :-) :-P etc. Must. Cover. Post. In. Smileys.
P.P.S. Gentle reader. Should any or all of the humour contained herein or elsewhere offend or confuse, or even pass straight by, anyone, please understand it is all very bad and generally my fault as a concern trolling, creationist bigot. May Jesus keep you, but not black people, women or homosexualists, especially if any of them believe in Teh Darwinism which is Teh Evil. Amen. (Good Gravy, now I'm worried that someone will take THAT seriously. Oh well)
Posted by: Rorschach | June 18, 2009 10:29 AM
*Sigh*
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 22, 2009 8:58 AM
Strange gods before me @218,
I only just now noticed that you had responded to me several days ago. Sorry for my delay in answering.
While I don't mind arguing with you, and I equally don't mind that you disagree with many things I say (that’s reciprocated herewith), I get really annoyed by your tendency to attribute all my arguments to bad motives, character flaws, or general nastiness, or to twist them in such a way that they appear to have these characteristics.
Here for example (that’s you talking about me, this for the innocent bystanders):
I don’t mind the first two sentences of this quote, but I do resent the last one. That’s just a slur. Since almost every paragraph of your attempt at a rebuttal contains similar innuendoes I don't see why I should continue the discussion. Nobody is paying me to get insulted and I am not a masochist*. My mistake.
*To which I guess your response would be that this shows my priviliged anti-masochistic bias.
(*memo to self: stick to debating creationists, that's more fun.*)
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 22, 2009 9:12 AM
... privileged ...
(*memo to self: use your spell checker before you post comments*)